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 tax nonsense > Comments

Carbon tax nonsense : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 6/5/2011

The protest movement has become mainstream and oppresses the oppressed, just like they've always been oppressed.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Jennifer, I sincerely hope you are right. We know with a great deal of certainty that CO2 adds to the greenhouse effect. We do know that CO2 concentrations have risen significantly (by 35%) since the Industrial Revolution when we started to burn substantial amounts of fossil fuels releasing CO2. So there is a high likelyhood that our burning of fossil fuels has increased the CO2 concentration significantly. You probably wouldn't disagree with any of this so far (although many seem to).

What I agree is that we may not know with the same certainty what the impact will be on the environment from the know rises in CO2 concentration. This is where risk analysis is needed.

When we buy an insurance policy we rely on risk analysis experts to assess those risks for us and place a price on the risk of our house burning down for example. We can ignore this advice and not pay for the insurance or we can assess that we cannot afford to lose the house and pay an appropriate insurance premium.

I see the "carbon price" as an insurance premium. The expert risk assessors may have got it wrong. But they may also be right.

The government cannot afford to let the "house" burn down so they wisely (in my opinion) buy an insurance policy to stabilise CO2 concentrations and (hopefully) stop the house fire.

Do you take out house insurance?
Posted by Martin N, Friday, 6 May 2011 9:56:17 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
I hope the Brisbane rally is an enthusiastic and positive event Jennifer. For those of us unable to attend thanks for your help and may your enthusiasm for a "fair go" remain boundless.

Martin N, candid opinion on neither side seems to share your view that a Carbon Tax will "stabilise CO2 concentrations" so all the best in that dream.
Posted by cactus, Friday, 6 May 2011 10:41:34 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
Martin N - yes, all things being equal more CO2 in the atmosphere should mean temperatures will increase, the real question is by how much. The actual physics says that a doubling of carbon concentrations will increase temperatures by one degree centigrade. (Do you want the actual reference? I'm a tired of giving it.) Much of the argument has been about the feedback effect added by the climate models. So can you add to the debate? Do you think the feedback effect is more than one or less than one, and how do you know?

Then we come to your insurance analogy. Will a carbon tax have any noticeable effect on world emissions? No. It is clear that China, America and India are not going to put a price on Carbon, so what do we hope to achieve by a tax? Our insurance premium isn't going to buy us any sort of policy, or buy anything at all except a tiny amount of green cred. And we all know how much that is worth.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 6 May 2011 11:33:21 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
I respect anyone who will get out on the streets to deomonstrate for their convictions,Jennifer.

Curm, you a thinking and also paid analyser of the global warming issue. I don't include you with the nest of vipers who mindlessly deny in these pages that there is a problem with global warming and have never written anything constructive in their lives. However I think though that we can analyse global warming to death. As I see it there are four over-arching facts which are hard to argue with:

1. Greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere,are causing increasing global temperatures (I think you have acknowledged this). We are already seeing the predicted increasingly severe weather events (that is droughts floods, tornadoes)as a result.

2. There is another big problem - over-use of the world's scarce mineral resources. Both of these problems will cause problems for coming generations including our chldren and grandchildren.

3. The solution to both is the same - cut down on wasteful consumption of fossil fuels.

4. Australia is per capita the most resources rich nations and also in the top 3 of high greenhouse gas emitters in the world; also among the most affluent of nations. That is why we should be leading, not trailing the world in greenhouse action.

If we agree that we should reduce use of fossil fuels (de-carbonise our economy) there are many ways to do this - voluntary (does anyone really think this alone will work?), C price, feed-in tarriffs etc. But no-one has yet shown how it can be done without including a carbon tax as a central plank of action. I think the analysis should go into how this can be done.
Posted by Roses1, Friday, 6 May 2011 12:54:37 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
Once a forest, savannah or any form of original vegetation reaches a mature state due to the limit of the amount of vegetation sustainable by available water and nutrients resulting from the degradation of non organic minerals, the carbon cycle is such that there is no net gain by way of a reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The exception is the carboniferous materials which are eventually converted and laid down as coal or oil deposits.

Interestingly, to the chagrin of our dedicated environmentalists, when a forest is harvested, the carboniferous materials such as timber are then locked away for perhaps a century or more and the regrowing forest then positively contributes to carbon dioxide abatement.

The climate change enthusiasts have also got something else very much wrong. The warming of the oceans, which is undisputed, will result in the evaporation of greatly increased amounts of water which will fall as rain. The drought breaking rains of the last 12 months are the result of ocean temperatures. None of this increased rainfall was predicted by the CSIRO or the various meteorological organisations in Australia yet for some improbable reason, the cutbacks in Murray Darling water allocations were based on a 10% reduction in river flows. The consistent drought in South Western WA is because that area derives its winter rainfall from the Antarctic Current. This as yet, has not increased in temperature as its heat source is the great ocean currents which transfer heat from the tropics to the Arctic and Antarctic waters.

As an example of what will happen with increased rainfall, the Simpson desert is green for the first time in many years. The Australia wide increase in vegetation will result in the fixing of huge amounts of carbon, concievably far more than all our puny abatement measures.
Posted by Dickybird, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:39:28 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
Roses1 - well, thanks, I guess.. sure we can cut down on wasteful fossil fuel use. The real question has always been how far are we prepared to go, particularly considering that Australian efforts will simply have no effect on the supposed problem?

Think of it as a pay cut. How much of a pay cut.... or perhaps a fairer approach is, how much of future pay increases are you willing to forgo, in the name of emission reductions? No, it doesn't work out that you can have a cleaner economy that generates more. We will have to pay to forgo emissions and that is the end of that. How much do you think voters will want to pay, particularly as no one has been able to show that cuts in Australia will have any effect.

That's the dimension of the problem.

As for the business about humans contributing to CO2 in the atmosphere, your point one, I would like to take issue but I will have to bide my time. Having had the doubtful honour of looking through some of the material on the carbon cycle theory (the time CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere), I very strongly suspect the whole thing is a concoction. But then you would rightly point out that highly qualified people think otherwise, and that I haven't got anything definite to point in the other direction.

So there you go, you've got me on that one.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:55:28 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
good on you, jennifer

are there any marches in Brisbane tomorrow demanding more tax .. I'm surprised those haven't taken off all over Australia, spontaneous like .. because it's what people want
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 6 May 2011 4:53:07 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 Martin N:

I think that you may be confusing 'risk' with 'uncertainty'. Insurance companies have a great deal of data on matters likely to affect your house, and can work out the risk, and charge you accordingly.

To the best of my knowledge, no insurance company has established the risk of catastrophic climate change due to the human burning of fossil fuels. Such a possibility is an example of 'uncertainty'. We simply don't know whether it will happen, and the data are too rubbery, and the arguments too conjectural, for us to know. It is not really clear, for example, by how much the earth has warmed in the last century, and though there is a commonly accepted figure of 0.7 degrees, you only have to look hard at the basic data to wonder whether we know anything at all. If we can't know the present with any accuracy, how can we compare it with the past? And the two central components of the AGW orthodoxy are that the earth has warmed through human burning of fossil fuels, and that this warming is unprecedented.

