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 > General Discussion > More evidence for AGW

More evidence for AGW

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
A new study reported here:

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Jun/NR-12-06-04.html

provides further evidence that, "most of the observed global ocean warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities".

The evidence that global warming is real and is human induced just continues to pile up.

Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 8:27:26 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
plies up?
lol

yeah like the snow at the north ;pole..is piling up

funny how selective 'the science becomes'
when you mix and match..to get the right hockey stiche' graph

but we been here so many times
i dont trust the 'scientists'..[by now we were supposed to be drowing..or burning to death...from ozone..to co2..

from a tax on me...*ONE OF THE only[lol]..500 who will be paying
[for carbon credits..we DONT EVEN KNOW..they bought]..to you who got a subsidy..to polute

polutersw only will pay
yeah right..no tax on orica's LICENCED free right to polute
or on palmers mines polution...or the polution the frakking miners put into our water/air soil

yeah
the biggest poluters
im one...my power bill goes from $50..to $55
self funded retiress...yep we got the shaft

lies
im not the WORST POLUTER
how comne your mates are going to tax me

WHAT LIE
only 500..is clearly a lie
and lies juliars..look for things to hide the spin behind

keep swallowing the pr bloke
sweeten the lie
lol..

why do you persist on guilt tripping taxation..of sin
while others polute ..as much as they wish..and they use your excuse[to continue their own abuse]

bah
see how while media was watching for rising flood waters
securitised fraud...sent the unwatched capitalists bankers broke

so govt bails them out
just like govt does ...for those ELITES..running the media destractions...sukking at govt grant deed gift licence..for free

they dont pay..
govt must..just needs an extra tax
or sceme for its mates to get free carbon credit..ontop of their free polution licences...and other worse secrets..were ignoring in rehashing this spin..

the spin is spun
onto the next one
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 10:03:37 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
UOG,
Your response is always the same.
Here is a paper, the result of high quality research, by respected researchers, working at one of the most prestigious laboratories, supported by masses of factual data, and with all funding sources listed - about as good a quality piece of research reporting as one could find - and what is your response?
A factless, mishmash of the garbage laden rumors that have been floating around the most uninformed web sites for the last couple of years.
Now, I understand that you may have considerable difficulty coming up with a fact based counter argument to the reality of AGW, largely because there isn't one, but couldn't you at least try for a touch of originality with your nonsense.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 10:12:54 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
Athonyve I must say congrats on your courage.
My warning to you and others stands.
From deep within a failure to under stand, or a point blank refusal, such as OUG targets you.
But while we will be bombarded with warnings of the costs,those same folk gladly ignore the costs of not acting.
I know,with unshakable certainty, time will support you and me, Global warming is real, and man contributes to it.
I hope to live long enough to see the deniers try to forget their words.
Increasingly, day by day hour by hour evidence is out weighting the lies power and wealth is spreading.
A day will come that both see,s Labor praised for its actions and an understanding Conservatives have conned such as OUG.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 12:13:46 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
Hay Anthony, is that anything like the new hockey stick paper by Gergis? The one that cost $300,000 in grant money to produce, the one that had so many faults shown up by privateers, that it has had to be withdrawn just 3 weeks after seeing the light of day?

That is what we get from warmists, & this is no better. There is no observed facts, just assertion.

With all the rash of garbage promoted by the fraudsters at present, one must assume there is another talkfest holiday, coming up for the faithful.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 5:30:42 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 Hasbeen,
Please see my earlier response to UOG.
Ditto.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 5:35:16 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
Dear Anthonyve,

As economist Prof. Tor Hundloe has pointed out in
the past:

"On issues which require radical solutions that are
likely to harm vested economic and political interests,
much won't change - especially when ignorance and
vested interests are confronted by scientific facts."

New ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot,
will continue to be threats to those who are comfortable in
their idealogies.

It took the medical profession from the 1960s to the present
era to get the public and the government we elect, to act
on the toxic, life-taking effects of tobacco. Eventually
sanity prevailed, although it took decades.

It is clearly time that we take the implications of
climate change seriously. We should pay attention to
leading climatologists and our country's pre-eminent
public research organisation, CSIRO. Our science is
first class. It is not corrupt. However to some people
I guess none of that matters. They have understandable
risk aversion. They might not be around
to benefit from a good time in the future - so they feel
that - lets have it now regardless of the long-term
consequences.
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 6:59:08 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 Lexi,
You're right; and the quote is really apropo.
I guess, I'm impatient to see these knuckleheads get out of the way so we can take serious remedial action.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 7:32:41 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
Ant,

That AGW is occurring is no secret, and I was wondering whether your post had any point.

If it is to spruik the carbon tax, perhaps you could enlighten us to why it will make any difference.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 8:15:22 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
Shad,
The facts of the reality of AGW seem to be, well if not a secret, at least a complete surprise to some OLOers.
As to the wisdom of the Carbon Tax, that is even less of a secret that the reality of AGW.
I would've thought you would have known that.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 8:25:51 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
Hasbeen wrote:

>>Hay Anthony, is that anything like the new hockey stick paper by Gergis? The one that cost $300,000 in grant money to produce, the one that had so many faults shown up by privateers, that it has had to be withdrawn just 3 weeks after seeing the light of day?>>

The operative word here is "withdrawn."

It was found to be flawed and it was withdrawn.

Which is as it should be.

It's the way science works. When a paper is found to be flawed it is withdrawn.

It would not be the first piece of sloppy research to be published and it certainly won't be the last. But, as with all sloppy research, its flaws were discovered and it was withdrawn.

Now compare that to Ian Plimer's compendium of lies, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science.

See: http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Warming-Missing-Science/dp/1589794729/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339498386&sr=1-1&keywords=ian+plimer

That's not just sloppy. That's outright fraud. Its numerous inaccuracies have been documented by both privateers such as myself and professional scientists.

Has it been withdrawn?

As you can see if you follow the link above, it has not.

And that is the difference between real science and pseudo-science. When a real scientific paper or book is seen to be flawed it is withdrawn.

When a pseudo-scientific paper or book is seen to be flawed (which in Plimer's case is putting it kindly) it is kept in circulation and the true believers make excuses.

So an Australian professor at a "respectable" university retails porkies and keeps his job.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 9:02:13 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
Come on Steven, the whole ocean temperature thing is another concoction. All they have done is review a heap of MODLES. There is not a fact with in cooee of the whole bit of rubbish.

Reminds me of the ABM "modified" temperature record for Darwin. No change in 40 years of thermometer readings, but they somehow FOUND a correction that suddenly made the place 2 degrees hotter. May be it was a small step for a man, but a giant leap for Darwin's temperature.

How can reasonably intelligent people keep falling for this con.

Steven we keep hearing about how good this peer reviewed "science" is. Would you like to explain how this new hockey stick crap got through this much heralded review process, & actually managed to be included in the IPCC new draft without anyone in the trade finding any of a dozen flaws in the thing. After their attempt to melt all the Himalayan glaciers, & kill off the Amazon rain forests, in their last report, you, or at least I, would expect them to be a bit more careful these days.

Why is it up to someone acting privately, unfunded, to find our $300,000 was thrown away on crap? If these people take 3 years to get it so wrong, no wonder Anthony & you have to stick up for them.

Do you think that after taking the $300,000 grant, she felt she had to give Gillare something she could use?

When will these people start to wake up to the fact that the old records are held all over the place these days. Each time they "correct" some of the old stuff, it hits the blog space, & just a few more wake up, & get annoyed at being taken for a fool.

Tell me mate, when it snows on Castle Hill, are you going to stop being their fool, & admit global warming has stopped, or will it take Townsville harbour frozen solid first.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 12 June 2012 10:31:15 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
well its nice playing the man..lol
but thats the state of play...[as i write..radio national..is spruking some woman's warming spiel..

some interesting points being raised
like natzies first used science..to ban smoking
that its the natzie equivelent..that concieved the tax..on warming
but back then it was to tax ACID RAIN...next they wanted cfc's[cause they were warming..atmosphere

but special int5rests reign
big poluters refuse to pay..so sell a lie..yep ONLY 500 BIG POLUTERS WILL PAY[ie every custumer.is really opaying..but clever spin..its not you[you got a top up

other BIG POLUTERS..get frree carbon credits[likely deemed too big to fail[so give them shut up money

as shadow pointed out
there is the science
which IS SEPPERATE..from the cure
ok warming..but which 'gas' is the biggest cause[not c02]
but co2 we all can be said to produce...so we all get the tax..IF ITS C02..!

but cfc...mate..in ya hairspray/bo spray
but nitousoxide[40 times worse than c02]
is emmited from ya nitrogen[for ya pretty flowers]
80%..of all that nitrogen..turns into nitrous oxide[from farmers/home gardeners..bombs etc[tax them]

there are many contributing causes..far worse than c02
[but as the sheila said..moments ago..this is tied up to the smoking thing[same people fighting the same methodoogy[frighten/tax][power]

but wait..there is more
there is methane..from your home compisting
your farting..even from your bad breath[methane is 20 times worse than c02

but are we taxing backed beans
thing is your attacking the man
reacting out of fear..in lue of thinking seriously
or bothering to think

[yes i know belly your self taught..via the media spin

if you read it..it must be taken on trust
cause you got no idea of the other gasses..and other causes of cancer/warming..[cancer has 8 known causal mechanisms[for egsample]

and warming of the atmosphere[global warming gasses also number into the tens[but heck lets let farmers get free fuel solar cell subsidy wind generators frakkers frakking gas[also a greenhouse gas]..BUT ONLY TAX C02

its built on lie
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 3:43:23 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
its been spun..so we can tax one polutant
just like we taxed smokes..and not transfats.sugar's booze[picking the low hanging tax fruit]...via beatup and selecgtive blame

meanwhile the true poluters[the chemical industries/big petro/mining etc..get their polution for free..cause only c02 is doing it all...lol

its not
but what would you care

you got your bribe..i got yet another tax

rot in hell you liars
your cars..your solar cells..your windtowers
[your bying of heavilly transported..[non local food
its you lot that need the taxes..but you lot keep getting top up

lol

[meanwhile us no income self funded retirees..get the shaft..
insulted by retards that dont got a clue..as to science or true cause not just attributed..sold via lies

heck just the lies to sell the tax
but your so sold on its not you doing it..you chose to be blind

attack me
i bite back
in yoyur own words mr bell..explain how c02..warms the atmosphere[sitting there em,miting heat into frozen outerspace..[ie you been bush mr bell...how arm is that camp fire..putting its heat into the sky

not at all..unless your sitting near the fire
heat escapes into space..many things hold it back
but none can stop it..[our real worry is it goes all together
and that precious c02 gas..is lost..[then life dies],..

we then wil look like the moon or mars[ie be dead]

so your choice is warming/plus cooling
between..the mean

or frozen dead
cause too much escaped
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 3:43:38 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
Anthoinyve I at least have some good news for you.
If the next election takes place on time,about October next year.
And the current leaders still lead,we know Labor will be beaten.
BUT Abbott, or Turnbull, will not remove the carbon tax.
By then increasing evidence will see it stay.
And todays blindness, morning hasbeen /SM will be questioned by the public at large.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 5:19:38 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
Ant,

While I believe in AGW, I don't believe that unilateral action will make any difference. Considering that the average price of carbon world wide is presently a few cents per ton, any unilateral price will have the effect of moving emissions heavy industries from high tax areas to low tax areas with zero net change.

Copenhagen spelt the end of my support on an Australian price on carbon, and that of most wise people too.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 5:50:47 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
The evidence that global warming is real and is human induced just continues to pile up.
Antnyve,
Why keep shoving the obvious down our throats ? Even those branded denialist know that. The question that no-one asks is what can be done about because they know the answer but don't like it, nothing !
Those who believe some idiotic tax will help solve the new ice age in about 8000 years are even dumber that one could think possible.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 8:13:18 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
@Steven,

There is a small problem with your little *all’s well that ends well* analysis.
And it’s that Michael Mann is now preaching that he did nuffin! wrong.
He was rather a victim and martyr of a dastardly devious conspiracy orchestrated by big oil, compliant politicians and the mercenary media—see below:

“I'D LIKE to say I was surprised when news broke a year ago that emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK, had been hacked into and leaked, and that scientists' personal emails were being quoted out of context to disingenuously imply impropriety on their part. But I wasn't. Books such as Merchants of Doubt by science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have detailed how front groups for the fossil-fuel industry have been waging an orchestrated, well-funded campaign against climate science and climate scientists for more than two decades”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827840.100-professional-climate-change-deniers-crusade-continues.html

“FEW scientists have had as hard a time as Michael Mann …a target for those who do not believe in man-made climate change”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328542.700-the-man-behind-the-hockey-stick-graph.html

So with much less doubt than the margins allowed for in the IPCC reports with regard to AGW.
I predict that very soon (assuming they haven't already done so!) all over the world the AGW faithful will be pasting Michael Mann pictures on their bedroom walls, next to all their other anti-establishment heroes and martyrs:Che Guevara, Robert Mugabe, Paris Hilton...
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 9:00:33 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
Hi Individual,
Dramatic, structural change is always painful and always difficult.
Mostly because people are reluctant to accept both the need and the rectification process.
In any case, if you accept AGW, then what is your solution? Do nothing?
And if you do accept AGW and you support a particular course of action, then why are you not promoting it; working to see it adopted.
I am not wedded to a Carbon Tax, but I am wedded to the idea that we can't ignore the problem; we must act.
And if a Carbon Tax will even maybe help, then that's something.
But sitting back, doing nothing other than sling a load at anybody who is trying something seems to me to be a tad unproductive.
Give me a better plan that's got a chance of getting up, and I'll come over to your side in a heartbeat.
I'm just not one to fiddle while Rome is burning.
And I do smell smoke.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 9:05:11 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
There is one question I have never seen answered satisfactorally.
From my reading, it has been shown that the temperatures rise and
then it is later followed by a rise in CO2.
In other words it is A about !

A Swede, Lomberg, I think, proposes that it will be cheaper and
better all round to not try and fight AGW but just adapt to it as it
comes along. After all we only have a certain amount of fossil fuels anyway.

What gets me is that the government refuses to address the Bolt question.
I believe when such large costs are being put on us that that
question should be answered.

ie "By how much will the earth be cooler if the governments CO2 program is applied ?"

ps before you give the Gillard answer; "That is a ridiculous question"
I will point out it has been answered by others.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 9:24:13 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
It seems to me that simply adapting to AGW is an easy option for a Swede.
Sweden is highly developed, wealthy and a likley net beneficiary of AGW, as it is at the cold end now.
However, given that, say, Bangladesh, even by moderate assumption will be mostly underwater, i think it's safe to say that your average Bangladeshi might not be too thrilled by the do nothing and adapt strategy.
Similarly, Australia will not be a net beneficiary, (although our most probable outcome is nothing like as dramatic as countries like Bangladesh), as we will see increased areas of desert and are already seeing increased occurrences of extreme weather events, as predicted by modelling.
Do nothing?
Doen't get my vote.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 9:51:15 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 I can see we are going to put the RSPCA onto you.

It is even more unkind to flog a nearly dead horse, as it is to flog a dead one, & you sure are flogging this dead horse very hard.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 11:49:27 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
Ant,

For all practical purposes The carbon tax will have zero effect on Australia's weather. It will drive only minor efficiency measures. Without global consensus it is a very expensive gesture.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 11:59:03 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
@AnthonyVW

<<But sitting back, doing nothing other than sling a load at anybody who is trying something seems to me to be a tad unproductive>>

How can anyone with even a smidgen of real world insight (there’s you out clause Anthony, if you want to take it!) assert that in the absence of the carbon tax we’re “doing nothing”?

Just for a moment take a peek-a-boo outside your political cocoon:

1) On the airline front:
More fuel efficient, quieter aircraft.
http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/environment/environmental_report_09/_inc/flash-2-3-2.html

2) On the electric car front:
Longer range, cheaper electric cars.
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/17/bill-ford-looks-ahead/
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/technology/1203/gallery.electric-cars-future.fortune/index.html

3) On the solar power front:
New break-throughs:
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/top-10-solar-power-advances-to-watch/1509

The brains and brawn behind these develops will be what drives the future --NOT THE CARBON TAX!

Compared with the above developments the carbon tax is just a sideshow , a gimmick , a lame payoff by Labor to/for their Green bedfellows.
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 1:05:05 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
For the world (society and natural) to function in partnership, there must be balance. There is little doubt that man’s propensity for urbanisation is ONE of the causes of global warming. Add it to naturally occurring cyclic warming (proven) and the seesaw begins to tip.

The solution, warmists insist, is to lessen the amount of pollutants in the atmosphere. And the only way to do this is to impose a tax or carbon credit system. Really? Is imposing a tax that will just allow major pollutants to pass on costs to consumers the best way to go about it? There is no way to know at this stage that Australia’s carbon use will actually lessen. Nor is there any way to measure it accurately.

A single supertanker exhumes more CO2 on a daily basis than every car in the world today. As they are not necessarily subject to Aus tax, how does one reduce those emissions from a mode of transport so necessary to our way of lives and our economy?

While we continue to push for urban sprawl (see the latest announcement by Victorian govt), while we continue to demolish, clear land, erect concrete-clad Mcmansions and office blocks, while we continue to use the biggest polluters of all – container ships and super-tankers – to ferry goods across the world, and while we continue to fell trees (which are our only natural carbon-sinks) at such a rapid rate, then the amount of pollutants will increase, not decrease. Regardless of any kind of tax.

I used to live next to a family (mum, dad, 3 grown boys) who ran seven cars – 2 for a trade business – between them. All big four wheel drives. Yet they lived near the centre of the city, close to all transport services. It was obscene. With a mindset like that, how will a carbon tax change the way they live?

Just as we all got used to the GST (remember the outcry when it was first proposed?) we will soon forget the pain and shoulder the CT too. It will achieve nothing
Posted by scribbler, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 1:05:08 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
Anthony,
The real problem is that governments are approaching this from an economic viewpoint. A tax, by definition, is a means to raise revenue. If the government calls this a tax, then it must also concede its true purpose.

But what value do we place upon future generations? Is it simply monetary, a price, an operating cost? Or is it a way of life?

Most of our most innovative and forward thinking green technology companies and start ups have already fled our fair shores in a bid to find someone willing to listen. And they won’t be coming back here any time soon. The government insists that some of the money raised by the tax will be directed to implementing new greener technology. Good luck. Despite many countries around the world managing to live with wind farms, we Aussies are apparently too sensitive. Proposed solar plants in outback regions have been scrapped. Electric cars? What a joke. Where does the power come from to drive them? Coal. And most are imported.

And however well-meaning the federal government likes to sound on the world stage about reducing emissions in this country, state governments are flouting this anyway by increasing the mining, burning and exportation of dirty coal, furthering the dangerous technology of coal seam gas exploration, drilling for oil, exporting millions of tons of iron ore, expanding ports to accept more polluting ships. Yet the things that really matter – good infrastructure, using local goods rather than importing them, languish. Concrete, one of the most widely used building materials in this country (quick, easy to use, and cheaper than conventional materials), is also one of the dirtiest. Doesn’t matter, you can offset that (at extra cost) by installing a solar hot water system and double glazing. Wow. Meanwhile, the carbon emissions gone into forming the concrete still hangs around.

This global problem we face should have nothing to do with economics and everything to do with changing our thinking and the way we live. But to do that we have to change how this country operates, from the top down
Posted by scribbler, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 1:48:01 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
OUG! self taught by media spin!
Outstanding rubbish my friend.
Trying to be civil but I think your views mate, and you are my mate.
Come more from head spin than any thing Else.
Wacky Tobacco will do that.
Media plays no roll in putting out science papers.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 3:41:45 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
Great post, Scribbler; makes sense.
I began this thread not with a defense of the carbon tax,but with a reference to yet more evidence supporting the idea that human activity is the cause of global warming.
And as you can see, there are plenty here who are still in denial. I guess no amount of scientific evidence will convince them.
Of course a carbon tax is not the be all and end all of solving teh AGW problem.
But targeted taxes as a means of modifying cultural and societal behaviour has a track record of success, e.g. tobacco.
But as you point out, there is a huge number of pressure points where we need to focus.
And we have to start somewhere.
The carbon tax has become so politicized that nonsense is being peddled everywhere, and a good deal of it in these threads.
For example, it is conveniently forgotten that the carbon tax will migrate to a trading scheme within a few years.
And that far from "going it alone" or "Being ahead of the rest of the world" as some here claim, in fact there are more than thirty other countries with some form of carbon emission impost and many more in the process of setting up such a situation.
Far from being ahead of the pack, we will be close to the middle.
Nevertheless, the reality is that we are going to have a carbon tax and Abbott and co will have a hard time withdrawing it.
When I look carefully at the details of the tax I see an underlying logic - in environmental terms - that makes sense, and I do think it will have a positive impact on our national emmissions.
Moreover, I do not think it will be too painful.
Certainly, the mining companies don't think it will be too painful with more than 500 Billion in new investment plans since the tax was announced.
So, we shall see.
If I'm wrong, so be it, but I don't think I am.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 4:16:11 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
The CT is about incentivizing change. The GST replaced a raft of consumer taxes and the CT will be offset by significant income tax relief, subsidies, export support and more. So is there any chance people will stop the "big new tax" stuff? Can't we have a mantra-free discussion?

To Bazz's question "By how much will the earth be cooler if the governments CO2 program is applied ?" Obviously not a lot by itself, Bazz, but it will drive national change ahead of the inevitable need for it and serve as a moral international example. I'm with Anthonyve on smoke and fiddles and, unlike those who think adapting will be simpler than countering AGW, I believe climate change will not be as gradual at regional levels as it is at the global level resulting in food insecurity will lead to chaos, war and misery.

The following covers a view I don't presently have time to cover and you will also find associated comments supporting counterviews.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-australia-afraid-leading-world?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_source=Climate+Spectator&utm_campaign=82b8e267bf-CSPEC_DAILY&utm_medium=email
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 4:25:54 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
I would add, in answer to Bazz's replay of Bolt's silly question about the effect on the world's emissions, that, as the philosophers point out, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
And how far down the road does a single step get one?
Not a whole helluva long way.
But the thing is, you need to make that first step before you can make a second, and a third, and so on.
And that is the point of the exercise.
Of course, Andrew Bolt knows all that perfectly well. And he knows that AGW is real and that we need to tale urgent action.
He's privately said so.
But he cynically chose a destructive path that would make him a great deal of money.
Well, he's welcome to it; it's little more than blood money.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 4:35:34 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 think you missed the point of the question.
It is not a question about the first step.
It is a question about the last step.
ie what is the final result of Australia's effort ?
I can't remember exactly how many leading zeros but it was like this;

0.000041 C by 2050. At that level it doesn't matter much what we do.

and

Aaaahhhaa, no one has explained why the temperature rises first and
then the CO2 rises.

Re "why is Aus afraid of leading ?
Easy, because we are a small economy and can be easily run over by
much larger economies if we stick our neck out.

Scribbler;
Ships use less fuel per ton KM than even trains.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 5:51:19 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
Actually Bazz, we're both wrong. Super ships use a huge amount and anyway the amount is irrelevant, it's the type of fuel they burn. Known as "bunker" fuel it is the filthiest and emits the most poisons known, and is forbidden to be used on land. Why do they use this? Because it is cheap and because they have enormous engines that can process it, unlike your average car or train.

Interestingly, come July 1st, any ship known to use bunker fuel from Iran will lose insurance. Amazing that a few sanctions can achieve what global warming science cannot. Of course, that's not to say they won't get the fuel elsewhere.

My mistake was saying that a single ship emits as much pollutants as all the cars in the world. It's around 16 ships apparently, however the gases they exhume are so toxic it might as well be one.

Thanks for the heads up though!
Posted by scribbler, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 6:13:34 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
<<The philosophers point out, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step>>

I saw a variation on that the other day: “ a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step AND A ROAD MAP".
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 6:15:25 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
I see that it is time for bullsh1t bingo.

"incentivised"
"International example"
"moral"
"Journey begins with a single step"

Firstly most people in the world know little to nothing of what happens in Aus and care less.

Europe has $5 price on carbon on about 10% of emissions = an effective price of 50c. America has just about zero, China has zero. Australia shooting for $23 is not taking a single step, but trying to finish the marathon instantly.

Basic economics indicate that items with very low price elasticity such as energy show very little change in response to a price change. Businesses cannot rebuild over night, and if they close, their business will simply move overseas. The price of $23 is not enough to incentivise new technologies, but enough to hurt manufacturing.

Copenhagen killed the justification for the carbon price. The dinosaurs that are on a moral crusade and don't care for those going to be hurt are fortunately in a small minority.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 8:10:19 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
Money get back
I'm alright Jack
Keep your hands of my stack.

New car, caviar, four star day dream
I think I'll by me a football team.

That's all AGW is all about.

Nothing to do with saving humanity.
Nothing to do with saving the environment.
Nothing to do with saving the future.

And everything to do with scamming money off anyone they can, rich and poor alike!

It's so sad so many have fallen for it!
Posted by RawMustard, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 8:31:18 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
"Basic economics indicate that items with very low price elasticity such as energy show very little change in response to a price change."

We're not talking about widgets.

I've replaced forty-odd halogen globes with LED globes bought from China and replaced a perfectly good pool pump with a new more efficient one. Both changes will for themselves in 15 months at today's power price, and now in shorter period since further large rises have been announced. What's my incentive. Does the CT reduce or add to it?

We need a system where government owns and maintains the grid that multiple energy providers can competitively feed into. I'll buy from the lowest bidder, which does not initially have to be big enough to service every grid user, but can potentially grow to be. Let's then see what happens to prices from coal-based providers. To maintain the grid, massive subsidies to current utilities can be unwound commensurately with the growth of new players. A suitably large CT adds incentive for the entry of low/zero emission providers, who can start small.

A CT incentivizes both consumers and providers towards lower emissions.

The price elasticity argument obviously applies to petrol/diesel/gas. No carbon price will be paid by motorists, other than indirectly through inputs to fuel provision to incentivize change but the spiralling cost of these fuels will. How can government help (or interfere, rather, if you are RawMustard)? By subsidizing hydrogen distribution systems, IMO, and removal of all cost impediments to the import or domestic production of fuel-cell driven transport
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 13 June 2012 11:17:47 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
Yeah sure, it's all a big con.

Never mind the decades of research and the mounting scientific evidence when it can all be explained away so easily as some kind of massive world-wide conspiracy - probably to form a World Government as planned by the Illuminati who are quietly working behind the scenes. This has been known about for a century but the evil plot only underway for the last 40-odd years.

It makes the so-called moon landing hoax tiny by comparison but has the same sort of motivation and the same evil conspirators behind it.

Then again, there are other commercial interests at work attempting to secure their own financial agenda too, with a similar history in tobacco, acid rain, DDT and other industries.

I wonder which is more likely?

Sure Australia only produces a tiny amount of the total but it's still about number 16 out of over 300 countries. To opt out means that only 15 countries would have to carry the rest and they in turn would then become the minority emitters. Fair?

The closest emitter to Australia is Indonesia but with a smaller land mass and 10 times our population it's easy to see who the bigger culprit per head of population is.

If we are ever going to move away from a dependence on ever-depleting fossil fuels, I like to know a better way.
Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 14 June 2012 1:46:42 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
It's funny to think that if Howard or even Turnbull was PM now, we'd probably have an ETS firmly in place and everybody would be praising them for their trailblazing visionary statesmanship.
Posted by rache, Thursday, 14 June 2012 1:51:49 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
@Wobbles,

<<The closest emitter to Australia is Indonesia but with a smaller land mass and 10 times our population it's easy to see who the bigger culprit per head of population is>>

So thinking outside the square—let’s forget the futile carbon tax.

Instead, let’s encourage couples to have an extra 20-30 kids each -–and "Ta Da" --we would MAGICALLY become so much less culpable!
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 14 June 2012 6:36:59 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
rache yes, you have gone straight to the heart of the matter armed only with truth.
When Conservatives *High jacked* Liberalism, by one vote, it was driven as are such threads by those who Dennie truth.
Who plant all types of miss truths and unrelated things in an effort to divert us.
Remember however we too play a roll, the ALP.
Rudd, very firmly wanted an ETS Gillard did not.
Greens, a failure in any thing needing a clear head,had the opportunity to give Rudd the ETS.
Gillard, like Abbott WOULD HAVE, propped up the greens with a 3 year tax, becoming an ETS.
I see the DNA of Gillard in many such back downs and policy's that never had a chance.
Yet your truth remains.
And post a Democratic win in America, the near death of their Tea Party, Abbott's Conservatives may walk the plank of their high jacked ship, as Liberals look for a way to preserve the tax/ETS and NBN.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 14 June 2012 6:40:11 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
Scribbler;
Due to various shortages of diesel fuel in mostly Asia the refineries
are producing more diesel and less bunker fuel.
So ships are being forced into buying a more expensive diesel/bunker
mixture. I guess that the emmissions would depend on the ratio.

Luciferase;
Hydrogen is really a non starter. The first problem is the ERoEI is
very poor and the useful life of fuel cells is too short to be economic.
My son's father-in-law was directly involved in trials of buses to use
hydrogen fuel cells and they are just not worthwhile.
Both Dennis and Mercedes have done a lot of work on this to no avail.
There are other problems, such as requirements for parking areas.
You cannot park hydrogen vehicles in unventilated underground car
parks or bus depots without specially designed roofs.

Then you have to distribute the gas. It would require something like
eight times the number of tanker trucks than for petrol.
The tank required for the car is very big.
No, it is a very nice idea, but falls over like many ideas when it
gets down to the details.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 14 June 2012 10:17:40 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
Belly,
I will be watching with much interest, how many of the deniers rally around Abbott's Direct Action Plan if he wins the next election.

If a tax/ETS is a bad idea, then how is shovelling taxpayers money directly into the pockets of polluters somehow better when the whole thing is apparently a hoax? Isn't that wasteful?

I'm also interested in how that plan can reduce by hundreds of tons of emissions what he simultaneously claims to be a "weightless gas".
Posted by rache, Thursday, 14 June 2012 1:18:16 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
LF,

Your trite anecdote of changing out lights and pool pumps is no argument for economics on a macro scale. For example, the carbon price at which gas is cheaper than coal is $40, so there is no incentive to change, and when the ETS kicks in there will be less so.

As for electricity, it is well known that this is extremely inelastic, and the handful of people changing out house hold items is not going to make a measurable difference. For industry, it might be a small incentive to install more efficient equipment for new plant, but ripping out old equipment and replacing it is unlikely to be financed on energy savings.

The predictions are that under the carbon tax emissions will increase by about 7%, and the 5% reduction will be achieved only by buying credits.

This carbon tax is a redistribution tax dressed up as an environmental gesture.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 14 June 2012 2:32:43 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
SM's authoritative assertion,(as his assertions often are) that the coal-fired electricity price going up up will not lower its consumption is dealt with here http://www.ben-global.com/Business/News/Electricity_consumption_has_peaked_worldwide_not_j_10295.aspx or here http://www.borderwatch.com.au/news/national/national/general/power-sector-primed-for-overload/2574770.aspx or many other places he might google
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 14 June 2012 6:10:27 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
LF,

An article on power lines, an article on energy use decreasing in a recession (without a price on carbon). What point were you trying to make? Energy use is linked with GDP. When GDP drops it is no surprise that power consumption drops. Sure there have been efficiency gains as there are always has been, but the trend has been inexorably upwards.

The only way to reduce electricity consumption is to hobble the economy, which is what the carbon tax is trying to do.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 14 June 2012 8:24:03 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
But SM, weren't you the guy on another thread asserting authoritatively that the carbon tax closed an old and inefficient aluminium smelter and not a recession in world prices? You remember, Ludwig, Led Zep, "the carbon tax did it" and all that, with you the stern guy? Whatever, we know how you roll.

It's interesting that you simply see the CT as (wrongly)redistributive, with the environment just a smoke-screen for some Fabian plot, presumably. That says a lot about you. Who'd have thought you had such a vivid imagination!
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 14 June 2012 8:54:42 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
Shadow Minister,
Sadly, you're a dot short of a connection.
The goal isn't to reduce electricity usage - that's a means to an end.
The goal is reduce CO2 emissions.
Now, usage reduction is one - I repeat, one - means to that end.
But it's not the end.
And here's a newsflash, dude - nobody sets out to intentionally hobble the economy.
Your common sense should tell you that.
So maybe there's another reason for actions that you don't agree with.
For example, that decisions are being made by people who don't see the world the way you do.
To quote the bard, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
My point is, don't be so quick to assign idiotic motives to those who do not act in accordance with your world view.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Thursday, 14 June 2012 10:04:50 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
LF,

Emissions can be reduced simply by shutting down manufacturing, but that supposedly is not the point. The hydro plant was less efficient than new world best plants, but not less efficient than many others world wide. The same amount of aluminium will continue to be smelted world wide, producing the same amount of emissions, just not in Australia.

Ant,

As per my previous posts, if with a carbon price of $23 coal generated power is still the cheapest generation source, then there is no incentive to build alternative generation. So where is the CO2 reduction? Even Labor's modelling under the carbon tax shows an increase in emissions by 2020 of nearly 7% (not differing much from the modelling without a carbon tax) and the 5% reduction being made purely from purchasing "carbon credits" from often shonky businesses overseas.

"nobody sets out to intentionally hobble the economy." Really? It has been well known for a long time that the carbon tax is a negative for manufacturing. Are you claiming that this was an accident?

I am well aware of people's differing views on the world, but doing stupid things for the right reason, is still doing stupid things. in training new engineers I always have to teach them to look for unintended consequences, some of which are obvious, others are not.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 15 June 2012 4:59:00 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
Rache as you know Conservatives do not regard the truth as of much value.
Abbott needed the deniers to gain power, he is and always was driven by that wish.
He is on record as both denying climate change and saying it is real and we are contributing to it.
In chasing support from the deniers he stands on two wires each moving away from each other.
He could do himself much damage.
In power,he will be replaced before that happens, changing events will see Conservatives/Liberals , not dump the tax.
Slowly but surely they will adopt ALP policy here.
As soon as this year world movements ,slow unproductive still, toward true cuts will force change.
If you enjoy a laugh watch such as Shadow Minister try to position them selves with those about to reclaim the Liberal party.
And too, watch the slow to start but unstoppable, unraveling of some state governments, promised made vs those broken is mountain high.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 15 June 2012 5:10:26 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
Hi Anthony,

Don't let them put you off, keep at it: we know the politics of AGW, and most people's positions, are pretty much settled.

As you write,

"Here is a paper, the result of high quality research, by respected researchers, working at one of the most prestigious laboratories, supported by masses of factual data, and with all funding sources listed - about as good a quality piece of research reporting as one could find ..... "

Well, that convinces me.

And how much human-induced change are we talking about ?

"The observed global average ocean warming (from the surface to 700 meters) is approximately 0.025 degrees Celsius per decade, or slightly more than 1/10th of a degree Celsius over 50 years."

A fortieth of a degree Celsius in barely a decade ! Don't people realise what this means ?! A whole degree in barely four hundred years !

So the last word on ocean warming - the equivalent of a degree in 400 years. Okay, I'll run with that from now on. I'm sure that I will notice the difference in about 800 years. That's when they'll be laughing on the other side of their faces. Yeah, they'll be sorry they ever doubted AGW.

Just a note about your comment on Bangla Desh: for decades, it has been known that the Indian plate pushing under the Himalayan plate is having a long-term devastating effect on Bangla Desh, that the plate on which it sits is tilting slowly downwards to the east, and slightly upwards towards the west in Bengal, so that the Brahmaputra region - pretty much all of Bangla Desh - is sinking, relative to sea-level.

Oh well, back to something serious.

Cheers,

Jo
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 15 June 2012 9:22:51 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
Lucifer & SM, you are both going on about something that will be
redundant anyway.
The problem we have upcoming is our GDP will not cover our interest on
our borrowings and we will drift into the same situation as Spain.
Our cost of energy is climbing and because electricity and petrol are
not very subject to more than a small amount of conservation our
electricity demand will not reduce until unemployment rises
dramatically.
When you subtract mining GDP from 4.5 there is about 1%, or was it
less than 1, GDP for the rest of Australia.
Our oil import bill is about 3% of our GDP. Crash point is 3 to 4 %.

This GDP level is similar to the best of Europe so what makes anyone
think we can keep on as we are now as China keeps cutting back.

I can assure you they are not worrying much about CO2 in Europe.
I would like to hear discussion on what we can do to compensate for
falling GDP and going into an economic contraction.
I think our options will be very limited.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 15 June 2012 9:32:50 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
Bazz,
I'm sorry mate but you are plain misinformed.
Australia's Public Debt as a percentage of GDP is about one fifth of Southern European countries and less than a quarter of the US.
This ratio (debt/GDP) is the best measure of public debt as it accurately expresses our ability to pay.
The inescapable fact is that Australia's public debt is among the lowest in the world and we are and will remain for the foreseeable future easily able to manage our debt.
This point of view is supported by how the ratings agencies see us.
Moreover, one of the factors driving up the AUD is that it is increasingly being perceived as a safe haven, precisely because our debt levels are so low. See Aussie bond rates for verification of this.
Private debt levels are admittedly high, but have fallen dramatically during the past 2 years. Furthermore, when compared with our ability per capita to pay, as expressed by average wages, we again see that Australia is in good shape.
In addition, a substantial proportion of private debt is paying for revenue generating projects, e.g. mining investments, that will further improve our ability to pay debt in the future.
I know Abbott and Hockey would have us believe differently, but there's no escaping the data.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
Posted by Anthonyve, Friday, 15 June 2012 10:08:25 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 said;
Public Debt as a percentage of GDP

Well all that would be loverly Anthony if that was all that is involved.
What I am talking about is energy as a percentage of GDP.
That is what crashes the economy as it cannot be afforded above about 3%.

However our oil import bill is about $18 billion and increasing and
our local buying is another $18 billion and decreasing as we deplete at around 12 to 20% a year.
That is an NBN every year.
China has continued to wind back its purchases from us, and it will be
interesting to see how it affects govt revenues.
It will take very little reduction in income to put us well into the
danger area of energy costs taking us into contraction.
It won't matter two hoots what anybody thinks of our economy once that
that happens.
Oil is today quite cheap at $100 a barrel but it will not be long
before it gets back to its more normal price of about $125 to $130.

What you say about Hockey & Abbott is just as true for Gillard & Swan.
All politicians either do not have a clue or subscribe to the world
politician's fear of acknowledging the problem and are happy to ignore the data.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 15 June 2012 10:48:21 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
noted that the govt pensions scam
[who got the privatisation..of telstra moneies]
isnt doing as grand as hoped

hence govt will in time need to top that up
so it needs new flows of income..sugar coating the red pill
sure we got compensation[but knowing govt it isnt 'indexed'
yet what we must pay is...[so the scam does other lies]

gives away fluero light bulbs[obsolete as they were gifted away
yet govt bought at huge cost..ditto solasr cells...spend the cash on obsolete teqnoligy

like nbn...now putting in the fibre
WE PAID FOR..via connection charge of a dollar per day
but public servants turned into their cashcow..[its lies upon lies]

WHAT PROOF DO I HAVE
that the one of the 500 BIG POLUTERS[who alone must pay]
did actually buy aussie carbon permits..or fake ones for cdents on the dollar

sure[today govt gives 90%..for free
that they force us to buy for cash

but next year do they get 90%..free
or 89%...[dito the cash buy back for solar
the more double priced solar they have to buy
the more we all pay...yes double seems good today
but in ten years your paying plenty more[then you who think you got a free lunch will notice we got rid of cheap easy energy[to get what

like nuke power?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

or how aboit bio fuel
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/14/shell-drops-plan-to-buy-sugar-cane-grown-on-land-taken-from-indigenous-people

how much has solar 'industry' sped up polution[making them expensive subsidised toys for the cool girls wanting to be boys

its a scam
its a tax
no tax on any people she leads
well yeah except for you..too voiceless to complain
or explain..[how the tax is the right thing to do[lol..blame all polution on a scape goat[and no one goes to jail]

work til you drop
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/964707/world%E2%80%99s_richest_man_calls_for_increasing_retirement_age_to_70/
cause we spent ya pension funds building vlats in ireland/spain
Posted by one under god, Friday, 15 June 2012 10:49:19 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
Belly,

Considering that Labor's tenure is littered with lies, broken promises and half truths (especially the no carbon tax lie) Labor has a long way to go to reach the level of trustworthiness of the coalition. The modelling based on shonky assumptions (such as China, the USA and the EU will have similar carbon prices) needs to be revisited.

The carbon tax is temporary, and will be gone within 18 months. I don't believe that labor will stand in the way, as a DD election will dump their senators from their cushy jobs.

The existing alternative power sources cannot meet the required demand, and nuclear is the only viable base load alternative.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 15 June 2012 12:03:56 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
Pension scam? OUG getting difficult to read past your first line.
But granted you are closer to the truth than SM, but still not very close.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 15 June 2012 12:27:50 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
The Hon. Shadow Minister,

Really, if

(a) AGW was a genuine danger, and

(b) the Carbon Tax was one effective way of dealing with it, then

(c) I wouldn't mind paying 20 % or more extra on my electricity bills.

But ..... there are so many steps between (a) and (c).

If, as the respected and revered Anthonyve is correct, and ocean temperatures go up a massive one degree in the next four hundred years, then, so it seems to a simple-minded person like me, so do temperatures generally:

* the temperature of everything, trees, deserts, tundra, ice-caps, cities, goes up more or less one degree, give or take. As long as governments do nothing in the meantime, for four hundred years.

Terrifying stuff. We need to do something about urgently.

As for the carbon tax, as one way to do something about it urgently:

In the sixties, unless I dreamt it, someone invented a toy which was a black box with a switch in the front and a wind-up key at the back. You wound the key up and switched the switch to 'On', then the lid of the box opened, a hand came out and reached forward to switch the switch to 'Off', then went back into the box and the lid closed.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 15 June 2012 12:29:48 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
Ahhh yes I remember that box Loudmouth.
Four hundred years !
How much fossil fuels will be still available then ?
Zero, except a bit of oil for medical plastics I hope.
No matter who you think is right, in 50 years time there will be next
to no oil being used and very little coal either.
Oil is getting harder and more expensive to find and exploit and coal
quality is decreasing as the easy mines are worked out.

We have to give a much higher priority to alternative energies than
any of the AGW proponents believe.

No one has answered my question as to why the temperature rises first
and then the CO2 rises ?
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 15 June 2012 3:10:37 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
loudmouth...yes i know[i got one]

only in mine you place a coin..[on top of the coffin lid]
and a scelital arms..comes out scoops up the coin..
and take the coin into the hoard..[its a money box]

just like the carbon tax is a cash cow
take a penny..its tax

a tax that allows free plution privledges[to the worst of the 500]
while we in the thousands will and must pay

or do we
what proof the carbon credit..is really being bought

I WANT A SPECIAL RECIEPT*
to prove im not paying..for what they got from juliar for free
Posted by one under god, Friday, 15 June 2012 4:22:35 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
bazz i seem to recall cold water holds more c02
its all looping together cause affect[thats why they dont like that poiunted out]..but heck its still valid to ask

ps..re reefs[ie limestone]..thats c02 captured
england is on a huge reef or limestone[the barrier reef carbon capture must be huge[so stop the damm guilt trip]..our reef captures mnassive ammounts of c02

whale poop does too
see iron oxide soaked in fat..allows the iron oxide to float long enough for the sun to capture/convert store the co2 in micro plancton..and put lipoprotiens into algie..[the real true source of most of the good oil...ie not dinosaur juice]

so more whales=less carbon
more captured and sent back to the deep

the polar current also
it runs in a 120 year cycle
apparently massive ammounts of free greenhouse gasses [of all sorts].are comming out after their time [120 years]..in the deep

capture/conversion/releasing /balancing...ofsetting[ozmosis]
whatever..is not as simple as science faithfull namecalers want it to be.
Posted by one under god, Friday, 15 June 2012 4:31:24 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
just basic science refutes the warming theory
our seas are full of c02 'product'..[like limestone..
skelitons/hair scales teeth.. etc]

we hear that not only the poles are melting [refuted]
but that snails shells are melting[getting thinner]
when there is so much other lime..
[which neutralises acidity]

so the reefs are growing[cause of c02]
the real problem might well be not enough c02..to build the shells

see its the same con game
problem increasing greenhouse gas,..solution a tax one[c02]
problem thin snail shells..solution more c02..to build the shell*

its sad those most taken in by 'authoritive' nonsense
are the to ignorant or lazey to do the science

but its the same same
give the dog/c02/ozone..hollowcause denier..[give the dog a bad name
the dog gets ALL THE BLAME*..look at all the other 'causes'..[should read ATTRIBUTED CAUSES[banning them did nuthin[but also didnt cost 'us' that much

buyt now we are getting to the very basis of life
we are carbon based life forms[tax the c02..you tax life itself]

its allways proof
what others link to
but it proves nuthing
if it goes from cause ..to faux cure
missding the important joinder between cause and affect

the tax will cause pain[for some]
its intended only 500 will hurt[yet thousands..millions will in reality be 'paying']..its the freaking lies..the imbisilic run to a new tax..fixed]..give money to business that needs to be subsidised..to be a viable business model

BUT THE WORSE SIDE-AFFECT
is it puts the ones who thunk it first[libs]
back into power to unravel other worthy reforms

juliar just wants her payoff
for DELIVERING the new world orders tax breaks..
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 16 June 2012 9:54:45 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

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