CARBON TAX-It's Started!

[Captain Dart]

You seem to be a fount of knowledge, Dutch. Every time I take off out of my home port in Australia for my 'overnight horror' flights north, there is a line of red blinking lights on the horizon delineating a row of huge wind powered turbines.

These things are monsters. Apart from their visual abomination on the landscape, danger to birds (and even aircraft), noise to local residents etc, they obviously require a huge amount of steel, concrete and other metals to construct; and of course, transport to site, energy involved in erection, and ongoing maintenance.

My question: how long does it take for these things to repay the 'energy debt' involved in the processing of their construction materials from raw products, their installation, and their ongoing maintenance?

[Lodown]

Well Canada is about to announce that it is pulling out of any Kyoto agreement, following the USA, Brazil and Russia. Durban's turning out to be a dud. Now that the UK has suddenly discovered a shipload of natural gas and has access with frakking, I wonder how long before the UK turns its back on climate change too. Served its purpose when oil and coal had to be purchased overseas. Different policy entirely when there are enormous energy sources right under the home soil.

Good job Australia! Just when the main players are pulling out, Australia jumps in head first. Tell me who we are supposed to be trading carbon credits with again? It won't be long before the entire country is riding solely on the backs of the miners and the farmers. Any other exporting industry will be gone.

"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html)

And another recent climate change hit. The wheels are falling off the fear jalopy:
Whoo boy… just a few days ago it was argued in a new peer reviewed paper published in Science that climate sensitivity might be lower than the IPCC stated in AR4 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/25/new-study-in-science-shows-climate-sensitivity-is-overhyped/). Now we have this damning admission from Dr. Tom Wigley of NCAR that it can’t be determined at all from the data we have. Of course they’d never tell anyone publicly such things.

Wattsupwiththat (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/senior-ncar-scientist-admits-quantifying-climate-sensitivity-from-real-world-data-cannot-even-be-done-using-present-day-data/#more-52137)

[breakfastburrito]

My question: how long does it take for these things to repay the 'energy debt' involved in the processing of their construction materials from raw products, their installation, and their ongoing maintenance?
Capt Dart, there a concept of EROI- Energy Returned on Energy Invested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested) - your energy debt.

Here is a good article discussion: Energy from Wind: A Discussion of the EROI Research (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1863)

The next issue is weather a particular technology will scale. It may have a high EROI, but many renewable don't scale well.

From the discussion: Figure 3: EROI of various electric power generators.
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/244/eroi_table.JPG

[sisemen]

Transcript from Lateline last night - interview with David Murray, Chairman of the Future Fund:

ALI MOORE: Just a final question. This week starts the mark of a UN - or the UN, I should say, climate change talks in Durban. Would you describe yourself as a climate sceptic?

DAVID MURRAY: Ah, yes. A sceptic is not the word you should use when you disagree with somebody. You should say you disagree. And I don't think there is sufficient evidence to take the sort of risks that are being taken around the world. I've always thought that with the global population growing as fast as it is, that there would be real pressure on energy prices and people would correct automatically by using energy much more sparingly and that would start to self-correct - if there's a problem.

ALI MOORE: So you don't rule out there being a problem; you're just not convinced there's a problem.

DAVID MURRAY: No, but with these things one looks at probability and severity. And you look for actions you can take which would reduce the severity if the problem is there. But if we're not certain that the problem's there, then we don't - we shouldn't take actions which have a high severity the other way.


My bolding.

[Jabawocky]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaberwocky
His words are CO2 is a clourless, odourless and naturally occurring gas that is a benefice to life.

Jabberwocky, if you're going to gaze into your crystal ball and attempt to determine where I got the info from that Bob Carter relates CO2 not being harmful to being colourless and odourless, it would behove you to ask me first so that you don't come up with the wrong source, as you just have.

Opinion Piece, Bob Carter, October 5th 2011, The Daily Climate (http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/10/opinion-stick-to-science)

"carbon dioxide is not toxic, nor a pollutant, but rather a colorless, odourless and tasteless gas essential for life on earth"
Ahhh now you are quoting him in full context........and it differs in its inference to that which you posted previously :=. By the way a few subtle differences in words is acceptable, the ones I quoted were first hand, but hiw written words are almost identical. So stick to the full story shall we ;)

As for crystal balls........mate your comments are all aligned with the references I used, just because you have not seen the "Inconvenient Lie" does not mean you are not preaching along party lines so to speak.

As for Oxygen toxicity, yeah sure for a short period, but for how long? No problem, but after a while that much larger concentration of a good thing is bad. But you go on to ask.....
Do you understand that something may be detrimental in some ways yet not in others? ..... Well that is the whole point. And a bit more CO2 is actually good. Agriculture has benefitted significantly over the last 50 or so years, it is a benefit.

They haven't "done the opposite". They have risen at a slower rate for a decade.Ahhh you need to stop studying facts in isolation again.

Here are some graphs that need to be understood. Look at the temperature record for a "climate bink of an eye" or 30 years, just so happens that is also how long satellite data has been recorded.

Now lets take the stance of the AGW's for a minute use this raph and draw a line of best fit into it, CO2 has risen 15% over this time, and yes you could say....see the CO2 has caused the warming.
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/30yrswithCO2.jpg


But remember, testing the Hypothesis is what science is about. So if we take the first 20 year roughly with a 10% increase in CO2 and there is no change. Take the ElNino cycle into account (Solar driven) and then look at the next ten years.....and bugger me if there is no change again :hmm: yet CO2 kept rising. Do you think the CO2 had one almight slam dunk hidden in a El Nino cycle? :rolleyes:

And here are the lines of best fit, allowing for the El Nino, which climatologits regard as a step or 0.2 degree shift, but the trends either side of it are static. In fact if you best fit through the El Nimo you get a rise pre 98, and bugger me if you would not get a fall ever since.....ahh but Jaba, that shows a fall in averages if you do that, so yes lets take the climate scientists version of a peak event out of the graph so we can look at trends in the "modern era", which is after all what the greenies want to focus on, not thousands of years. So the trend is either STATIC as shown or if you include the El Nino of 98 it rose slightly and has been falling ever since.
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/30yrsTempaverages.jpg

Now you can't have your cake and eat it too, so where is the trend? it is either falling at a greater rate, or its static, but it is certainly NOT climbing at a lesser rate.

Some of the new emails are in fact identical (ie, exactly the same email, but renumbered to make it look as if they're new), but fake-sceptics, completely lacking any ability to critically examine them at all, think that they're new.Ohhh really, so you have managed to crack the passwords on the second batch? I think you will find that there is in the words of The Kelpie....More to Follow ;)

[DutchRoll]

Captain Dart, I have no idea.

Unlike others, I do not pretend to make arguments on topics about which I have no clue. I merely state the scientific facts. I do not know much about the economic facts and how these might tie into the equation. To even begin worrying about that, you have to acknowledge the scientific facts first (my opinion only).

And another recent climate change hit. The wheels are falling off the fear jalopy:
Quote:
Whoo boy… just a few days ago it was argued in a new peer reviewed paper published in Science that climate sensitivity might be lower than the IPCC stated in AR4.

Thankyou lodown. I was wondering just yesterday how long it would take for a "sceptic" to pin that one up here. One of the problems with fake-sceptics is that they read the headlines, but not the article, even when their very own source undermines their basic arguments that global warming is not an issue! So I'm curious - why exactly would you link to a Wattasupwiththat article which actually links to a science news article and peer-reviewed paper that quite clearly concludes that it is happening and it will be a serious problem, but that we just have a little more time to deal with it?

The lead scientist of this study is Professor Andreas Schmittner, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University and he has very good scientific credentials. So what does Professor Schmittner have to say about his own study? And why are sceptics ignoring what Schmittner says about his own paper when they post the headlines up? I think we're about to find out why.......:hmm:

Schmittner:

“When we first looked at the paleoclimatic data, I was struck by the small cooling of the ocean,” Schmittner said. “On average, the ocean was only about two degrees (Celsius) cooler than it is today, yet the planet was completely different – huge ice sheets over North America and northern Europe, more sea ice and snow, different vegetation, lower sea levels and more dust in the air.

“It shows that even very small changes in the ocean’s surface temperature can have an enormous impact elsewhere, particularly over land areas at mid- to high-latitudes,” he added.

Schmittner said continued unabated fossil fuel use could lead to similar warming of the sea surface as reconstruction shows happened between the Last Glacial Maximum and today.

"Hence, drastic changes over land can be expected,” he said. “However, our study implies that we still have time to prevent that from happening, if we make a concerted effort to change course soon.”

Now lodown, I have sat here and read, and re-read, and re-re-read that article and Schmittner's accompanying paper a few times over, and I cannot for the life of me figure out how it supports the sceptical argument that:

a) global warming isn't happening
b) if it is, it's not a big deal

Can anyone, anyone at all on Pprune, explain to me why a sceptic would post a link stating that "the wheels are falling off" that then proceeds to undermines their entire argument? :confused:

[DutchRoll]

Now you can't have your cake and eat it too, so where is the trend? it is either falling at a greater rate, or its static, but it is certainly NOT climbing at a lesser rate.

Aaah, the famous Bob Carter straight flat line trend graph.

Look carefully at the graph. There is no possible way that you can get a flat line as a trend on that graph. How Carter did it is still a mystery to pretty much everyone except himself, because if you do a proper trend analysis on the data you get something more like this:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/2lines.jpg

Once again, I can't explain how Carter gets a flat line trend out of data which doesn't give a flat line trend. You'll have to ask him that. Needless to say that chart originates from a powerpoint presentation to two extremely "non-neutral" lobby groups. It does not exist in any scientifically peer-reviewed paper by Carter, and there's probably a good reason for that. :)

And if you want to see for yourself, you can go to woodfortrees.org and plot the UAH data trends. Woodfortrees.org uses the actual data, and uses a C++ software routine to plot trends over the data. Go on. Go there, select UAH data, and give it a try. Tell me if you can massage it into a flat line trend. I bet you can't, because no-one else (except Carter) can!

[flyingfox]

Sisemen. What's with the David Murray quote from Lateline? He is just another observer. No scientific data was included by this former banker. Just his opinion. He is no more able to assess scientific material than any other non scientist. His field is financial investment.

[Jabawocky]

UAH data you wanted? :ugh:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif

Look familiar, and leaving the El Nino in and using a different graphing method, look what we get? :hmm:

Now Wood for Trees is interesting, not used that site before, but here is my first crack at it. I picked the since 2000 data set, wanted the last 10 years, did not do any fancy fiddling with the data and look what it did :eek:

You were right........I found it very hard to get a FLAT LINE, Carter is selling us short, he is erring on the AGW side, I have been betrayed :D:}

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/Graph10years.jpg

Of course on a more compressed scale, that line will appear to be flatter, and lets be frank, when you consider the vertical axis and think about 2 degrees being the "greenies" benchmark, I think Carters flat line is probably more fair game. I think you will agree ;)

Now stop giving me ammo to shoot back at ya! I am enjoying it too much.:ok:

So now we all agree using DutchRolls preferred data and processing tool that the last 10 years it has become cooler......despite rising CO2. I wonder does this mean The Science is Settled:E.

[sisemen]

Sisemen. What's with the David Murray quote from Lateline?

Simples. This thread is, or should be, about the political nature of the climate change scam. Hence the title "Carbon Tax - It's Started". There is a perfectly adequate thread running in JB which discusses the merits/demerits of the "science".

So, the quote from David Murray, an eminent economist, gives the warning that the severity of the actions leapt upon by some governments far outweighs the perceived benefits of what may or may not be a problem anyway. And that there is, at the moment, insufficient rock solid incontrovertible evidence supporting man-made climate change.

And if an economist of that stature is telling us that we are going down the wrong track then we ought to, at least, take some note. And the bunch of rat bags currently leading our country ought not to screw us for little or no benefit.

Now, does that explain???

[Jabawocky]

Yep, funny enough the IPCC are back pedalling as slowly as they can retreat without anyone noticing. They have sold our governments a scam, and eventually it will be found wanting.

Sure, tackle pollution, tackle pesticides herbicides fertillizers in the water whatever you want, but do it based on real polution risks. As a pollutant CO2 is not one of them. In fact a bit more would be good.

Problem is folk today have no idea on what the real issue is. Global warming, the original scare mongering words are just as valid as global cooling, and of the two I know which one I would prefer.

The issue is a grossly unfair tax being placed on CO2 emissions that is applied in a most unjust manner. As I have said before, if the vast majority of the country want a carbon tax, it must be a tax applied to all energy sources equally, and NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY gets an exemption. It never gets turned over to some trading market where corruption will run rife, it goes into hospitals, schools and so on. Or to save all the added overhead of collecting such a tax, lets just ramp up the GST instead. That will cover Juliars and Kevvies little blow outs.


PS: The ABC of all people are reporting a retreat? :ooh: Global warming rate less than feared › News in Science (ABC Science) (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/11/25/3376365.htm)

[Frank Arouet]

The ABC are the propaganda arm of The Labor Party. I wouldn't read too much into anything they say because it will only be a prelude to something a spindoctor is about to say. Perhaps the "media inquiry" should start with examining them.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Mr 'airsupport'.....

Reur - 'Tony is doing the right thing IMHO, instead of waiting for the start of the next election campaign he is warning now that after the next election he will remove the carbon tax, so IF business has any sense they will not get into it.'

Not without the SENATE he won't = CANNOT!!

And he cannot get 'control' of the Senate until.......

:{:{

Whilst in the Grand Junction area of the Good Ole US recently, it is claimed there that there was more than 3 times the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere in dem dere days of de dinosaurs....'cause there was a heck of a lot more foliage then = jungle everywhere..??

'Cause de CO2 causes de plants to grow......bring it on I say.......

More plants /trees = more rain = more Tassie pure water to make more pi55....
Cheers
:ok::}

[Old Fella]

Griffo, if the Coalition win the next election, which I sincerely hope they do, and Tony Abbott rescinds the Carbon Tax and has trouble getting it past the Senate because the Greens would block it, he would have the balls to call a double dissollution. Of that I am confident.

[RATpin]

Spot on Jaba,but,as Rob White suggests,the world should be run by the UN(Lord help us) and for that you need a one world taxation system. Those that disagree will be sanctioned or bombed into submission, or so say the fairies at the bottom of my garden.

[peterc005]

We really need to do a lot more about climate change and a lot sooner:

13 of last 15 years warmest on record | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/of-last-15-years-warmest-on-record/story-e6frfku0-1226209575956)

13 of last 15 years warmest on record
November 29, 2011 8:36PM

THIRTEEN of the warmest years recorded have occurred within the last decade and a half, the UN's World Meteorological Organisation said today.
The year 2011 caps a decade that ties the record as the hottest ever measured, the WMO said in its annual report on climate trends and extreme weather events, unveiled at UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa.

"Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement, adding that policymakers should take note of the findings.

"Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached new highs and are very rapidly approaching levels consistent with a 2 to 2.4 Celsius rise in average global temperatures."

Scientists believe that any rise above the 2.0 threshold could trigger far-reaching and irreversible changes on Earth over land and in the seas.

The 2002-2011 period equals 2001-2010 as the warmest decade since 1850, the report said.

2011 ranks as the 10th warmest year since 1850, when accurate measurements began.

This was true despite a La Nina event - one of the strongest in 60 years - that developed in the tropical Pacific in the second half of 2010 and continued until May 2011.

The report noted that the cyclical climate phenomenon, which strikes every three to seven years, helped drive extreme weather events including drought in east Africa, islands in the central equatorial Pacific and the southern United States.

It also aggravated flooding in southern Africa, eastern Australia and southern Asia.

While La Nina, and its meteorological cousin El Nino, are not caused by climate change, rising ocean temperatures caused by global warming may affect their intensity and frequency, scientists say


Read more: 13 of last 15 years warmest on record | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/of-last-15-years-warmest-on-record/story-e6frfku0-1226209575956#ixzz1f600ai5M)

[RATpin]

What's that Pete,need a few more brownie points to become a full blown fabian?

[peterc005]

The Big Picture: we should be so lucky (http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-big-picture-we-should-be-so-lucky-20111129-1o4im.html)

The Big Picture: we should be so lucky
November 29, 2011 - 2:03PM

RAW VISION: Treasurer Wayne Swan introduces the government's mid-year budget review framed by a gloomy global outlook.

Never mind the political fixation with a marginal surplus, the middle class welfare nipping here, the tax lurk tucking there, the magic 2.5 per cent productivity bonus expected from Commonwealth agencies, or even the extra half per cent or so being chipped off the economy's growth in the process – in an ugly world, Treasury has come up with what one former treasurer might still call a beautiful set of numbers.

The only dark number in the economic update was that unemployment is expected to tick up to 5.5 per cent by June and stay there for a year, but employment should still grow by one per cent this financial year and 1.5 per cent next. That means more people in jobs earning more money - more customers, if retailers have an attractive enough offer to tempt them.

There's nothing new in Treasury's forecast of "year average" economic growth of 3.25 per cent this financial year and next – that was in the Reserve Bank's quarterly statement at the start of the month - but the detail should refocus attention on how extremely fortunate we are to be maintaining growth at around our long-term trend when pretty much the rest of the developed world is going nowhere or worse.

Advertisement: Story continues below
The budget outcome this year and next assumes the current misery continues in Europe, Japan and the US, ranging from recession to anaemic growth, but it also relies on the Europeans not trashing the global banking system. As the Treasury puts it:

"The risks to the outlook remain firmly on the downside. In the context of an already fragile global economy, rapidly evolving events in Europe have shaken confidence and financial markets, and pose a significant risk that the global economic outlook could deteriorate quickly. In this environment, Australia's terms of trade could also decline more sharply than currently forecast."

Fate tied to non-G7 nations

Whatever fiddling round the edges Wayne Swan and Penny Wong manage to produce a little surplus ahead of the next election, our fate remains tied to the non-G7 nations in general and the non-OECD nations in particular. That's a very good place to be with non-OECD nations now accounting for more than three-quarters of global growth with the emphasis increasingly on domestic demand.

Yes, China's growth is slowing to something closer to being sustainable and our terms of trade will decline, but the decline is relatively gradual and in the meantime commodity export volume is being ramped up by an investment boom that is itself unprecedented.

Asia would not be immune to European catastrophe, yet even that threat hastens the region's restructuring and sustains investment intentions here.

"Investment decisions in the resources sector are taken over long time horizons, driven by medium-term projections of the growing resource needs of the large emerging market economies," observes Treasury. "These projections remain intact, notwithstanding the recent deterioration in global conditions, with the pipeline of resources investment in Australia continuing to grow since Budget to over $450 billion. Following growth of 34 per cent in resources investment in 201011, resources companies expect to increase their capital expenditure by a further 74 per cent in 201112, supporting a strong outlook for commodity exports and activity in the related construction and services sectors."

The promised budget surplus at $1.5 billion is little more than a rounding error one way or the other, but it becomes a flag for Swan to wave both for domestic political purposes and for international feel-good reasons. It enhances Australia's growing perception as a safe haven in a dangerous world, instead of being part of the "risk on" trade. It should help Australian bond yields continue to fall, but it also could help maintain the strength of the Australian dollar.

Rate implications

The domestic interest rate implications of a little surplus are marginal. Did the RBA learn anything today that it didn't already know about the Australian economy? Probably not. The bank had already noted the expectations of slightly higher unemployment and inflation staying in its comfort zone, hence the move to "neutral" monetary policy.

Next Tuesday, the RBA could move another 25 points to be "more neutral", but there's nothing more to it than that with the need to keep ammunition dry in case it is needed to fight something worse coming out of Europe.

At the margin though, the government's fiscal rectitude does come at a cost. The move from a bigger deficit this year to a flat result in 2011-12 is the removal of a stimulus equivalent to about 2.5 per cent of GDP. The Treasury says the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus is expected to take about half a per cent off real GDP growth this financial year.

The RBA has repeatedly mentioned the contribution being made by fiscal drag on the economy.

For a few souls at the employment margin who might make up that rise to a 5.5 per cent unemployment rate, one hopes they will be able to take compensatory pride in belonging to the nation that's leading the developed world in returning to a budget surplus.

p.s. The Tax Forum has paid very handsomely for itself. Attacks made there on companies getting tax deductions for housing CEOs in harbourside penthouses played a role the decision to reform the tax treatment of living away from home allowances and benefits. Treasury thinks it will raise $682 million over the next four years.

Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor


Read more: The Big Picture: we should be so lucky (http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-big-picture-we-should-be-so-lucky-20111129-1o4im.html#ixzz1f63OiiPr)

[flyingfox]

Sisemen. No.

[Lodown]

Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.

The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece.

Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.

More at The Great Global Warming Fizzle (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html)

Breakfastburrito: I wouldn't trust that graph you posted any further than I could kick it. It's one thing in theory from some guys in a laboratory setting, but it doesn't hold up in application. Wind energy is one of the very worst examples of utilising renewable energies. The evaluation you posted makes no allowance for the need for backup availability and the reduced efficiency of those backup supplies because the demand/supply is constantly fluctuating. As an example, Texas is installing hundreds of wind turbines in West Texas. Trouble is the infrastructure isn't there yet to bring all the power back east. Cost is US$1M per mile just for the infrastructure. That doesn't include the cleared swath through the countryside. Nor does it include the direct loss of wildlife as the rotors decimate the local bat populations and migratory birds. The farmers in the area though are making out like Rockefellers. They're getting paid a fortune for rent and some are getting extra income from natural gas drilling as well. The land doesn't support a great deal in terms of farming.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but every person I have spoken with who has wind turbines supplementing home energy and actively tracks the power output, is unimpressed with the cost/benefit.

[breakfastburrito]

Lowdown, in theory I'm in favor of renewable energy. However, in practice, the costs are extraordinary. As I mentioned, a lot of them simply don't scale (your lab observation). They also depend on REE (rare earth Elements) of which China holds 97% global production. Renewables are simply not going to work on the scale that we need them to work to maintain our current patterns of energy use.

I've mentioned her before, Nicole Foss has done a huge amount of work in the economics of energy, including renewables.
See her interview page at FSN Nicole M Foss | FINANCIAL SENSE (http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/nicole-m-foss)
There is a link to her blog from there, the automatic earth.

From my reading, it's not climate change that we should be worried about, but the impending energy shortfall for liquid fuels.

[Lodown]

I wouldn't be too worried about liquid fuels. The recovery rate from oil wells is only about 5%. It's just a matter of time before some smart engineer works out how to improve on that and tap back into old drilling areas like they've done for natural gas. There's at least 200 years of supply for natural gas and it's only a matter of time before there is a push to get more refueling stations to carry natural gas and the carmakers won't be far behind. We've barely touched shale oils, which are now viable. Nor have we touched methane clathrates yet. The technology to tap into that area will be coming. A conservative estimate on methane clathrate deposits is twice the total of all other carbon-based fuels (coal, natural gas, oil, etc) combined.

[DutchRoll]

Jabberwocky, Jabberwocky, Jabberwocky.

a) the data you chose is HADCRUT3 variance adjusted, not the UAH which Bob Carter used in his chart.

b) you need to learn something about cherry-picking start dates (you stumbled on a great choice with 2001).

c) you need to learn something about putting different datasets in context

If you are going to play with the big boys, you need to know roughly what you're doing, because if you posted that up on a science blog with real scientists watching, then alleged it proved the planet isn't warming, you'd be torn a new one.

I'm tiring of the claptrap on this thread. Here is some food for thought taken from an excellent issue of New Scientist about 18 months ago, titled "The Age of Denialism". For a few on this thread, this will indeed provoke thought. For others here, it will simply go straight over their heads. :rolleyes:

Dr Michael Shermer, founding publisher of "Skeptic" magazine, Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, contributor to Scientific American, the world's most respected sceptic and a regular speaker at sceptic conventions everywhere:

"Living in Denial - When a Sceptic isn't a Sceptic

What is the difference between a sceptic and a denier? When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing "confirmation bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.

Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence.......Denial is today most often associated with climate science, but it is also encountered elsewhere.

Though the distinction between scepticism and denial is clear enough in principle, keeping them apart in the real world can be tricky. It has, for example, become fashionable in some circles for anyone who dares to challenge the climate science "consensus" to be tarred as a denier and heaved into a vat of feathers. Do you believe in global warming? Answer with anything but an unequivocal yes and you risk being written off as a climate denier, in the same bag as Holocaust and evolution naysayers.

Yet casting questions like these as a matter of belief is nonsensical. Either the Earth is getting warmer or it is not, regardless of how many believe it is or is not. When I say "I believe in evolution" or "I believe in the big bang", this is something different from when I say, "I believe in a flat tax" or "I believe in liberal democracy".

One practical way to distinguish between a sceptic and a denier is the extent to which they are willing to update their positions in response to new information. Sceptics change their minds. Deniers just keep on denying."

Shermer goes on to rate Climate Denial as the single most influential form of denial today, followed in order by: Evolution denial, Vaccine denial, AIDS denial, Tobacco Denial, and 9/11 denial.

There follows an excellent article titled "Living in denial - Why Sensible People Reject the Truth" (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html?full=true) which explores the psychology behind denialism of all forms (including climate denial, but especially things like vaccine and smoking denial). This is the introduction:

Heard the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money.

Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.

This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines - and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial?

Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics (see "How to be a denialist"). All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain, atheism.

This common ground tells us a great deal about the underlying causes of denialism. The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases - diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work.

Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.

Many people see this as a threat to important aspects of their lives. In Texas last year, a member of a state committee who was trying to get creationism added to school science standards almost said as much when he proclaimed "somebody's got to stand up to experts".


Anyway, on it goes into a rather depressing analysis of the denialism sweeping some sections of the community in recent years.

I see many similarities between what was written in the article and what I read on this thread from particular contributors. The sifting of facts, the stripping of context, the "climate science is all a crock" followed immediately by the usual political diatribe against Gore, or the UN, or the IPCC, or <insert the government organisation or politician you love to hate here>. The fact that most of these posters cannot separate themselves from their political views when arguing that climate science is all a crock (ie, just stick to the scientific facts only) is a dead giveaway as to what is really driving their opinions. And it sure ain't an interest in science!

I don't think there's any point in going any further in the discussion. As Shermer states: "Deniers just keep on denying". As much as you try to insert context into their "evidence", they simply move on to the next argument and pretend it didn't happen.

More food for thought: the world's foremost sceptics (eg Shermer, Randi and so on) and sceptical societies do not deny the reality of climate change, the human influence, the potential ramifications, and the need to address it. The fake-sceptics here on Pprune live in their own bubble, comforted by the "sceptical wisdom" of various non-scientific and politically motivated websites like Wattsupwiththat. In fact, they're so enamoured with such websites that they don't even realise when those websites kick an own goal.

Also the greatest scientific minds this planet has ever offered in the modern day, from the late famous and enormously respected astronomer Dr Carl Sagan right through to the likes of the brilliant physicist Professor Stephen Hawking do not deny the reality of climate change and the human influence or need to address it. These are people who know scientific evidence when they see it.

:)

[Frank Arouet]

Those documents peter, are put out by the same mob who said “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” and that same Treasurer said it was a Liberal party plot and would never ever happen.


This same party will say and do anything to get into power and then put to the sword any dissent or counter argument or contrary opinion.


Flannery is a paid employee. He is as believable as Gillard.


It was recently written- “this is yesterday's party destroying tomorrows future, it's average intelligence is on par with the children of lord of the flies and at the first sign of trouble, out come the long knives. Socialists/ Labor are the last western scourge. A party of superficial solutions to non existent problems attracting fools, halfwits and bleeding hearts that can barely see through mistly eyes.


Labor policies are not just wrong, they are dumb. This party whose core ideology has been so thoroughly discredited they will pretend to be something they are not to gain power and hide their true prosperity destruction agenda”.


It is truly amazing that people actually admit to being followers of this party and who no doubt will continue to vote for them irrespective of the depth of corruption and putrifying decay.


It's as if they can't afford a lobotomy and following Labor dogma is cheaper and achieves the same aim.

DutchRoll. When the tax was based on a lie it ceases to have any scientific validity.

[peterc005]

We really need to do a lot more to address Climate Change and very soon.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Ok Pete, YOU pay MY carbon tax and then we'll both be happy.

[Baxter Dewall]

Traffic

Couldn't have said it better myself:ok:

This is up there with Religion; the biggest CON of mankind.

[sisemen]

Fools and their money are soon parted.

http://www.hotink.com/wacky/mfiles/m-ani.gif

[Old Fella]

One very big difference BD. We have a choice as to whether or not we want to be a believer (Religious that is). We have no choice about the Carbon Tax we would not have!!! It has been mandated by a corrupt and inept bunch of loonies with an agenda to bring our country down, no matter what.

[Ultralights]

It has been mandated by a corrupt and inept bunch of loonies with an agenda to bring our country down, no matter what.
I wouldnt quite say that, just a few loonies who want to turn us into Tasmania..


sadly as much as we complain about it, we are getting it forced upon us, so all we can do is adapt, i sold my gas guzzling turbo forester for a new econo diesel that uses 4.5l/100KM, so, where do i collect my carbon credits juliar? oh, thats right diesel will be copping the carbon tax, not petrol! :mad: you Juliar! and Bob Brown.

[Baxter Dewall]

Hey Ultralights,

Just to add salt into the wound, last I looked, diesel was @14-15CPL MORE expensive than petrol. Any benefit you had WRT saving just vapourised.What utter corruption and profiteering. Where's the toothless tiger ACCC and that waste of space fuel commissioner/watchdog??????????????:ugh::ugh:

:mad: don't get me started on fuel prices; this is the biggest thorn in my side :mad:

[Ultralights]

dont know where your living, but in my local area, Diesel is usually about 5c pl dearer, still far better than using 12l/100km of premium 98

[Baxter Dewall]

In the state of where everything is over-priced and bogans have taken over the roads in V8 utes. Any guesses??

[Repro]

All labour governments are big on bringing in new taxes.
They need to pay for their stuff ups.
A hundred years ago, we didn't have any of the taxes we now have.
We were in the lucky country.
Now we are over taxed and over regulated.
I would say, about 80% of your hard earned, would go to the government, one way or another.
Close to being a communist country.
Now we have a tax on CO2 to combat global warming, sorry, climate change.
A tax on breathing.
Ever notice, when they have this subject on the news, they usually show the evaporator chimneys at the coal burning plants, spewing out all that nasty steam, pretending it's smoke full of CO2.
More bull**** to the naive Australian public.
I have been living in Japan for the last 9 years, and every time I come back to Aus, I'm astounded at how expensive it is to live.
I pay about $90 a quarter for electricity in Japan.
And that's after they dig the coal out of Australia and ship it all the way to Japan and burn it.
In Australia, your standing on coal, and it costs about $600 a quarter.
Go figure!
****, Australian oranges are cheaper in Japan.
Vegetation grows faster in a CO2 rich environment, so that's a good thing, isn't it?
Thank you o Lord for the locus plague, you are so merciful.

[Jabawocky]

Dutchie Dutchie Dutchie :ugh:

You sent me to that site, that is just what it said, under examples. The interesting thing is no matter what you plug into that site there is NO alarming evidence for warming in the last ten years. Lets look shall we at a few things.

a) the data you chose is HADCRUT3 variance adjusted, not the UAH which Bob Carter used in his chart.

Ohhh OK, sorry, I just used their EXAMPLES.....so their default data set. None the less I will go do a few more! See below.

b) you need to learn something about cherry-picking start dates (you stumbled on a great choice with 2001).
Cherry Picking :rolleyes: FFS old mate, that is a science only known to the AGW camp. For a start, I did no Cherry picking of the sort, in fact I over did the data sample, as this is the end of 2011 I should have made the data from 2002 which gives a 10 year data set. So I will use that for these next few.

c) you need to learn something about putting different datasets in context I do do I???? Those graphs used the same data sets, but hey I am glad you brought this up because using unreferenced different data sets (FRAUD) is exactly what the AGW's actually do.

Don't believe me? Just ask Kev07 and Penny Wong and Peter Garret about a meeting in Canberra a couple of years ago when they(AGW's) pulled out a bunch of charts as evidence. If it were not by sheer fluke that one member of the meeting group had not had a discussion with a Ian Plimer a day before hand was made aware of the deliberate method of deception.

So here we go, just some random selections of data sets. Hardly convincing of anything alarming in climate change, despite CO2 still rising. Even the one with a slight rise is damned near flat line.

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/1.jpg

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/GIS.jpg

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/BestGloballand.jpg

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/CRUTEM3.jpg

And best of all lets try using the WoodForTrees data set, remember this guy claims he has no axe to grind but is on the green side of the spectrum.
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/Woodfortrees10yr.jpg


If you are going to play with the big boys, you need to know roughly what you're doing,
And I never said I was on the world stage with the big boys, but apparently you are?????? :rolleyes: The funny thing is the AGW camp peer review their own propoganda, then along comes a mathematics genius and finds there is fraud in the "evidence" and the IPCC had fallen for it. I do not need to be a climatologist to follow that logic.

[Deepsea Racing Prawn]

DutchRoll. When the tax was based on a lie it ceases to have any scientific validity.

God help us.....:rolleyes:

[Ultralights]

ironically, the water vapour pouring from the stacks is far worse geenhouse gas then CO2

[Repro]

Yeh, water is no good for the evironment.
And my 43 year old MG gets about 6l/100k.
Technology hasn't improved much.

[Ultralights]

And my 43 year old MG gets about 6l/100k.
Technology hasn't improved much

can you get 5 people comfortably in the MG? air con? 8 airbags, stability control, brake force distribution ABS? traction control? dual zone climate control? leather interior? 280Nm torque? 6 speed manual? 4.5 ltrs/100Km, yeah, technology hasnt improved much....

[Repro]

Has 7 speeds.
6 forward and 1 reverse.
And hasn't caused pollution being replaced by a new car.
So there.

[Lodown]

Dr Michael Shermer..."the world's most respected sceptic"!!! A sceptic who mentions on his website that he became a believer after watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"? You have got to be joking!

Later that month I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, California, where former Vice President Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the 2006 documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. Because we are primates with such visually dominant sensory systems, we need to see the evidence to believe it, and the striking visuals of countless graphs and charts, and especially the before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world, shocked me viscerally and knocked me out my skepticism.

Is there anyone anywhere that puts any faith in Al Gore's film besides Dr Shermer? I guess Dr Shermer's idea of evidence and my idea of evidence are divergent.

I'm sure you know of this little list DutchRoll:
Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php)
Perhaps you can bag each one of these 31,487 US scientists, including a little over 9,000 PhD's who seem to be squarely in your denier/fake sceptic camp. That's a long list of scientist deniers.

peterc005 the world was warmer 1000 years ago and before that around the period of the Roman empire. So to say that the last decade was the warmest on record is true when accurate records only go back 150 years, but it isn't the whole story. It's a convenient argument when trying to link fossil fuel use to temperature, but the real-world evidence of a link is becoming more and more tenuous, if there ever indeed was one.

peterc005 take the WMO press releases with a grain of salt.

Until this week, every day in 2011 was cooler than 2010. 2011 has averaged 0.35C cooler than 2010. So 2011 is 0.35 cooler than La Nina year 2010, but 2011 is also the hottest La Nina year. The UN is FUBAR.
From More UN Lies From The Un-Christian Anti-Science Monitor (http://www.real-science.com/lies-christian-anti-science-monitor)

[Lodown]

7 News will be running a story on Gillard's tax tonight. I wonder if the Labor party can get its police or the ACCC there in time to shut it down.

[peterc005]

Why would the ALP, Police or ACCC care about some commercial TV program?

One of the attributes about all the conspiracy theory nutters is paranoia.

I notice on other places within PPRUNE the 9/11 "Truther" conspiracy theory nutters have been banned.

The problem with banning anti-climate change nutters on PPRUNE is that it would just give them something else to see as a conspiracy.

[Lodown]

Tongue in cheek peter. The Labor party, through the ACCC, has threatened fines for businesses that advertise a link between the carbon tax and price hikes and its now spending a bucketload on advertising the carbon tax. Lot of money being spent on a contentious issue, but I suppose the goal is to get approval ratings back up, rather than to promote the carbon tax.

[sisemen]

I'm not anti climate change. It's been happening for aeons and will continue to happen so long as that fiery ball in the sky keeps pushing heat out.

However, I am against the dodgy 'science', the scare-mongering, the politicisation, the rapacious taxes, and the warmistas who continue to denigrate those who might have a different opinion to them.

So, peterc005 are you calling me a nutter?

[Frank Arouet]

Yes he/ she/ it is. See rule 5- include "nutter"

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

[peterc005]

Yes, nutter.

There is no shortage of nutters and conspiracy theories.

The UFO ones are the most colorful. I think the 9/11 "Truther" ones are the worst because they are offensive to the families of those who died in 9/11.

The AGW nutters seem to have more of a conservative political framework.

The science behind global warming is solid and proven by a couple of decades of peer review.

The Carbon Tax is one step forward in doing something about man made global warming and should be welcomed.

[teresa green]

It would appear now that most of us "nutters" have not bought it, so they are trying a new tack. It's heart attacks, the plague, strokes, you name it, accompanied by giant mozzies, all ready to kill us all with one foul swipe all because of global warming. Yes folks, you can look forward to a interesting death brought to you by carbon dioxide. I would suggest many of the heart attacks will be brought on by the stress and inability to be able to survive the carbon tax costs for many, rather than global warming.

[peterc005]

Part of the absurd argument by the AGW people is that anyone who questions them, anyone who points out their obsession with a hoax, anyone who rightly calls them "nutters" is part of some conspiracy.

Their deluded paranoia is that anyone who doesn't toe their line is part of some conspiracy.

I think Al Gore is someone of immense integrity and has done great work getting the world moving towards action on climate change.

[Lodown]

Poor deluded peterc005. Some 18 posts and no one is really paying any attention to your assertions. Finally you link to a little PR BS fluff to keep the journalists in Durban supplied with copy for their editors. That's the best you can do? You don't even run a basic check on the data to see if it's valid? The information in the article is highlighted for the garbage it is and suddenly you start stamping your feet and we're paranoid conspiracy theorists and nutters? Way to frame a discussion peterc005. It says on your bio that your age is 46. Perhaps that should be between 4 and 6. Grow up.

Then again, with your rabid support for Al Gore, perhaps you are the real Al Gore.

DutchRoll: I appreciated the discussion with you. If you're still following the thread, a new and interesting paper to read debunking back radiation:

A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They
Reveal About "Anthropogenic Global Warming"? (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/History-of-Radiation.pdf)Matthias Kleespies, Germany, November 18th, 2011

[peterc005]

Climate Change theory is based on decades of reputable research and peer-reviewed science.

Anti Global Warming is a collection of non-scientific anecdotes and paranoid conspiracy theories.

The Carbon Tax is a good step forward to take action about global warming, but a lot more needs to be done and soon.

I'm still looking for a good way to buy carbon credits to offset my GA flying. I'll have another look at this next week.

[Jabawocky]

Give them to me, they can help offset my carbon taxes when they get applied.

We have plenty of unfair taxation as it is, but this one is the most unfair I have seen yet.

No matter what Jullie Liar says even the poorest folk will be worse off, and those of hard working middle class folk will pay a fortune in increased cost of living in food, utilities etc etc, I will get slugged heaps more for fuel usage etc, and how much of the compensation will come my way ...... Not one cent.

So all these folk who get massive amounts of my tax dollars spent on them already have all the compensation, some big industries allegedly will get some too, and I will get nothing.

I am mighty pissed off about it in case you wondered. And despite your warm fuzzy feeling about donating some amount to plant trees, which is a noble gesture, you are quite likely to be in the same boat. Ripped off to the hilt.

This is an evil, STEAL from the middle classes and give to the wealthy or means tested lucky few TAX. It is not anything more than criminal.

Go back and read my posts about how a tax such as this should be applied. It shall have no exemptions. Use it, You Pay. It should not later be turned into some fraudulent trading scheme either. Might as well turn over our whole tax system to a open market trading scheme.

In every country that introduced such a tax in the past, what happened? The supposed outcome has failed 100% and I wonder why:ugh:

As for all the proven science, I don't care if you think you are right, in another 40 years you will be proven wrong. But what will this stupid tax have done to so many folk over that time is more important.

Take your heads out of the sand and look at the facts, if you truly believe man made CO2 has an affect on global temps, fill ya boots, but what will this stupid tax do about it? More the point with your clever science PROVE that first before we accept the tax. Remember all it takes to test the hypothesis is one result to prove it wrong:O

So pony up lads, prove the tax will make any difference. Get all the science, rubbery or not, and show us how it will work. I can't wait! :ok:

[ferris]

Oh dear. peterc005 to the ignore list. He thinks "AGW" stands for Anti Global Warming!

Credibility fail. :rolleyes:

[craigieburn]

Don't ignore him, just think of him as chicken little. You know, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!":ok:

[peterc005]

I'm not swayed and stand by the position that the science behind global warming and climate change is sound.

The Carbon Tax is a sound idea to start tackling this issue.

A collection of conspiracy theories, pub anecdotes and anonymous rants are not science.

[craigieburn]

Peter, how can you stand behind something that by its very name, is a lie.
It is not a Carbon Tax, it is a tax on carbon dioxide. It does not tax the sooty emissions that the name implies (and the fraudulent advertising reinforces).

Has it ever crossed your mind to question the lie? Does it not make you suspicious that they are so deceitful?
As much as I hate to reference him, I think that everyone really needs to ask the Andrew Bolt question, "By how much will this reduce the Earth's temperature and at what cost?":ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
No doubt the use of the Bolt name will fire up the left wing idealogues, but nevertheless, the question is valid.

[peterc005]

I'm not swayed and stand by the position that the science behind global warming and climate change is sound.

The Carbon Tax is a sound idea to start tackling this issue.

A collection of conspiracy theories, pub anecdotes and anonymous rants are not science.

[Jabawocky]

peterc

Your last post is that of a Forum troll.

Please actively participate in the debate. Common decency please.

Now how about you answer my questions and comment on my last post. I will cop it here for you...

Jabawocky:
Give them to me, they can help offset my carbon taxes when they get applied.

We have plenty of unfair taxation as it is, but this one is the most unfair I have seen yet.

No matter what Jullie Liar says even the poorest folk will be worse off, and those of hard working middle class folk will pay a fortune in increased cost of living in food, utilities etc etc, I will get slugged heaps more for fuel usage etc, and how much of the compensation will come my way ...... Not one cent.

So all these folk who get massive amounts of my tax dollars spent on them already have all the compensation, some big industries allegedly will get some too, and I will get nothing.

I am mighty pissed off about it in case you wondered. And despite your warm fuzzy feeling about donating some amount to plant trees, which is a noble gesture, you are quite likely to be in the same boat. Ripped off to the hilt.

This is an evil, STEAL from the middle classes and give to the wealthy or means tested lucky few TAX. It is not anything more than criminal.

Go back and read my posts about how a tax such as this should be applied. It shall have no exemptions. Use it, You Pay. It should not later be turned into some fraudulent trading scheme either. Might as well turn over our whole tax system to a open market trading scheme.

In every country that introduced such a tax in the past, what happened? The supposed outcome has failed 100% and I wonder why:ugh:

As for all the proven science, I don't care if you think you are right, in another 40 years you will be proven wrong. But what will this stupid tax have done to so many folk over that time is more important.

Take your heads out of the sand and look at the facts, if you truly believe man made CO2 has an affect on global temps, fill ya boots, but what will this stupid tax do about it? More the point with your clever science PROVE that first before we accept the tax. Remember all it takes to test the hypothesis is one result to prove it wronghttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

So pony up lads, prove the tax will make any difference. Get all the science, rubbery or not, and show us how it will work. I can't wait! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Lodown]

This just in:

It is now believed by over 97% of all physical science scientists that the IPCC's climate models have failed to accurately predict recent changes in global temperatures and associated climate change. The inconvenient facts of climate model prediction failure have become well known and are no longer denied by the world's science community.

(Note to readers: Try to find a single PhD in physical sciences whom actually believes, and will state in writing, that the climate computer simulations have been accurate over the last 15 years.)


Read more here. (http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/chinese-research-documents-the-major-failings-of-ipcc-climate-model-physics-models-are-wrong.html)

One common theme backing ALL scams is a time constraint. The potential scamee has to act quickly for one reason or another. AGW has been no different.

[Trent 972]

Jaba, you have money and the government wants it.
You are no more than a cash cow to be milked, so stand still while Juliar attaches the hoses to your nipples.
The 'Carbon Tax' has no practicle nexus with 'Climate Change'.
Prof Tim Flannery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery)
In February 2011 it was announced that Flannery had been appointed to head the Climate Change Commission established by Prime Minister Julia Gillard to explain climate change and the need for a carbon price to the public.
Tim Flannery.. : “If the world as a whole cut all emissions (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/30/global-warming-over-1000-years-why-flannery-is-correct/) tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet’s not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years”
It is just another tax to make the government and a select few bankers etc., that will run the trading schemes, incredibly rich.
Juliar says she will compensate the battlers or they won't vote for her. Compensate the big polluters or they won't donate to her cause, so who is left. Just us milk cows in the middle.

[Deepsea Racing Prawn]

Don't ignore him, just think of him as chicken little. You know, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

You could just as easily be describing Jabawocky...

No matter what Jullie Liar says even the poorest folk will be worse off, and those of hard working middle class folk will pay a fortune in increased cost of living in food, utilities etc etc, I will get slugged heaps more for fuel usage etc, and how much of the compensation will come my way ...... Not one cent.

[Jabawocky]

Tim Flannery.. : “If the world as a whole cut all emissions (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/30/global-warming-over-1000-years-why-flannery-is-correct/) tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet’s not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years”
RIGHT STOP THERE FOLKS

Here is the kicker, all the AGW's and old mate Al Gore and his movie along with all the IPCC and that is the claim that CO2 and man made CO2 more to the point has been having an instantaeuos effect on global temperature. :yuk:

So on one hand it ramps temperature up in an instant, the next it takes 800-1000 years to cool off.

No go back a few years or more, and ask a very learned scientist, Prof Bob Carter, a Paleoclimatologist who has been studying this stuff for decages, and study this stuff that happened over thousands and million of years and he would tell you the effect is "Temperature drives CO2 levels with a roughly 800 year lag".

Whats more the graphs used in Al Gores movie, actually show this, he just drew lines/lies on the graph. Busted again Mr Gore ;)

It is hard to escape the facts of real hard emperical data. The AGW's are pretty good at spinning it into pro AGW mantra, but they get caught out all the time. Some times it takes a few years to get caught, but the eventually do.


So peterc.........how are you going on my answers? :ok:

Hey Deep Sea..........no, that is not chicken little stuff mate it is FACT. FACT FACT FACT, they will be worse off, and folk like me and most likely you too will be far worse off. Prove me wrong and I will buy you a carton :ok:

[peterc005]

@Jabawocky, I can't make sense of your rants.

What does impress me in discussions is substantiation.

If you make a point or statement, substantiate it. Include references to any source data.

If you say "... 95% of scientists say this ..." include a reference so that it can be checked.

A good reference would be a scientific or academic journal. A poor reference would be some bloke down the pub or conspiracy web site.

If people in this thread had to include reputable references the AGW people would go very quiet.

[peterc005]

@jabawocky - you said:

"So on one hand it ramps temperature up in an instant, the next it takes 800-1000 years to cool off."

Would you please supply a reference so that we can validate your statement?

[blackhand]

@peterc005
Jaba et al have provided plenty of references for your edification.

Interesting developments at Durban, if you care to look.
Large "polluder" countries are saying no to extending Kyoto or discussing a new protocol.
Carbon price in Euro zone down to about $8.00 tonne.
My arse feels the wind.

Cheers
BH

[Frank Arouet]

Don't respond to these trolls. (probably the same mole anyway). Note their posts, 57/69 respectively. Probably registered on the same day.

See their rule 6.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

[craigieburn]

peterc005, you said is probably far more pertinent than you realise.
FYI, AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming, meaning MAN MADE. I can't believe that you are trying to get involved in an argument that you simply have NO understanding of. Unfortunately it is because of non thinking muppets such as yourself that we are burdened with the government that we have.

You then go on to state,
"@jabawocky - you said:

"So on one hand it ramps temperature up in an instant, the next it takes 800-1000 years to cool off."

Would you please supply a reference so that we can validate your statement?"

Are you for real? Can you read? He was referring to the comments made by Australia's biggest hypocrite Tim Flannery (AKA Australia's Climate Commissioner)

[peterc005]

Well if that's that case would you kindly provide the reference for when Tim Flannery made that statement?

[Jabawocky]

peterc

My dear chap,

If people in this thread had to include reputable references the AGW people would go very quiet.

I am not sure I have seen you do this once yet, and we can throw reputable references at you all day long and YOU ignore them. Stop smoking the weed man!

We or I have given you ample material to go check against, and who said you were the Global Warming Police :ugh:. All you do is prattle rubbish.

I went and used the self confessed green but no axe to grind fellows website, provided by Dutchie and look what came out of it. No thats not good enough for you hey.

I want you to answer this....and with full referencing please!
Jabawocky:
Give them to me, they can help offset my carbon taxes when they get applied.

We have plenty of unfair taxation as it is, but this one is the most unfair I have seen yet.

No matter what Jullie Liar says even the poorest folk will be worse off, and those of hard working middle class folk will pay a fortune in increased cost of living in food, utilities etc etc, I will get slugged heaps more for fuel usage etc, and how much of the compensation will come my way ...... Not one cent.

So all these folk who get massive amounts of my tax dollars spent on them already have all the compensation, some big industries allegedly will get some too, and I will get nothing.

I am mighty pissed off about it in case you wondered. And despite your warm fuzzy feeling about donating some amount to plant trees, which is a noble gesture, you are quite likely to be in the same boat. Ripped off to the hilt.

This is an evil, STEAL from the middle classes and give to the wealthy or means tested lucky few TAX. It is not anything more than criminal.

Go back and read my posts about how a tax such as this should be applied. It shall have no exemptions. Use it, You Pay. It should not later be turned into some fraudulent trading scheme either. Might as well turn over our whole tax system to a open market trading scheme.

In every country that introduced such a tax in the past, what happened? The supposed outcome has failed 100% and I wonder why:ugh:

As for all the proven science, I don't care if you think you are right, in another 40 years you will be proven wrong. But what will this stupid tax have done to so many folk over that time is more important.

Take your heads out of the sand and look at the facts, if you truly believe man made CO2 has an affect on global temps, fill ya boots, but what will this stupid tax do about it? More the point with your clever science PROVE that first before we accept the tax. Remember all it takes to test the hypothesis is one result to prove it wronghttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

So pony up lads, prove the tax will make any difference. Get all the science, rubbery or not, and show us how it will work. I can't wait! :ok:

Not another post from you please until you do.

Thanks in advance. :ok:

[peterc005]

The bio for Tim Flannery is very impressive.

Tim Flannery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery)

[peterc005]

I'd still like to see a reference for the quote attributed to Tim Flannery.

[craigieburn]

Jaba et al, I think that the only explanation for the stupidity and ignorance of the posts by peterc005 is that he has been to too many sales seminars.
The first rule of high pressure sales is to continually ignore any objection, the theory being that if you acknowledge the objection, you are merely giving it credence.
That has to be the explanation, the only other possibility is that peter & Tim Flannery are in fact the same person:p


peter, can you please, please, please acknowledge that AGW does NOT stand for anti global warming

[peterc005]

AGW does not stand for anti-global warming.

I've never been to any sales seminars.

I'd still like to see a reference for the quote attributed to Tim Flannery.

[Frank Arouet]

If posters look down the bottom left hand side of the posts you will see a small red triangle. When you run your cursor over it you are invited to report this post to a moderator.

I suggest, rather than trying to educate the "morons halfwits and trolls" you use that function as I am about to. You may like to draw the red prawn's posts from jetblast to supplement you questioning of their bona fides.

The thread is about a Carbon tax, not the so called "science" which "is in". A tax imposed on a lie using black magic, paid scientists and trolls to justify those lies. The science is really not even aviation related, but the tax is, and it has an effect on us all.

[peterc005]

Well, as I said before I'm searching for a way to buy carbon credits to offset my GA flying.

I guess you could say that's a voluntary Carbon Tax of sorts.

As for my bona fide, all of the details on my public profile here are correct and accurate. If anyone wanted to contact me just send a PM and you are welcome to my email address and mobile number.

[peterc005]

Frank you are right, this thread is about the Carbon Tax.

Here is my position:


I think the Carbon Tax is a good idea. We need to do all that is possible to protect the environment and a Carbon Tax is a good step forward.

The Carbon Tax will have a minimal effect on the aviation industry. Whenever I book an RPT ticket I always select the option to pay an extra few dollars for the Carbon Offset anyway.

If the magnitude of the Carbon Tax is similar to that of the voluntary Carbon Offset scheme, then the costs are likely to be minimal - 1% or 2%.

The costs of rising oil prices is many times greater than any Carbon tax.

[Jabawocky]

Peter

Let me try to answer these for you.
Frank you are right, this thread is about the Carbon Tax.

Here is my position:


I think the Carbon Tax is a good idea. We need to do all that is possible to protect the environment and a Carbon Tax is a good step forward. True we should protect the environment, but a tax on CO2 emmissions has nothing to do with pollution, go look at the real pollution problems of the world, and our CO2 tax will only send manufacturing from our clean and green plants to the filthy ones in Asia, India etc etc. Do you not understand this? Secondly a bit more CO2 is actually good for plant growth.
The Carbon Tax will have a minimal effect on the aviation industry. BULL**** Whenever I book an RPT ticket I always select the option to pay an extra few dollars for the Carbon Offset anyway. That is wonderful, but apart from that donation to some plant a tree programme you will find the tax will have a far greater impact than just that. Are you planning not to tick that genorous box once the tax is in?
If the magnitude of the Carbon Tax is similar to that of the voluntary Carbon Offset scheme, then the costs are likely to be minimal - 1% or 2%. IF...IF ...IF... wake up sonny. :ugh:

The costs of rising oil prices is many times greater than any Carbon tax. Have you noticed oil and fuel prices of late? Going down not up, but that is beside the point, the tax in itself is fine PROVIDED everyone pasy as they use with NO EXEMPTIONS, otherwise it is another form of variable income tax. But worse. If you really want a carbon tax, great, but lets just make it fair, and lets not turn it over to a market to be traded. :mad:

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS AND RESPOND TO THIS.....PLEASE!

peterc

My dear chap,
Quote:
If people in this thread had to include reputable references the AGW people would go very quiet.
I am not sure I have seen you do this once yet, and we can throw reputable references at you all day long and YOU ignore them. Stop smoking the weed man!

We or I have given you ample material to go check against, and who said you were the Global Warming Police :ugh:. All you do is prattle rubbish.

I went and used the self confessed green but no axe to grind fellows website, provided by Dutchie and look what came out of it. No thats not good enough for you hey.

I want you to answer this....and with full referencing please!
Quote:
Jabawocky:
Give them to me, they can help offset my carbon taxes when they get applied.

We have plenty of unfair taxation as it is, but this one is the most unfair I have seen yet.

No matter what Jullie Liar says even the poorest folk will be worse off, and those of hard working middle class folk will pay a fortune in increased cost of living in food, utilities etc etc, I will get slugged heaps more for fuel usage etc, and how much of the compensation will come my way ...... Not one cent.

So all these folk who get massive amounts of my tax dollars spent on them already have all the compensation, some big industries allegedly will get some too, and I will get nothing.

I am mighty pissed off about it in case you wondered. And despite your warm fuzzy feeling about donating some amount to plant trees, which is a noble gesture, you are quite likely to be in the same boat. Ripped off to the hilt.

This is an evil, STEAL from the middle classes and give to the wealthy or means tested lucky few TAX. It is not anything more than criminal.

Go back and read my posts about how a tax such as this should be applied. It shall have no exemptions. Use it, You Pay. It should not later be turned into some fraudulent trading scheme either. Might as well turn over our whole tax system to a open market trading scheme.

In every country that introduced such a tax in the past, what happened? The supposed outcome has failed 100% and I wonder why:ugh:

As for all the proven science, I don't care if you think you are right, in another 40 years you will be proven wrong. But what will this stupid tax have done to so many folk over that time is more important.

Take your heads out of the sand and look at the facts, if you truly believe man made CO2 has an affect on global temps, fill ya boots, but what will this stupid tax do about it? More the point with your clever science PROVE that first before we accept the tax. Remember all it takes to test the hypothesis is one result to prove it wronghttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

So pony up lads, prove the tax will make any difference. Get all the science, rubbery or not, and show us how it will work. I can't wait! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Not another post from you please until you do.

Thanks in advance. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Ohh you want Tims quotes do you, and yes his bio is interesting :zzz:
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/no-fast-result-in-cuts-flannery/story-e6frg6xf-1226028366173)
Media Watch: It's elementary, my dear Bolt (04/04/2011) (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3181944.htm)
Global warming over 1000 years: why Flannery is correct | Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/30/global-warming-over-1000-years-why-flannery-is-correct/)
The 'Ultimate Millennium Bug' Fuels Climate Fight (http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/2724-the-ultimate-millennium-bug-fuels-climate-fight.html)
Australian Climate Commissioner Prof. Tim Flannery 'CAUGHT OUT' on Climate Change! (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17303-Australian-Climate-Commissioner-Prof.-Tim-Flannery-CAUGHT-OUT-on-Climate-Change-)

Now go do your homework, and refernce your replies to my post above. Or be judged as the troll you seem to be by your peers!

[sisemen]

I get really, really annoyed with myself when I succumb to trolls but.... here goes:

I'd still like to see a reference for the quote attributed to Tim Flannery.

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/year-vision-fuels-climate-fight/story-fn59niix-1226029695904)

In the radio interview, Professor Flannery said: "If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years."

Talking to Andrew Bolt today – Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery (http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8274) says that even if the whole world slashes its emissions we won’t know what difference it will make for maybe a thousand years


Tim Flannery, a zoologist and author of an acclaimed 2005 book on climage change, “The Weather Makers (http://www.theweathermakers.org/),” compares skeptics of global warming to “flat Earth believers.” But he made a point that most global warming alarmists gloss over when he threw down this lightning bolt in an interview with Macquarie Radio’s Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/):
“If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.”


Is that enough for you? It was a simple matter of googling Tim Flannery +temperature 1000 years. Check it yourself. And while you're at it let's have a few references from you and less of the personal abuse by calling us, and me in particular, nutters. :ugh:

[Ultralights]

i like this bit...
then the costs are likely to be minimal - 1% or 2%
yes, it will be 1 or 2% added, at every step of the production/transport/supply chain, so by the time we purchase something, opps, i mean ANYTHING.(unlike the GST which isnt applied to items deemed essential) the added "carbon offset' will be far higher than the 1 or 2%..

didnt Pauline Hanson get booed out of parliament for suggesting a 2% tax on everything, and abolishing all other taxes...

[teresa green]

Peter, old chap, switch to gliders. End of problem.:ugh:

[sisemen]

Yep. I thought he'd turn tail and run once he was called out.

[parabellum]

Ladies and Gentlemen, if you will allow me to direct you to a now closed thread from Jet Blast:
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/413631-cane-toad-wheel-australian-politics-thread-any-other-name.html

You will discover several 'Peters' with similar posting styles and all of them were full of rhetoric and the Party 'message' but all lacked any semblance of substance. The sole purpose in life of these people was to ensure that any thread on PPRuNe that looked like throwing a glaring light on the disaster that currently masquerades as an Australian government was quickly closed.

Peterc005 reminds me a lot of Nero, even when Rome was burning Nero thought everything was getting better, then again, Nero was a complete Nutter.

[Deepsea Racing Prawn]

A tax imposed on a lie using black magic, paid scientists and trolls to justify those lies.

Are you reading 'Lord of the Rings' at the moment Frank?

You may like to draw the red prawn's posts from jetblast to supplement you questioning of their bona fides.


If you're referring to me Frank, I've never posted on Jetblast, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[Towering Q]

Back on page 15 from Lodown...

DutchRoll: I appreciated the discussion with you.

I appreciated the discussion too. I made a point of reading the links that both of you provided. To gain a better understanding of the issues I think it's important to look a little deeper into both sides of the argument.

Unfortunately, since DutchRoll bowed out, the standard of the debate has gone down the gurgler. Too much emotion and not enough logic.

[Lodown]

For those seriously following the discussion and not trying to kill it, I have been trying to find some information on Venus after DutchRoll mentioned the greenhouse effect there causing high temperatures on an earlier post. I can remember reading about a different line of reasoning presented by physicists and not climatologists, but didn't have the time to follow it up until recently. In short, the heat on Venus (atmosphere of 96% CO2 and then some sulphuric acid and other gases) can be readily explained and mathematically calculated based on the energy from the sun and the density of the atmosphere (roughly 90-92 times that of the earth at the surface) using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Nothing to do with CO2 and proposed greenhouse gas properties. (You might also be interested to know that a certain James Hansen had a lot to do with the initial proposal of the greenhouse effect on Venus.) The atmosphere on Venus has the same or similar temperature lapse rate as earth, which also bolsters an argument against greenhouse effect.

Further reading here: ://theendofthemystery.b.logspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
Copy and paste the link, add "http" to the front and remove the period between the "b" and the "l". (Pprune won't acknowledge the unedited link.)

The Greenhouse Effect is really just a carry-over theory from Prevost from 220 years ago and put into development by Arrhenius. For some time, many physicists have disputed the "Greenhouse Effect", saying that it cannot apply to the earth's atmosphere (or Venus' for that matter) because it conflicts with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

(Time for an annoying Factoid. :) By way of background, heat is transferred by 3 methods: convection, conduction and radiation. A garden greenhouse heats up by trapping convective heat. The Greenhouse Effect as it applies to the atmosphere is theorised to work by trapping outgoing radiative heat.)

From this link (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html):
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

The pro-AGWers would have you believe that the lower atmosphere heats up with back radiation from CO2 molecules in the upper atmosphere. Big problem with this theory is that (and pilots will have first hand experience of atmospheric temperatures) the pro-AGWers are asking you to believe that heat somehow travels from the colder sections of the upper atmosphere to warmer sections of the lower atmosphere. This is in conflict with the 2nd law. I'm always willing to accept that a science law can be broken and I'm looking forward to the day it might happen, even if incredibly unlikely. (Witness the excitement from the science world when CERN revealed after some 3000 experiments that they might have found neutrinos travelling faster than light. They couldn't seem to explain any other possibility. It took only one scientist to factor in the Law of Relativity applied to the positioning of GPS satellites relative to the neutrino trajectories and position of the measuring stations to destroy that nice thought.) However, I don't think the pro-AGWers have been able to crack that 2nd thermodynamic law just yet.

At this rate, Australian businesses will be trading carbon credits between themselves with Goldman Sachs lightly touching every transaction. At the end of the year, another large outflow of cash to the IPCC will occur courtesy of the Aussie taxpayer and I'm sure this also will be lightly touched by GS and other fine banking institutions. And as the Europeans are starting to find out, the heavy industries...or what's left of them...will be packing their bags for sunnier destinations. Qantas might become Australia's Financial Employees', Public Servants' and Politician's airline. No one else will be able to afford it.

[Jake.f]

Can't help myself... have to get back into the debate!
Reading back through the replies I'm still annoyed to see that many people still doubt the existence of global warming at all. I prefer to side with the peer reviewed scientific literature which confirms that global warming DOES exist. I also agree with other recent peer reviewed scientific literature which suggests that the effects of global warming are slower than first thought and while we will see the effects, it will take a lot longer to do so (Essentially meaning generations further down the track will have to deal with this mess)

I would consider myself a Labor voter (Even though I have never actually been able to vote before) but in no way would I be voting Liberal this next election, the details of their "Climate action plan" sound pretty strange to me, I couldn't actually download the policy from their website before to read it either. The Carbon Tax is a good thing in that it shows that a government has the guts to stand up and acknowledge global warming as a real issue and to do something about it, not just leave it for generations down the track to clean up.

Is it actually going to make a difference to climate change? Probably not. Will companies move to implement less polluting ways of producing energy? Probably not, but that is the nature of the capitalist society that we live in. No one will sacrifice even a small percentage of their billions of dollars in profits to take a risk. But at least it is being acknowledged as an issue and not just being swept under the carpet like the right would love to do so much.

