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 > The Sun God of Australia's carbon tax > Comments

The Sun God of Australia's carbon tax : Comments

By Tim Curtin, published 13/9/2011

The carbon tax won't do anything to change CO2 emissions, but it will damage the economy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. All
Anthony: what makes you think that reducing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from today's 390 ppm to Hansen's 350 or less will have no impact on global food production, given that that is 100% dependent on photosynthesis of atmospheric CO2, which when at 350 ppm barely supported a global population of c. 5 billion?

I suspect that you are one of those Greens who secretly desire elimination of all the blacks,browns,and yellows who would be the first to starve to death as a result of reduction of atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm or less.
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Sunday, 18 September 2011 10:51:53 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
Anthony,

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, you poor little dear. But I'm the sort of bloke that likes to call a spade a spade - and an idiot an idiot. And it's fair to say that I don't suffer fools gladly. There are many fine educational institutions in this country, from your local school to our most prestigious universities, and many opportunities for distance education. As such, there is no excuse for ignorance save laziness.

I suggest you go back and read those comments again with more than one eye. You've already stated you found my previous post rude, but I don't oppose the theory of global warming - I just recognise that it is imperfect (as all scientific theories are). What I oppose is the falsehood peddled by irresponsible idiots that the climate scientists are absolutely correct and that the science is settled. Bonmot gets it - presumably (s)he is blessed with an IQ larger than his shoe size. So the rude responses aren't all from those who oppose the notion of global warming. And I can only speak for myself, but my rudeness stems from a)your wilful ignorance; b)your overbearing smugness; c)your failure to address sound criticisms of your arguments with anything other than a repetitious assterion that you are right and that 'tis only matter of time before everybody else is proven wrong; and d)my strong sense of community spirit - it's possible you've never realised that you're an idiot before. But now you know, and can take steps to remedy it. Pointing out other folk's idiocy to them is one of the ways I give back to society.

TBC
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Sunday, 18 September 2011 10:56:48 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
continued from above

Since you don't seem to be sufficiently intelligent to fully comprehend my arguments, let's just assume I'm right. Why would that mean we have nothing to worry about? The fact that the science is unsettled has no bearing whatsoever on negative outcomes from global warming. And the only way you could conclude that my being right means that global warming is of no concern is if you had paid absolutely no heed to what I've actually been arguing - if you just saw that I had a contrary position to you, made some foolish assumptions and leapt to some absurd conclusions, and then argued against said assumptions and conclusions rather than my actual criticisms. Very poor form, old chap. And you wonder why I belittle your intellect?*

You're probably right that my brusque manner is detrimental to my case. But it's a lot less damaging than your idiocy is to your case, so I'm not too worried.

*It's because your intellect is little.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Sunday, 18 September 2011 11:01:16 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
Hi Peter and Acolyte Rizla,
:) :)
And with that smile for each of you, I depart the debate, as this thread never was educational and has now ceased to be amusing.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Monday, 19 September 2011 10:52:33 AM
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
Anthony
You’re not proposing a voluntary scheme, are you? You want a policy – an enforced scheme. And how will the policy be enforced without the use or threat of unprovoked aggression? Or hadn’t you thought about that?

All science can say is that it’s warming. Climate change may be causing serious problems. But it may not. It may be causing serious benefits. Science cannot and does not claim to know the upsides versus the downsides. And even if it were known, government cannot know whether any given policy would be an improvement, or would worsen the situation.

That being so, the best course of action is to leave people free to choose. This will bring into action a much larger and more accurate knowledge set, and a much larger and more accurate value set. And it will avoid the moral hazard of a massive corrupt empire of political redistributions from the world’s poorest and the world’s most productive to the world’s political parasites now rushing to get their snouts in the trough. Can’t you see it?

So you have demonstrably misapprehended the scientific, economic or political issues and that’s why you have you have the opinion you have.

You mistakenly believe science supplies value judgments. You mistakenly presume governments can allocate scarce resources to their most valued uses. And you mistakenly believe that policy does not involve the use or threats of violence.

You’ve just swallowed a load of government propaganda hook, line and sinker.

All your argument amounts to is “Because there might be a problem, therefore governments should collectivise decision-making - based on force – no matter what the negative consequences”.

Bonmot

So that’s the argument, is it?
1. “there is”, and
2. Peter Hume is “paranoid”.

There you have it folks. You’re looking at the ultimate argument for policy action on AGW.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 4:21:52 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
All
That is why I originally called the belief in AGW policy action a “superstition”. It is a circular belief in a superbeing, that is completely unable to withstand critical scrutiny; and when this is pointed out, its adherent obstinately cling to their previous beliefs for emotional reasons.

Thanks to Anthony and bonmot for demonstrating it so clearly.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 20 September 2011 4:22:42 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. All

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