That may be so, but it is really quite uncertain. There may be no risk at all, or a slight one, or not one for several hundred years, or one in the next fifty. We simply don't know. How much insurance would you be prepared to take out, on your own, were there a company willing to insure you against (something bad due to climate change)?

Can I suggest that you go to Judith Curry's website 'Climate etc' and find the threads about 'Uncertainty', and read the original papers and then the discussions. You might find that useful.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Friday, 6 May 2011 5:07:55 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
WELCOME TO THE AGE OF "POST-NORMAL" (CLIMATE) SCIENCE

Thanks Jennifer

The government's proposed tax is indeed nonsense on any measure. Its brazen "carbon pollution" propaganda almost surpasses those in the research community who have kept a collective lid on all the uncertainties for far too long.

Intriguing too how so many folk in the social sciences seem to be appropriating "climate change" as a rationale to drive other agendas.

Who, outside the Academy, would have imagined that one "solution" now being proposed to convince the masses of the veracity of climate catastrophism is more (cognitive) psychologists?

With regard to "evidence", alarmists should (i) explore whether "confirmation bias" may have influenced aspects of climate research; (ii) read David Hume on causation, especially as tomorrow is the 300th anniversary of his birth; and (iii) reflect on the following contribution in the Royal Society's 2010 commemorative volume of papers?

The (late) Stephen Schneider noted here that while further research “can reduce uncertainty about the response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, however, this is unlikely to happen quickly, given the complexity of the global climate and the many years of high quality data which will be needed...."

"I have pushed hard for a cultural change in the (IPCC) assessments. As I have said, overcoming uncertainties, the traditional approach of what the philosopher Thomas Kuhn called ‘normal science’, will take an unforeseeably long time."

So dawns the age of "post-normal science", the Age of Storylines. It is an age where obscuram per obscuris arguments (“explaining” an obscure and complex phenomenon - such as climate change - by evoking something even more obscure and complex – such as a climate model) are fashionable again; where facts are fluid and theories fuzzy; where prophets of doom rely on dodgy differential equations in place of entrails; where speculation struggling with its own contradictions can be packaged and promoted not only as a plausible glimpse into the future, but also as sufficient justification for a national carbon (dioxide) tax and fundamental restructuring of Australia’s – and the world’s – energy economy.

Alice (in Warmerland)
Posted by Alice Thermopolis, Friday, 6 May 2011 5:38:18 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
"As I see it there are four over-arching facts which are hard to argue with:

1. Greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere,are causing increasing global temperatures (I think you have acknowledged this). We are already seeing the predicted increasingly severe weather events (that is droughts floods, tornadoes)as a result.'

No problem arguing with this one. In the past increasing CO2 levels have followed after global warming, not preceded it. We have no reason to think this is not the same thing happening again. As for the 'severe weather', there has been no statistical increase in major weather events worldwide, and no specific weather events have been convincingly attributed to 'global warming', other than by scaremongers like Professor Flannery.

See? Not hard to argue with at all.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 6 May 2011 9:18:52 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
Good post Alice, brilliant even.
Political correctness is not like a religion, it IS a religion.
What's more the post modern theology isn't promoting the idea that God will provide or that we must accept our fate, Insha'Allah.
No, there's no happy clapping or linking of arms to sing "We shall overcome",it's more like some medieval doomsday sect or Crowleyan cult of Magicians and Scriers.
As any medieval religious fanatic worth his salt would have known, you don't terrorise people with horrifying visions of perdition in order to enlighten them, you do it to ensure that they remain under your control
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 6 May 2011 9:22:43 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
"...in another thirty years the current obsession with carbon dioxide may be recognised as misguided."

MAY be recognised?

But what if it's not misguided? What if it's found to be true and then thirty years too late to do anything about it?

Why should I stop smoking? I may already have cancer or will get it from something else anyway. Better to enjoy myself today because there may not be any consequences anyway. Plenty of people smoke and live to a ripe old age don't they?

If the sceptics have their way and are proven wrong (again) then perhaps humanity will deserve what it gets in the years ahead.

Just remember that the people that run those vast business interests and bogus think-tanks that are behind the sceptic industry will be well cashed-up to cope.
Posted by rache, Saturday, 7 May 2011 2:25:01 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
roses1 I can understand your frustration with the vipers, but calling them names doesn't cure their denial does it, so really do you care whether you convince anyone, or is it just more alarmist steam releasing?

One problem with the whole carbon campaign is your message, even you can't get it right or even consistent with other alarmists.

You say we are 3rd highest emitter of GHG per capita, but other sources say 16th in CO2, and of course the primary Australian alarmists the Greens say No1 in CO2.

So do you define your GHGs? no of course not, it's another vague sort-of message from an alarmist who really doesn't understand the debate, but lives in his own world

There's no proof of increasing severe weather, in fact the BOM says the opposite. So what's going on, you berate deniers for not believing the "science", then deny it yourself.

That's my point, the green eco alarmist climate scientology message is so confused, so idiotic and so personal depending on the alarmist spraying it, that the rest of us just smile and move away from the strange person waving their arms and trying to scare the children.

Over use of resources, according to whom? Another fable from the eco basket of doom. Do the Chinese believe that, the Americans? No of course not it's another eco nut austerity dream.

None of us want to live your life of austerity which is the underlying reason for your new faith in alarmism, guilt driven of course.

We all grew up wanting a better life, not a worse one.

So please keep ranting away at the evil vipers, a nest that grows ever larger with people who are not impressed by your lack of communications skills, the confused messages - every one of you transmits your personal solutions.

The protests will get bigger against a big new tax.

While I await the public disobedience and marches and street violence from the fools demanding more tax .. bring it on, food for international amusement at the stupid Australians
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 7 May 2011 7:47:25 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
Jennifer there was more money in denying tobacco causes cancer but we do what we can eh.
Posted by cornonacob, Saturday, 7 May 2011 12:57:52 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
Once again rpg seems to be getting his information from dodgy blogs or tabloid jounalists. His characterisation of climate science as "the green eco alarmist climate scientology message" doesn't remotely resemble the real science, as it is published in the scientific literature. Perhaps rpg should do his homework. He puts so much fervor into his denialist rants.

Meanwhile all is complacency in the Aitkin household, with everything for the best in this best of all possible worlds. But wait! What's this? The global insurance industry is worried? Can this be? See:
http://www.genevaassociation.org/pdf/Risk_Management/GA-Developing_World_Press_Release.pdf
Posted by nicco, Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:03:14 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
Rache writes
'If the sceptics have their way and are proven wrong (again) then perhaps humanity will deserve what it gets in the years ahead.'

you forgot chapter and verse, maybe try this one

(Gal 6:7) Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he also will reap.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 7 May 2011 4:04:39 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 Nicco:

But the article you refer to only reinforces my point. The insurers are talking about the need to accumulate and publish data — and they're not talking about carbon dioxide but about weather. You can get insurance now,, in our country, for weather-related possibilities, like storm, flood and fire, depending on your area. There are risks associated with these events, and there are sufficient data for companies to calculate the risk, and sell you a policy.

But no one will insure you against the possibility that average global temperature will rise by 2%. Why? Because it's not clear how you could measure that accurately, and not clear why it would be other than in your interest (depending on where you live). Projections about future climate and what might happen then are about Vagueland, not Australia. You say elsewhere that if there is only the slightest chance that the doomsayers are right we should act now, it's the only planet we have, and so on.

Well, there actually is a slight chance that the earth will bump into an asteroid in the next fifty years. Do you think that we should act now to stop that occurring? My understanding is that we could put a decently accurate measure of the risk against that one (it's not high, but it's there). Do you want us to act now to prevent that occurring? Why not?
Posted by Don Aitkin, Saturday, 7 May 2011 4:06:32 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
cornonacob and rache

You guys are throwing muck around hoping something will stick. I would call that very nasty but its probably that you genuinely believe there are energy companies out there fnding sceptical science and comment.

As has been shown many times, the energy companies are simply not in the debate. Occasionally you will see someone refer to $1 million here or a few hundred thousand there that the energy companies have given to this or that group that may then have something to do with talking sense (which you call scepticism). One green group managed to get the count up to past $20 million, without realising that it was an utterly trivial sum compared to the billions flowing into global warming science worldwide. The department of Climate Change turns over $80 million annually, Greenpeace has a global budget of 400 million euros plus.

Nor is there any reason for the energy companies to be involved. Tobacco companies were concerned over research showing that its optional product was both addictive and poisonous. On the other hand no-one has yet found a way to substitute for fossil fuels. The alternative energy systems are mostly marginal or outright useless.

You should think before you throw muck around.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:06:05 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
nicco .. no, not from scientific pages, from your own posts and opinion articles .. you guys rant this stuff over and over, but then for some reason think you are posting scientific facts .. you're not.

I don't read blogs or tabloids, should I? I actually have a different interest area in my spare time, but every so often cruise back past here to watch you guys losing control

it's just angry blather against people who disagree.

With all the funding the alarmists get, with the government funding a propaganda committee to travel the country, the PM herself hosts special educational dinners, you should be winning hands down, but the fact is the alarmists are going backwards. The grants are all to alarmists in climate science there is overwhelming support and funding, why have you not completely nailed the science so there is no skepticism or question at all .. after all these years you still can't put it to bed.

The problem is, right now, climate science is immature and has a lot to learn, I know you all think there is nothing to learn and you know it all .. based on your democratic understanding of science and propaganda/financial bias, but you're wrong .. climate science, is a long way from understanding climate enough to bet on.

Why is it you all have such different angles and you all Google different data .. why is there not a single set of absolute knowledge for the understanding of climate?

I don't need science to show that, and you guys rarely resort to consistent science anyway, you all try to pick your on favorite winners, anyway. You just Google the odd bit here and there to try to win points.. I just reflect your own poison back at you .. and you don't even recognize it, you're in such a lather.

You've lost the debate, and don't like it, sure it's taking time to wind down, you're own hysteria shows that.
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 7 May 2011 6:04:48 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
It works both ways Mark ... you throw muck around yourself. Thing is, you don't recognise it.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 7 May 2011 6:06:39 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
Very destructive dialogue rpg, well done.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 7 May 2011 6:11:08 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
In the era of the internet it's virtually impossible to sustain something like Climatism, let alone continue to enforce political correctness.
Climatism is anything but a grass roots movement it's top down, statist and imperial in many of it's aspects,it'd be done and dusted if not for pesky annoyances like universal suffrage and high levels of literacy among what passes for a proletariat in 21st century "Western' countries.

Apart from anything else, much to the chagrin of the bourgeois Climatists you have untrained people entering the debate, that is to say people who have not been indoctrinated or made susceptible (read gullible) by a university education.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 7 May 2011 8:07:00 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
rpg once again demonstrates that he has (a) no manners and (b) no understanding of how science operates, and apparently no intention of finding out.

Don Aitken, please re-read the article about insurance. You will find that it is about climate, not weather, thougn some weather events are mentioned. It is summed up by Andrew Torrance, CEO of Allianz Insurance, who says: "As the global climate continues to warm, we have to find new ways to protect people and economies from the impacts of extreme weather, particularly those who are most vulnerable." The insurers, who indeed will sell you policies to insure against local storms, floods and so on, have recognised at an international level that they need to take account of climate change, that it is a real phenomenon which needs to be factored into their calculations.

Like the scientifically-challenged rpg, you (Aitkin) are ignoring the element of probability. The science says, in effect, that there will very probably be a rise in global temperatures, which very probably will have very unwelcome consequences. (I don't need to spell them out, but they are not fanciful.) You have sufficient confidence in your own assessment of the science to dismiss the work of climatologists around the world. But you offer no reason for anyone to believe that you have superior information, just your bland assurance that all is well.
Posted by nicco, Sunday, 8 May 2011 10:16:10 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
Incidentally, it's easy enough to poke fun at the idea of asteroid collisions - "do you want us to act now to prevent that collision?" says Aitkin, suggesting that it's something out of our reach. Well, firstly, it differs from climate change in that no human activity has influence on asteroid behaviour (unlike climate); and secondly we are doing something about it, namely trying to understand the possibility, even if it is out of our reach. The Hubble telescope is part of that interesting endevour. See:
D. Bodewits, M. S. Kelley, J.-Y. Li, W. B. Landsman, S. Besse and M. F. A’Hearn. Collisional Excavation of Asteroid (596) Scheila. Astrophysical Journal Letters, 2011; DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/733/1/L3
Posted by nicco, Sunday, 8 May 2011 11:59:25 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
Carbon Tax: Benefits = Nil; Disadvantages = Hit to hip pocket; Justification Offered = Questionable.

Alternative Energy: Benefits = Conservation of dwindling oil reserves, staving off acceleration of hazardous deep-ocean offshore drilling which presents increasing risk of severe environmental damage; Secondary Benefits = Potential to advance technology to more effectively utilise the most powerful, sustainable energy source in our solar system, the Sun; Tertiary Benefit = Potential to contain otherwise infinite increase in global CO2 emissions until science can determine the optimal atmospheric level necessary to maintain optimal weather patterns, and avoid or stave off onset of the next glacial period; Disadvantages = Hit to hip pocket; Justification = See above, and the following.

Argument in favour of sustainable alternatives: Benefits = Support for forest conservation (in offsets until alternatives are developed), giving hope for conservation of bees and other forest species, Development of the socioeconomic circumstances of Third World nations already practising sustainable agriculture - leading to higher education, reduced overpopulation and reduced disharmony and unrest, Potential to slow the rate of extinction of world wildlife and plant species, Potential to protect the marine environment from irreversible toxicity and species loss. Disadvantages = Temporary hit to hip pocket, which will be reimbursed many times over through reduction in conflict and world terrorism, improvements in technology and lifestyle, and maintenance of a balanced world ecology.

How? = Removing head from butt and pushing forward with technological development for the common good.

Why? = See above.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 8 May 2011 2:53:01 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
A quick heads up on insurance. It is a business! The CEO's will all use the alarmist nonsense to increase premiums knowing you will forget this in two years, savvy?
Oh yes remember the CFS's making a hole in the ozone layer? Well apparently we are producing twice as much of them and yet nary a word said?
Honestly you guys are beyond hope, it is all a big con and you are the cannon fodder and Billionaire Al Gore is the General. You make me laugh but as you do not make any contribution it will fall on my tax bill.
Oh the good news is there will be an election in 2013 or hopefully a lot sooner.
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 8 May 2011 3:32:06 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 nicco:

I guess we read from documents what we notice. I agree that the phrase 'climate change' is in the heading, and in the next sentence, but nowhere does it talk about human activity as a cause, and I was more struck by the reference to 'natural disasters'. and to the clause asking governments to 'harness risk management techniques and insurance expertise to help the developing world adapt to climate change'. And adaptation, not mitigation, is what I was proposing. As for the possible asteroid collision, due in around 2050, if I remember rightly, there are what look like perfectly sensible proposals to develop and send into space a craft able to break up the asteroid into smaller pieces that would do less or no harm to Earth. That was the expensive proposition I was referring to.

And I'm sorry that you think I'm bland and complacent. Of course, I don't see it that way, and tend to see positions like yours, as I understand it, as unduly scary and not well supported by evidence. You think you're simply stating the truth... But read on, in my next response to colinsett.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Sunday, 8 May 2011 3:54:53 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 Colinsett:

You can't have read a lot in this debate if you think I'm at the 'extreme'. I've written quite a bit about the shades of opinion in the AGW debate, and a summary is as follows. There are six obvious positions, and a few religious outriders.

Supporters

1 Strongest. The IPCC has raised the alarm. We must do something now, and that something is to get global agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. The science is clear, and now is the time to act. This is fact the orthodox or IPCC position.

2 Partial Support. There is no doubt that adding more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere must increase the world’s temperature. But we don’t know yet how much extra warming there is likely to be.

3 Lukewarm support. Adding more carbon dioxide will very likely increase the temperature, but there are other factors at work too, and the effect may well be pretty small, or even positive for some parts of the world. We need to know much more before we do anything.

Dissenters

4 Agnostic dissenters. The orthodox arguments rely heavily on models and conjectures. AGW is plausible and possible, but we need real evidence before we do anything. In particular, we need to be able to distinguish AGW from natural variability. A little warming may be good for humanity, as it seems to have been over the past thirty years.

5 Sceptical dissenters. Many sceptics are well informed about one or other aspect of the central AGW proposition, and can show difficulties with it; they tend to argue that the failure of the orthodox to satisfy them in these domains means that the whole AGW proposition is void.

6 Opponents. AGW theory is just a scam, a sign that the Marxists have taken over the green movement, an attempt by some to construct world government, a conspiracy, a sign of lazy journalists, the effort of bankrupt governments to stay in power, etc. There is nothing to it.

I see myself as an agnostic dissenter.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Sunday, 8 May 2011 3:59:07 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
Jennifer – You marched in support of Nuclear Disarmament because of (I assume) the possibility of the destruction of our planet as we know it. You march against a carbon tax because “you don’t believe carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change” and therefore could not result in the destruction of our planet as we know it.

The overwhelming scientific evidence is that man has and is having an effect on climate. I believe the school is still out as far as the degree of its effect further down the track. It’s a bit unfair to hang Tim out to dry because of a wrong call and suggest that other unnamed scientists have been ignored. If the so called tipping point is reached there is no point in Nuclear Disarmament. Even if there is only a 50/50 chance of a man induced global climate event, don’t you think we should ere on the side of caution? Would you put your grandchildren on a plane that had a 50/50 chance of reaching its destination?

I personally believe that a carbon tax is a necessary start, but not the solution. The models that are being discussed by corporate political parties are I agree are nonsense. I believe any tax should be a consumption base one along the line suggested by Geoff Carmody.

A good idea is one that does not affect the person negatively, that thinks it’s a good idea
Posted by Producer, Sunday, 8 May 2011 4:35:05 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
All very nice Saltpetre ... but, how is it to be paid for?
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 8 May 2011 5:45:38 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 question of insurance has figured prominately in the discussion.

The case has not been made successfully that the proposed tax will cover the risk. Kind of like all those people living near a river with flood insurance finding out that only certain types of flood's were covered and not the flood they had.

The proposed tax looks like a thinly veiled wealth redistribution rather than a genuine attempt to make a difference to the environment.

If I pay for insurance I'd like to have some confidence that the insurance covers the risks that I face, not that it's doing something else entirely. I don't have that with Gillard and Swan's new tax.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 8 May 2011 7:00:54 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
Why can't the climatists just call a spade as spade?
If they want "Western", in other words White countries to pay then say outright, "We want White people to pay non white people in order that Whites can maintain their lifestyles, guilt free".
That's going to be the only practical effect, White people's cost of living will rise, so they'll find work arounds and cheats to maintain their lifestyles.
It's a fact, if something is expensive people will find a way of getting it cheaper, or in this day and age, for free and someone will always be there to find a way to corrupt the system and fill that demand for a "Black Market".
Emissions will not go down,they'll go up it doesn't matter how much we end up having to pay, you can put all the green schemes you want but they will just end up being corrupted to serve the Capitalists.
The compensation and aid to Third world countries will be stolen by corrupt officials and laundered back into the global banking system, just like it is now.
Like most people I don't have a problem with changing my lifestyle if it's going to be cheaper, healthier and give my children a better future.It can be done, members of my own family live totally off the grid, self sufficient in power and water,with extremely efficient dwellings.This simple life coupled with a good wage from full time work results in a very agreeable lifestyle, which is close to and in harmony with nature.
But where's the model for that transition?
No, seriously, base load green power is feasible, all the technological innovations we need to lead sustainable lives can be implemented today, what's more as the "water crisis" proved the will to change and tighten our belts is there too.
Yet all we hear about are ways to tweak the current system, about wealth redistribution, "racism", "rich" countries and "poor" countries, White guilt and prophecies of doom.

What's the real Green agenda?
Control over the existing system of inequality or progress toward a new one?
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 8 May 2011 7:04:08 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
bonmot,

What's more important? Getting someone to Mars, Branson making flights beyond the ionosphere available to mere citizens, Oz making it back to a surplus budget a year early, a few extra bucks in the bank for a rainy day, OR a global technological push to bring the Third World into the First World?

What is the fight against terrorism costing? Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea... armaments, armies, security agencies..? Poverty, avian flu', swine flu', SARS, AIDS, ...?

What's it worth to ensure global food security, to contain world population within workable limits, to extend reasonable quality of life to the whole global community?

How easily we get distracted from the main game. A little while back we had concern for world forests, whales, oceanic pollution, pulp mills and dioxins, the environment, world over-population. Now CO2. All part of the same game, the main game, imbalance and inequity.

We have a GFC and go nuts about it. Third World = perpetual GFC.

Copenhagen failed, maybe because the vision was too narrow. An opportunity lost for forging a global future.

All too hard? A global vision to eliminate poverty, illiteracy, conflict, imbalance. A few bucks per head to the First World now, an age of discontent, uncertainty and enmity later.

Short answer = hip pocket, but unlike Lotto, if a global vision prevails, we all win. What can we do? Keep the noise going until someone listens.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 8 May 2011 7:48:43 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
Meanwhile the Arctic sea-ice is shrinking, melting or thinning while before and after photos of retreating glaciers can be found on Google images.
Is it carbon in the atmosphere, too many people on the planet, or just part of a misunderstood natural cycle?
Does our war-without-end have anything to do with it?
And by 'it' I mean what appears to be the unarguable proposition that global weather is becoming more extreme.
An answer might be in the winds.
Consider a pot of water coming to the boil. Next consider the air over that pot. As the water heats, the air over it becomes agitated.
Now consider the oceans. Does a tiny increase in the water's temperature equate to a tiny increase in the movement of the air over that water?
The more and bigger storms everywhere have to be coming from somewhere.
And what effect will a carbon tax in Australia have on any of the above?
No answers here, only questions.
Posted by halduell, Monday, 9 May 2011 12:42:39 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
Saltpetre: "What's it worth to ensure global food security, to contain world population within workable limits, to extend reasonable quality of life to the whole global community?"

Obviously it's worth a great deal to all of us, and if you all just want to band together and pay me a trillion dollars I will wave my magic wand and make it happen.

And once you understand why you don't believe I can do it, you will understand our attitude to the AGW alarmists.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 9 May 2011 7:00:51 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
Saltpetre, agree with all you say, but ... paradigm shifts don't happen overnight.

In the mean time, it would be prudent to adapt to a changing climate and taking steps to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

It's going to cost (in more ways than one) everyone; some thing, some time, some where. We may as well start now by 'pricing carbon'.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 9 May 2011 9:34:50 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
bonmot, except I cannot see what pricing carbon will do aside from getting us used to be taxed, additionally for energy .. we already pay tax when we earn money, pay tax when we buy fuel, then you want more tax depending on our socioeconomic circumstance .. Yes?

So what's the good of it?

If we want to fund R&D, we do that now.

What's the point of a very specific tax being paid this way?

How is that adapting?

We just have to pay the tax, there is a point at which we cannot use less fuel, energy without impacting our quality of life .. so we won't do it, which means, we just pay the tax without it having any effect on lifestyle, it will not change our behavior.

So what's the point?

If we resent it, then the next party that comes along and says, we'll do away with it, will get voted in.

It's a short sighted attempt at a fix and does nothing except make the eco virtuous feel good, the rest of us think it is a waste and a con. Argue if you like, but that's the feeling of the community . and if Gillards propaganda squad and all the money spent as rpg says, is not changing opinion, in fact the opposite ..

so again, what's the good of it?
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 9 May 2011 10:40:56 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
Insurance is voluntary. Carbon tax is not going to be voluntary.

Why not let all those who really believe in man made global warming join up Julia's little charade and let all of us who don't believe in this nonsense to get on with our lives.
Why should I pay for someone else's beliefs. Anyone with a brain can see that this is a ploy to get into our pockets again. Most sensible people know that the United Nations is a vacuum for sucking money from those who have worked hard for it and their elite members then dip into the funds for their own benefit.
They must think that they have managed to dumb us all down. They have done a pretty good job in the universities and schools, but there are still some of us around who are a wake up to the bulldust.
Posted by 4freedom, Monday, 9 May 2011 12:23:26 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
Whether insurance is voluntary or no, the insurance business is quite hard-nosed and dislikes losing money. This is why the international insurance community is taking climate science seriously, and accepting the linked proposition that climate is changing, and that human activity can mitigate this. The CEO of Munich Re (Australasia), Heinrich Eder, who is also a Director of the Insurance Council of Australia, says: "It’s nothing new to say that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. While we have climate change already, what we do today is crucial for future generations. Swift international action is urgently needed, and therefore a truly international agreement with stringent emission reductions and a broad participation by the main emitters is a critical part of the success."
Posted by nicco, Monday, 9 May 2011 1:03:14 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
nicco "This is why the international insurance community is taking climate science seriously, and accepting the linked proposition that climate is changing, and that human activity can mitigate this."

nice twist, well done mate - now I understand why the eco alarmist movement is all about .. why did I not realize this before

We can mitigate climate change! We can stop the climate changing, it's not as if human activity might or might not be adding to it, we're way past that aren't we? (and into the land of eco alarmist fairy tales)

So the conclusion is that without human activity, there would be no climate change .. of course, it's so obvious

do you ever wonder why AGW and eco alarmism is losing traction? I'm sending this to a bunch of friends, they will LOL at the reasoning of the alarmist. Do you think the Australian public, listening to idiot reasoning like this, wonders whether our hard earned money should be quarantined from the fools who want to play silly buggers?

The longer this goes on though, the more hilarious and stupid the alarmist lobby gets.
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 9 May 2011 1:17:08 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
bonmot and Amicus,

Paradigm shift v Carbon tax.

Carbon tax is no answer, particularly if Oz is odd man out and everyone impacted is reimbursed.

If a tax is applied to coal, oil, gas at point of origin, thereby increasing production costs to all users, we will all pay. If the tax is applied at direct user level, we will all pay. Left at that, where is there a compelling incentive to reduce consumption or to invest in green alternatives? It will be harder for manufacturers to compete with imported product, so will they invest in alternative methods, or just ship their enterprise overseas? Household consumers may try initially to reduce consumption, but how long could that last? Immediate increase in CPI, calls for wage and salary increases - back to square 1. If Oz producers and households are given tax breaks or subsidies to offset higher costs, it all goes back, but below, square 1. No-one wins.

Alternative: Step 1. Stop wood chipping, and establish local and international re-afforestation fund - to pay for replanting and establishment of a mass plantation timber industry worldwide (could save Amazon rain forest, heritage environments, etc); Step 2. Invest in agricultural sequestration - which can increase food production efficiency at the same time; Step 3. Set future industry emission targets and provide tax breaks, subsidies and grants to bolster investment in renewables, low-emission and low-consumption technologies and investment in offsets; Step 4. Review world manufacturing and food production and foster shifting of both to areas of lowest emission footprint - third world agriculture, increased use of hydro and solar powered industry; Step 5. Assist Third World to establish local biomass electricity facilities.

Who will pay for forest fund? All First World governments - us included, on a national emissions scale. Ditto to pay for the rest. How will the First World benefit? Reduced food and consumer product prices, increased food and product manufacturing efficiencies, reduced carbon footprint, reduced world poverty and inequity, reduced world conflict.

Can it happen? Yes we can!
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 9 May 2011 1:24:41 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
Once again Amicus demonstrates a failure to understand even the basics of climate science, and resorts to abuse to make his point.

Amicus, try and understand: climate naturally changes, and always has. Human civilisations have developed during a short and relatively stable geological period, the holocene, which favours human activities such as cropping and pastoralism.

Basic physics tells us that carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere, has always had a 'greenhouse' effect, which maintains the stability of the global temperature. Human activities since the Industrial Revolution have changed the composition of the atmosphere, adding CO2. This is having an effect on global climate, as extra heat is trapped in the atmosphere. This is happening on top of normal climate variation and on top of the natural greenhouse effect. And, yes, it is possible for us to mitigate this added effect by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Posted by nicco, Monday, 9 May 2011 1:42:02 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
nicco .. that's not what you said and you know it .. try to understand, people who make statement such as, humans can stop climate change .. deserve to be ridiculed.

the greenhouse effect you speak of .. is questionable, and is questioned often, I'm sure you'll find some alarmist site to counter that, but that's just a Google war isn't it .. so I won't bother

I posted to respond to the hysterical statement you made is rubbish as I have stated, "that humans can stop climate change", which is what you said .. and it's stupid .. nothing more
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 9 May 2011 1:55:28 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
Nicco I thought I explained that Insurance Companies have a vested interest in puffing up scare stories and premiums but you must be a slow learner mate!
As the US humourist Will Rogers said "Do not ask your barber if you need a haircut!" The CEO of an insurance Company will say anything to justify him making more money out of you. Do not be such a sap for goodness sake!
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 9 May 2011 8:55:52 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
A clearer demonstration you couldn't ask for: Amicus fails to understand the simple concept that human beings, by their activities, can mitigate climate change (having, by their activities, caused it in the first place). Of course that's not ALL climate change, but that proportion of climate change which has been added to natural variability.

I'm not sure why JBowyer is so cynical about the insurance industry. Of course, insurance is big business, and hates to lose money by being forced to pay out when there are disasters which fall outside their routine actuarial calculations. But none of that is in any way surprising. What is significant is that the number-crunchers of the insurance industry have concluded that climate change and its consequential unstable weather do pose a real risk. That is, a risk of loss to insurance companies. This makes them anxious ...
Posted by nicco, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:25:36 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
nicco finally gets it, that his exaggeration is what I was calling his attention to. "Of course that's not ALL climate change, but that proportion of climate change which has been added to natural variability."

thank you nicco, but why did it take so long to back down from the wildly exaggerated hysterics .. don't answer it would only be more obfuscation I'm sure.

On the subject of undoing what has been done, I don't believe science, and especially climate science is far enough advanced to be able to claim that any additional change caused by man, can be undone, and certainly not by a tax. You clearly know better, you genius you, and know it can be .. I'd like to nominate you for a Nobel Prize .. oh wait, have you published?

Is CO2 a problem, that's the question, yes there is more, but why is the temperature not skyrocketing as per the various models?

Perhaps it's not CO2, and something else not yet discovered by an immature science? This is the skeptics dilemma, and why we do not subscribe to the alarmists, like yourself, blather about taxation being the solution to a physical situation, which you cal a problem, and are panicking.

Not everyone sees a warming planet as a problem, nor does everyone have the hubris of being able to change the temperature at will, and even more amusing, with money.

Anyway, being able to reverse man's effect as you claim, could we ask you to possibly demonstrate this on a much smaller and trivial scale?

Unmake an omelet, please. (not everything is as simple as you seem to think it is, is it?)
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 12 May 2011 9:10:08 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
Another farrago of non-sequiturs from Amicus. Please try and concentrate.

Basic physics shows that CO2 affects the radiation of heat.
No one disputes natural climate variability.
Human activities have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Observation and measurement have shown a global warming trend.
Cutting greenhouse emissions would not cause cooling, because the extra CO2 is already in the atmosphere and there is a long lag time.
Cutting greenhouse emissions would help prevent further warming.
A small temperature increase may have large effects, as the oceans and the atmosphere gain energy.

Which of these simple statements do you dispute? And if you dispute it or them, can you refute it/them?
Posted by nicco, Monday, 16 May 2011 3:45:10 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
Doing the Maths on CO2 Reduction
One drop of food colouring in 50 liters of water is one part per million – 1ppm. The volume of a glass marble is 1.525 cubic centimetres.

According to those who believe manmade CO2 is the source of global warming the total CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 317ppm to 387ppm over the last 50 years. (Now up to 389 since the big volcano in Europe). The accepted figure for the annual manmade contribution to global CO2 emissions is 3.2% of the 387ppm or 12.4ppm compared to the 375ppm emitted by the oceans and other natural sources.
Australia allegedly emits 1% of the world's manmade CO2; that’s 1% of the 3.2% manmade CO2 going into the atmosphere. The government wants to reduce this amount by 20% by 2020.
To put this in a visual perspective if the global atmosphere was contained a room 2.75m x 2.75m x 2.0 meters in size, roughly the size of a small bedroom, the amount of atmospheric CO2 in the room would be the size of 387 glass marbles on the floor. The manmade contribution would be 12.4 of the marbles and Australia’s contribution about 1/8th of one marble.
The Australian Government’s proposed 20% reduction in CO2 emissions over the next 10 years at 2% per annum would be the equivalent of 25/1000ths of one marble.
How can anyone seriously believe such a miniscule reduction will have any impact on global warming or justify support for a carbon emissions tax when it’s very likely the major contributors will fail to make any significant reductions?

The carbon tax agenda is just a government money grab, they may as well tax the air.
Posted by sbr108, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 6:47:50 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
sbr108 Well spotted Sir, thats exactly what the government are doing, taxing the air, well a part of it anyway. Water is also going the same way.
Nico, pay attention, the Insurance industry have a vested interest in increasing premiums this nonsense you and you mates preach plays right into their hands. Also mate I have been around long enough to know what the insurance companies are capable of.
Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 7:20:56 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
Well put, sbr108. This is the first time anyone has tried to put this issue really into perspective. A magical clarification. Congratulations, and thank you.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 8:24:33 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
>> Doing the Maths on CO2 Reduction

It is well known that people find it hard to understand very small and very large numbers - and hence climate change deniers exploit this to make it seem like small amounts can't have much effect (ignoring positive and negative feedback loops which may amplify an initial input).

Try this short quiz and then please reconsider your "small numbers" I have tried to stick to parts per ?? as standard units.

1. What is the concentration of ozone molecules in the ozone layer (in parts per million)?

2. What is the concentration of Chlorine molecules in the ozone layer that are depleting it (in similar units as above)?
If you can find data on the sub-types of chlorine molecules that are man made (vs naturally occurring) - you get bonus marks!
Posted by daviddriscoll, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 9:55:36 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
"Climate change deniers" I hate that term. The Believers can't handle the idea individuals might research the available information, balance it and come to a conclusion that differs from the IPCC's propaganda. So they create the name 'Deniers' and present it as though anyone with that viewpoint is evil.

Carbon is not pollution! The world has been warming since the last ice age, and more so since the mini ice age a couple hundred years ago.

To the Believers I say consider these facts in the big picture - (1) it is much easier to live in a warm climate than an extremely cold climate. (2) Your concerns over the effects of warmer temperatures on future generations pale in comparison to what the impacts of population growth over the same period will be. (3) Australia has not created the so-called problem so why should Australians be expected to accept a tax that won't bring one iota of change to the climate. (4) not even the climate scientists who believe in man-made global warming are blaming climate change for the recent extreme weather, earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters. (5) The current Government has proven it cannot manage one single program efficiently or without some kind wasteful use of tax payers money. ($350 for a set-top box most recently) Do you really trust them to use the funds gained from a carbon tax in a beneficial way?

In my view anyone who supports the carbon tax is either ill informed, gullible, brain washed, far to 'politically correct' or possibly just plain stupid.
Posted by sbr108, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 7:26:07 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
sbr108 first "does some maths" (I use the term lightly) without demonstrating s/he understands the science.

sbr108's last paragraph is more enlightening, though:

>> In my view anyone who supports the carbon tax is either ill informed, gullible, brain washed, far to 'politically correct' or possibly just plain stupid. <<

sbr108 demonstrates that science has got nothing to do with the "debate" (despite some so called "research" on his/her part) ... it's all about political ideology and socio-cultural point scoring.

sbr108 would do much better (and gain more credence) if sbr108 could constructlively add to the debate we have to have, rather than parroting strawman arguments, invoking ire and invective, and raising the negativity bar that "opponents" (for want of a better term) are now so well known for.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 8:38:55 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
Maybe those who don't like my calculations can point out what is wrong with the figures.
Posted by sbr108, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 8:52:48 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
nicco I'm not here to be interogated by you, nor do I care for your silly little quiz

But I remain amused, as you clearly do not understand what you claim, that we can mitigate climate change ..

""This is why the international insurance community is taking climate science seriously, and accepting the linked proposition that climate is changing, and that human activity can mitigate this.""

of course, now you have tried what, 4 times to squirm around and not address this

come on nicco, how are you going to mitigate climate change?

No one else claims this, but you seem to have the answers ..let's hear them, or will we get more twisted questions and quiz's instead of answers?
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 11:52:19 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
Amicus, What are you going on about? It is irrefutable that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are in higher concentrations in the atmosphere now than they were before the industrial revolution, and that current levels exceed those measured in studies of the ice-cores representing conditions in previous stable interglacial periods. Ok, it's a matter of degree, but the world's oceans are already starting to show signs of movement towards destructive conditions, whereby some or our significant marine systems will be under threat of complete collapse. Do you appreciate the potential consequences of inaction?

What can we do? We can take action to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gasses. The why? This has been covered extensively, and should be obvious by now. The how? At this point there is only one viable option, and that will necessarily involve the conservation and rationing of fossil fuels - because simply planting trees and conserving existing forests will be insufficient, though this should still be promoted for long term maintenance.

Our question remains, the bigger how? An Oz carbon tax, or a global renaissance? It has been clearly pointed out that our action alone will achieve virtually nothing - except that a C Tax would be punitive, counter-productive, and entirely without justification. So, is the world to go to hell in a hand-basket, in unbridled stampede to industrial growth, or can sense prevail?

We and the world have a choice - reign back development, or invest massively in alternative non-fossil energy to counter the impacts of continued development. China has been moving in this direction - and no C Tax. We in Oz have an opportunity - we are riding on a wave of mineral resource exploitation, which could fuel our movement to sustainable energy. But, are we taking this opportunity? No! We are embarking on a C Tax! How ludicrous is this? I am simply staggered.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 3:51:53 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
SBR108 please do my quiz and see - just because numbers are small doesn't mean that they aren't significant!

>"Climate change deniers" I hate that term. <

Why, it seperates the people who don't things are changing (regardless of the cause).

>The Believers can't handle the idea individuals might research the available information, balance it and come to a conclusion that differs from the IPCC's propaganda. So they create the name 'Deniers' and present it as though anyone with that viewpoint is evil.<

Not evil, just uniformed - have you read the IPCC reports? Could you name 3-4 of the highest profile "believers" documents have you read to form part of your balancing acts?

>Carbon is not pollution!<

Basic chemistry will tell you that ANYTHING can be present in too high a concentration and be problematic - water, calcium, thyroid hormones etc etc And I think we're talking about carbon dioxide - let's not go off an create an Alan Jones strawman :-)

>The world has been warming since the last ice age, and more so since the mini ice age a couple hundred years ago.<

Scientists would disagree - could you quote a few peer-reviewed sources to support please?
Posted by daviddriscoll, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 7:26:34 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
>To the Believers I say consider these facts in the big picture - (1) it is much easier to live in a warm climate than an extremely cold climate. <

Doesn't make the science wrong because it may not have much of an effect on YOUR life!

(2) Your concerns over the effects of warmer temperatures on future generations pale in comparison to what the impacts of population growth over the same period will be.

Doesn't make the science wrong and I think most people would agree that acting on this would have a much shorter 'lag' than climate change

(3) Australia has not created the so-called problem so why should Australians be expected to accept a tax that won't bring one iota of change to the climate.

Because we are part of a world economy that will, because we do contribute with our exports, because funding industry we may be able to make money seeling technology overseas (a novel idea, just not selling our natural resources!)

(4) not even the climate scientists who believe in man-made global warming are blaming climate change for the recent extreme weather, earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters.

Not directly, but will increase the incidence and severity, though not totally responsible for a single event - bad arguement

(5) The current Government has proven it cannot manage one single program efficiently or without some kind wasteful use of tax payers money. ($350 for a set-top box most recently) Do you really trust them to use the funds gained from a carbon tax in a beneficial way?

Doesn't make the science wrong!
Posted by daviddriscoll, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 7:26:55 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
Jennifer - could you please tell me where "Tim Flannery wrote in New Scientist that because of global warming the dams would never fill again - not even when it rained. "

I've found this link, but he doesn't quite say that in this article.

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm

Could it be another article - couldn't find one searching the New Science database/

Thanks
Posted by daviddriscoll, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 7:38:55 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
Years ago I believed all the global warming clap trap espoused by Green Peace and thought the world governments were conspiring to protect big business and corporate profits at the expense to polluting the planet and caring less about future generations. Some of the latter may well be true but the more I read the more I have doubts about CO2 being the cause of the warming.

Now there appears to be a defiant stand against common sense by the western governments.

I've come to my conclusion based on the available information. I haven't read every peer-reviewed scientific paper written on the subject but there are certainly enough summaries of those papers available to make an informed decision.

No one has forced this upon me, I have no vested interest, and yes, I am distrustful of the Labour Gov't based on their track record since Rudd was elected. The fiasco in Copenhagen was the icing on the cake along with the leaked IPCC documents.

There is a very good video on YouTube by a climate scientist named Bob Carter from Queensland that was the first evidence I saw that got me rethinking my belief about global warming. Just enter Bob Carter Climate Change in you tube to see it.

To anyone quoting articles from New Scientist you might be interested to see what Wikipedia has to say: "As well as covering current events and news from the scientific community, the magazine often features speculative articles, ranging from the technical to the philosophical. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal and also regularly includes features, news and commentary on environmental issues, such as climate change."

I do not have a personal connection or affiliation with any environmental group or agency so I have nothing to gain from coming to my own conclusions. I also don't feel the need to play games by answering your quiz David.

By the way, are you the same Mr David Driscoll, Committee Clerk. Standing Committee on Environment & Public Affairs. Parliament House. Perth WA
Posted by sbr108, Thursday, 19 May 2011 7:18:40 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
>I've come to my conclusion based on the available information. I haven't read every peer-reviewed scientific paper written on the subject but there are certainly enough summaries of those papers available to make an informed decision.<

Great, so could you suggest a few of the best in your opinion?

> The fiasco in Copenhagen was the icing on the cake along with the leaked IPCC documents.<

Leaked IPCC documents? Please tell me you're not talking about the East Anglia emails?

> There is a very good video on YouTube by a climate scientist named Bob Carter from Queensland that was the first evidence I saw that got me rethinking my belief about global warming. Just enter Bob Carter Climate Change in you tube to see it.<

I will, what about peer reviewed articles though? The way real science is practices with back and forth comments debated points?

>To anyone quoting articles from New Scientist <

The blog author was quoting New Scientist to make her point!

>I also don't feel the need to play games by answering your quiz David.<

Play games? just a simple exercise, would you like me to give you the answers or are you just not interested in seeing how really small amounts of things can make a huge difference?

>By the way, are you the same Mr David Driscoll, Committee Clerk. Standing Committee on Environment & Public Affairs. Parliament House. Perth WA<

Nope Exercise Physioologist and Dietitan from Sydney, also with no vested interests!
Posted by daviddriscoll, Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:14:49 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
Obviously David we have differing viewpoints. You are not going to change my opinion anymore than I will change yours.

I don't see why you think I have to answer your questions. No matter who or what I quote won't be good enough. You do not seem to see the bigger picture or the other forces at work. A carbon tax is not going to prevent climate change, face up to the fact.

Being against the Carbon Tax is not all about the science. There are other agendas at work. Man-made climate change is a theory that has support from a group of scientists many of whom also have politcical ties and agendas. Peer-viewed maybe used to mean something but when its only a bunch of insiders reviewing each others papers and excluding dissent, as is the case with the IPPC and East Anglia, it doesn't carry the same weight.

David, believe what you want. I will continue to argue against the introduction of a carbon tax and useless exercises from the government that interfere with my life.

Thank you for making it possible to express my viewpoints in ways I would't have without your prodding. In the end people have to decide what they believe on their own. Maybe this discussion will benefit someone other than us.
Posted by sbr108, Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:45:57 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
>You are not going to change my opinion anymore than I will change yours.<

But you did change your mind (and it's sad that you are saying you are not going to change it again), you claimed based on evidence, all I am doing is asking for that evidence (and hoping that it is more than a youtube video).

>I don't see why you think I have to answer your questions.<

You don't, but I'm trying to answer yours, i.e. "How can anyone seriously believe such a miniscule reduction will have any impact on global warming". I'll give you the answers since you seem to have an aversion to participating in answering your own question!

Ozone molecule concentration (that forms the protective ozone layer) is in the order of 100 parts per million - similar range to CO2 (I know it is closer to 400 but it's within that range), and thus similar analogies to pools of water, volumes of air, rulers etc. Yes, such a small concentration protects us from large amounts of UV radiation, it's relatively low concentration says nothing about its effectiveness.

The concentration of damaging Chlorine, in the range of 100 parts per Billion! Yes billion with a B, one thousand times less than the minute ozone concentration, yet something so small is literally destroying a protective layer - small numbers matter. Countless other examples include concentrations of minerals and hormones in the blood!

So will you at least concede this point, it doesn't mean that everything else you believe is false - but small number can matter and the silly analogy doesn't disprove all of the other types of evidence.

>No matter who or what I quote won't be good enough. <

Oh please, try me, the only criteria I set was peer-reviewed. If the evidence is not peer-reviewed, then I ask that you simply say so, and not say you have it but don't want to share.

>You do not seem to see the bigger picture or the other forces at work. <

No I don't
Posted by daviddriscoll, Thursday, 19 May 2011 9:10:21 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
>A carbon tax is not going to prevent climate change, face up to the fact.<

A totally different arguement from denying that the climate is changing based on man-made CO2. I know NOTHING about economics so I don't even have a weak opinion on what should be done, but in terms of the background science, I think it is very clear that SOMETHING needs to be done.

>Being against the Carbon Tax is not all about the science. <

Agreed, it's economics, which I assume is why Tim Flannery has his position and not a relevant scientist.

>There are other agendas at work. Man-made climate change is a theory that has support from a group of scientists many of whom also have politcical ties and agendas. Peer-viewed maybe used to mean something but when its only a bunch of insiders reviewing each others papers and excluding dissent, as is the case with the IPPC and East Anglia, it doesn't carry the same weight.<

Try this most recent surveying RELEVANTLY PUBLISHED scientists and their opinions (which also references previous papers - as does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change - and yes I follow the references). I think you are misrepresenting the numbers claiming that they are anything but an overwhelming majority, far from a bunch of insiders!

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20566872 (can get the entire free article here via a link)

> I will continue to argue against the introduction of a carbon tax and useless exercises from the government that interfere with my life. <

Which again could mean that arguing on an economic basis (there is a better solution) or denying that any steps are necessary because it isn't happening (or even that we can't stop)
Posted by daviddriscoll, Thursday, 19 May 2011 9:11:55 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

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