The Carbon Tax should be called the pollution tax, and it should be applied to different types of greenhouse gases, not just CO2. Including methane would be a good one which would stick it to the bloody Coal Seam Gas industry :mad:
The price on carbon should start out at much much less also, if it was up to me I wouldn't be starting it at ~$20 a tonne, more like $1 or $2 a tonne. It would still be there and probably wouldn't result in any visible cost increases but it means companies would have to think about it. A reverse tax may work even better, where companies get incentives to cut their pollution rather than being charged to pollute, but they would have to be worthwhile incentives to lead to a big change, otherwise no one will take them. And making the incentives big enough would be expensive.

I find this site interesting: Worldometers - real time world statistics (http://www.worldometers.info/)
Specifically the sections on the environment and energy. Demonstrates the potential for solar energy with the amount striking the Earth each day. I hope that solar farms in the desert will be something I see within my lifetime. Also this doesn't seem like a bad idea either:
http://www.heatingoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/offshore-wind.jpg


That's my 2c for now.

[blackhand]

I hope that solar farms in the desert will be something I see within my lifetime.
Tender has been approved for solar farm near Cloncurry QLD.
We will soon see if this is economical or needs continuing government support

[Lodown]

Jake.f:

From Another Contestant In The Durban “Coyote Stupid” Contest (http://www.real-science.com/contestant-durban-coyote-stupid-contest)

Methane makes up less than 0.000002 mole fraction of the atmosphere. If everyone in Wyoming represented a molecule in the atmosphere, only one of them would be methane. Radiative transfer models show that the greenhouse effect of methane in Earth’s atmosphere is negligible, and that even a 100X increase would be barely noticeable.

Do these people ever do any actual science?

[Jake.f]

Methane isn't a real contributor to global warming yet, but it is a pollutant and if the carbon tax covered general pollution I'm sure it would be a good thing to tax... Even if it is only for water pollution not the atmosphere. There are all those videos on youtube of bubbling CSG wells releasing methane into the water table, THESE should be taxed.

[Lodown]

Should we be taxing farts?

[Lodown]

Seems I was wrong on changes to sea levels:

From: The Spectator, Rising credulity (http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml) Worth a read.

In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’

This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.

If the ice caps are melting, it is at such a small rate globally that we can hardly see its effects on sea level. I certainly have not been able to find any evidence for it. The sea level rise today is at most 0.7mm a year — though, probably, much smaller.

We must learn to take the environmentalists’ predictions with a huge pinch of salt. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was last year: where are those refugees? And where are those sea level rises? The true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in the IPCC’s computer-generated projections. There are many urgent natural problems to consider on Planet Earth — tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions not least among them. But the threat of rising sea levels is an artificial crisis.

[sisemen]

Phew! Thank goodness. At least Saint Flim Tannery's beach side home is safe. Mind you the voluntary contributions by the likes of peterc005 will help to keep the world safe from 21m sea level rises (and at less than 1mm per annum that's approximately 21,000 years so I guess that we'd better start panicking now so that we are ready for it).

[Ultralights]

Can't help myself... have to get back into the debate!
Reading back through the replies I'm still annoyed to see that many people still doubt the existence of global warming at all
I think you will find Jake, that most if not all of the so called "denialists" aren't actually Denying the existence of global warming, but are skeptical in that its 100% man made as we are led to believe.

[Jabawocky]

Correct UL

The real human effect is real, but it is so small that the effect is in th abndwidht of "noise" in the data. It is insignificant. Not what the AGW propoganda wants of course.

[parabellum]

The Carbon Tax is a good thing in that it shows that a government has the guts to stand up and acknowledge global warming as a real issue and to do something about it,


Total and utter Tosh I'm afraid. The Carbon Tax the ALP are wanting to introduce will raise, in ten months, the same as several European countries raise in ten years. There is a remarkable reluctance to admit that this is just another TAX, it is nothing more than a badly disguised fund raiser that will enable the ALP to continue their only known policy, Tax & Spend and the likelihood that any of it will go to reducing Australia's miniscule contribution to Global Warming is zero, zilch.

[MACH082]

Light a match, that'll take care of the methane :)

[tail wheel]

Time this thread had a cooling off period until the children can play nice.

:mad:

[tail wheel]

Play nicely. No name calling! :=

[Frank Arouet]

My problem is with chronic and deliberate drift: The thread is about carbon tax. I fail to see how discussing the "science" is anything but a distraction which is used very regularly in many media reports.

Whether you believe in the science or not, it doesn't address the tax and how it affects us as aviators, engineers or passengers.

It's my opinion, using "science" to justify a lie, puts that "science" in serious doubt. The Incumbants have no mandate to impost this tax and at least should have been held over until after the next election.

[sisemen]

Agreed. There is a perfectly good thread on JB which debates the "science" of global warming/climate change.

This thread is about the shonky politics of hitting us with a tax that we were promosed would not happen and that will not achieve anything other than the transference of money from our pockets to the government's so that they can spend more on the lazy and feckless so that they will vote for them when the time comes.

[Frank Arouet]

I don't normally place much faith in prophets but it is noteworthy in some perverse way to see the Labor Party's recent catch-cry "in the nation's interest" and how this piece of trickery was put together.

Snopes is not much help.

NOSTRADAMUS
Its always worth revisiting Nostradamus after a big event occurs.
Note these consecutive quatrains

Daughter of the Dragon,
Transplanted by Sea,
Promised to lead a Nation,
Destined to ruin a Nation.
Hooded of Eye, and Red of Hair,
The Cunning Lady makes the snare,
The Cup is hers, and she holds it ever tight,
Her Subjects fall to Poverty and to Blight.

Nostradamus is Spot on
as far as Julia Gillard is concerned..........

Daughter of the Dragon - Have a Look at the Welsh Flag.

[flyingfox]

I don't normally place much faith in prophets but . . . . . . . so from that we can take you to mean you do have 'some faith' in prophets!
What's with the nostradamus quote? I personally would want, at the very least, a gypsy with crystal ball. No! wait; better still . . . . . tea leaves and chicken gizzards supported by a few magical spells. No credability otherwise!
The something about "trickery being put together". What does all of this mixture of politics and mysticism actually refer to?
In fact what does your whole post actually mean Frank?? Is it relevant to any Pprrune threads? Is it an answer to the subject of carbon taxation or global warming? You lost me years ago, but never to this new dismal extent.
You aren't ever going to be asked to run in even the shortest of intellectual races with thiese mumblings. Now back to the caldron . . . .

[Frank Arouet]

I wonder what Jonathan Livingstone Seagull would say to that? To you, a protected species that flaps around all night getting pissed on ripe fruit.

Fact is Gillard said there would be no carbon tax and the electorate believed her. How much faith can anyone have in any of her prophesies, such as "the tax will have bugga all impact on low income earners" and "the jobs lost will be in direct proportion to new jobs created in the green industry's" when a committed liar makes such statements.

No mate, Nostradamus is looking better than her, or your chicken gizzard prophecies.

The old quote, in case you missed it contained the words "the nation" in para 3 and 4 which seemed, to echo the new Labor catchcry, "in the Nation's interest" -as if by saying it proved anything Abbott did was not in the Nation's interest.

Oh, I just got it. Cauldron/ witches/ bats. Good one.

[TBM-Legend]

It was interesting to watch a good program on "rising sea levels" the other night. Basically it put forward evidence that many island a "sinking" not the water rising as stated by the profits of gloom. Land in other parts is actually rising as well. The earth has a history of creating and 'destroying' reefs/islands etc due to movement of the tectonic plates and resulting earthquakes and volcanic activity as well as subsidence. All part of mother nature's management program I guess. Ju-liar's TAX won't stop this...

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I am not a climate change skeptic. I believe that climate change happens. You would have to be a complete fool to deny that it doesn't. I am however, a total AGW skeptic, and I am absolutely a Carbon-Tax denier.

[Towering Q]

Funny old thread this one:

Back on page 11, one poster writes...

The posts here keep slipping onto politics as opposed to the scientific debate of what is really happening. Without being too provocative, why not leave references to political parties and politicians out of this thread.

and then on page 19, another writes...

The thread is about carbon tax. I fail to see how discussing the "science" is anything but a distraction


TBM, I think you're getting prophet confused with profit.

[Frank Arouet]

I think you're getting prophet confused with profit.

OK. Malcolm Turnbull is a Merchant Banker who will "profit" from this tax scheme. He is a profit.

Julia Gillard cannot be relied upon as a prophet becasuse she is a liar.

The Labor party's policies cannot be believed because time and time again they, and a couple of Independents, have carried votes in the House of Representatives condoning her misleading Parliament and the voters.

Nostradamus appears to be the only believable prophet because if he indeed, said what was actively reported, his prophecies have come true.

And Traffic old mate, I'm with you;

I am absolutely a Carbon-Tax denier

And peter is a climate change alarmist with no right to be on this thread.

[peterc005]

@Frank - I'm not sure where you get these "rights" from.

There is no point trying to be rational with climate change sceptics because they are more interested in looking for conspiracy theories or shouting people down.

Climate change sceptics are like witch doctors - they both have an unflappable belief in their convictions in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and observations.

... guess now the climate change witch doctors will be making dolls in my image and sticking pins in them ...

[Towering Q]

Malcolm Turnbull is a Merchant Banker who will "profit" from this tax scheme.

Malcolm Turnbull was a Merchant Banker...he is now the Honourable Member for Wentworth.

[MACH082]

And many ex collegues aka 'merchant bankers' have the Honourable member for Wentworths ear :E

[blackhand]

they both have an unflappable belief in their convectionsIs that a funny, or just a malapropism.
Which as you know, are like cliches, and for all intensive porpoises, should be avoided like the plaque.:cool:

[peterc005]

Corrected. Just a spelling mistake.

I can't take people seriously who see conspiracy theories at every turn.

My favourite conspiracy theory is about the government covering up UFO sightings. More colorful than global warming sceptics and not as offensive as 9/11 denier nutters.

[blackhand]

I can't take people seriously who see conspiracy theories at every turn.
The left wing see a global conspiracy against global warming.
So perhaps you too are tarred with the conspiracy theorist brush
It all depends on your ideology.

[Frank Arouet]

Hey, peter. PM me please so I can explain that I am not a climate change/ global warming skeptic but a carbon tax outlaw and you are a global warming/ climate change alarmist attempting to rob me blind with a tax that your mob said would never happen.

Get ready for incoming old mate.

[Frank Arouet]

I'm not sure where you get these "rights" from

There are no "rights" on PPRune, just the tolerance of a beneficial dictatorship. And this depends on the moderator of the day.

Hopefully you and the prawn get the raw prawn.

[peterc005]

@Frank - you are wasting your time and energy worrying about a Carbon Tax.

The reality is the day to day effect will be minimal.

The big effect for you is worrying about a Carbon Tax, not any financial cost.

Don't get wound up by all the people carrying on about the Carbon Tax, life will go on.

[Frank Arouet]

Yes your'e right mate. Just having trouble with people jumping out of the shallow end of the gene pool.:rolleyes:

[Deepsea Racing Prawn]

Fact is Gillard said there would be no carbon tax and the electorate believed her.

So Frank, did you vote ALP in the last federal election because Julia Gillard said there would be no carbon tax?

I didn't think so.:hmm:

[craigieburn]

Quote:
Fact is Gillard said there would be no carbon tax and the electorate believed her.
So Frank, did you vote ALP in the last federal election because Julia Gillard said there would be no carbon tax?

I didn't think so.

So Prawn, did you NOT vote ALP at the last election because Gillard said there would be no Carbon Tax?

FFS, I don't know how many times that I have read Labor apologists making this point trying to excuse this most disgraceful of lies.
Next you will try to tell us that it is OK because little Johnny said there would be no GST, however, the big difference is that Howard changed his mind and actually had the fortitude to take his position to an election.
Surely the fact that a majority of people voted for the opposition beholds this government to take any major policy shift to an election. How can we have any faith in a political process that allows a minority government to make such a massive fundamental change of policy without going to an election?
I can't understand that you rusted on idealogues just don't get why people are pissed about this.

[Frank Arouet]

Ignore the trolls. I think they are wearing out their welcome.

[sisemen]

Despite the bolstering of their position by taking on Slippery Pete I think that their whole pack of cards is about to come tumbling down.

The aftermath of their "conference" with the leaking of the report about Rudd and his screwing the election campaign will enrage him, as will the deal done with the ABC while he was conveniently out of the country.

He hasn't got the numbers but there's no accounting for a man with so much hate in his soul.

So the trolls don't worry me overmuch - they'll shortly be on here bleating about how they was robbed by an ungrateful Australian public.

[peterc005]

The reality is a Carbon Tax will be implemented. On that basis there is no point sooking any more.

From a practical point of view, rising oil prices have had a much bigger effect than any Carbon Tax would.

Fossil fuels are running out and another good effect of the Carbon Tax will be to encourage alternatives. This means that the supply of fossil fuels might last a few years more before they run out.

Some of the energy alternative for aviation look interesting, although it's still early days:

Solar plane promises new era of flight - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/29/tech/solar-impulse/index.html?hpt=hp_bn6)

When I need to replace the Lycoming engine in my plane I'll stick with low compression pistons to give me more fuel options.

Hopefully ethanol will be certified for GA use at some point soon.

[MACH082]

peter,

doesn't engine manufacturers spending billions on new jet engine designs that are designed to power the next aircraft for the next few decades tell you something about the oil reserves?

There is plenty of black stuff in the ground!

[blackhand]

When I need to replace the Lycoming engine in my plane:eek: I'll stick with low compression pistons to give me more fuel options.Can I buy these pistons for my aircraft?
What fuel options can I expect once I put the new pistons in?
If I use ethanol mix, is it pure or denatured?
What carbon tax is due on Ethanol?
Ethanol use (E85), in drag cars is used in very high compression engines, why is it different in the Lycoming engine in your plane:eek:.?

[craigieburn]

Tell me Peter, what is the impact of this Carbon Tax on fuel? Your assumption is that as this is supposed to be a tax to penalise the emission of carbon dioxide, fuel would be right at the top of the tree.
Guess what Peter? Assumption- incorrect.
What this lie is actually about is taxing electricity, and unlike a GST where the end user pays (business claim back the GST, therefore there is no multiplier effect), this evil and insidious tax on power will be added at every stage of the production process. By the time that you end up purchasing a locally made product, it may well have had 5 increments of carbon tax placed on it ie: producer, transporter, wholesaler, transporter then retailer. Not to mention how many increments were already included in the raw materials that the manufacturer purchased.
This is an evil, insidious lie and a handbrake to Australia being competitive in a global market. How on earth can our manufacturers compete globally once this comes in?
But that all doesn't really matter to you, because you can sit back comfortably with your middle class guilt sated by the fact that you really are doing "the right thing" and feeling all warm and fuzzy, when in reality you have done nothing to impact climate change. Nothing, zero, nada, scata

[breakfastburrito]

What this lie is actually about is taxing electricity, and unlike a GST where the end user pays (business claim back the GST, therefore there is no multiplier effect), this evil and insidious tax on power will be added at every stage of the production process. By the time that you end up purchasing a locally made product, it may well have had 5 increments of carbon tax placed on it ie: producer, transporter, wholesaler, transporter then retailer. Not to mention how many increments were already included in the raw materials that the manufacturer purchased.
This is an evil, insidious lie and a handbrake to Australia being competitive in a global market. How on earth can our manufacturers compete globally once this comes in?

Direct hit, perfect description of the corrosive nature of this TAX.

[sisemen]

backhand - well said and, more importantly, shows that a certain poster is talking out of his fundament and probably has no more to do with aviation than applying for his business class seat from his masters in Sussex St.

The word Troll (and political plant) is written large.

[teresa green]

Towering Q, I would suggest the Hon Member for Wentworth, and Goldman Sachs, has little interest in the birds and the bees, but a great deal of interest in the new latest get rich scheme, (with govt. backing) that of the carbon credit scheme. Where do we all sign up?

[peterc005]

At present the variable cost of flying my plane with a single 320 ci Lycoming engine is probably about $120 an hour.

When the Carbon Tax is implemented it might be something like $123 an hour - too small a change to notice and it won't affect my aviation.

In the last two years the rising cost of Avgas has increased my cost per hour by probably $40, a much bigger change.

Oil is a fossil fuel and they supply is finite. As the supply of oil dries up the price will continue to rise until it becomes so expensive demand drops off.

I can imagine oil at $200 a barrel within a couple of years and $500 a barrel within ten to 15 years.

If we conserve our finite oil reserves now it will soften the shock of rising oil prices in future years.

At some point I'll have to commit $30k for a new engine, but like the idea of deferring the decision for a couple of more years until there is more certainly about future oil supplies.

[Jabawocky]

So my plane costs will be an EXTRA $1100 a year.

Car fuel expenses $700-800/yr
Boat and bike, maybe another $200

So I am now $2000 after tax worse off, just on your supposed guess on the price of avgas going up a small amount.

Now how about all the other things like food clothes electricity etc etc.....

how many thousands is it going to cost me per year?

And how much are you and your greenie gay marriage mates in Canberra going to rebate, offset or otherwise compensate me for?

Tell me why I am happy about this when there is no science to prove AGW.....still.

And I am still waiting for your considered response to this;

peterc

My dear chap,
Quote:
If people in this thread had to include reputable references the AGW people would go very quiet.
I am not sure I have seen you do this once yet, and we can throw reputable references at you all day long and YOU ignore them. Stop smoking the weed man!

We or I have given you ample material to go check against, and who said you were the Global Warming Police :ugh:. All you do is prattle rubbish.

I went and used the self confessed green but no axe to grind fellows website, provided by Dutchie and look what came out of it. No thats not good enough for you hey.

I want you to answer this....and with full referencing please!
Quote:
Jabawocky:
Give them to me, they can help offset my carbon taxes when they get applied.

We have plenty of unfair taxation as it is, but this one is the most unfair I have seen yet.

No matter what Jullie Liar says even the poorest folk will be worse off, and those of hard working middle class folk will pay a fortune in increased cost of living in food, utilities etc etc, I will get slugged heaps more for fuel usage etc, and how much of the compensation will come my way ...... Not one cent.

So all these folk who get massive amounts of my tax dollars spent on them already have all the compensation, some big industries allegedly will get some too, and I will get nothing.

I am mighty pissed off about it in case you wondered. And despite your warm fuzzy feeling about donating some amount to plant trees, which is a noble gesture, you are quite likely to be in the same boat. Ripped off to the hilt.

This is an evil, STEAL from the middle classes and give to the wealthy or means tested lucky few TAX. It is not anything more than criminal.

Go back and read my posts about how a tax such as this should be applied. It shall have no exemptions. Use it, You Pay. It should not later be turned into some fraudulent trading scheme either. Might as well turn over our whole tax system to a open market trading scheme.

In every country that introduced such a tax in the past, what happened? The supposed outcome has failed 100% and I wonder why:ugh:

As for all the proven science, I don't care if you think you are right, in another 40 years you will be proven wrong. But what will this stupid tax have done to so many folk over that time is more important.

Take your heads out of the sand and look at the facts, if you truly believe man made CO2 has an affect on global temps, fill ya boots, but what will this stupid tax do about it? More the point with your clever science PROVE that first before we accept the tax. Remember all it takes to test the hypothesis is one result to prove it wronghttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

So pony up lads, prove the tax will make any difference. Get all the science, rubbery or not, and show us how it will work. I can't wait! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Not another post from you please until you do.

Thanks in advance. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


PS and you say the small amount wont hurt, thus it will not change usage, but you are concerned about finite resources :\ Does anyone else see a problem with this guys thought process? I hope that O-320 keeps working well, would hate to think you had to make some quick rational decissions:uhoh:

[peterc005]

@Jabawocky - it's hard to reply because you tend to make incoherent rants rather than logical points.

How many hours are you flying a year if you estimate the cost at $1,100?

Stop shouting; it gives the impression that you've been skipping your medication.

[parabellum]

The reality is a Carbon Tax will be implemented. On that basis there is no point sooking any more.

Implemented and then cancelled, all in the space of a year, you are right, no need to sook too much.


Fossil fuels are running out and another good effect of the Carbon Tax will be to encourage alternatives. This means that the supply of fossil fuels might last a few years more before they run out.


Tosh, You haven't been keeping up to date with your research. Major finds in the USA and Canada recently.

[peterc005]

There is no escaping that they don't make fossils any more. Thus the supply of fossil fuels is by definition limited and must run out eventually.

... thinking about it ... I might be wrong on that point ... there seems to be quite a few fossils on PPRune ...

[craigieburn]

My God peter, stop now because you are getting embarrassing.

There is no escaping that they don't make fossils any more.

When exactly did fossilisation stop?
Just because it takes a very long time does not mean that it has ceased.

I think that you need to do a little more thinking before typing, if you did this you may then realise how you come across as a gullible, sanctimonious t w a t of the highest order.

[teresa green]

Oh for Gods sake Peter it must be happy hour in Sussex St by now, give it a break, most of us are prepared to listen to intelligent debate but not troll debate. Get a Glider there is a good chap, then you can live by what you preach. Oh and get on the Fairfax blogs, they are more inclined to go along with you. Bye.:*

[Ultralights]

Tosh, You haven't been keeping up to date with your research. Major finds in the USA and Canada recently.

I wouldnt be surprised if there are huge reserves here in Oz, words oldest continent, spent a long time underwater....all the ingredients are there...

[peterc005]

I've tried gliders and might spend some more time on unpowered flight when I get time. Gliding seems a good way to improve flying skills.

This thread is dominated by conspiracy theory nutters and bullies who shout down anyone who challenges their quakery.

My only hope is that my contribution adds some balance and reason to this thread so that people reading it don't get the mistaken impression that there is any substance in the anti global warming conspiracy theory.

[teresa green]

Yes Peter whatever you say, sigh.:hmm: