The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Carbon dioxide tax raises street temperature > Comments

Carbon dioxide tax raises street temperature : Comments

By Ben-Peter Terpstra, published 31/3/2011

The carbon revolt is on the streets, along with our correspondent.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
tombee, as a scientists, you "assume" the author doesn't believe in global warming, and assume he doesn't believe the climate changes. That's the basis of your post on how silly people are not to go with overwhelming authority? Being a scientist, its astounding that you are confronted with people who offer no proof for what you assume .. fascinating.

What if he does believe, as we all do, that the climate changes?

What if he does agree, as we all do, that the world is warming?

You assume you know what is in people's minds?

The author explains, his problem is with a tax, that cannot be explained as a beneficial device, you even agree with that.

Yet you have not offered any sound evidence why you believe in AGW, or are you still stuck believing everyone who is skeptical doesn't believe the climate actually changes .. too busy reading from the alarmist material to understand what the skeptical side actually is?

"I, as a scientist, am always astounded that anyone can profess beliefs' in relation to such complex scientific matters", how courteous of you to condescend to posting in an opinion blog, we all are so much better off for your efforts, and you reinforce, very nicely the view of many skeptics that many on the alarmist side of the house, don't have a clue and just go with the flow.

Quick to find fault, without understanding the issue.
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 31 March 2011 11:25:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Well, sort of yes but probably could be.'

That's what I reckon people think of a carbon tax. I'm in favour of it as a general precautionary principle but I don't know if it's going to do any good.

First of all, very few people understand global warming and the link to Co2.

Second almost no one understands what a carbon tax is. It could be a charcoal tax for all people in the burbs know.

Third, the environmental movement's image has been seriously tarnished by people making extraordinary and unsupported claims about population (there will be more next week re release of the pop report), rising sea levels, food shortages, etc.

Admittedly the environmental movement is made up of a numberous single issue groups and this is nowhere more inevidence as they all rush to out do each other for media space. It makes for irrational commentary and people turn off.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 31 March 2011 11:41:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Terpstra says
"people on my side are more willing to serve our PM critical-thinking questions."

For example, critical-thinking People like Chris Smith, of 2GB, who touted on behalf of the Consumers and Taxpayers Association (CATA), on March 21:

Chris Smith: From Sydney there are now 23 buses paid up in full with paid up passengers, paid up protesters ready to get to Canberra. 23 buses chockers...
we need to make this a message that they listen to, a message in their face on the lawn of Parliament House on March the 23rd...

— 2GB Sydney, The Chris Smith Afternoon Show, 14th March, 2011

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3169309.htm

Who are CATA? I couldn't find out from their website. What I found in a very brief, free ASIC search was:

"Registration Date 07/03/2011"
and "Principal Place of Business not available".

Did CATA pay for organising the 23 buses from Sydney to Canberra? At a ballpark estimate of 100 people per bus, that's about 2300 people, more than half of the 4000 members of what is looking more and more like a well-organised "rent-a-crowd", geed up by a loudmouth radio announcer.
What the Yanks call "AstroTurf"

How many Liberal supporters who saw Tony Abbot's performance think he showed good judgement? How many who heard his later apology thought it was up to the mark? I thought it was weak. Perhaps that's how he wanted it to sound.

There is so much I don't know, can only put a "perhaps" to. What I do know is that the weather changes from day to day, and place to place, on a daily basis and yearly cycle. Climate is a wider, more slowly changing pattern that changes over decades and centuries.

Ordinary folk like you and I are no more likely to sense a change in climate than we are to see one of the electrons lighting up our computer screen.

Pretending that neither electrons nor climate change exists is on a par.

http://www2.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?state_number=INC9894900&juris=2&hdtext=NSW&srchsrc=1

Registration Date 07/03/2011

Principal Place of Business not available
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:29:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl, the reason very few people, [in fact none], understand the link between global warming, & CO2 is that there is none.

Not one of the thousands of so called scientists that have joined the gravy train has ever been able to come up with a link.

The fact that over 30,000 scientists, including 9,000PhD's partitioned the US congress arguing against the belief that CO2 was, or could be responsible for global warming is something that the media assiduously avoids mentioning.

I have not been able to find any convincing math attempting to prove the AGW theory, but can find quite a lot proving it can't happen.

While it is true that the conversion of carbon based fuels do produce some short term heat, during their conversion to CO2, that CO2 has so little resultant effect that even the thousands who have been paid taxpayer money to try to find proof of such a result, have all failed.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tombee
since when has the "the bulk of scientific wisdom" been a test for accepting a scientific proposition or not? In fact, it has not (or should not have) the slightest relevence to the debate.

The same could have been said of the Y2K bug or the proposition that stomache ulcers were caused by stress and spicy foods. The collective widom got overturned by reality. If climate scientists think they actually know stuff then they need to prove this by providing forecasts that are accurate, and can be verified as accurate. Seasonal forecasts would be a good place to start but, unfortunately, the seasonal forecasts produced by the UK met office - to name buyt one body in the game - are known to be wrong more often that they are right.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:53:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Amicus for the compliment.

Fair statement too: “It might be all believers in the ABC and some of the media organizations, but you come across very few people out in everyday life who believe a word of the AGW spin.”

I’ve also noticed over the years that even Greens are very big on consuming, travelling, and partying (all high energy activities). The true believers don’t care about struggling families and never have (my guess). They can afford their opinions.
Posted by BPT, Thursday, 31 March 2011 1:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy