Heh, the ol "climate hysteric has no idea so lets compare to tobacco" furhpy..
via peterc005;
In terms of Public Policy, you should consider comparing the Carbon Tax with the taxes on Tobacco.
Initially the negative health impact of smoking was not recognised. When the first research emerged relating smoking with serious diseases such as cancer the big Tobacco companies resisted this and tried to discredit the research.
Eventually the government recognised the negative health impacts of smoking and took steps to discourage smoking, such as restricting access to tobacco to minors and adding taxes.
Taxing something makes it more expensive and will directly reduce it's demand.
I don't recall what happened at the time, but I imagine smokers complained about the cost and how it was impinging on their ability to enjoy smoking.
This approach worked, and the levels of tobacco consumption have been falling in Australia for decades.
I don't think any rational person would argue about the idea of discouraging tobacco consumption, although assuming rationality in anonymous internet forums may be futile.
Climate change is a scientifically proven fact, backed by more than two decades of peer-reviewed academic research.
Reducing carbon emissions should help to mitigate climate change.
Putting a tax on carbon should reduce carbon emissions by making it more expensive and encouraging alternatives.
Looking back now, we can say public policy decisions made decades ago to reduce tobacco consumption were obvious and wide.
I suggest that, while not everyone will agree now, in decades to come taxing carbon emissions to reduce the pressure on global warming will be viewed in a similar light.
Well, ah used to be a pack and a half a day man until i stopped 30 odd years ago... so i geuss like many posters here i gots some personal experience of the mater.
"...tried to discredit the research..."
peterc005, ask any of our top physical sports athlets how much they smoke. Think you will find none.
Anyone who has ever taken up smoking will tell you smoking affects physical performance - yer dont need to be a scientist to know that. If its affecting physical performance you wonder what else its doing to yer body.
Regarding the known medically proven health effects, well we all seen them
research proof photos of tarred lungs... we all seen them heavy smokin relatives/freinds dying of lung cancer... we all seen that GOOD HARD EVIDENCE. Smoking is bad fer you, and most current smokers will tell yer that.
"...Climate change is a scientifically proven fact, backed by more than two decades of peer-reviewed academic research..."
Yer dont know much about the subject do ya
peterc005. I have asked you before to produce the scientific 'proof' for AGW and i'm still waiting..
As to the 'fact' that CO2
by itself is a green house gas, well thats been known fer about 150 years -
Not two decades.
Gettin back to the smoking compare... The medical claims that smoking is bad fer you is backed up by good solid real world proof that most people on the planet have personal experience of or can see right there in front of them - PROOF.
The IPCC claims the science of AGW is proven via computer models (models of the garbage in garbage out type) showing ever increasing world temps. The famous, and
corrupt, IPCC
Hocky stick graph was supposed to be the real world proof. The
real world observations of earths temperatures do
NOT back up the computer models - FACT.
.