CARBON TAX-It's Started! [Archive]

neville_nobody

20th Oct 2011, 02:07

Just as the 10% tax on absolutely everything by many people's political hero (not mine though) John Howard didn't cost you your jobs, neither is the carbon tax. Industry will adjust and people will get used to it. I just hope, somewhat vainly, that they use it wisely and as it was intended.

No this is totally different.

A GST was only on the end product. Add to that the government also abolished many other taxes that were also in play at the time. There is no tax on fresh food either. So the actual cost of some products went down some went up by less than 10% and others went up by the full 10%. Business also claim the GST back on products they use to stop double taxing.

Now a Carbon tax will be on all inputs into a product, transport and sale of the product then they add GST.

So say you make tshirts that are 100% Australian. You buy cotton from farmers. They pay carbon tax on the production of the cotton. The fuel. The electricity etc. The cotton is trucked to your factory. Carbon tax on the fuel. You run a factory carbon tax on electricity. Carbon tax on everything trucked into the factory. You make your tshirt. It is then trucked again. Carbon tax on that. The retail shop, pays carbon tax on the electricity running everything in shop. Then you pay GST.

Now imagine this on everything you buy...........

Then it gets better.

After a few years they will go to a carbon trading scheme where Juliar says that they will allow the free market to set the price on carbon. Which is actually BS because Labor will be setting a price floor on the price of carbon. So it's not the free market at all. In fact by setting the price floor they have guaranteed the loss for everyone thereby encouraging Goldman Sachs et al you take more risk as they know that the price won't fall below $14 a tonne so that means they can take some calculated risk and that they will never lose 100% of their money.

In short:

The winners from the Carbon Tax/Trading Scheme
The Tasmanian Government
Large investment houses and people trading in carbon credits
The UN
The Chinese economy
Solar power/green technology companies

The loses:
Anyone in Australia below a upper middle class standard of living
The transport industry (ie us)
Large industrial manufacturing.

This tax will destroy the middle class in this country and totally destroy the economy. We will be importing everything including food as it will be cheaper to do so rather than buy Australian made.

In short the Greens/Labor will totally bugger up the country if this goes ahead as planned.

What I can't figure out is why? What is really in play here? I just don't get it.

airsupport

20th Oct 2011, 02:56

What I can't figure out is why? What is really in play here? I just don't get it.

I am sure the ONLY people in Australia that want it are the greens, then we had Juliar after promising before the election that we would never ever have it under any Government she led, turn around against the wishes of the majority of Aussies and bring it in, just so she could hang on to power via an unholy alliance with the greens. :mad::mad::mad:

Jake.f

20th Oct 2011, 03:04

Everyone seems to be having a hard time spelling 'Julia' on here. Not hard guys! The 'r' and 'a' key aren't even close together.

Normasars

20th Oct 2011, 03:13

Hi Jake, or should I call you Bob B,or Tony W, or Adam B, or Rob O.

Please tell us who you really are and what portfolio you are responsible for, because I have some good advice for you.

billyt

20th Oct 2011, 03:13

You will get it eventually Jake.

Jabawocky

20th Oct 2011, 03:17

Wake up Jake!!!

Sound it out slowly....

craigieburn

20th Oct 2011, 03:17

Julia lied about the Carbon Tax, therefore she became Ju-Liar. Geddit?:D
What I don't get though, is why is it called a Carbon Tax? Clearly they are taxing carbon dioxide, not carbon.
The cynic in me would say they use the term "Carbon" to conjure up images of dirty, sooty chimneys because if they talked about carbon dioxide, the great unwashed would correctly start asking about what plants use to photosynthesise and what comes out of their mouths when they exhale.

Jake.f

20th Oct 2011, 03:52

Clearly I was having a dig at it! Jeez I'm not that slow...
I don't necessarily see the carbon tax as a bad thing, but there are far better ways at going about reducing pollution...
If the government spent the money they have spent trying to publicise the Carbon tax on research into alternative energy and fuels we might actually be getting somewhere!

Now for some wise words of Abbott: Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax - YouTube
Denying what is widely considered 'science' and sounding an awful lot like Julia... :ugh:

airsupport

20th Oct 2011, 03:58

There has been climate change on Earth forever, millions of years, that is what killed off the mighty Dinosaurs, long before Man began polluting.

A ridiculous carbon tax in ONE Country is NOT going to change much, just more hardship for all Aussies. :mad:

And apologies for Juliar, it is just easier than typing out her full name JULIAthebigbigliaR. :ok:

chuboy

20th Oct 2011, 04:38

Climate change killed off the dinosaurs? Tell us, what else do you know about the dinosaurs?

I'll bet my hat that the foot stampers here are totally blowing the consequences of this tax out of proportion.

Unlike the GST, if I don't want to pay this tax I just have to buy products that are made in more environmentally-conscious ways. 21st century folks... people have been getting their energy from burning stuff for hundreds of years, time for a less primitive solution.

By the way, yes plants do photosynthesise carbon dioxide but what happens when you cut all the plants down and burn them? All the carbon in the plants just disappears, does it?

Captain Dart

20th Oct 2011, 04:52

Common theory has it that a monster asteroid crashed into what is now Mexico, blasting billions of tonnes of material into the atmosphere, killing the dinosaurs (now that's climate change!). The small-bodied, warm-blooded mammals hung on, evolving into PPrUNE readers.

Dillard and co's carbon tax is a socialist con job, taking your 'hard-earned' to hand over to no-hopers and layabouts.

Another nail in the GA coffin.

craigieburn

20th Oct 2011, 04:56

Chuboy, I reckon that an ice age is a pretty clear cut and extreme example of climate change.
By the way, unless you want to go and live in a commune in Nimbin, there is NO WAY that you can avoid paying this carbon dioxide tax. As stated earlier in this thread, unlike a GST which is imposed upon the end user, this impost will be layered at every stage of production. By the time you consume your goods and services, you WILL be paying.
The most invidious part of this process is that a company may be the most energy efficient producer of goods on the planet, however by the time that you end up buying their product, the price that you pay will include several layers of carbon dioxide tax ie: the transporter, the wholesaler and then the retailer will all add an additional cost to your item as their way of apportioning their cost of this tax.
At least a GST is clear cut and only imposed once

airsupport

20th Oct 2011, 05:07

There have been massive climate changes in the past, ever heard of the Ice Age. ;)

This is the wisdom about Dinosaurs. :ok:

(QUOTE)

Scientists theorize that the extinctions were caused by one or more catastrophic events, such as massive asteroid impact(s), or increased volcanic activity. Several impact craters and massive volcanic activity, such as that in the Deccan traps, have been dated to the approximate time of the extinction event. These geological events may have reduced sunlight and hindered photosynthesis, leading to a massive disruption in Earth's ecology. Many researchers believe the extinction was more gradual, resulting from a combination of the events above and others including sea level and climate changes.

metalman2

20th Oct 2011, 05:32

Now I don't claim to be a scientist or even pretty learned, but if we send our money over to another country for them to plant trees so we can be dirty (one of the worst on the planet I'm told) aren't we going to go broke(r) pretty quick, I would think that spending the money to plant trees here using the boat people (at minimum wage ,which will still be better than being tortured at home) and offsetting our nortyness in our own country makes good sense , but this seems to left out of the debate , and for what it's worth T Abbott may not be the best choice but he is hell ova lot better than the current buggers.
And ,although it's very unpopular to say it ,I don't want to join the HOLY FELLOWSHIP OF CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVERS CHURCH pty ltd , unless they start burning the free thinkers at the stake again !!!!

flyingfox

20th Oct 2011, 06:25

If you don't believe in the scientific method, how research is carried out, peer reviewed and elevated to acceptance by the general scientific community, you won't be able to agree with any science in general. The facts of what is happening to our climate are out there. You can view it politically or scientifically. You can even dismiss it on the basis of religious belief. But if you can't understand it, your opinion probably isn't helping sensible debate. As pilots, people who use the results of scientific advancement every day, some of the opinions expressed here seem at odds with the modern reality science has given us. Science isn't about confirming what you want to hear. It is a method of learning.

Specnut727

20th Oct 2011, 07:31

Whether you agree or disagree with climate change. Even if we are causing it, why are we going ahead with the carbon tax when Australia CAN NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE to the big picture. A friend works at Boyne Smelter near Gladstone and alerted me to Riotinto's announcement earlier this week. They're selling a lot of their Aluminium assets, and while they have 'said' that the carbon tax did not contribute to their decision, I'm not so sure. Here's an interesting take on where Australia's industry is being driven. Please read this and throw it into the mix.

Rio's aluminium climate of change | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/rios-aluminium-climate-of-change/story-e6frfig6-1226169145164)

RATpin

20th Oct 2011, 12:43

Spot on CD.

...still single

20th Oct 2011, 16:58

If you don't believe in the scientific method, how research is carried out, peer reviewed and elevated to acceptance by the general scientific community,

Oh really?!?

Like the IPCC "hockey stick" graph?

And the fact that IPCC predictions of the global temperature increase for the past decade have been spectacularly wrong?

And saying over and over again that increased CO2 levels will raise global temperatures -with no evidence to back it up -because everyone 'knows' that that is how it works.

And ALL the carbon offsetting that mankind is going to do over the next century can be negated by just one volcanic eruption.

No, I'm not a believer.

metalman2

20th Oct 2011, 20:16

I was being a bit sarcastic, but the things i understand are these,,we're a small country that is relativity under populated, our impact on the global pollution is minimal ,in spite of the political spin we are not the evil mass polluters the labour/green coalition keeps telling us, (FFS have a look at the air in India or China) ,
this government has taken a pretty good financial position and screwed it up quite badly, the ONLY way they could pretend to be a government is by doing "deals" we got screwed, they got to keep their jobs,we got LIED to,
regardless of the science we are being governed by a bare faced liar,and some may think thats okay but I don't,
I am offended by the religious fervor of the climate change believers ,if I dare to disagree or even want to listen to differing facts I am branded as a fool ,of the mental equivalent of and eggplant.
It disgusts me to see a political leader blabber on how she has represented the majority when the facts are to the contrary, kisses and hugs all round, goods news ,WE WILL GET TO WAVE GOODBYE TO MOST OF THEM!!!

ALAEA Fed Sec

20th Oct 2011, 20:40

Even if we are causing it, why are we going ahead with the carbon tax when Australia CAN NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE to the big picture.

Australia can make a difference. The move towards a cleaner planet has to start somewhere. If every country sat around waiting for someone else to move nothing would ever get done and if the scientists are correct, our kids or their kids could pay the price.

blackhand

20th Oct 2011, 20:50

The move towards a cleaner planet has to start somewhere. Get out of the city and into the bush/rural area/village and check how "cleaner" the planet is.

BTW the demise of the dinosaurs took many millions of years, fast in geological time but not an instantaneous event.
Unless of course one subscribes to the Biblical version, and then took about 40 days.

Cheers
BH

DutchRoll

20th Oct 2011, 21:49

Like the IPCC "hockey stick" graph?
The "hockey stick" has been checked and verified by many of the world's premier scientific institutions. The data showing escalating 20th century temperature rises comes from several different sources and it all shows the same thing. The one solitary scientific paper purporting to tear it down (McIntyre & McKitrick) has itself been shown to be seriously flawed by other scientists.

Saying "liar liar pants on fire" doesn't destroy several decades of scientific evidence.

And the fact that IPCC predictions of the global temperature increase for the past decade have been spectacularly wrong?
Actually the IPCC do not give "decadal" predictions as such, but longer term ones. It is very difficult to make global climate predictions for a given 10 year period, but easier to make predictions over a longer period. They give a range of predictions depending on the scenario, eg, "business as usual", lower economic activity, etc, etc. The predictions generally align well for the circumstances over the past several decades, but can vary depending on several factors.

And saying over and over again that increased CO2 levels will raise global temperatures -with no evidence to back it up -because everyone 'knows' that that is how it works.
CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas which absorbs and re-radiates infrared radiation (ie, "heat"), thus trapping it in the Earth's atmosphere. That is governed by the laws of physics. Specifically quantum mechanics (aka Albert Einstein, Max Planck, and a heap of other famous Nobel Prize winning physicists), the structure of molecules and atoms, and radiation physics. The more of this you shovel into the atmosphere, the more heat has to be trapped. The same rules apply on Earth, Mars, Venus, and any other celestial body with an atmosphere.

If you want to say that it doesn't or cannot do this, then you're going to need to invent new laws of physics. I await with baited breath........

And ALL the carbon offsetting that mankind is going to do over the next century can be negated by just one volcanic eruption.

Absolute crap.

Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption 1991 (2nd largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century): 42 million tonnes of CO2 (Gerlach, 1996, US Geological Survey)

Human/industrial emissions of CO2 in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2 (CO2 Information Analysis Centre, Oak ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy)

chuboy

20th Oct 2011, 22:32

How does the carbon in a volcanic eruption come to be there in the first place?

The difference between natural events like volcanic eruptions and bushfires and human activity is that although carbon is put into the atmosphere it is reabsorbed down the line through carbon sinks like the ocean and plants.

When you start taking carbon that was trapped underground (i.e. oil) and releasing it into the atmosphere, compounded with the problem that we are not just not adding extra carbon sinks to compensate, but actively removing them, then you start to get issues when you look at the carbon balance in the end.

The earth will be unaffected in the end. But you can't say the same for the life that lives on it. The ocean absorbs carbon dioxide just as it does oxygen and other gases. When you dissolve carbon dioxide in water you get some carbonic acid. There is a complex equilibrium in ocean water that is easily disturbed.

I don't want to sound like a doped up hippie but there are more important things we should care about on the planet than the state of the economy. We went on without one for thousands of years. But in a fraction of that time we have, as one example, caused the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef (it's happening as we speak). I shouldn't need to go on about why that's a bad thing, if you don't see why then I'm sorry, but you must have the intelligence of an eggplant as one poster so eloquently suggested. [As it happens, the reef is also highly at risk to changes in the ocean chemistry due to imbalance of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Carbonic acid attacks coral and shells.]

You would think that on the whole, someone whose job depended on Australian tourism would care more about looking after the things people come here to see...

43Inches

20th Oct 2011, 22:46

CO2 measurements from historical data (talking millions of years here) suggest we are at the lowest levels of CO2 in global history. Granted it is rising but we have a long way to go to even match the CO2 levels when the dinosaurs existed.

File:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png)

As stated in the notes Ice ages have come and gone with significantly higher CO2 levels than we presently have and the scientist are at a loss as to the mechanisms which caused the global cooling. This all suggests that CO2 is not the direct cause of global temperature, larger factors are involved. There is another graph which plots Co2 levels vs past significant temperature changes and the data suggest CO2 lags the temperature variations suggesting it is not a causal factor but a symptom. There is some data suggesting global vegitation levels vs temperature which seem more credible than CO2 in explaining variations.

File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg)

What caused the peaks and troughs over the last 800,000 years? Cycles of cave-man carbon tax?

I beleive global warming is and will happen and in the future it will reverse into global cooling. Man may have an significant input but he can not stop it happening, merely slow it down and by how much is very debatable.

In any case more problems for animal life have occured with global cooling than warming, ice ages have by far been the main conrtributor to mass extinction than any other cause.

Ultralights

20th Oct 2011, 23:01

Not another CO2 is killing us all or not argument, but the simple fact remains, a carbon TRADING scheme, is NOT a REDUCTION scheme...

as for the hockey stick graph, and its Prediction, just what has happened to the Prediction part up to 2010?

and finally, after all the past "non man made" climate change, over far greater temperature differences than the 1 or 2 deg predicted, we are STILL HERE! it seams everyone has forgotten the fact that we, humans, and countless other animal species can ADAPT! its why we are all over the planet from the Ice wastelands to the deserts... just as those bloody black crows are everywhere from the snowfields at -10 deg, to the middle of Lake Eyre when its 40deg+...

where the real issue lies is with POLLUTION. now a Pollution reduction scheme i can get behind, carbon is Not and never will be "pollution"

as for this tax, well, adapt.. i just sold my fuel burning Subaru WRX, for a Diesel i30 that uses 4.5L/100km... no amount of whinging will change the fact its going to happen.. so use your head, and adapt.

Jake.f

21st Oct 2011, 00:31

As has been mentioned above, CO2 dissolves in water to form Carbonic Acid. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more has the chance to dissolve in rain, which leads to rain that is more acidic than it naturally is which can have massive environmental effects all on it's own.
Completely agree with the above post on the CO2 equilibrium in the oceans as well.

Once upon on time we all thought that CFC's were harmless, remember. They were thought to be harmless as they were inert at sea level, and odourless and had no real effects. However once we kept pumping these into the atmosphere as by-products we found out that the higher levels of UV light strips Chlorine radicals off the molecules, which then go looking for something to react with, and what do they find? Ozone, they react with that and destroy ozone in the stratosphere. This leads to less UV light being absorbed by this ozone, which is it's primary function (read: the ozone layer), thus allowing more harmful UV light to reach the Earth's surface, which is a BAD thing.
Since CFC's have been phased out there has been a recorded drop in their presence in the stratosphere, this is scientific fact, and to ignore this is sheer stupidity.

The point I'm trying to make is that we may think that excess CO2 is all well and good now, but sooner or later we may realise it is doing more harm than we first thought. I think that as well as the CO2 tax, something should be done about reducing carbon monoxide and elemental carbon particulate pollution (In most cases this is as simple as getting the air to fuel mixture right in engines, as CO and C are formed when a fuel is burnt in limited oxygen)

DutchRoll

21st Oct 2011, 00:45

43 inches, you are talking about different scenarios and different causes.

What is happening now is not related to coming into, or going out of an ice age. There is a 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle which does affect climate due to eccentricities in the Earth's orbit around the sun, however the climate effects of this cycle are greater than expected. The large 100,000 year fluctuations also don't go back more than about a million years. Why this is so is not fully understood yet, but it has nothing to do with the current problem.

What CO2 levels and temperature anomalies were in the past is irrelevant. There were not 6 billion humans and megacities 500,000 years ago. The world and its inhabitants 500,000 years later is a very different place.

What is concerning scientists is the rate of change, and the cause of that change.

The cycles you refer to occurred over very long periods of time. What is happening now is occurring over an incredibly short period of time, unmatched in the historical record. Not only that, there is no reason to believe it will stop, unlike other CO2 and temperature increases.

The reason scientists do not believe it will stop and/or reverse, is simply because we continue to pump greenhouse gas into the atmosphere unabated. It really comes down to very simple laws of physics: you keep adding it, and it will keep warming above and beyond the Earth's ability to naturally absorb it. It's so simple, yet so many people don't get it.

carbon is Not and never will be "pollution"
On exactly what basis do you arbitrarily decide whether or not something is "pollution"? What's your definition of "pollution"? Do you think pineapple juice is pollution? Would your goldfish think it was pollution if you poured a couple of litres of it into his tank? Yeah I know goldfish probably don't "think", but I'm sure you get my point.

What comprises "pollution" depends very much on what effects a given substance has on a particular environment under certain circumstances. It doesn't just have to be black soot.

neville_nobody

21st Oct 2011, 01:04

Saying "liar liar pants on fire" doesn't destroy several decades of scientific evidence.

Which is laughable when we are arguing about temperature rises over thousands of years. Just because there has a been a small temperature rise in a 30 year period is irrelevant when talking about thousands of years.

The whole problem with the scientific argument is that they are using 100 years of reliable data to say that the earth temperature is rising over the last 2000.
They haven't even established what is actually normal before they can say it is getting hotter. And the global temperature in that time period has gone in both directions and that was with very little human impact.

Michael O'Leary sums the whole situation up pretty well:

I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the global temperatures will be in 100 years time.

And as for the Carbon Tax:

ELECTRICITY generators have written to all senators warning that unless the carbon tax laws are amended consumers could face power price rises of 20 per cent in the first year rather than the 10 per cent increase on which the government has calculated its household compensation.
The Energy Supply Association is angry the government plans to force immediate payment for forward-dated emission permits, rather than the deferred payment allowed under the former Rudd government's emissions trading scheme.
The generators' association delivered its warning as the Treasury secretary, Martin Parkinson, said he and his colleagues might have to ''make a choice with their feet'' should the Coalition win office and direct them to dismantle the carbon trading scheme.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Also, the Coalition warned yesterday that the government's $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which will help fund green investment, would ''be a honeypot to every white shoe salesman imaginable''.
The opposition finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, said the fund would be spent on ''all sorts of wild and wacky proposals that the banks would not touch in a fit''.
Mr Robb said he was referring to ''those energy companies who have been critical but who have strong interests in renewables and could potentially be major beneficiaries of these subsidies.'' The opposition would scrap the fund.
The Energy Supply Association says the change from deferred payment means some cash-strapped generators will not be able to afford to nail down their carbon price liability by entering into forward contracts with retailers and big industrial companies and instead power prices will rise as they try to manage their financial risk.
''Our members need to begin purchasing forward permits … if they can't afford to they won't be able to lock in a future price for carbon … and that means prices will rise,'' said the association's interim chief executive, Clare Savage.
Modelling by the economic consultancy ACIL Tasman found that even a 5 per cent reduction in forward electricity contracts could lead to an additional 10 per cent price rise for households and 15 per cent for big electricity users.
''And that's in a single year,'' Ms Savage said. ''You could have two years in a row of that, which would dwarf the carbon price impact.
''It is the Senate's job to fix obvious errors and in our view there is an obvious error in these bills. We have drafted an amendment and … just 20 words and they could fix this problem.''
Dr Parkinson secretary has worked on three versions of the scheme for three prime ministers, heading the secretariat that drafted John Howard's emissions trading scheme, running Kevin Rudd's Climate Change Department and helping draw up the Gillard government's scheme as Treasury head.
Asked in a Senate hearing yesterday whether he would assist a government elected on a policy of rescinding the carbon tax he had helped build, the Treasury secretary said as a public servant he would serve the Australian people through the government of the day.
''Everybody has a choice in front of them,'' he said. ''If they are not prepared to implement the policies the government chooses to pursue, and that government has been democratically elected, then they essentially have to make a choice with their feet.''
On the issue of payment for permits, Ms Savage said the government had ''its head in the sand'' and the Coalition was not advocating the industry's proposed changes either.
The government is proposing to auction 15 million forward-dated pollution permits in 2012-13, and the electricity generators say they would like to buy 10 times more than that but do not have the working capital to pay for the impost immediately.
The Senate will vote on the carbon tax laws next month.
The government is offering loans to generators struggling to find the cash to buy future permits but the generators have criticised the measure because the loans are above commercial rates.
Businesses have also been warning about price rises due to the financial risks caused by the Coalition's promise to repeal the carbon tax. The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said yesterday those claims were coming from companies who could profit from carbon pricing.
Dr Parkinson said the choice about staying in his job might not be his to make. ''Whether I was secretary of the Treasury would be a matter for the prime minister of the day,'' he said.

Read more: Tax flaw: power bills may rise 20% (http://www.smh.com.au/national/tax-flaw-power-bills-may-rise-20-20111020-1madg.html#ixzz1bNFE7Pvd)

Dark Knight

21st Oct 2011, 01:09

The first place to start is carefully reading the Copenhagen Climate Change Convention which will illustrate completely how big a Ponzi Scheme, Scam Climate Change/Global Warming is.
Essentially the aim is to create a World Government controlled by, guess who?, the Burgermiesters of Europe under the guise the of climate change. Said Government to create a huge bureaucracy to run this government, unquestioned and financed by the rest of the world. We are talking multi Billions of dollars here.

Next read the Draft Agreement from Cancun where, interestingly, a final agreed document cannot be found. This expensive, farcical gabfest took the result of Copenhagen purely dressing the same policy in unreadable, incomprehensible `Eco Babble’ the aim of which is to make it so difficult and hard to read for the average punter, journalist that they will give up attempting to decipher it.

That climate change is, has occurred is not disputed it has been occurring since the beginning of time and there is no doubt is some ways man has contributed to the variations which occur. However, the real question is how should we deal with it?

Not wishing to incur the wrath of the moderators by turning to an aviation theme we firstly only need to look at our own industry.

In the last Forty (40) year the aviation industry has reduced/improved its Fuel efficiency (reduced carbon dioxide footprint) by 70%!

Just two weeks ago Boeing introduced to service the Boeing 787 which is 20% more efficient than its predecessors; Airbus claim their next aircraft directly competing with the 787 will be another 5% more efficient; Airbus are redesigning the A320 NEO aiming for a 15% increase in efficiency as are Boeing with the B737 redesign. Boeing redesigned the 747 aiming for 15% improvement and it appears the Boeing 747-800 entering service will be 20% more efficient than earlier models.

Essentially, the industry has met every proposed target set yet is to be taxed unmercifully plus there is additionally an increase in FUEL tax.

However, the story does not stop here because more than significant improvements in the carbon footprint of the industry have occurred in many other areas:

Navigation; improvements/efficiencies in routing, weather use, etc
ATC; improvements in ATC procures, routes, control, etc
Improvements, changes in ground handling both of aircraft and servicing the flights

The list is long and many.

There is also one other very significant area of reduction (and The ALAEA Fed Sec may wish to take note of this and review what he says and tells his members; an area which the unions are extremely reluctant to acknowledge and admit too {and, before you shoot me, I am a card carrying union member}) which is in the use and number of personnel used and employed within the industry. Less Employees required!

Then number of people employed per aircraft has been significantly reduced over the period, pilots, cabin crew, engineers, baggage handlers, caterers, counter clerks, clerks, etc, that is in every area of the airline industry. Much has been created by the efficiencies introduced by computerisation enabling increasingly efficient use of personnel and procedures thus there is a need for far less personnel in every area. This search for improvement will continue with further decrease in personnel required and implementation of a Carbon Dioxide Tax will only add to the need to reduce personnel.

One small illustration show less staff means less staff travelling to work creating a reduction in CO2 produced, less staff at work means less CO2 produced (they are not there breathing out CO2); one graphic illustration is self check in – the number of check in staff required per pax is significantly reduced.

When fully and properly analysed there have been major reductions by this industry which have been completely and totally ignored.

Lindsay Fox (over the years self admitted friend of the unions and Labor supporter {which I do not have a problem with}) ; Owner of Fox Transport reports his organisation has reduced its emissions (carbon footprint) by 58% with further improvements in the pipeline. Apart from improvement to his fleet improvements similar the airline industry includes the reduction of personnel, i.e. less staff.

When a full analysis is undertaken of what has, is happening right throughout industry and business with Australian and the World, is there have been major reductions in every area contributing to improved energy use with reductions in emissions.
Carbon TAX, Carbon trading is naught but a gigantic wealth redistribution scheme.

Two final points:
World population according to the UN will increase by some 37% by the year 2050 yielding a natural 37% increase in CO2 production just by these new people breathing. Furthermore, each and every one of these new people will require, want the energy, utilities and benefits we have today requiring further increase in emissions to provide this. However, because of the efficient use and production of these from our efforts to this time the amount of emissions to provide this will be significantly less.

This 37% plus increase in emissions without any method or policies to control the increase shoots an immediate huge hole in the whole climate change/global warming reduction targets

Secondly, let us not forget, here, on each and every one of the `small’ increases which will occur to `our – the taxpayers’ budget is an as yet unaccounted, unmentioned 10% increase i.e. Plus 10% GST!

43Inches

21st Oct 2011, 01:46

Dutchroll,

If you look at the graph i provided earlier which correlates temperature to CO2 over 800,000 years you will see the last 50,000 years there has been a sharp increase in core sample temperature. This suggest that we are indeed in an overall warming phase. There has been a mild plateau for the last 10 thousand years and are mildly cooler then 6000 years ago but its a minute step in the historical cycle. In the past CO2 has followed temperature because of the nature of the environment. There is still no proof it is forcing temperature rise.

breakfastburrito

21st Oct 2011, 02:20

Dark Knight, you articulate many of my thoughts. I wonder if carbon is the new "debt", given the world is now debt saturated (and therefore now longer useful) as a global control mechanism by the elites.

Think about the public debate in the media and consider the following.
Hegelian Dialectic
The Hegelian Dialectic is a philosophical approach that in principle explains how human beings progress toward a better and more egalitarian condition but in practice provides the power elite with a strategy for controlling society.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was among the most consequential philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. His was heavily influenced by Plato, whose social ideal was rule by an elite composed of philosopher-kings. Though Hegel may not have intended to provide a Platonic methodology for the modern-day control of the many by the few, that is how his insights have been used.

The Platonic influence on Hegel was reinforced by the age in which he worked. Hegel accepted that "enlightened" human beings are responsible for their own destiny, and that culture and history are a product of human development, which in turn is driven by reason. Hegel subscribed to the Rousseauian notion that humans are a blank slate, a tabula rasa. In fact, Hegel was a big fan of the French, in cluding the authoritarian leader Napoleon and the French Revolution itself, a bloodbath he described as the realization of more perfect freedom.

Today most behavioral scientists see human beings not as purely rational or perfectly elastic but as complex creatures many of whose behaviors are instinctual or biologically programmed. This has not hindered the practical application of Hegel's conceptual tools, however, which have been used as an effective methodology of control for at least the past century.

It is necessary to examine the dialectic in a little more detail to understand this. Hegel postulated that each stage of human advance – and the course of history itself – was driven by an argument (thesis), a counterargument (anti-thesis) and finally a synthesis of the two into a more advanced argument – at which point the process restarted. For Hegel, the dialectic could explain everything – art, culture, history, even nature.

From our more modern vantage point, Hegel's dialectic may not seem so persuasive as an explanation of all things – and in fact, it probably is not. But for the elite of his day, and for the monetary elite today, the Hegelian dialectic provides tools for the manipulation of society.

To move the public from point A to point B, one need only find a spokesperson for a certain argument and position him or her as an authority. That person represents Goalpost One. Another spokesperson is positioned on the other side of the argument, to represent Goalpost Two.

Argument A and B can then be used to manipulate a given social discussion. If one wishes, for instance, to promote Idea C, one merely needs to promote the arguments of Goalpost One (that tend to promote Idea C) more effectively than the arguments of Goalpost Two. This forces a slippage of Goalpost Two's position. Thus both Goalpost One and Goalpost Two advance downfield toward Idea C. Eventually, Goalpost Two occupies Goalpost One's original position. The "anti-C" argument now occupies the pro-C position. In this manner whole social conversations are shifted from, say, a debate over market freedom vs. socialism to a debate about the degree of socialism that is desirable.

The Hegelian dialectic is a powerful technique for influencing the conversations of cultures and nations, especially if one already controls (owns) much of the important media in which the arguments take place. One can then, as the monetary elite characteristically do, emphasize one argument at the expense of the other, effectively shifting the positions of Goalposts One and Two.
DailyBell:Hegelian Dialectic (http://thedailybell.com/619/Hegelian-Dialectic)

DutchRoll

21st Oct 2011, 03:17

43Inches,

No-one (which includes climate scientists) disputes that temperature and CO2 don't vary in a very long timescale cycle. But what is not shown on your graph is what the trend is during your last 50,000 year period. If you take the same Vostok ice core data and expand the scale out for those 50,000 years, you will indeed see the "hockey stick", lurking rather ominously right at the end.

It's all too easy to crunch the data into an 800,000 year period (which hides the hockey stick very conveniently) and say "See? No problem!" Fortunately there are scientists out there who pour over the data in a lot more detail than that and go "hey....look at this......that's not normal. Why would that be happening?"

There is still no proof it is forcing temperature rise
Radiative forcing from CO2 is known, measured, and accounted for with a very high level of scientific understanding.

NASA Nimbus weather/climate satellites started launching way back in the early 70s (specifically the Nimbus 4 satellite) with infrared spectrometers and other sensitive instruments to look at what radiation is absorbed and emitted by the Earth. This showed and measured how CO2 was absorbing longwave radiation. In the 1990s, the Japanese Space Agency launched the "ADEOS" satellite, which contained even more sensitive instruments including the Interferometric Monitor for Greenhouse Gases (IMG) - a high resolution Fourier transform spectrometer - which specifically measured greenhouse gas distribution and absorption.

From measuring the absorption, it's a simple calculation to figure out how much extra energy is being added within the atmosphere, and therefore you can come up with a reasonable estimate of the expected temperature rise. Of course other factors like clouds, aerosols, ocean heat absorption, etc need to be taken into account too, and admittedly some of these factors need a lot of further investigation. But the basic facts of CO2 forcing temperature are not in any genuine doubt whatsoever.

You can look this stuff up, if you want. It's just that no-one usually bothers reading it because no-one wants to change their opinion on the topic. And no-one wants to turn their aircon off or trade in their Hummer.

Honestly, I'm not certain about what faces us in the future, but I do know that if you look back at relatively modern history, humans will not change their habits until they really start feeling a lot of pain, no matter what the scientific evidence says.

43Inches

21st Oct 2011, 03:30

There is still no proof, in reality the anticipated temperature increase due to CO2 at this level has not happened.

File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png)

There's the last 10 thousand years and yes there has been a bump in the last few decades. But still no absolute proof CO2 is causing warming, not only did CO2 lag temperature in the past in increases, but it remained significantly high when temperatures dropped. Shouldn't high CO2 levels lead to maintained high temperature in that case.

DutchRoll

21st Oct 2011, 03:58

There is still no proof

Sheesh.

There is no "proof" that gravity exists, except a theory formulated by Newton, then pretty much discarded and reinvented by Einstein, to explain some curious observations made a long time ago.

Plus a whole bunch of evidence including a near 100% certainty (though still not quite 100%) that if you leap off a sheer cliff, you'll be attracted towards the centre of the Earth at an accelerating velocity of about 10 metres per second per second, until your fall is interrupted by something really hard and immovable (which in some cases may be the surface of the Earth itself). There are even theoretical formulas to calculate approximately how much force will be experienced by your skeletal system, and thus how crumpled your bones will become. It is only an estimate though, and individual results may vary.

There is still no proof of this though. But I put enough trust in people who have been researching it for a long while, and who are far smarter than I, to ensure that I do not leap off such cliffs to test it out.

craigieburn

21st Oct 2011, 04:21

It appears that this whole climate change argument is fast becoming the modern version of the crusades.
Surely if there are dissenting "scientific" theories, we, as a society can have a sensible debate about the issues. However, it seems that if your opinion can be classified as being opposed to that of the true believers, you will then be excluded from the debate because your are a "denier" or some other similarly emotive tag.
The true believers keep talking about "The Science" proving this or that, however true scientists will acknowledge that even the best theories are only in vogue until a new, brighter and shinier theory comes along which disproves the previously held versions of the truth (think flat earth etc).
I think that history has shown us that blind faith without questioning leads to dangerous times for humanity.
Beware Zealots in any shape or form:ok:

neville_nobody

21st Oct 2011, 04:34

And additional to that the proponents of the climate change theory, have much monetary gain to be had from their theories.

And given that Labor/Greens are not really funding any alternatives for carbon reduction lifestyle makes it all a bit fishy.

They don't support public transport nor subsidise it, in fact they want it more expensive. They managed to abolish the solar power rebate, they don't do anything for Solar power/electric/hybrid cars, they want to rid Australia of aviation but they run around telling everyone that the skys falling in and we have to all go broke as a result.

If there was really a carbon pollution problem then they should be shifting things around. Discourage people from driving cars. Encourage mass tranport. Encourage rail freight not truck freight. Encourage local farm markets and reduce the food miles. Encourage people to grow their own food. Encourage R & D in electric vehicles.

D.Lamination

21st Oct 2011, 04:38

Bottom Line - By how many poofteenths of a degree will Australia's carbon tax reduce the planet's temperature?...............I thought so.

As for the lead by example brigade - usually those who have never had a job in the non-public sector and have to exist in the real world - has any one said they will sign up because we have?

Last week the UK reduced it's emission reduction target) from 80% by 2050 to 20% by 2050. NZ is winding back the impact of it's scheme. We are definately shooting ourselves in the foot.:*

Avaition has, for the longest time, been putting maximum effort in to reducing emissions since carbon based fuel is one of our biggest costs. Do you really think that giving money to pink batts administrators will help reduce emissions better than the industry investing money on its own to get fuel consumption down, buying the latest tech. jets etc.

The real agenda from the Greens is to shut us down - except for government jets to take Greens MP's to important talkfests.:ugh:

The big problem with single country schemes is everyone worries about competitive advantage (except Julia - since she doesn't know what it is).

How about this for a solution: Send Kev galavanting around the world getting everyone he can to sign up to "I will if you will" legislation. Each country would set up "trigger" legislation such that when the two biggest emitters out side the EU (China and the US ) sign up to an ETS of "x" specification then everyone is in.:ok:

Alternatively we could take the common sense views of Bjorn Lomborg on mitigation since change is inevitable. Bjørn Lomborg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg)

DutchRoll

21st Oct 2011, 04:41

Sheesh....again.

There is debate and dissent among climate scientists about the precise mechanisms, the exact details, the precise numbers, plus or minus the precise possible errors, and the precise contribution of the other factors in climate changes.

But what there is NOT any (credible) debate about among climate scientists and similar experts is:

the fact that it is happening

the extremely high probability that it is due to greenhouse gases

the absence of any other viable explanations

the greenhouse gases are due to our industrialisation

that there will be long term consequences, and some of these are visible and measurable already.

It is not worth your time to quibble over details.

This is like saying "well heck, gravitational acceleration could really be only 8 metres per second per second, and I'd argue that it may be substantially reduced by a passing asteroid, so we can't really be certain", as you leap into a graceful swan dive over that cliff.

Bottom Line - By how many poofteenths of a degree will Australia's carbon tax reduce the planet's temperature?...............I thought so.

By how many poofteenths of a percent will your $50 donation to the Salvos reduce world poverty?

Of course, virtually zero. So therefore, all of us should cease charitable donations immediately. They obviously have no effect. I will ensure I clearly explain this to the Salvo collector next time he comes around to the pub. I'll point him to the argument on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network. In fact, you've made me feel quite embarrassed about my last donation. It was only about $5 in loose change. Which will have a poofteenth of a poofteenth effect on world poverty.

Have I made my point?

Xcel

21st Oct 2011, 05:18

Happening or not happening - the Gillard government doesn't have any idea about how to do anything let alone "the greatest challenge of our time"(k.Rudd)

withdrawing the solar panel rebates, when they want more people using them
no funding to geothermal
no debate on nuclear power
withdrawing the rebate for LPG
no expenditure or future thought to greener and more efficient public transport

we all know it's just another tax and has nothing to do with climate change... So why are you even debating climate change on here.

Even if pollution doesn't cause climate change wouldn't it be nice to see a blue sky in the city instead of Brown smog, colourful corals instead of bleached ****. Unfortunately this government only knows red balance sheets and green greed. I'm definately not a hippy... In fact I'm a climate skeptic... But I have no problems with a cleaner environment with balances to a richer economy with innovations and efficiencies through sponsored programs and government GUIDANCE. Not lies and Robin hood economies that rob from one end to pay the other and fiddle with everything until the beaurocratic bs takes over and destroys what remains... Need a real leader but unfortunatly they're all as bad as each other...

craigieburn

21st Oct 2011, 05:24

Have I made my point?

No you haven't.

So therefore, all of us should cease charitable donations immediately. They obviously have no effect.
What a stupid, asinine analogy. Any donation can have a demonstrable and immediate effect on whatever cause that you are donating to.

You my friend are a zealot.

chuboy

21st Oct 2011, 05:35

It's taken decades for any measurable difference in ozone concentration to show up. You could have argued back in the 90s that not spraying a can of Mortein had no immediate effect on ozone concentration and thus ceasing the use of CFCs in favour of HFCs was an expensive, pointless exercise (possibly proposed by communist socialist gay Jewish Nazis intent on world domination :E ).

But you would have been wrong.

DutchRoll

21st Oct 2011, 05:37

Any donation can have a demonstrable and immediate effect on whatever cause that you are donating to.
20 cents? An immediate effect?

I mean, you are seriously kidding aren't you? Is this a wind-up?

You seriously don't get the point of an apparently small principle which is then multiplied by a large factor? Seriously? :confused:

Asinine indeed.......

craigieburn

21st Oct 2011, 05:48

Out of interest, what are your views on nuclear power? I guess that like the rest of the true believing zealots you would be opposed, even though it has a very low "carbon footprint".

chuboy

21st Oct 2011, 05:52

I know you're not asking me but I'll put it out there that honestly I think it's realistically where we're going to end up, provided cold fusion or more efficient solar power sources aren't invested.

I'm all for it, especially since we are blessed with plenty of uranium and other nuclear fuels.

Just need to get rid of the stigma created by Chernobyl and Fukushima. Despite the fact that we are talking 'ancient Soviet technology' and 'huge earthquake followed by tsunami' respectively.

AussieAviator

21st Oct 2011, 05:58

I love this debate, guys and gals, but my original concern was introducing a massive new tax, against the wishes of the people, and making this country less competitive against our competitors. Will Asia have a massive carbon tax (largest in the world)? Do we all want to be flying for Asian owned airlines? As more work is outsourced to Asia, this may one day become the truth. I keep mentioning Asia, because we are part of it, and naturally, that is where OS maintenance, crewing bases and employment of new Aussie start ups will occur. In the end, we send alot of coal and gas to countries like China, and in the future, guess which countries, Australian companies will have to buy carbon permits from? They must be thinking that the Australian government has totally lost the plot on this, to make our companies (Airlines) uncompetitive, compared to them, and they will still hold us to ransom, regarding permits. Sorry, I just don't get it!!:confused::ugh:

flyingfox

21st Oct 2011, 05:59

I can't believe the debate raging here with climate skeptics peddling their nonsense of 'world domination', 'capitalist plots' and 'Ponzi schemes'. Scientific ignorance is obviously 'cool' with some contributors to this thread. Opinion masquerading as knowledge is so tedious. For those who wish to understand how scientists really work in the real world, the following link will lead you to a good starting point. Scientists by nature tend to be modest and media shy. If you have an hour to spare; do yourself a favour and watch this talk in full. It isn't propoganda; just an interview with two of those mysterious people who actually do scientific research. They are Australians which makes their words even easier to comprehend.
Video Full Clip - Browse - Big Ideas - ABC TV (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/browse/video_popup.htm?vidURL=/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/10/18/3341587-mediarss-full.xml&vidTitle=Geeks,%20Freaks%20and%20Eggheads&vidLength=Full)

DutchRoll

21st Oct 2011, 06:08

Out of interest, what are your views on nuclear power? I guess that like the rest of the true believing zealots you would be opposed, even though it has a very low "carbon footprint".

1) I believe nuclear power is a viable option providing we can sort out the problems with nuclear waste disposal, nuclear safety, and nuclear proliferation.

2) I'd just as soon a have you not call me a "true believing zealot", if it's not too much trouble.

I just follow the scientific facts, wherever they lead. If that means I'm descended from lesser primates over thousands or millions of years, or have 95+% of my DNA in common with a Chimpanzee, or am spewing massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but need to do something to correct it, then I'm fine with those facts, relatively speaking.

Thanks.

flyingfox

21st Oct 2011, 06:16

but my original concern was introducing a massive new tax
AA. Do you get your exageration lessons direct from a partisan politician?

Jake.f

21st Oct 2011, 06:19

@Dutchroll, trying to explain rational arguments for climate change to skeptics is like preaching evolution to fundamentalist christians... They are right and we are wrong and nothing can be said the change that mindset :ugh::ugh::ugh:

It is a good point, technically gravity hasn't been proven at the quantum level, and for all logical purposes we should be able to walk through walls, given that everything is more than 99% empty space.
In-fact as an aside, quantum physics has some very loosely based theories, such as the one explaining why nuclei of atoms (Which are made of positive and neutral particles, and a bunch of positive particles that close should act like trying to hold two north poles of a magnet together and fly apart) stays together, as the explanation stands currently there is a force there, a strong one too, so it is called the strong force and that's the extent of the explanation.

Apply the same approach to the climate change theory to the theory of gravity, that throws a spanner in the works

I suppose the point is that science is based upon a lot of theory and surprisingly little laws. I think it is most logical to side with the supporters of climate change, i.e. some of the most trusted scientists in the country, who base their theories off evidence. Not fact, but it couldn't be much closer to fact.

Typhoon650

21st Oct 2011, 06:32

AussieAviator

21st Oct 2011, 06:51

FF, yes, I do indeed think that it will be a massive new tax, because the cost of living will rise, for no apparent gain. I work very hard, as does my wife. Because of that, we are considered high income earners, and by the government's own calculations, will be approximately $2500 WORSE off every year, and remember this thing goes up every year! And guess what? GST will be calculated on any new inflated bill, such as electricity, which may rise by up to 35%!! I did not want this thread to be a debate about the climate, just the pending threat to this countries ability to compete and ensure all of our futures.

blackhand

21st Oct 2011, 06:52

1. Gravity is a fact, there is one theory and several hypothesis to explain it.
2. Evolution is a fact, there are two theories to explain it.
3. Climate change is fact, there are several HYPOTHESIS to explain it.

Remember that natural phenomena are real, the explanations of how they happen are either theories, i.e have supporting evidence; or hypothesis - an explanation that the evidence is still being developed for.

All is of no consequence as Aust people now have to get on with the new paradigm.
Those that are against it can take heart from the fact that the Durban Conference will see the major "polluders" walk away from any commitment and leave Aust by its self with the carbon penalty on industry.

A carbon price mechanism places artificial pressure to force change in both consumers and producers of energy, whether one thinks this is a good or bad idea influences which side of the argument one is on.
There appears to be adequate compensation in the Clean Energy Bill to offset consumer disadvantage.

It is important that one uses more sources than Andrew Bolt's blog to inform ones self on this debate.

Cheers
BH

flyingfox

21st Oct 2011, 06:59

Typhoon650. This is a 'Press report' as the language used will clearly attest. The finding may be significant or may be 'just another factor'. Any data gathered by NASA will be added to the scientific information available and the current position will be adjusted accordingly. The report was not a scientific conclusion. Your "I'll just leave this here" remark doesn't show that you are capable of 'critical thinking'. One press release and your all done and dusted. Hope your not a pilot with such 'scatter brain' reasoning!

flyingfox

21st Oct 2011, 07:25

AA. Well if we can keep our way of life protected, if not somewhat modified, I expect that your $2500 will be money well spent. I believe European countries are doing roughly the same thing. The USA isn't yet. (What a surprise!) I watched a film called 'Bag It' during the week about plastics in the environment. It was amazing to see how US plastics manufacturers spent millions on lobbying law makers to preempt any restrictions on their trade. Don't wait for the good'ol USA to lead the world when there is a problem. (I'm not anti USA. Just stating how they are not leaders in some fields because of their fraught politics.) We all have to do our own bit. If that means losing a 'competitive edge' for a few moments, then so be it.

DutchRoll

21st Oct 2011, 12:03

I'll just leave this here. You know, for those who browbeat everyone with their interpretation of "science" and the "OMG greenhouse, we're gonna die" worshippers/guilt ridden baby boomers:
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News
You'd probably be well advised to check the facts on that (and in particular look at what the Heartland Institute does) before you go cutting and pasting things which purport to blow "gaping holes" in decades of genuine scientific research.

One of the common problems we see with "fake" sceptics, ie people who think they're genuine sceptics but actually haven't studied the real scientific research like a serious sceptic would, is that they're prone to latching onto things which confirm their political bias but don't stand on any solid scientific ground.

Genuine scientists with many years of qualifications and research showed that the paper you highlighted was seriously flawed after it was published. So much so that the editor of the journal was so embarrassed that he subsequently resigned. Naturally this was all part of the global scientific conspiracy to those who are that way inclined.

The paper you link to has been variously described as "garbage" and numerous other things. Far from just calling it names, other scientists have demonstrated very fundamental errors in the paper. For example, the "climate model" used by the sceptics hero Dr Roy Spencer has been shown to be grossly over-simplified. Also he was shown to use variable values in his formulae which had no resemblance to earthly reality. It was shown to be badly flawed on both a scientific basis, and a mathematical basis.

I don't mean this as an insult, but if you want to consider yourself as a sceptic, you should at least understand the details of what you're looking at.

43Inches

21st Oct 2011, 14:36

Hey, and anyone who latches onto carbon as the reason for global warming has some real issues... the reality is due to other factors global temperature anomalies will climb more than 10 degrees in the next couple of hundred years... now you all have some real issues to contend with. If i'm wrong ok, if not...

flyingfox

21st Oct 2011, 15:00

Go on 43Inches! Decode your post for us! :confused:

Sunfish

21st Oct 2011, 19:06

1. You won't even notice the carbon tax.

2. The sceptics arguments about Global warming mirror Bart Simpson:

I Didn't Do It, Nobody Saw Me Do It, There's No Way You Can Prove Anything! - YouTube

3. Unfortunately it is happening and the results will not be good as far as we can tell.

The latest evidence is from a research project set up by skeptics!

The Berkeley Earth analysis shows 0.911 degrees Centigrade of land warming (+/- 0.042 C) since the 1950s.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011) (http://berkeleyearth.org/index.php)

bekolblockage

22nd Oct 2011, 00:27

A carbon price mechanism places artificial pressure to force change in both consumers and producers of energy

In what way will the current mechanism do that? As a producer I pay the carbon tax and pass on the extra cost to the consumer. As a consumer, the Government has decided it will compensate me so that I'm not out of pocket so am happy to pay the extra cost.
Where's the incentive for either side to do anything?

Sunfish
1. You won't even notice the carbon tax.

Again, so what is the point then? Neither will the producer. :confused:

blackhand

22nd Oct 2011, 00:54

In what way will the current mechanism do that? As a producer I pay the carbon tax and pass on the extra cost to the consumer. As a consumer, the Government has decided it will compensate me so that I'm not out of pocket so am happy to pay the extra cost.The concept is that as the price per tonne increases, the cost of alternate energy becomes less than the existing coal fired power stations.
The Clean Energy Bill encompasses more than just the Carbon Price, and perhaps some of those parts of the Bill would assist in clean air technology better than the Carbon Price.

In this discussion I am on the side of the planet - but to the anthropogenic influence on the 1.0 degree increase in average temerature in the last 150 years I am not sure.
Cheers
BH

bekolblockage

22nd Oct 2011, 01:27

Sorry, I'm not sure that answers my question.

Using the mechanism the Government has adopted i.e. tax producers/compensate consumers, how will this promote any change in behaviour by either side? Wishful thinking?

De_flieger

22nd Oct 2011, 02:14

Using the mechanism the Government has adopted i.e. tax producers/compensate consumers, how will this promote any change in behaviour by either side? Wishful thinking? The producers that adapt their production methods to release less carbon dioxide, consume less energy or burn less fuel will have a lower carbon tax bill, which can reduce their overall costs relative to a competitor who doesnt make those changes. They may either then reduce the prices charged for their goods/services, giving them an advantage over their competitors in the market, or keep their prices the same and make an increased profit margin, which has its own set of advantages for the business and potentially shareholders.

blackhand

22nd Oct 2011, 04:06

@bekolblockage
De Flieger explanation is correct.
Historicaly, commercial imperatives forced the western world to move from horse power to mechanical power; that imperative being the need to increase production.
There is no commercial imperative to move to the next energy source, so the government is creating one.

The compensation package seems to be a political move, to stop the bogans whinging.
Cheers
BH

bekolblockage

22nd Oct 2011, 04:11

Nice in theory.

My Chinese colleagues here in HK look at me and laugh and say, "you gweilos are so naive".

blackhand

22nd Oct 2011, 04:25

Nice in theory.And is a theory yet to be tested, which is of concern.
The consequences of the Durban Conference not increasing or even keeping the Kyoto Protocol limits will leave Australia exposed to influx of goods far cheaper than that can be produced in Aust. Also will impact on Australia's exports, but maybe not primary resources.

As for your friends in Honkers, my rent is cheaper, my food is cheaper, and it is cheaper to educate my kids in Aust than Honkers. Naive but happy.

De_flieger

22nd Oct 2011, 04:38

Bekol (should that be Mr Blockage?), Im curious as to their reaction. Is this the same China that according to that hotbed of green-left/communist propaganda that is The Australian ;) is planning their own emissions trading scheme? Cookies must be enabled | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/polluted-china-plans-carbon-emissions-trading-scheme/story-e6frg6so-1226096969756)
While I dont doubt that China produces a large amount of greenhouse gas, they are taking steps to reduce it or at the very least slow the rate of increase of emissions, and investing heavily in renewable energy and their sustainable cities programs.

bekolblockage

22nd Oct 2011, 04:54

I have no argument with the objective.
It is the mechanism that the Government has chosen that will ensure that absolutely zero happens. That is what my Chinese colleagues roll their eyes at. They, probably better than anyone, know what human nature is like when it comes to this typical bob-each-way approach, hoping that someone will do the right thing.

Towering Q

22nd Oct 2011, 05:13

DutchRoll....thankyou for your concise, well-reasoned and informative contributions to this thread.

I also notice that you have managed to keep your remarks non-emotive and have avoided "playing the man, and not the ball."

Pity the same can't be said about the contributor who labelled you a "true believing zealot".

As much as it pains me to quote Alan Jones, he was right on the money when he made this comment...(even if he is one of the worst offenders)

"name-calling is the province of those who can't sustain an intellectual argument."

blackhand

22nd Oct 2011, 05:13

It is the mechanism that the Government has chosen that will ensure that absolutely zero happens.
The Government has advice contrary to that, it is readily available if you haven't already seen it.
You could be correct in your prediction.
Economists are rarely correct in their "predicted" outcomes.

Cheers
BH

evyjet

22nd Oct 2011, 06:06

Jeez wake up sheeple!

It's a con! More tax, and another avenue for the big players to play with the trading scheme, bundle and confuse with another derivatives type scheme and make shed loads of money!

We the small people will YET AGAIN be donating more of our meagre salaries to them.

I'm all for making the environment cleaner, but the way this is being implemented is crazy!

blackhand

22nd Oct 2011, 07:44

It's a con! More tax, and another avenue for the big players to play with the trading scheme, bundle and confuse with another derivatives type scheme and make shed loads of money!Its a Conspiracy!!!!
#237 – Conspiracy Theories « Things Bogans Like (http://thingsboganslike.com/2011/07/15/237-conspiracy-theories/)

Cheers
BH

Frank Arouet

22nd Oct 2011, 09:41

I believe "con" is a confidence trick, not a conspiracy.

But I could be wrong again.

Fuel-Off

22nd Oct 2011, 09:47

Frank's correct. Same goes for the term 'Con-Man' or Confidence Trickster.

Fuel-Off :ok:

blackhand

22nd Oct 2011, 10:43

The link says in part..
...While the world’s thinking community remains vexed, the bogan’s verdict is in. Climate change for instance, is nothing but a ‘Trojan Horse’ for power-hungry scientists to force their big taxing, redistributive socialist green left agenda on ‘hard working Australians’.

Compared to EVYJET's
It's a con! More tax, and another avenue for the big players to play with the trading scheme, bundle and confuse with another derivatives type scheme and make shed loads of money!
We the small people will YET AGAIN be donating more of our meagre salaries to them.

evyjet

22nd Oct 2011, 11:43

While the world’s thinking community remains vexed, the bogan’s verdict is in

The government is implementing a tax. Seems we're not the only ones who's Verdict is in!:ugh:

DutchRoll

23rd Oct 2011, 23:40

Anyway, I think we've seen enough uninformed attempted trashing of the science. Tax or no tax, and whether or not you believe it's a workable solution to reducing emissions, it is not going to cost mass jobs in the aviation industry.

What amazes me is that we observe much talk about "alarmism" yet in the same sentence cry that "we're all gonna be ruined" because a tax is levied on certain parts of industry. The truth virtually never resembles this. Industry has a history of screaming blue murder then quietly adjusting to the circumstances, and will do so again. Eg, the CFC phaseout which was going to single-handedly destroy the worldwide refrigeration industry - which was still alive and thriving last time I ordered a beer - just for the sake of a lousy layer of stratospheric ozone which stops us being completely fried by UV radiation from the sun. :rolleyes:

The planet will also adjust to the reality of having very large amounts of greenhouse gases pumped into its atmosphere in a very short space of geological time as a consequence of human industrialisation. It will warm up with many associated consequences some of which are likely to be very difficult to manage. Unless we discover new laws of physics, it simply doesn't have a choice and quibbling over the minutiae is not worth your time. :=

This whole debate is running much the same course, though probably over a different time scale, as the smoking/lung cancer/tobacco debate. Right now we're where that debate was in the 60s and 70s: the science is accumulating substantial evidence that it's not such a good thing, the industry is fighting tooth and nail to deny that there's an issue, and many people are choosing to just ignore it because they don't want to change their habits or they have more important things to worry about right now.

Ultimately though, just as in that scenario and many others, we humans may end up suffering for our ignorance. :ouch: But the aviation industry will still be here in some form or another.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

24th Oct 2011, 12:21

Tis a pity that the vast green cloud of smug that hovers over sections of the community can not be taxed.

Led Zep

24th Oct 2011, 12:37

Smug: the leading cause of Global Laming.

strim

25th Oct 2011, 12:58

AA if you're such a big earner and are worried about electricity going up 35%, install solar panels on your massive roof, pitch a wind turbine in your back yard, and get off the grid.

This country could run solely on renewables. There is enough sun, wind and heat in the ground to power this whole joint. It just needs funding, vision and a government/leader with the sack (or whatever the female equivalent is) to do it.

You think the tax will damage business?? The real damage is being done by Abbott. His promise to ditch the tax is preventing industry from investing in cleaner energy options.

Great to read some of the well informed opinions on this thread. Starting to tire of the drivel I hear on the flight deck RE the destruction of our way of life due to Co2 tax. FFS.

Anti Carbon-Tax Durka Dur - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXpBfRlLnv8&feature=related)

Lodown

25th Oct 2011, 17:48

As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets, Philip Stott, Professor emeritus of Biogeography, U of London.

DutchRoll said:
But what there is NOT any (credible) debate about among climate scientists and similar experts is:
• the fact that it is happening
• the extremely high probability that it is due to greenhouse gases
• the absence of any other viable explanations
• the greenhouse gases are due to our industrialisation
• that there will be long term consequences, and some of these are visible and measurable already.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a political dogma in search of supporting scientific evidence.

The fact that (climate change or global warming?) is happening is not disputed. That’s the ONLY “fact” you’ve mentioned above that is not debated by climate scientists. “Credible” is a nice little adjective used to brush off any point of view contrary to your own.

The “extremely high probability that it is due to greenhouse gases” is misleading. Some scientists think this might be likely. Other scientists think this has little, if anything to do with greenhouse gases. Evidence for or against your conclusion has not been found to any significant degree. It might be a completely natural cycle. We just do not know with any significant degree of certainty yet.

“The absence of any other viable explanations” spoken like a true believer. There are several other explanations for which research is ongoing and which are gaining in viability each day as anthropogenic global warming loses (scientific) support. The pro-CO2 warmers just don’t want to upset their gravy train and political influence by considering any discussion other than human produced CO2.

SOME…Some “greenhouse gases are due to our industrialization”. A very, very small amount. The ALP is going to tax CO2 production. Less than 4% of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from human activities. And CO2 makes up a tiny proportion of the total atmospheric gases. The overwhelming (by far) greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour. We have a pretty good idea on how much CO2 is produced as a result of human activities. We have far, far less certainty on natural CO2 production and sinks.

CO2 absorbs longwave radiation only at specific wavelengths. It’s propensity as a greenhouse gas reduces on a logarithmic scale with an increase in its concentration. Doubling its present concentration will only add about 1 degree of additional heat to the atmosphere. However, this isn’t the part that supports the catastrophic CO2 argument. We have to rely on computers for that. There’s something about a “tipping point” where the concentration of CO2 causes uncontained feedback from clouds to cause Armageddon and runaway temperature increase. Trouble is, the alarmists don’t know whether clouds have a positive or negative feedback. The global warming protagonists have conveniently assumed clouds have a positive feedback (fancy that!). Current evidence seems to indicate positive AND negative, but predominately negative feedback.

“That there will be long term consequences, and some of these are visible and measurable already" is yet another misleading assertion. The consequences you speak of are computer model projections…nothing more. Perhaps you should have replaced “will” with “may” and hedged your bets like the official press releases.

“It is not worth your time to quibble over details.” Al Gore will be proud of you. Quell dissent and evidence to the contrary of your opinion with a wave of your hand.

Contrary to your opinion, the hockey stick has been completely debunked. Scientists in support of global warming tried to argue against the debunkers, but were only taken seriously in their own support group. It's dead in mainstream science. The manufacturers of that little graph couldn’t even get the past right, let alone have it relied upon for future predictions. The simple fact that temperatures for the past 10 years have not followed the hockey stick’s predictions mean that those predictions were wrong.

An essential element of every catastrophic global warming prediction is a tropical hotspot in the upper atmosphere. Still nothing…nada…zip. Sea levels are dropping…how inconvenient. Global land temperatures are stagnant or descending. Ocean temperatures are declining. The best the AGW scientists can come up with is aerosols in the atmosphere, missing heat slipping past thousands of ARGO buoys and trapped at deep ocean depths and excess rainfall causing a drop in sea levels. Pure speculation tossed out to support a fractured argument.

Strim said:
This country could run solely on renewables.
Run a farmer’s tractor or a bulldozer, or a semi-trailer effectively on renewable energy! See how far you get. For that matter, try it completely on biofuels if you want to consider that too…the biofuels produced by that tractor with organic farming practices.

Wait! I’m wrong, Australia could run solely on renewables. We could move 98% of the population offshore and the rest could live in caves; the remaining males could hunt game and the women could scavenge for nuts and berries.

It just needs funding, vision and a government/leader with the sack (or whatever the female equivalent is) to do it.
Gillard is giving it a good try. She has two of the three necessary requirements you outline above. Try and pick the odd one out.

flyingfox

25th Oct 2011, 19:25

Although he presents himself as an expert debunker of environmental myths, Philip Stott does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this 'expertise', eg climate change or tropical ecology. His views are also generally at odds with the scientific consensus on such issues. (see Jeff Harvey's comments on Prof Stott's lack of relevant scientific credentials)

This just goes on and on. :bored: Skeptics of science can always ferret out a 'dissenter' and pin their hopes on having picked the 'right horse'. As a Biogeographer, Philip Stott has considerable expertise in plant and animal distributions. Those subjects are minor parts of the overall knowledge on climate change and global warming.
This is my final offering to this thread. Thanks for reading my post. :)

Lodown

25th Oct 2011, 20:54

And as is so common amongst supporters of AGW, any person who has an opinion that is different to theirs is summarily dismissed with personal attacks and dissing of qualifications.

AussieAviator started this discussion with a comment about the carbon tax.

The tax is designed to be a graduated implementation. Regardless of my personal feelings towards the “science” behind the decision, this tax will have significant repercussions for the economy. Costs will go up. A government rarely introduces a new tax where costs go down. I don’t think too many people will see the results of this tax for about 5 years. International airlines from other countries will have tariffs imposed so that the local airlines remain competitive. By that stage, multinational organizations will have had time to set up offshore shelf companies to receive and return exported goods. Small to mid-level organisations where energy costs represent a larger percentage of costs than their larger competitors will be having a very difficult time remaining competitive if they continue to be based in Australia.

Government jobs will have expanded significantly as opportunities for carbon police cannot be filled fast enough. International tourists will be seen standing in line at departure lounges shaking their heads and counting change wondering how such a beautiful country with hospitable people can have such a screwed up government.

Meanwhile, the Australian Labor Party will be navel gazing plotting its strategy for re-election in 2045.

blackhand

26th Oct 2011, 00:09

And as is so common amongst supporters of AGW, any person who has an opinion that is different to theirs is summarily dismissed with personal attacks and dissing of qualifications.

Oh really, I would have said that the vitriol was coming from the other direction.
Jeez wake up sheeple!
The pro-CO2 warmers just don’t want to upset their gravy train
Gillard is giving it a good try. She has two of the three necessary requirements you outline above. Try and pick the odd one out.

I could go on but have work to do

Jabawocky

26th Oct 2011, 00:31

Meanwhile, the Australian Labor Party will be navel gazing plotting its strategy for re-election in 2045.

Lets hope so.

Mind you it will take that long IF and I mean IF we have good quality fiscal management from any other governments to recover from the debt and destruction the Rudd/Gillard lot have done in just a few years.

Socialism is a wonderful thing until you run out of OTHER peoples money.

blackhand

26th Oct 2011, 01:32

debt and destruction
Hyperbole anyone??

craigieburn

26th Oct 2011, 01:51

Hyperbole anyone??
Are you sure you don't mean Hyperbowl?

Another of our PM's little slip ups, along with visiting Cans, you know, the French city:confused:

Jabawocky

26th Oct 2011, 02:26

I thought that little hyperbole was quite appropriate. Lots of debt and destruction of various industries, some of which are yet to happen but are in the pipeline.

Underlying economy is RS:oh:T and there will be more to come.

blackhand

26th Oct 2011, 02:46

some of which are yet to happen but are in the pipeline.

Is this a known known or an unknown known or perhaps an unknown unknown.
And for craigieburn - I think every one now knows how it is pronounced, even the illiterate who had never heard the word before.

craigieburn

26th Oct 2011, 03:07

I think that the fact that the highest office holder in our land, a former lawyer no less, does not know how to correctly pronounce relatively simple words speaks volumes about the insular, cloistered world in which she lives.
Form High School to Uni, from Uni to a left wing law firm, from said law firm to politics, a sheltered upbringing in which nobody has had the temerity to correct her, you know how it is, close enough = good enough

blackhand

26th Oct 2011, 03:18

From High School to Uni, from Uni to a left wing law firm, from said law firm to politics, a sheltered upbringing in which nobody has had the temerity to correct her, you know how it is, close enough = good enough

Ad Hominem anyone?

craigieburn

26th Oct 2011, 04:28

Ad Hominem anyone?
Nah, just predictive text combined with fat fingers

blackhand

26th Oct 2011, 05:01

"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,

In accents most forlorn,
Outside the church,
ere Mass began,
One frosty Sunday morn.

The congregation stood about,
Coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock,
and crops, and drought,
As it had done for years.

"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke;
"Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad."

"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil,
With which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel
And chewed a piece of bark.

And so around the chorus ran
"It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."

And several more verses by John O'Brien

Towering Q

26th Oct 2011, 08:13

Chimbu chuckles

27th Oct 2011, 00:23

So TQ how much will the temperature be effected by this carbon dioxide tax?

When it transitions to an ETS how will people be compensated when the money is all being sent offshore?

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/australia-will-send-57bn-a-year-overseas-by-2050-treasury-modelling-shows/story-e6frg9k6-1226118430293)

What chance the ETS won't be scammed BIG time - after all it already is with people being dispossessed of their land in Africa by corrupt regimes pandering to companies who want to plant carbon abatement trees but don't want to pay for the land.

This is madness :ugh:

jas24zzk

27th Oct 2011, 03:19

I started writing my thoughts on this.
erased the lot
came to the conclusion that all I really want is my gun back. :eek:

DutchRoll

27th Oct 2011, 04:16

Lodown, I spent quite some time trying to figure out how to respond to your long post. From a purely scientific perspective, it would take a very, very long Pprune post to thoroughly address the falsehoods, misconceptions, and irrelevancies in it.

Statements like this:
There are several other explanations for which research is ongoing and which are gaining in viability each day as anthropogenic global warming loses (scientific) support.
indicate very strongly to me that

you do not read any articles or papers from genuine scientific journals at all

you do not keep up with any science news through popular science media (as opposed to the junk in the mainstream press).

I looked at your other arguments, most of which are either misleading or flagrantly wrong, but it really is too big a post to put up the latest data and charts showing you. Try checking out sea level charts at the Uni of Colorado website for example (data is from satellite radar altimetry and tidal gauges), or maybe looking up the latest Global Temperature Anomaly charts for both land and ocean from the NOAA. Perhaps the Upper Ocean Heat Content data might be worth looking at, because it sure doesn't show what you describe.

But if you want to keep believing that temps are declining, sea level is dropping, and more glaciers are springing up everywhere, please be my guest.

Lodown

28th Oct 2011, 01:05

Sea levels from University of Colorado as you recommended:
http://climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage .gif
Did you check before you posted that recommendation? The sea level has been rising steadily ever since the last ice age. It certainly hasn’t accelerated like the pro-warmers like to think. And now it’s descending. Go figure!

Monthly mean global surface temperature heading down too:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif
...and this from a website under James Hansen's control.

Sea Surface Temperatures. Current global sea surface temperatures are between 0.1 and 0.2C below average:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E-SST-thru-10-14-09.jpg

For what it’s worth, there’s a trend line included. Admittedly, it doesn’t tell you much, if anything, because if you start a trend line in the 1940’s the trend is up. However, the trend for the last decade or so is down. This is counter to global warming predictions. CO2 concentration has been going up since the 1700’s. Thank God it did go up, because if it continued down, we wouldn’t be here discussing it. The climb in CO2 doesn’t explain any of the cooling periods that have occurred in between then and now either. (Perhaps there is something else at play, but the warmers gloss over these periods with no satisfactory explanation.) One huge ongoing contention is that temperatures have been rising and falling ahead of CO2 concentrations, perhaps indicating that temperature determines CO2 concentration, NOT the other way round.

Re: other research. The catastrophic global warming models use the standard solar model (SSM) as the solar heat input. The sun’s output varies and research is indicating that the variance is having a greater effect than expected. In addition, CERN (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html?mod=WSJ_Opi nion_LEADTop) has recently proven through experimentation that cosmic rays have an influence on cloud formation. How much or how little is not known at this stage. It may be significant and it might not be, but that’s one of how many unknown factors not taken into account on the models? The cloud input into the models is extremely rudimentary. The modelers guessed and fed water vapour calculations into the models as a positive feedback. That research is ongoing. Spencer has satellite records indicating the earth sheds heat at far greater amounts than the pro-warmers assert. Dressler countered with his own calculations, but while minimizing the Spencer result, it still supported Spencer's initial conclusions. Research is ongoing there too. Even more; the pro-warmers' rely on reflected long-wave radiation for their predictions and the entire earth as a blackbody absorber. Water doesn't absorb reflected LWIR at nearly the extent that land does. Further, water cools more by evaporation than by radiation and this has been glossed over in calculations as well. Considering 71% of the earth's surface is water, some recalculations are in order.
What I’m getting at here is that AGW as a result of CO2 is certainly not proven. Thanks to Al Gore and loads of press coverage on a “fabricated” global catastrophe, an IPCC loaded with report writers employed by and linked to the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace, many people seem to think it is proven and then one of their arguments to skeptics is a demand to “prove it’s not happening”. WTF! (What would you think of a report supporting unconstrained oil drilling in Sydney Harbour authored by employees from BP or Shell?)
Meanwhile, thanks to the IPCC and Al Gore, global warming has been politicized. The ALP is instituting a tax for political reasons and for nothing else. Global warming is an excuse. This is a tax that will extract more money from the population’s pockets; in a very basic way meaning the less discretionary income those people have to spend on goods and services. Billions are going overseas. And many people expect to have business as usual?

Further: it's the affect that the CO2 tax will have on future power production and development that is of significant concern. The tax demonises CO2. The world's population has grown by 4 billion in the last 50 years. The availability of cheap, reliable and plentiful power supplies has been an essential component in the advance of living standards (and concurrent supply of food resources) in developed nations. Likewise, a common denominator in underdeveloped nations is the lack of cheap, reliable and plentiful power supplies.
The CO2 tax, if left unchanged, will eventually send Australia backwards and IMO I see no other recourse than having it amended in due course. Despite wishful thinking, renewable energy sources (as considered by the Greens) are not cheap, or reliable, or plentiful (24/7) and unlikely to be so for several generations at least, if ever. They supplement current energy supplies, but only do so at an economically acceptable rate thanks to unsustainable government subsidies. Coal power plants (the backbone of Australia's energy supply) are slated to be priced or legislated out of the market. Without a nuclear option, there is nothing else. Those individuals and corporations that can do so, will shift to solar or wind and put up with the inconveniences of the vagaries of supply.
Those who have no choice and rely on a consistent and readily available power supply (medium and heavy manufacturing) and who can export their workforce needs, will do so. Those individuals and organisations that are stuck with increased costs (aviation, trucking, construction, etc.) will have no other option but to try and pass on increased costs to the consumer. All the time, Australia's industries will be competing with evermore nimble overseas competitors taking advantage of something that Australia won't have: cheap, reliable, plentiful power supplies.

Australia has jumped into the deep end of the pond when all other developed nations are pulling back. The outcome will not be pleasant and the next government is going to be hamstrung either way: in trying to wind the legislation back, or in trying to lessen its impact. Just remember which political parties put Australia in this predicament.

evyjet

29th Oct 2011, 03:30

A double thumbs up from me Lodown. Well said!

:ok::ok:

DutchRoll

29th Oct 2011, 04:11

Lodown, you might fool others into thinking you understand what you're scientifically arguing by baffling them with BS, but it doesn't fool me, because unlike yourself who seems to cut & paste arguments from Googling (let me guess - WattsUpWithThat? Some other personal blog?), I do actually read science articles written in real science publications by real scientists, as well as several modern planetary physics textbooks.

For example, your earlier statement of "CO2 absorbs longwave radiation only at specific wavelengths" is what I would call a "factoid". Yes, it's true, and no, it's not relevant to your argument. Saying that to anyone who knows anything about gas absorption spectra is like telling a LAME "hey mate, did you realise that if you tighten a nut too much, you can over-torque it?" and wondering why he looks at you like you've just called him a moron.

Regarding your sea level argument: You really need to read the narrative before you post chart links. If you do that, you will get some perspective on why the chart has a negative blip at the end, but otherwise shows absolutely nothing but steadily rising sea levels.

Regarding your global surface temperatures: Arguing a trend using monthly temperatures is like arguing the Qantas share price is well and truly on the rebound because it was up one cent yesterday. There is nothing - nothing - in long term data trends which supports your argument.

The climb in CO2 doesn’t explain any of the cooling periods that have occurred in between then and now either. (Perhaps there is something else at play, but the warmers gloss over these periods with no satisfactory explanation.)

It is called "natural variability" and is discussed at considerable length by climate scientists. It is a phenomenon that is common in noisy data, even when that data shows a clear and pronounced trend over time. Why these small variations occur (usually over a period of about a decade) is not fully understood, but that doesn't mean the broader picture is invalid. This is a classic "Argument from the Gaps", a bit like saying "ah well, the Earth has wobbles in its orbit that we can't explain, therefore orbital mechanics is under a cloud of uncertainty".

Then you rabbit on about cloud input and Roy Spencer's work as if it's some big secret that cloud input is not yet fully understood, and even worse, as if it is considered the solitary or even predominant climate feedback! Yet you fail to mention that Spencer's latest research paper he managed to get published in an obscure 4th tier journal was so bad that the editor of the journal subsequently resigned, embarrassed that the editorial and review process had allowed such rubbish into print. Spencer's modelling, in the words of another prominent scientist, "produced the desired results only if you input variables which bore no actual resemblance to reality". And yes, he used his own modelling! Almost exclusively. So apparently that's a big no-no and modelling is flawed......unless a sceptical scientist uses it, in which case it's fine. :ugh:

You talk of Spencer as if he is the only scientist in the world who uses satellite records, however it is true that Spencer is famous in the scientific community for gratuitously screwing up his satellite data analysis years ago by failing to account for orbital decay and then inadvertently changing a plus sign to a minus sign during data crunching, magically showing tropospheric cooling when it was actually slightly warming!

And I'm not even going to address the last 2/3 of your post which is just a political diatribe, other than to say I think it's clear why you're a "sceptic", and it obviously has lots more to do with politics than understanding science.

BoeingBoi

29th Oct 2011, 06:22

Gents.

For sometime now I have been of the belief that climate change is real, however I was never of the belief that it was the actions of humans that were causing its acceleration. The planet heats up, cools down and oceans rise and fall. It is just a natural cycle, no? :confused:

Prompted by the recent introduction of the dreaded carbon tax and one too many heated discussions I decided to do some un biased research into the data and review my beliefs.

I must say since doing this I have swung, and not by placing my watch in a bowl..

It took 1700 years for someone to silence the sceptics by physically proving the world was round after it had been calculated mathematically in 240BC.

I would encourage anyone who is sceptical to do as I did, switch on the lights and have a good look around. Anyone can take text out of context and quote figures which support their arguments whilst disregarding all others. But at the end of the day who is that helping and where will that type of mentality lead us?

Lodown

30th Oct 2011, 06:09

…because unlike yourself who seems to cut & paste arguments from Googling…
Thank you! I’ll take that as a compliment. You can do a search using portions of my text. It’s not difficult. If you find any source for my cut and paste, please let me know and I'll chase them for plagiarism.

I’m not trying to fool anyone. I just kicked your soapbox from beneath your feet and you don’t like it. Get over it!

So, is the sea level rising or falling? You said it would have made for a long post for you to have included the appropriate graph, so I linked it for you. Now you don’t like the results.

…but otherwise shows absolutely nothing but steadily rising sea levels.
Is that a statement of support for AGW scepticism? Let me add, “…since the end of the last ice age.” And the important word here is “steadily”. No acceleration upwards as predicted by the pro-warmers. Steadily! A little over 3mm per year. That puts the sea level by the end of this century about 27cm higher than the present position. That's assuming this decline we're in now turns around. This could be horrendous for people everywhere! :rolleyes:

If Qantas shares went up an average of one cent a day for 10 years, then I think I’d be justified in saying this was a trend. Temperatures have been trending down for 10 years. Not long, I know, but if you want to use long term data trends, then let’s start the trend line from the period around the Medieval Warm Period and see how we’re still trending down. Why is this ten year period important? Answer: Because the pro-AGWers make no allowance for any decrease in their forecasts. The world is supposed to be on a rocket climb to the heights of destruction by now. That hockey stick that you put your faith in is obviously wrong, which impacts the entire premise of CO2 caused global warming. If the predictions are wrong, then something is wrong with the model, right? I don’t have a problem with modelling. The data used in this case is either incomplete, wrong, or both and obviously so. It needs more work.

You can’t argue that a rise in global temperatures is caused by human production of CO2, but any decrease in global temperatures is caused by natural variability. That’s an admission that natural variability must also play a role in increasing temperatures. Once again, the global warmers are placing bets both ways and claiming a victory on the outcome whether it be heads or tails. It rained again in Australia after a drought that was not supposed to end. England is still getting snow. New York has just had one of the earliest snowfalls on record. Doesn't stop the pro-warmers announcing a predictive victory.

BTW, what do you regard as a suitable time period of descending or stagnant temperatures before we see a rise again and a renewed faith in AGW? I see on a few websites that 10 years has already been extended to 15 years and now to 17 years. What do the pro-AGW scientists know that you don’t? The truth is that this period of descending/stagnant temperatures is embarrassing for the entire AGW hypothesis. It’s ruining political influence everywhere except Australia where the science might not be settled, but the legislation is.

As for the last 2/3rds of my post: I was trying to keep somewhat on the topic of the original thread. Can I return to reading my fake science articles written in unreal science publications by unreal scientists, as well as several ancient planetary physics textbooks now? I might include this fact on my business cards. Someday, someone, somewhere might be in awe, but I doubt it.

Markdem

30th Oct 2011, 12:10

I can't believe how hard this is for some people.

Take this example: You get up and turn the heater (the sun) up in your house (earth), and at the same time your grandmother(people) farts. Soon after, the house get hot! Do you blame your grandmother?

I am not going to argue, we are all grownups (I think anyway), and as such should be able to do our own research.

Also, to the people out there that think we could power Australia, or any country for that matter, by wind, solar, thermal, farting or any other crap, please tell me how. Include how much land space is needed and how you going to manage the load on the grid in your plan.

DutchRoll

1st Nov 2011, 00:40

I can't believe how hard this is for some people. Take this example: You get up and turn the heater (the sun) up in your house (earth), and at the same time your grandmother(people) farts. Soon after, the house get hot! Do you blame your grandmother?

I can't believe it either.

Do you seriously believe climate scientists are so stupid that they don't actually know what the sun is doing? They have not yet realised that the sun could be a factor in planetary temperature? They are still puzzling over why Mercury is so hot and Neptune is cold? If your house warms up in a way that you weren't expecting, you'd go and check the heater wouldn't you? In this case you would observe that the heater setting is actually turned down slightly, but the house is still warming according to your sensitive thermometer.

OK Granny farted, but this is a mere smelly distraction. :hmm: What you didn't realise is that granny is obsessed with pink batts. She has been installing extra layers of pink batts in your ceiling. More than what you need. She gets them dirt cheap from the manufacturer. Naughty granny. Now you have a problem. If she doesn't stop, your house will continue to warm and it will become quite uncomfortable. The ice in your Campari & Lemonade will melt and you hate that. Your new lounge gets sweat stains after just 10 minutes of lying on it. Sure, there are some beneficial consequences too. The meat from your freezer defrosts much quicker and you don't need to microwave defrost it anymore, but overall, the situation in your house becomes a right royal pain and you wish the temperature would just go back to what it was normally - the nice comfy situation you were used to. You might want to stop granny putting up those pink batts, eh? :ok:

Well this is what climate scientists did. They first suspected the heater was turned up. But guess what? It isn't. They sent up very sensitive satellites to measure the output of that heater just like your air conditioning mechanic can measure the output of your reverse cycle ducted air. It wasn't turned up at all. While the heater is the source of the heat, something is not letting it escape like it used to. The scientists were even more curious. Can we check what heat is coming in versus what heat is escaping? Yep, we have the technology to do that fairly accurately. Lo and behold the scientists have found that more is coming in than is going out.

The only significant thing that has changed in your house, after an extensive inspection by building inspectors, is the extra layer of pink batts. Your house can adjust naturally to a certain extent. Some of this extra heat is lost through the floor, and the walls. They're not 100% certain exactly how much, but they know it can only be a limited amount which they are currently trying to accurately calculate and measure, but ultimately it probably doesn't matter because your house is still warming anyway.

Now there are some sceptics out there. Some think the temperature measurements are just wrong, even though 6 different aircon mechanics checked it and came up with the same results. These sceptics weren't happy with that, figuring that the aircon mechanics were just colluding together because a couple of them were bitching about getting paid late, so they employed their own trusted aircon mechanic to measure it. Just recently he came up with the same results again (refer to the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project). The sceptics are still not happy. Where the heck can you find an aircon mechanic around here who'll give someone the results they want to see? :rolleyes:

Other sceptics say that the sweat stains are only on one side of your lounge, and you can't prove that they were caused by the temperature getting warmer. Maybe it was the dog after being squirted with the hose? You remark that they're neatly in the shape of a human backside, not a dog, and they've only been there since the house started getting warmer, so who are they trying to kid? :confused: The sceptics say that's still not proof it wasn't the dog.

Some sceptics say that yeah it's warming, and yeah it's the pink batts, but it's not an issue. Campari is just fine without ice anyway. Some feel it's unfair to blame the pink batts at all. They're worried that if it is the pink batts, they'll be forced to take them out of their home. Heck, it might even cause the collapse of the entire home insulation industry! :eek: Wiser people know that's pretty unlikely. There will still be insulation required, but the industry needs to change the way it goes about business, get customers on board too, and certainly not simply hand out cheap batts to obsessive old grannies.

These sceptics say that there are temperature fluctuations in the house anyway. The building inspectors say "well yeah, sometimes it plateaus a little on a particularly cold day very briefly, but looking at the overall temperature trend here, it's still going up, and we're quite certain that those batts are the cause. We know they trap the heat. We know there are more of them up there than what is naturally designed for the house. And we know who put them there".

Naughty granny. :=

Bankstown Boy

1st Nov 2011, 02:01

And DutchRoll hits a home run in explaining exactly what's wrong with the CAGW hypothesis,

The underlying assumption in CAGW is that CO2 rises have a POSITIVE feedback on other greenhouse gases and that once a certain point is reached the effect of adding CO2 will cause accelerated warming (Farting granny adding another layer of pink batts in the roof). This is the primary hypothesis in all 4 (to-date) IPCC reports and a significant chunk of the peer reviewed literature.

Now, let's take guess at how many papers (peer reviewed or not) even attempt to provide a theoretical method for this positive feedback, or even postulate a theory, let alone proof ... And the winning answer is ... NIL

All of the models, papers, IPCC reports etc are based on this premise.

Just like farting granny adding another layer of pink batts, adding anthropogenic CO2 does not (in the view of the existing science) seem to accelerate warming. If anybody could demonstrate that it did, either hypothetically or in reality, they would be in for a real Nobel Prize - not one of those 'peace things' that people mistake for the real thing.

A couple of things to mull over, as we all attempt to slag each other:

1. Number of papers providing hypothesis, theory or proof of central underlying premise to CAGW - NIL ( despite over $100 really big ones being expended so far.

2. Never loose sight of 'Occam's Razor' - tend towards the hypothesis that requires the fewest new assumptions. I.e. It's JUST NATURAL.

teresa green

1st Nov 2011, 02:24

What a load of crock. I have been fishing off the same rock in the upper north coast of NSW for 62 years, how much has the water come up? NOT, NEIN, not one miserable little inch. My ol man built a shack up there, its still there, we still go there, and every year there is a xmas tide and it comes up under the floor boards and for the rest of the year, it stays where it belongs. You want to see carbon, try a beautiful little DC9 spewing it all the way up on climb, thats carbon. Its nothing more then a tax grab for Labor, trying to appease their loopy nerd mates the Greens, and stuff the country. I belong to the "Don't get me started party" a group of airline people up here on the Goldie, some still flying, some retired, and we all agree (unusual) its a load of ****. So it must be.

Jabawocky

1st Nov 2011, 04:35

Don't get me started Party....... I wanna join :ok:

De_flieger

2nd Nov 2011, 04:41

Teresa green, thats a couple of interesting points you raise. At a rough approximation the tidal range in Ballina is around 1.7 metres, ive chosen Ballina as simply a random point on the north coast of NSW, it may be slightly more or less depending on where you are and its intended solely as an example. That 1.7m figure comes from here: Ballina, Australia, Australia 7 Day Tide Chart - Tide-Forecast.com (http://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Ballina-Australia/tides/latest) .The measured, observed change in sea levels is around +1.8mm to +2 mm per year, averaged and taken from tidal gauges since 1880. Satellite measurements done over the last 15 years or so indicate a slightly faster change of around +3mm per year, and this is also reflected in the tidal measurement figures. This statement makes no judgement on what causes these changes or what if anything should be done, it is merely a measurement. These figures come from a range of meteorological and scientific organisations that have been measuring for decades and in some cases centuries, long before concern about global warming became an issue.

Given the extremely small and slow changes that occur over decades or centuries relative to the much larger daily tidal changes you will see, unless you take highly accurate measurements at high and low tides and make corrections for tidal influence and other factors, it is extremely unlikely that an observer sitting on a rock with a fishing rod (and a beer in hand i hope :) ) will see any changes that cant readily be explained as daily tidal variations. In that 62 years if the sea level increased by 2mm/year there would be a change of 12.4 cm, from the day you first arrived there to this years fishing trip. This is approximately the same change as you would see in waiting a little less than half an hour while the tide was coming in. (assuming a 6 hour tidal cycle low to high, with the water level increasing evenly throughout that 6 hour period, a slight simplification but near enough for what we are looking at here.)

Do you believe that you would notice a very gradual 12 cm change over 62 years when each day you see a change of around +/- 1.7 metres, with waves and swell on top of these changes? I can understand how it is easy to say, entirely honestly, "I havent seen it happen", but I think given the timescales and sizes of the changes, you wouldnt see it without making use of tidal gauges and recording measurements over decades, which is what a few organisations have done. This is a major weakness with the "I havent seen it, therefore it isnt happening" argument. Also, everyone in your group of friends and colleagues agreeing with you is not really a strong argument - in any political party or social/religious organisation (left, right, fundamentalist christian/muslim/atheist, crypto-fascist bourgeois commie ;)) you will find groups of people in furious agreement with one another on many things, but that doesnt necessarily make them correct, or even remotely connected to reality. Im not suggesting this is the case with your group, just that people agreeing on something doesnt automatically make all those involved correct.

Jabawocky

2nd Nov 2011, 06:05

Satellite measurements done over the last 15 years or so indicate a slightly faster change of around +3mm per year, and this is also reflected in the tidal measurement figures.

Dig a bit deaper on this one. There is more to it than that. The folk who measure the almost twice the land based measurements can not get their calibration right. They get consistent data with the land based measurements, but it is consistently double. :D

Figures can lie ;).

Tidal rises and falls are normal. And they lag a long way behind the atmosphere. The warming of the oceans at diferent times throughout history has caused rises, the water expands, but it also cools.

None of this is from man made CO2 in the last 50 years, it must have been those coal burning Jet flying folk hundreds and thousands and Millions of years back.

Go find a paleoclimatologist and sit down and have a good chat about it. After all they are the very ones you need to talk to. It is truly enlightening.:)

teresa green

2nd Nov 2011, 06:07

Well I guess the floor boards in the shack give me much more info than the pet rock. Built right where you could never build now but the ol man built it just after the war, and nobody cared then. Its close enough for a xmas tide to come inside, (after 40 years the missus is starting to accept it, but still goes ballistic) us blokes and kids think its good fun, she doesn't, the point I am making I have yet had to replace the floor boards, we only have it at Xmas, and never flood at any other time. The earth changes, it always has, and I have been here long enough, to accept it. The worst drought we ever had was in the thirties, the worst flood we ever had was in Qld when Clermont went under killing most of its population that was 1910. Yes we could be contributing, but nobody can be 100% sure, what we can be sure of no tax is going to fix it. The wonderful mix of aviation brains at the Goldie's "Dont Get Me Started Party", makes more sense to me than Tim Flannery (who has just built on the water).

Lodown

18th Nov 2011, 02:00

Your argument has been taking a few body blows in the last few days DutchRoll. Even the IPCC is trying to wrangle out of the global warming argument. The golden parachutes within the IPCC are being prepared.

The only significant thing that has changed in your house, after an extensive inspection by building inspectors, is the extra layer of pink batts.

You are making the same mistake that the pro-warmers have made for the last 30 years. You ASSUME that the world's climate is as simple as the environment inside the home. If it's not granny, then it's the heater. If it's not the heater, then it's the batts.

You ASSUME the pro-warmers know every feedback, every sink, every source of CO2, every energy interaction, every oceanic influence, every temperature change and are modelling each and every one of these influences simply and completely on a computer. Seems like the IPCC has found a little humility in the past week. It has to if it wants the budget funding to continue. It's changing its tune to one of moral conscience. How sweet! Doesn't help the millions of Australians impacted by a carbon tax though.

teresa green

18th Nov 2011, 03:11

The biggest amount of carbon released is caused by wood. Now you blokes all know, that as you fly each day over OZ there are limitless bush fires going at any given time, I believe the CSIRO puts it at around 22,000 a year, add to that millions of cattle and sheep emissions, and then industry, well its pointless only pointing to industry as the villain is it not? Does anybody really believe that simply taxing industry is going to solve the problem? The NT is fired every year always has been, the locals have been doing it for thousands of years, they say Australia has to burn to reproduce flora and fauna, they probably know better than us, and they are probably right, but like everything there is a price to pay, that is a increase in carbon. You OS blokes know everytime you go to a Asian city, (not HKG or NRT et al) there are trucks that are 25 years old and over, there are Put Puts, everybody is on a 2 stroke, the place stinks of diesel, fuel, and exhaust, but we are going to save the world with a tax and they are going to follow, crap, they don't have the money to follow or the inclination. Its fine for people like the Minister for Goldman Sachs (Turnbull) to encourage this crap, he is going to, along with his banker mates, make a motza out of carbon credit trade offs, (you did not really believe he wants to save the birds and bees did you) but for the average Australian worker, already struggling with the cost of living, and the cost of power rising so much, its really going to be a ball tearer this tax, and for what?

flyingfox

18th Nov 2011, 04:10

As usual the main point is being missed in your post. There is always a carbon cycle, including fires, volcanoes, trees, water, animals etc. The problem comes from the additional carbon coming from the rapid burning of fossil fuels and adding their content into the biosphere. This is the extra carbon moving into the cycle. Deforestation also adds carbon into the cycle which 'wood' otherwise be confined within the vegetation, not to mentioned being consumed for growth. The oceans disolve a lot of the carbon and carbon dioxide to keep a semblence of balance, but this is having its own effect down where we rarely look. (and the view from your fishing rock will not tell you all that needs to be known on that subject) I noticed your views on ocean levels not rising noticeably. The sea level rise will come mainly from simple thermal expsansion in the early stages of global warming. It is not until land based ice caps start to melt significantly that sea level rise will accelerate. But your simple observations seem to convince you that scientists are conspiratorial idiots and finance men are plotting to make their 'motza' from trading in carbon credits. Nothing I say will change your concrete views. Are your objections to science religious? They seem determinedly dogmatic. In the above post and elswhere lies the answers to your query about "the carbon tax being for what?"

teresa green

18th Nov 2011, 09:19

Flying Fox,they told us 2010, we would see a difference, well I am still waiting, now they tell us 2016, I might be dead by then. But please tell me how a tax is going to cure all please? Oh, and tell me how much the tax is going to cut emissions and by when.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

18th Nov 2011, 09:49

The Carbon Credit - a financial derivitive literally manufactured out of thin air. And you don't believe that the financial world isn't salivating at the prospect of getting stuck into them?

RATpin

18th Nov 2011, 10:41

And it's finished. Leaked report from the IPCC."The Australian friday 18 Nov"
Just in time to save the EU.
Just highlights the fraud it always was.

peterc005

18th Nov 2011, 10:48

I think the Carbon Tax is a good idea.

Good to see a government taking steps to help protect the environment.

The Carbon Tax has caused so much heat, it really shows they have the back bone to see a policy thru to implementation without being bullied by talk-back radio.

RATpin

18th Nov 2011, 10:52

Good Work Pete,time to return to your mates at the Pub.

konstantin

18th Nov 2011, 13:21

You just have to wonder at stuff like this in that "The Australian" article;

The draft report says "uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability".

A little less certainty than just a few years ago with AR4, fellas? :=
Do I detect a get-out clause here...?

But trust us, it will still happen...eventually...
Honest.

Professor Palutikof said it would take a while for the effects of climate change to become visible. But without action, she said, "gradually, over time, that signal will emerge with resounding clarity".
"If we don't do something now to prevent it, by the time we get to 2070, we will see the impact clearly," she said.

:ugh:

teresa green

18th Nov 2011, 19:23

Konstantin, 2070? Thats no bloody good to me, given that I live half way up the Kirra Hill on the Goldie, I was hoping for a waterfront in the next few years. I will be fossil fuel by 2070. They just keep moving the goalposts, as they wait for something to happen, and of course the planet just keeps on keeping on, and very little happens. But hey, once that tax comes in we can all sigh with relief.:ugh:

Mr.Buzzy

19th Nov 2011, 06:05

Yep. Let Asia take our work, provide them with the resources to screw us and we pick up the carbon/moral bill.
F$&ken' hippies, we're all rooted!

Bbbbbbbzzzzzzzzbbbbzzzzz

ryanboxer

19th Nov 2011, 06:16

In simple terms, what we pay for the carbon tax is what we get back as a bonus from the government at the end of the year

Mr.Buzzy

19th Nov 2011, 07:23

Thanks Ryan, off you go to meet with Peter.

Bbbbbbbbbzbzszzz

Frank Arouet

19th Nov 2011, 07:37

In simple terms, what we pay for the carbon tax is what we get back as a bonus from the government at the end of the year

If that's what it takes to be carbon neutral, why do it in the first place? Does that income count as taxable income? and who pays for the thousands of bureaucrats to administer the clusterfkuc?

Go and save a whale ryanboxed.

Duff Man

19th Nov 2011, 09:39

The individual economic impact of the GST was a slap in the face.

The individual economic impact of the carbon tax will be a tickle of a feather.

Those convinced otherwise have been conned. Yes the intellectual right have had the hood of short term self interest placed over their heads. Fair enough. But think of our grand kids. Look at the evidence. With a skeptical open rational mind. For once.

Fonz121

19th Nov 2011, 10:30

I'm a big supporter of the carbon tax.

Not because I think it will do a whole lot to actually clean up the environment directly, but because it will encourage innovation in the field of clean energy. Hopefully resulting in this country being a leader in the field, which in my opinion will be big business in the future.

Anybody crying poor over this tax because they're going to be "worse off" is getting their knickers in a knot over nothing as we're all in the same boat, and therefore nothing about your lifestyle is going to be any worse off relative to anybody else in the country.

DutchRoll

19th Nov 2011, 11:56

And it's finished. Leaked report from the IPCC."The Australian friday 18 Nov"

Err, no it's not. The Australian's reporting on climate science is nothing less than appalling and has been that way for a long time. I've read the article from the Australian, and note that their usual bumper cherry-picking season is opening early.

A little less certainty than just a few years ago with AR4, fellas?

IPCC AR4: "very likely increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation"

New Report: "It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas..."

IPCC AR4: "likely increase in tropical cyclone intensity; less confidence in global decrease of tropical cyclone numbers"

New Report: "Mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase...low confidence in tropical cyclone frequency"

Similarly, there is no remarkable difference in drought predictions between the new report and AR4.

But trust us, it will still happen...eventually...Honest.

Scientists have been saying for decades that climate impacts are going to occur over a long period of time and they've discussed natural variability within these changes at great lengths. As knowledge and data increases, those predictions will change slightly, but the ultimate result of adding greenhouse gas to a planetary atmosphere at a rate much higher than natural forces can scrub it out will not change, unless freaky new physical processes are discovered.

At the moment it appears that we humans might have a small amount of extra breathing space in which to start adapting or mitigating on top of what scientists originally thought. But to draw comfort from this is like drawing comfort from the locomotive driver when he says "oh it's not as bad as you think - that train on the collision course with us is actually 20km further away than I initially calculated, and he's only doing 80 km/h, not 90 km/h. So rest easy mate. She'll be right."

People get bogged down in the details and end up using ridiculous arguments a bit like "well heck first you said 20 years and now you say 30 years, so that just proves it's all bunkum and I don't need to believe anything you say". There are many parallels with the smoking/cancer argument. For example, are you going to start suffering the effects at the age of 50 or 60 or 70? Well heck, do you really care? Really? Yeah sure, highlight the uncertainties. Emphasise the fact that doctors can't pin down exactly when your lung cells will start turning cancerous and everything is just an estimate. But nothing.....absolutely nothing.....you say is going to change the fact that the research shows that you're "very likely" to eventually start suffering regardless! :ugh:

De_flieger

19th Nov 2011, 13:41

Without getting into a line-by-line rebuttal of the article in The Australian, there is another article published in Nature which discusses the summary released by the IPCC. This article is available here to read: Climate panel says prepare for weird weather : Nature News & Comment (http://www.nature.com/news/climate-panel-says-prepare-for-weird-weather-1.9397) and it also makes available the actual summary for those who are interested in going to the source data from which The Australian has taken its quotes. For background, Nature is one of the worlds most respected general scientific journals and has been published since 1869 (before Teresa Green even picked up a fishing rod http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif). The statements made in The Australian bear little resemblance to either the summary or the analysis by Nature. It looks like The Australian has cherry-picked those particular areas of weather/climatic effects that have been identified as having weak or moderate strength conclusions, while ignoring those that are identified as strong or near-certain conclusions.

Nature begins with "Extreme weather, such as the 2010 Russian heat wave or the drought in the horn of Africa, will become more frequent and severe as the planet warms, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns in a report released today. Some areas could become “increasingly marginal as places to live in", the report concludes."
This is completely and utterly different to The Australian's headline of "Review fails to support climate change link". The remainder of the article continues in a similar fashion, and ultimately finishes with almost a footnote of "The draft IPPC summary said if the century progressed without restraints on greenhouse gas emissions, their impacts would come to dominate. It said it was "very likely" that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heatwaves, would continue to increase over most land areas.". This is at odds even with their own headline which suggests that the IPCC review fails to support the overall idea of climate change.

To continue with the smoking analogy, The Australian has effectively created an article that states "Smoking - no link to negative health effects. Here is our analysis of the Surgeon Generals report: Eardrums - no negative effects observed. Toenails - continue in robust good health. Knee joints and cartilage - no reported ill effects. Other health concerns are still being monitored". While individual parts are technically true it gives a misleading view of the overall picture and ignores or minimises those elements that disagree with the point that the author is attempting to make.

The Nature article finishes with a quote from the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri "Despite all uncertainties, it is crucial for policy-makers to remain aware of the scientific reality of climate change, If science is not given the primacy it deserves it is unlikely that any of the actions will be taken that this report is begging of.”. This is entirely different to the politicised spin that The Australian has put on their interpretation of the report.

tolakuma manki

19th Nov 2011, 18:44

There is white man in Port Mosbi, he is trading with land owners to keep forest from been cutting down.
He pays them from money buying carbon offset.
Guess he is middleman for carbon trading.
Must be good for PNG keeping forests instead malaysian man cutting ol down.

Towering Q

20th Nov 2011, 00:14

This is entirely different to the politicised spin that The Australian has put on their interpretation of the report

The Australian....politicised spin??....surely not!! :rolleyes:

DutchRoll

20th Nov 2011, 04:39

Yeah The Australian's track record is bad. Very bad. Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at UNSW keeps track of the egregious errors and misreporting by The Australian on the status of climate science. He is up to The Australian's War on Science #73 (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/the_war_on_science/) so far. I have no doubt this latest article might qualify as #74 soon.

The lengths that The Australian will go to in order to protect its political slant on science reporting were demonstrated when it totally misrepresented CSIRO scientist Phil Watson's research paper on sea level rise earlier this year. Even letters from Watson's own Department and statements from Watson himself that it had been misrepresented made no difference and did not lead to any corrections. All this from the newspaper which gives prominence to sceptics like Australia's very own Dr Bob "if you can't see it, it won't hurt you" Carter - a reference to his continual and quite ridiculous claim that because CO2 is colourless and odourless, it must by default be harmless and benign. He thus demolishes a couple of centuries worth of accumulated knowledge of chemistry and gas properties in favour of the "ostrich principle", to The Australian's delight.

The "tobacco" analogy, incidentally, extends even further, such as the protracted war being waged against the science by industrial interests. This is the exact same stuff we saw start during the 1950s, when the link between tobacco smoke and lung disease was becoming recognised as scientific evidence and research advanced. The evidence became conclusive in the 70s and 80s, but the industry still resists education and controls, and the odd person or two still lives in compete denial right up until their diagnosis! Now if they just accepted the blindingly obvious evidence and simply stated "yes but I don't care", I wouldn't mind so much. But some still go out of their way to convince themselves it doesn't exist.

It's a stark demonstration of the sometimes fragile nature of human intelligence.

teresa green

20th Nov 2011, 06:28

None of them have a friggin clue, they are all guessing, all of them. They told us way back in 2002 that by 2010 most of the south east coast of Australia would be threatened, anybody seen Kirra beach lately, you need a packed lunch and a camel to get across it to the water, now they say 2016, I call it moving the goal posts for political reasons. When you have lived as long as I have you realise that money and power is what drives most, I have no reason what so ever to doubt that is behind all this crap as well.

DutchRoll

20th Nov 2011, 07:54

They told us way back in 2002 that by 2010 most of the south east coast of Australia would be threatened

Can you find me a reference for that? Who is "they" and who is "us"?

I've followed this debate on the science side for many years and never, ever heard of that. It's certainly extremely improbable that a genuine mainstream climate scientist would've talked about "most of the east coast" being threatened within a period of 8 years or less because such a prediction would be ridiculous to make in the first place. However this is one of many topics for which the number of urban myths peddled around the web is quite astonishing.

they are all guessing, all of them

Actually they're not "guessing". If you want me to email or fax you some pages out of a physics textbook where you can learn about the relevant formulas applicable to planetary atmospherics, for example how to use Planck's Law, what numbers to stick in, and how this can be used to estimate certain effects, I'd be glad to. Or if you want me to give you links to where the data is held which is used to assess all this stuff, I can do that too. Or you can just remain ignorant and accuse scientists of just making it up as they go with no evidence other than "cos I say so" to support your assertions.

When you have lived as long as I have...

So as you get older you actually gain more expertise to distinguish facts from fiction in subject areas you have never studied, never read any textbooks on, never had any formal training in, right?

.....money and power is what drives most, I have no reason what so ever to doubt that is behind all this crap as well.

Most of what? Scientific research? So with a two line statement you are prepared to actually dismiss anything science has ever researched on the grounds that the scientists didn't do it for free? Seriously? Which branches of scientific research are you going to dismiss? All of them, because virtually all scientific research actually requires funding to proceed? Or just a small selection of the ones where you find the results objectionable or unpalatable?

Let's start with all medical research. Is that all just "crap" driven by "money and power"? Because I can tell you for a fact that a large proportion of medical research is either funded by drug companies, or wholly carried out in drug company research labs, with most of the rest funded by Government, and a smattering funded by private fundraising. How much of it, exactly, are you prepared to categorically state is "crap" using the vast expertise (Medicine, I presume, is one of many of them) you've gained whilst getting older?

RATpin

20th Nov 2011, 09:32

Never mind,the mad Mullah's of Iran are about to get their hands on the "Bomb", making climate debate somewhat of an academic exercise.

flyingfox

20th Nov 2011, 10:14

Cancel all future planning and thinking. RATpin has spoken. Life is now hopeless due to Iran!

gobbledock

20th Nov 2011, 10:54

Carbon Tax is a complete crock of ****. The idea was raised in a discussion paper by Robert S McNamara in the 60's. The rationale behind the carbon tax concept was born along with numerous other methods of how a government could:
a) Bleed more money out of it's people without causing anarchy or having the people fight back and
b) How to fictitiously create a scare tactic that would scare the people into submission and doing whatever the government ask. Well the environment is one of those scare tactics - save the world today or your kids won't have a world to live in!!

Ok, to be upfront and honest, we are completely fu#king this planet, no doubt, but is a carbon tax the answer, is paying the government more money (and to date they have not proven to be a reliable or competent custodian of that money) the answer? Not likely, I mean the government is the one who has brought us CASA and the ATO, so what makes us believe the environment will be managed properly? We can reduce our carbon footprint all we want, but a nation if 22 million is merely a pimple on Rosanne Barr's ass in comparison to places like the USA (they are too scared to even tax their citizens the correct amount let alone introduce a new tax), then you have China, India, Indonesia - Yeah, they could really give a flying fu#k about pollution, then don't forget the worlds atomic waste, oil rigs pissing oil into the ocean, pesticides, corporate greed, corruption and the list goes on.... And you really thinking little old Australia sitting down at the arse end of the planet with a handful of residents being lead by 'a Welsh carrot top who walks like a man and talks like she has just smoked three cones' will make a difference by paying another tax???
Christ, people are naive.

teresa green

20th Nov 2011, 11:41

Dutch Roll, my old man was a Physicist, he was a Astrologer, he spent most of his life looking up the arse end of a telescope, he took us kids to look up the arse ends of telescopes as often as he could, he was a Professor of Physics at the Uni of Sydney, and he often told me all his fellow scientists were nuts. He used to say they could not agree on a cup of coffee, much less a solution. Now I can see he was right. Absolutely pointless in telling me what some Scientist said, especially some goose like Flannery (who has just built a waterfront home). I spent most of my junior years when not in boarding school, listening to him and his mates arguing about power stations, using chemicals in medical treatment, Uranium (for and against) nuclear power, and the rest, yes even the evolution of the world, and if he was here now, he would say it was crap, he would agree the world was changing, he would agree that man probably adds to the change, but he would say Gillard and her tax, will do sweet bugger all.(He hated pollies except Menzies). There lies the crux of the problem, we cannot do it alone, and most show no interest in following, most are trying to keep their countries from going belly up, and this dill of a woman is off to save the world, at the expense of the population of which so many are already struggling.

flyingfox

20th Nov 2011, 11:55

teresa. Your old man was an astrologer. That answers most of my doubts about your reasoning!

MattGray

20th Nov 2011, 14:13

Absolutely pointless in telling me what some Scientist said

Copernicus anyone? :ugh:

teresa green

20th Nov 2011, 19:41

You got me there Flying Fox excuse my mix up, my only excuse was a earlier conversation with my wife who firmly believes in the "Stars". My old man would be horrified. He was a Astronomer. The rest I stand behind.

Mr.Buzzy

20th Nov 2011, 21:50

Gobbledock, you are making way too much sense!!!!:ok:
Better be careful, some peace loving, whale kissing moon maiden will have you silenced.
It's the green way you see.

If a righty is gay, he/she keeps to himself and goes about life.
If a lefty is gay, he/she pushes to have laws changed and the world altered to suit him by way of public protest and rock hurling.

If a righty is against fur clothes, they don't buy furs.
If a lefty is against fur, they push for law change, protest in public and smear bloody images in our faces.

If a righty cares for the environment, he/she does their bit at home and at work to make a small difference.
If a lefty cares for the environment.... Well how many jobs are there in The great Australian conservatory (tassie) these days?

Bbbbbbbbzzzzzzbbbb

blackhand

20th Nov 2011, 22:50

The idea was raised in a discussion paper by Robert S McNamara in the 60's.
Is this the same Robert S McNamara that devised the "Mutual Assured Destruction"
doctrine of cold war era. He was Sec for Defense 61-68?

breakfastburrito

20th Nov 2011, 23:28

Blackhand, take a look at this official extract from "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G.Edward Griffin discussing the Report From Iron Mountain, commissoned by McNamara in the 60's, draw your own conclusions.

THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN This is taken from Chapter 24 of The Creature from Jekyll Island © 2002 by G. Edward Griffin (http://www.scribd.com/doc/22812152/Report-From-Iron-Mountain)

Splitpin44

20th Nov 2011, 23:48

If a righty is gay, he/she keeps to himself and goes about life.
If a lefty is gay, he/she pushes to have laws changed and the world altered to suit him by way of public protest and rock hurling.

If a righty is against fur clothes, they don't buy furs.
If a lefty is against fur, they push for law change, protest in public and smear bloody images in our faces.

If a righty cares for the environment, he/she does their bit at home and at work to make a small difference.
If a lefty cares for the environment.... Well how many jobs are there in The great Australian conservatory (tassie) these days?

If a righty cares for the environment, he/she buys a Prius and plants some trees.

If a lefty cares for the environment, he/she votes a tax in to make everyone pay.

Towering Q

20th Nov 2011, 23:52

And you really thinking little old Australia sitting down at the arse end of the planet with a handful of residents being lead by 'a Welsh carrot top who walks like a man and talks like she has just smoked three cones' will make a difference by paying another tax??? (Nice Bogan-speak.)

Why then do the Coalition persist with their Direct Action Plan? They say it will reduce CO2 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, based on 1990 levels.

Why bother if it won't 'make a difference'?

Direct Action will cost taxpayers $11 billion a year and effectively pay industry to pollute less.

De_flieger

21st Nov 2011, 00:08

Oh dear.
If a righty is gay, he/she keeps to himself and goes about life.
If a lefty is gay, he/she pushes to have laws changed and the world altered to suit him by way of public protest and rock hurling.Have you heard of the Log Cabin Republicans, an activist/advocacy group for gay rights within the Republican party? Theyre certainly not the only right-leaning group interested in equal rights for individuals regardless of their sexual orientation, but they are one of the best known, and were involved in a US Federal Court lawsuit aimed at repealing the "Dont Ask, Dont Tell" policy in the US military. If you called them "lefties" they may well exercise their individual freedoms and rights to bear firearms in your general direction ;) !
If a righty is against fur clothes, they don't buy furs.
If a lefty is against fur, they push for law change, protest in public and smear bloody images in our faces.
Extremists of both sides of politics protest in obnoxious fashions and smear bloody images in our faces, this is most obvious whenever you walk past an abortion clinic - regardless of the fact you're simply walking past an anonymous building in a major city as part of your daily commute you can see graphic, bloodstained imagery. If you're lucky theyll even do letterbox drops for the local kids to find when they check the mailbox. Again, these people certainly dont vote Greens/Labour!

If a righty cares for the environment, he/she does their bit at home and at work to make a small difference.
If a lefty cares for the environment.... Well how many jobs are there in The great Australian conservatory (tassie) these days?The answers you seek are here:Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (http://www.deewr.gov.au/lmip/default.aspx?LMIP/LFR_LFR_LM_byLFR_UnemploymentRate) , in summary the Taswegian unemployment rate is 4.7%, which is less than Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia, but more than Canberra, WA and the NT. It is lower also than the Australian average of 5.2%.

Aaaanyway, dragging this kicking and screaming back onto topic, any idea might be a good one or a bad one but simply ignoring it with fingers crammed firmly into ears because it comes from a different side of politics or from a scientist is foolish and short-sighted. Tony Abbott initially supported a carbon tax as a market-led way to provide an incentive to less polluting business processes, while Julia Gillard said that there wouldnt be a carbon tax. When Julia Gillard said she would introduce a carbon tax, Tony Abbott then said it was a bad idea and he'd repeal it at the first opportunity. I think this highlights the poor standard of politicians that we have rather than any inherent merit or otherwise of the carbon tax.

Splitpin44

21st Nov 2011, 00:10

The thing that gets me worked up most about this tax is.

I like my way of life. I like having my aircon on when I'm hot and I like switching lights on at home to see. I love driving my car when I go somewhere.

If you think that Global Warming is a real threat then don't do all the things I do. Make an example of yourself. Ride a push bike, get the electricity disconnected from your house, plant some trees. Thats all free to do and there is no arguing that you will make a difference.

But don't go sit on the fence and say "Oh I support a carbon tax because it will save the world" while your still driving your car to work and flying aircraft that burn tons of fuel. Sitting at home typing "I support the carbon tax" on a computer most likey running on coal power.

I don't push my way of life onto anyone......yet I'm going to have other peoples way of life pushed onto me in the form of a tax.

gobbledock

21st Nov 2011, 00:21

Is this the same Robert S McNamara that devised the "Mutual Assured Destruction" doctrine of cold war era. He was Sec for Defense 61-68? Aagh Blackhand, are you trying to lure me into 'dancing a tango' with you ? I am guessing yes?
But I will answer your question so that you can arm yourself with a decent retort - Yes, it is the same McNamara. A brilliant strategist with a brilliant mind, but like all intelligent men he reflected later in life on some of his actions, ideas, strategies and concepts, The Fog Of War is a DVD worthy of viewing.

Towering Q, thanks for the 'bogan compliment'. Obviously you don't approve of my speach, nonetheless I say things the way I see it, whether people like it or not I don't tailor my speach, thoughts or beliefs to suit the desires or acceptability of others. But that apllies in reverse, and I am equally accepting of others viewpoints regardless of how they express it.
Why then do the Coalition persist with their Direct Action Plan? They say it will reduce CO2 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, based on 1990 levels.Why bother if it won't 'make a difference'? Do you really need a lesson in government? Governments do not give a rat's ass if it makes a difference or not, it's about perception and ego's. The 'end game' is getting re-elected, enabling them to live a little longer on the kick they get from power and authority. If they think a carbon or environment policy dressed up in a nice package with a bowtie on top will buy them support then they will use it. If it turns out to be a complete crock they don't care, the end justifies the means, which is an extra 3 years with
their snouts in the trough.
Direct Action will cost taxpayers $11 billion a year and effectively pay industry to pollute less These are government spin figures. If you honestly believe that each living Australian will be better off financially and environmentally under this plan then I guess we will have to wait maybe 20 years to see what the outcome is. I am yet to witness in my lifetime a government that has acted proactively, fairly, reasonably, unbiased, honestly and efficiently on behalf of it's nation.

Captain Dart

21st Nov 2011, 00:34

The 'elephant in the room' is population. Why should I be pressured to live like a Bangladeshi and hand over my 'hard earned', while other cultures and religions encourage producing more polluters and consumers?

Instead, of this meaningless carbon w-ank, Australia should be:

Actively encouraging and subsidising birth control and education as the only form of its overseas aid

Reviewing its immigration policy with regard to the number of humans that our continent can sustain

Pursuing the idea that those who oppose birth control, small families and education for all are committing a crime against humanity

In the world's most geologically and politically stable continent that has about 1/3 of the world's uranium, pursuing and promoting the use of nuclear power for its own people.

But I suppose the likelihood of all this happening would be about the same as Julia Dillard speaking like the Queen...

flyingfox

21st Nov 2011, 00:42

Thanks teresa. Whatever the subject, good to have a smile occaisionally! :ok:

De_flieger

21st Nov 2011, 00:49

I like my way of life too. I'd like to have lights on around the house, I drive to work and I really enjoy flying a plane that does burn quite a lot of fuel. I even enjoy discussing things online on my electrically powered computer, and noone is going to stop anyone doing any of those things. If you want to drag-race V8s you'll be free to, and I'll watch it on my tv. Your costs may go up a few dollars a week to reflect the fact that you are using finite natural resources and producing carbon dioxide in doing these things, but the carbon tax cost is insignificant relative to the other costs, paying 2 or 3 dollars on a $100 cheap air ticket is a lot less than the other costs involved - $3 wont buy you a coffee, and purchases maybe 9 minutes of parking at the short-term carpark when you get dropped off.

The News Limited press are serial offenders claiming "we'll all be rooooned" by a carbon tax, they recently had an article which described the hardship a family was facing. The family in question was a single-income family making ~$150,000 per year, with 3 kids and a stay-at-home mum, and talked about how hard it was paying a mortgage on a big house in a nice area in Sydney. The article was complete with a photo of the family, sitting in their luxurious open-plan house on a nice leather couch and talking about how the government wasnt providing enough compensation to struggling families such as themselves. It appears to have disappeared from the website after people asked questions about the 4 high-end tv/audio and Foxtel remotes visible on the couch next to the cute little kids, and whether the projected cost of around $700 per year (or looking at it differently, $13.46 a week) worst case scenario, would cause such hardship to people who were already paying well above that for their pay-tv subscription alone and still complaining about the lack of government welfare support.

Splitpin44

21st Nov 2011, 02:00

One thing is for sure and thats the Australian voters will pick which way they want to go the next election.

Keep in mind that everyone who voted for Julair the first time was told she would not bring a carbon tax. Who do you think they will vote for this time????

Slasher

21st Nov 2011, 02:22

Keep in mind that everyone who voted for Julair the first time was told she would not bring a carbon tax.

Just as everyone who voted for the Silver Bodgie the first time
in the early 80s who had clearly promised no capital gains tax.

Keep voting ALP, keep believing the lies, keep cutting yer own
throats - that bogan's carbon scam is just the start.

De_flieger

21st Nov 2011, 03:41

She may fly "Jul-Air" but I think you mightve been going for "Juliar" :p ! You're right, at the next election people get their say. Neither party holds a monopoly on broken promises though, whether its to never introduce a carbon tax, never ever introduce a GST, the list goes on. "Playing the man", saying its a bad idea because it came from Labour, is introduced by a redhead who you dont like the look of or who has a voice that makes your hair stand on end, is failing to think about the issues involved.

Do you think Tony Abbott will be able to repeal the many different laws and also remove the tax and pension changes and rebates put in place to help the average and lower income earners, or will unscrambling that particular egg turn out to be a "non-core promise"? I can see the headlines now, either sad-looking pensioners having their payments reduced, or Mr Abbott explaining how legally he didn't realise how complex it all was from Opposition, and how the bad, evil carbon tax brought on by those ratbags will have to stay, but he'll keep the votes against it that brought him to power. Its very easy from Opposition to say "we'll repeal it, roll it back, undo these laws", and the oldest trick in the book to get into power then "discover" a budget black hole, costings issue or legal problems that mean you cant do what was promised, but blame it on the other guys who have just been given a kicking by the electorate. I think Mr Abbott will be happy to take the protest votes, but once he's in power his tune will change very rapidly. Also, a couple of years from now when it is election time and the sky hasnt fallen in a lot of people will have moved onto other issues and the election could well be decided on them instead.

konstantin

21st Nov 2011, 03:46

Some thoughts from JC on the recent IPCC report

IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events | Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/18/ipcc-special-report-on-extreme-events/#more-5915)

Her conclusion statement reads

This report is better than I expected, although I suspect that some of their conclusions are based on weak arguments (we will have to wait for the full report). The two most important aspects IMO are the recognition of the importance of natural variability and also vulnerability. The dominance of natural variability for the past 40-60 years in determining extreme events makes the AGW extreme events attribution exercises (see here (http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/08/extreme-measures/)) seem even more pointless. The weakest part of the report is the high confidence level of the future projections (including one “virtually certain.”) I suspect that different authors worked on the “Observations” section than those working on the “Future” chapter; too bad the “Future” authors didn’t read the “Observations” section first.

DutchRoll
"Scientists have been saying for decades that climate impacts are going to occur over a long period of time and they've discussed natural variability within these changes at great lengths." Sorry, but very rarely if at all have I seen natural variability mentioned for the benefit of the "end user" of MSM consumption. Wonder what the reason for that might be?

"As knowledge and data increases, those predictions will change slightly, but the ultimate result of adding greenhouse gas to a planetary atmosphere at a rate much higher than natural forces can scrub it out will not change, unless freaky new physical processes are discovered." Which might manifest themselves in something like a decade-long hiatus in LST, SST and oceanic heat content? The 80s/90s were supposedly an observation-based validation of "trust the models" and "it`s obviously related to CO2 emissions". Now we are pumping ever more "carbon" into the `sphere but there has been a lull - oops, let`s now publically invoke natural variability here. Or was that aerosols, geez, which one do we go for? Hell, let`s use both...

Pray to your god that we do not get a Younger Dryas type of natural variability sometime soon!

Strangely enough we have had a recently much-trumpeted "10 years is not enough for a trend, it must be at least 17 years" from Santer.
Which will no doubt be amended to 19 years circa 2013...

"In just a few years, snow will be a rare and exciting event". :rolleyes:

Honest. It is in the models...

Gobbledock
As you say, it is the futility of unilateral action that is biggest cringe factor here. China`s emissions growing every year at a rate approximating total Oz annual emissions...we aim to reduce our rate of increase, NOT to physically reduce the current amount, actually...at what overall financial impost to the nation?...but never mind such pesky considerations. :ugh:

No wonder people start jumping onto conspiracy theory bandwagons, with this sort of BS going on. But as I keep saying, that is something I personally consider to be...ahem..."less than likely"... ;)

A gravy-train confluence of interests which has evolved into a Too Big To Fail construct does just fine as an explanation.

gobbledock

21st Nov 2011, 04:34

The News Limited press are serial offenders claiming "we'll all be rooooned" by a carbon tax, they recently had an article which described the hardship a family was facing. The family in question was a single-income family making ~$150,000 per year, with 3 kids and a stay-at-home mum, and talked about how hard it was paying a mortgage on a big house in a nice area in Sydney. The article was complete with a photo of the family, sitting in their luxurious open-plan house on a nice leather couch and talking about how the government wasnt providing enough compensation to struggling families such as themselves. It appears to have disappeared from the website after people asked questions about the 4 high-end tv/audio and Foxtel remotes visible on the couch next to the cute little kids, and whether the projected cost of around $700 per year (or looking at it differently, $13.46 a week) worst case scenario, would cause such hardship to people who were already paying well above that for their pay-tv subscription alone and still complaining about the lack of government welfare support. YES! Now I understand why da little fella got a $2.9 million dollar payrise at the last AGM - to offset the cost of carbon tax on his personal life! Of course, now I get it :E

RATpin

21st Nov 2011, 10:16

De Flieger, one thing that people such I who have "accidently" fallen into a job that pays more than $150g's/year get sick of hearing is the politics of envy most often played by Labor when they are in trouble politically.
The latest example being the carbon tax BS,"90%" of people will be better off.
Guess who won't be.
Thanks to K.Rudd, I lost my stay at home wife as a tax deduction,whilst I don't wish too cry poor,it's a bit rich coming from a multi-millionaire who also has his snout in the public trough.
The problem is,we are a little like the ducks in side show alley,easy targets for Government/Media/Tax Department whilst some small and big business's escape scrutiny.
P.S.FlyingFox,you would need to have a sense of humour to fly the "Fruit Bat"

Lodown

21st Nov 2011, 17:27

CAUTION: Heavy on sarcasm.

Unfortunately, there are alarmists who don't see a light at the end of the tunnel and find it convenient to conclude it must be a train coming the other way blocking the light. With some limited data, and what they see as infallible computer programs, they then make their conclusions fit their expectations. The conclusions dovetail nicely with the fears of many of the train’s passengers and if a few alarmists start standing on seats shouting "We're all gonna die!", before long there is a full blown panic and a stampede to the driver to “Stop and turn around!”

Never mind that with a little time for keen observation by cooler heads, the hasty conclusions of the fear promoters is seen not to match the initial catastrophic conclusion of a colliding train rushing in from the other direction. Never mind that on further evaluation, the input into the alarmist’s models is found to be incomplete, missing, kept behind locked doors or otherwise unavailable so that their experiments cannot be replicated. Never mind that the growing evidence appears to indicate the light is not evident because of natural reasons; perhaps the tunnel curves and is extremely long or there might be other possible reasons. Never mind that email leaks indicate the fear promoters have modified some data deliberately to create additional panic and have taken advantage of (manipulated?) the peer review process and actively silenced dissenters. Never mind that catastrophe-predicting, eye catching press releases are released well in advance of acceptance of relatively mundane final reports. The passengers are in panic. The fear promoters have the crowd behind them. The crowd is looking to the alarmists for answers. The alarmists can rely upon the panicked passengers to put them in the driver's seat.

The alarmists stated very publicly that increasing CO2 concentrations would cause runaway increases in temperature. They were emphatic in stating that temperatures were linked to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. We were approaching a tipping point and soon it would be too late to go back. Al Gore and the IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize for promoting the runaway global increase in temperatures, the coming extinction of the cute and cuddly polar bear, disappearing glaciers, melting icecaps and sea levels rising 20 metres by the end of the 21st century and inundating low lying island communities and all the world’s major coastal cities.

What started as fears of “global warming”, evolved into “climate change” because some areas weren’t showing any warming (roughly 1/3rd of the earth). Community fears could be better developed if there was a practical response to every global weather extreme. Cyclones/hurricanes? Climate change! Drought/floods? Climate change! Tornadoes/storms? Climate change! Heavy snowfall? Climate change! Hot summer temperatures and cold winter temperatures? Climate change!

After a few more years of observation, the data once again showed that these events weren’t matching with alarmist predictions either. Cyclone and hurricane numbers are down. Tornado and storm numbers are relatively stable. Nothing appears out of the ordinary either with flood or drought characteristics around the world. The Russian heat wave and the Australian and Texas droughts were convenient events in support of climate change for a while, but then some non-cooperative USA government killjoys said they had/have nothing to do with climate change either.

Now we have observations that the world temperatures haven’t changed much in 13 or so years, and look like they are starting a prolonged decline (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Discover-AMSU-5thru-Nov-2-2011.png). 10 years of temperature declines were seen as acceptable to the pro-warmers. That's been extended to 17 years by Santor. Now the IPCC has extended that to 30 years.
Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain
Oh dear! The fear wheels are coming off the bicycle. That's longer than global warming has been around! Solar physicists and oceanographers seem to have a better idea of global climate than so-called climatologists. Ocean levels are decreasing. Polar ice caps haven’t done much. The Antarctic ice coverage is showing no major change to historic coverage and the Arctic ice cap, while down, is showing signs of recovery. Natural variation, an oft-repeated argument from sceptics and blown off as only a minor influence causing occasional temperature declines by the pro-warmers has received heightened importance now that temperatures are not rising. The alarmists are construing the discussion to make it appear like they have been considering natural variation for a significant period of time. Only when it has suited their conclusions! The major arguments supporting catastrophic manmade climate change are suffering a significant lack of real-world support.

With waning supporting evidence for a global “catastrophic” link between CO2 and world temperatures, the IPCC is shifting strategy once again. This time, it’s morphed away from a global view of climate change towards a more localised “extreme climate events” scenario. Same fear promotion…just a different reason. The global fears have little support left in reality. This time, a local argument might be a safer bet for the IPCC. Past records appear to indicate more severe weather events linked to cooling global temperatures.

The problem for the IPCC now is how to successfully reposition itself from endorsing a (false), sole causative link of rising CO2 directly to rising world temperatures, to a translucent link of man’s fossil fuel activities with local weather extremes while maintaining a seemingly legitimate influence on world government. There has been very little research on airborne aerosols allowing for considerable manuevring with innuendos, rumours and half-facts. My guess is that the IPCC argument will shift slightly from manmade CO2 alone causing temperature increases to a combination of human produced CO2 and human produced aerosols related to the burning of fossil fuels, of course, (each over-riding the influence of the other at the appropriate time, one heating and one cooling, the interactivity which is difficult to predict without additional funding and support, of course) possibily causing extreme weather conditions. That should buy the IPCC and climate scientists in support of AGW another 10 or 20 years of employment and community and political gullibility to come up with another argument against fossil fuels, capitalist market ideals, and individual countrys' self-government.

In the convenient words of Konstantin, the IPCC and global warming community is:
A gravy-train confluence of interests which has evolved into a Too Big To Fail construct…

I am amused by the following quotes from The Australian article:
Professor Palutikof said it would take a while for the effects of climate change to become visible. But without action, she said, "gradually, over time, that signal will emerge with resounding clarity".

"If we don't do something now to prevent it, by the time we get to 2070, we will see the impact clearly," she said.
So she admits that climate change is not evident? It might look like the emperor has no clothes. But just wait. The tailor is working hard. What's wrong with you? Can't you see? Believe!!!! Believe!!!!!! Like the climate priest Palutikof, you'll see the beautiful suit too.
The federal government's climate science adviser, Will Steffen, has acknowledged there is no statistically significant evidence that there has been a change in the behaviour of tropical cyclones.

However, Professor Steffen told the Ten Network's The Bolt Report at the weekend that most experts agreed we would see an increase in intensity in cyclones as the warming continued.
What warming? The religion of global warming continues. We believe that it's happening. We are taking actions to stop it from happening. The evidence for global warming will become apparent as global warming becomes apparent. WTF! An image of a dog chasing its tail comes to mind. Sums up the Labor party too.

I do agree with De flieger above. The Liberal Party has flip-flopped on policy choices, but still maintains support for global warming for fear of losing its votes. I've never voted National, but would do so at the drop of a hat next election to send a message to the spineless Liberals as well.

DutchRoll

21st Nov 2011, 21:56

CAUTION: Heavy on requiring evidence to be presented to demonstrate that you actually have a clue.

Never mind that on further evaluation, the input into the alarmist’s models is found to be incomplete, missing, kept behind locked doors or otherwise unavailable so that their experiments cannot be replicated.

Please specify precisely which information is missing, kept behind locked doors, or otherwise unavailable so the experiments cannot be replicated.

Never mind that the growing evidence appears to indicate the light is not evident because of natural reasons; perhaps the tunnel curves and is extremely long or there might be other possible reasons.

Please clarify what on earth this entire paragraph is supposed to mean.

Never mind that email leaks indicate the fear promoters have modified some data deliberately to create additional panic and have taken advantage of (manipulated?) the peer review process and actively silenced dissenters.

Please demonstrate that you actually understand what data was specifically being referred to in the emails, and understand the reasons why about half a dozen separate and independent inquiries into those emails have cleared the scientists on any alleged manipulation of that data.

The alarmists stated very publicly that increasing CO2 concentrations would cause runaway increases in temperature.

No, they stated that if it were ever to reach a certain point it could cause that. There is a precedent for just such an event within our own solar system, you know, and if you had even the faintest education on solar system science you'd be aware what it is (being one of our closest planetary neighbours). However scientists have been very careful to state that there's an awful long way to go before you'll get a runaway greenhouse effect, and a "runaway greenhouse effect" is not the same thing as what is currently happening on earth.

They were emphatic in stating that temperatures were linked to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Well, yes, the temperature of the Earth is directly linked to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if you change that you'll change the temperature of the Earth, if all other variables remain the same. So is the temperature of any planet. The concentration of greenhouse gases is one of the main variables. It's what keeps planets much warmer than they otherwise would be. The other main variable is the distance of the planet from its nearest star. So...... you're complaining that they're absolutely correct? I don't get it.......

What started as fears of “global warming”, evolved into “climate change” because some areas weren’t showing any warming

Nonsense, and a popular myth. The link below will take you directly to a PDF of the actual journal publication, the highly respected peer-reviewed journal "Science".

Journal: Science, Vol 189, Pages 460-463, Aug 8 1975
Author: Wallace S Broker, Department of Geological Sciences, Columbia University
Title: Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming (http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf)

As you can see, the two terms are synonymous.

Now we have observations that the world temperatures haven’t changed much in 13 or so years, and look like they are about to start dropping.

They have still risen at a slower rate, which is not unusual on a decadal time scale. And no, there is no evidence that they are about to start dropping. Though there is some degree of speculation about whether reduced solar activity might occur, the National Solar Observatory makes it abundantly clear that the exact relationship, ie the finer details like sunspot activity and so-forth, between Earth's climate and solar activity is not yet fully understood (except to sceptics of course, who apparently understand it much better than solar physicists do) and so drawing any conclusions about future temperature trends from this must be done very carefully.

Solar physicists and oceanographers seem to have a better idea of global weather than so-called climatologists

You cannot be serious. Many scientists studying climate (ie, "climate scientists") actually have solar physics and oceanography training or work for solar physics/oceanography organisations! The world's foremost Oceanography institution is the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. Have a look at what they say about the earth's climate. Here, I'll start you off:

Scripps Institute - Research into ocean acidification due to CO2 increases and anthropogenic climate change (http://explorations.ucsd.edu/research-highlights/2011/acidification_mediterranean/)
Scripps Institute - Scripps researchers tackle one of climate change modelling's toughest challenges (http://explorations.ucsd.edu/archives/2009/fine_details/)
A quote from the above article: "We are trying to understand the major sources of aerosols in our atmosphere and how they affect the overall temperature of our planet; as opposed to greenhouse gases which we know are warming....."

Ocean levels are decreasing.
Yes indeed they are undergoing a pronounced and precipitous fall, as you can see in this graph using Sea Level data from the University of Colorado (the drop at the end, if you actually read the scientific narratives, is due to the El Nino/La Nina changeover):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_msl.gif

.....and the Arctic ice cap, while down, is showing signs of recovery

yeah you can clearly see the Arctic ice recovery in the latest Polar Science Centre data:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

I was going to respond to much more, and a couple of other posts, but I can only digest a certain maximum amount of garbage in a single day before I get a tummy upset. :ok:

konstantin

21st Nov 2011, 23:48

Whatever one`s opinions on the matter, the last two posts by Lodown and DutchRoll are a perfect example of the science not being settled. Sceptic or warmista sites, one sees it constantly and ad nauseam.

eg

- Panic, arctic ice is reducing. But it would be nice to compare the current trend and amount to what we had in the 1920/30s. Pity the sat records only start in 1979.

- Sea levels are rising. Yep, have been for a looong time, the point being? Apparently they absolutely rocketed up a few thousand years ago too.

- Degree of anthropogenic attribution please. Oh, I forgot, Trenberth says 5%, for extreme weather events anyway. So there, QED.

- Net recession of glaciers. Yep, since last century. Nothing to do with a multi-centennial cycle and coming out of the LIA?

LIA has been debunked, see...
No, the hockey stick has been debunked, see...
No it hasn`t, see...
Yes it has, see...

Etc, etc, et bloody c....

The amazing thing is that while all of this is going on, we have the most alarming pronouncements being blindly parroted on the news by pollies, eg

"New advice indicates that sea levels could rise by [insert any ludicrous amount you like here] metres this coming century"

"450ppm - 2 degrees - tipping point/irreversible"...repeat after me...

Three years ago all of this was "care factor zero" for me - then over a period of a few months the BS detector started going off, the constant references to "carbon" and "pollution", and black balloons popping out of washing machines and DVD players on those telly ads, and "climate change" sans the human-caused prefix were all cumulatively just a little too Goebbels...did more and more digging thereafter. Conclusion?

The "science" is far from "settled". Although many people/organisations/businesses, for a multitude of diverse and self-interested reasons, would have us believe otherwise.

And as always, the bottom line is - exactly what is unilateral action by Oz going to achieve? Oh wait, there will be an international scheme by 2016. Yes there will. We just have to talk China and India and the US and Canada and Russia and Japan into it, that`s all.
But they will come around. You`ll see.
:ugh:

PS Comparing Earth and Venus brings to mind the "apples and oranges" adage. Have certainly seen lots of he said/she said on that one!

teresa green

21st Nov 2011, 23:59

I would not worry about it to much fella's, unless you are aged 10, you are never going to know the truth. I wonder if the poor buggers in the ice age, had to pay half a rabbit leg in tax or what?

Lodown

22nd Nov 2011, 13:52

Must agree Teresa. More emails released overnight:

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.
So much for that "popular myth".

<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]

<2267> Wilson:

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.
Better not increase the weighting of solar forcing then. It would diminish the impact of CO2 on the pro-AGWer's argument and we can't have that.

<4241> Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

Ooops, slight embarrassment.

<5066> Hegerl:

[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.

<4443> Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.

<4085> Jones:

GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be correct.
Models wrong? Never!

On Freedom of Information:
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:

As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)

<1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
No data hidden? Well, not much anyway.

More here (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#more-12598).

flyingfox

22nd Nov 2011, 20:09

Great work Lodown. More meaningless trash from a sceptic blog called 'climategate'. That's a pretty creative name! (May cut it with your average bogan too.) Your research is impeccable!

DutchRoll

23rd Nov 2011, 00:16

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Yep, Lodown, because a single sentence of an email, or maybe two at best, gives you ALL the perspective you need, doesn't it? Here's an extract from an email I sent to someone a while back:

I'm gonna kill him....

Should you:

a) report me immediately to the police on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder?

b) perhaps ask me about the context of the rest of the email and what it was referring to before you report me to the police?

Of course, if you happened to be a reasonable person and chose answer b), you might discover that the statement was not in fact a murder plot, but an initial reaction just after I found out I'd been ripped off by a tradesman who performed substandard work. Wow! Who'd have ever guessed that the 2 second sound-bite from my email makes it out to appear much worse than it actually is? On the other hand, if you don't like me anyway, you might not be bothered researching the surrounding context and just send your accusation straight to the police, together with that snippet from the email. Then you run the risk of being made to look a little like a fool after the police have finished their inquiries.

Well this is exactly what happened to climate scientists, and the fake-sceptics indeed looked a little foolish, though this didn't discourage them from alleging ever greater and more elaborate conspiracies after each subsequent inquiry cleared the scientists. And you can read the results of the "police" inquiries here:

The 1st inquiry clearing climate scientists - UK House of Commons Science and Technology committee (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38702.htm)

The 2nd inquiry clearing climate scientists - The Science Assessment Panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh (http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP)

The 3rd inquiry clearing climate scientists - The Penn State University Investigatory Committee (http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf)

The 4th inquiry clearing climate scientists - The Independent climate Change Email Review chaired by Sir Muir Russell (http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf)

The 5th inquiry clearing climate scientists - The US Environmental Protection Agency investigation and response to petitions claiming the emails undermined the science (see comments 2-37, 2-38, 2-39) (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/comments/volume2.html)

And the piece-de-resistance, when the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation announced an inquiry into the inquiry by Penn State Uni, the sceptics finally erupted in cheers and applause, stating that it would be the first "truly independent" investigation, and because the Inspector General himself was a climate change sceptic. And guess what? Come on.....bet you can't guess what he found! Come on.....have a guess.......

The 6th inquiry clearing climate scientists - Closeout Memorandum from the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation (http://www.science20.com/uploads/1770191916-429173860.pdf)

THEN try explaining this very inconvenient recent event:

Retiring to lick their wounds, the fake climate-change sceptics held on tightly to their last bastion of hope: A sceptic himself, Dr Richard Muller, a physicist, had formed a group of eminent scientists (well, all except one, Judith Curry) called the "Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Project" to reanalyse all the temperature data. It was even blessed by the infamous "sceptic-without-any-science-qualifications-at-all" Anthony Watts, who personally vowed to "accept its conclusions", even if his allegations that the temperature record was fudged and manipulated were wrong.

And guess what? Come on again. Bet you can't guess what results the sceptical BEST group came up with! :D

Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Project - 20th October 2011 - Global Warming is real (http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct)

Well golly. Whoever would've guessed? The absolute funniest thing is that now the sceptics have turned on Berkley Earth and Muller viciously. They used to love the sceptical Dr Muller. Now they hate him, wondering how the Government managed to implant the mind-control "global warming alarmist" chip inside his head. Of course, the truth is that he simply analysed the raw data, and it shows what it shows, and there is no conspiracy except inside the tortured minds of those who desperately want to believe that there is one. And you can sit at home in your rocking chair sucking your thumb and mumbling how it's all a conspiracy as much as you like, but it isn't going to change that.

:ok:

PS Comparing Earth and Venus brings to mind the "apples and oranges" adage. Have certainly seen lots of he said/she said on that one!

Well to be fair I never said they were the same (though they do share a few similar characteristics). You can see what a runaway greenhouse effect is like on Venus. However I specifically said that is not happening on Earth, though it is possible if the conditions were right in the more distant future.

If you frequent the "sceptical" blogs, as some here obviously do, you can see lots of allegations from fake-sceptics, particularly one Steven Goddard, that Venus isn't really a runaway greenhouse effect. This view is treated with near universal contempt by real planetary scientists, astronomers, etc, because there's simply no evidence to support it, and a lot of evidence to support a runaway greenhouse on Venus.

teresa green

23rd Nov 2011, 01:35

I don't know how to break this to you Dutch Roll, but the UBS report that was tabled this morning shows that at the present time the Europeans have spent approx 287 Billion on carbon waste. For zero impact. Naturally they are getting a little pissed off, and the EU carbon pricing market is now on the verge of collapse. Of course we have our two hero's stepping in to save the world, one because he (Brown) believes all this stuff, the other because she sees a opportunity to redistribute wealth. We should be so lucky. Looks like the only carbon trading we will be doing is with ourselves.

konstantin

23rd Nov 2011, 07:03

BEST??

More he said/she said?

Two new papers vs. BEST | Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/07/two-new-papers-vs-best/#more-5734)

BEST;

Publically released before peer review...
but that was only in terms of the preliminary results...
and "to make the science behind global warming readily available to the public"...
and "in order to invite additional scrutiny"...
and I am sure the timing and manner of all this had nothing whatsoever to do with Durban COP17...
and "will form part" of the literature for AR5.

So much for the "bleat, bleat, but it hasn`t been peer reviewed, I`m not listening, neeh, neeh!" standard m.o. from certain quarters...

And for goodness sake don`t mention

"What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human action, Richard Muller acknowledged"

But that`s only a minor detail... :rolleyes:

Yes.
"Global warming is real"
No argument there.
Never was... :ok:

DutchRoll

23rd Nov 2011, 13:54

Judith Curry's website eh? Have you critically examined this? Have you looked at discussion and debate about her work - not by laypeople - but by scientists of significant standing within the Earth Sciences community? Have you looked at those two papers she refers to in the link? Have you looked at where they were published? Do you know what the "EIKE" is? Do you know what "Energy and Environment" is? Do you know what its scientific standing is?

Part of being a true sceptic, as opposed to a fake one, is asking questions like these and establishing the reliability/credibility of your sources. because the web is wonderful tool for both information and misinformation as we all know. So given the answers to all those questions, I am immediately suspicious that those two papers may not be all you're cracking them up to be. A true sceptic would be sceptical (no surprise there), until they have either been verified by other scientists of significant standing, or until they have been torn down as deeply flawed junk. Sure, I concede this may be an amazing new breakthrough suddenly showing that the rest of the scientific world has got it all wrong. But you'll excuse me if I don't head off to Ladbrokes and wager money on that possibility.

Google Scholarship

Another point I want to make related to scepticism in general is "Google Scholarship". Google returns answers from websites which are only as good as the search terms you use. If you suspect the moon landings were faked, then google "NASA faked moon landings" and you'll be rewarded with information that confirms your suspicions (as long as you ignore the first hit, which is NASA's own website).

It's a beautiful example on this thread that someone seriously thinks Arctic ice is recovering. I have no doubt that this was extracted from a "sceptical" website. If you want to confirm it, just google "Arctic Ice recovery" and you'll be rewarded with "sceptical" websites arguing exactly that, and giving you all the information you need.........except that the information is wrong and totally misleading (usually deliberately so IMHO). If you go to a serious website where people actually do scientific research, like the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, or the Polar Science Centre, or a dozen others, you can get the real information which shows this is nonsense.

But "fake" sceptics seem incapable of, or just not inclined to actually do this level of research.

Publically released before peer review...

As a "sceptic", do you or do you not believe that the peer review process is fundamentally flawed? If it is (as many sceptics allege), then why would you care whether it hasn't been peer-reviewed? Not reviewing it would simply remove any alleged peer-review bias. If it is not flawed, then how do you reconcile that it simply agrees with the rest of the peer-reviewed literature? In fact, how do you reconcile that anyway, regardless of your views on peer-review?

And for goodness sake don`t mention

"What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human action, Richard Muller acknowledged"

BEST was created specifically to address allegations from fake-sceptics, primarily originating from the "climategate" scandal, that the temperature record has been doctored or otherwise screwed up by scientists. It has done exactly that, and sceptics are not happy with the results because they confirm what every other credible scientific analysis of global temperature trends says, and that's not what sceptics wanted to hear.

Yes. "Global warming is real" No argument there. Never was.

Bulldust. See above. Fake-sceptics have been screaming at the top of their lungs since "climategate" that scientific observations of warming planetary temperatures are all proven to be a giant con. There is an argument there and no matter what evidence is presented to them, fake-sceptics simply will not allow it to go away! The evidence of this is how they have now turned on Muller's team like a pack of wolves! Muller may not have analysed (yet) how much is due to human action, but based on the current trend of BEST confirming exactly what the evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature has said for years, are you willing to take a bet that he'll discover something totally different? I mean, do you seriously believe this is a likely outcome? :ok:

blackhand

23rd Nov 2011, 18:16

I think it's a good idea
In what way is it a good idea?
Whilst I can not see any affect on my finances or lifestyle, there are some who see an affect on themselves and businesses.
In this case would you agree that there may be another way to mitigate or eliminate pollution - carbon or otherwise?
I too have utilised internet searches for information, on the science not the politics, and have been dismayed at the pollution over chinese industrial centres, the desertifaction of china and massive population increases there and worldwide.
I feel that this has more impact on world climate, than the pollution output of Australia's industrial society.

chuboy

23rd Nov 2011, 20:15

Well fkuc me peter. There is a post worthy of being catalogued.

I now know the calibre of the idiots who put this Country in it's present state and, of more importance, whom to blame.

Off topic but I don't think we're doing too badly as a country for all intents and purposes.

Better looking economy than Europe or the USA. Not quite as good as China but a much nicer place to work as a result. Good weather, plenty of food for everybody.

Seems to be a lot of whingers, though...

konstantin

24th Nov 2011, 01:03

DutchRoll

We seem to be talking at cross purposes to an extent?

Judith Curry - have heard her referred to rather condescendingly by some, to be sure. Mostly names one would associate with the warmista side, from memory. Not forgetting she is perceived as a traitor to the cause - which is a pity because her site is as close as I have been able to find to something even approaching neutral ground.
Lucia`s is another blogsite which verges on middle ground, although some would dispute that.
If you can come up with another suggestion for a site which does not rabidly proselytise either side of the argument I am genuinely all ears...we all know where to go for a pro or anti "fix".

Peer Review - perhaps I was a little too sarcastic in my allusion to the standard line of the pro brigade about something having to be peer reviewed and published preferably in certain journals - but when it suits the cause then never mind that particular little requirement ...especially if there may be tight timeframes involved???

This article I found quite interesting

Three myths about scientific peer review | Michael Nielsen (http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/)

the last para or two might put my tongue-in-cheek remarks into perspective?

BEST - some people are not happy with the results because they possibly disagree with the methodologies used?
Elsewhere and previously, windshear proxy data vs actual temps and suchlike...area extrapolation of temps...debate over UHI correction techniques...it just goes on...

Global Warming is Real - okay...
The world has warmed by anywhere between half and one degree C in approximately the last century.
The debate I have seen is to do with the veracity of particular records, the way they are interpreted/presented, the means by which there can be a definitive anthropogenic component identified, and the degree of the component itself.
That was my point.

As far as modelling projections are concerned it is an even bigger can of wriggly things - and the "consensus" crutch is becoming a rather tiresome motherhood catchphrase indeed. Seems to be as commonly used as "carbon" and "pollution" for the benefit of the 6 o`clock news LCD. And there appears to be rather a lot of "consensus" disputation out there...

Layer that over with considerations of it being "to advantage" for organisations, individuals, corporations, departments and governments to continue to milk the whole concept for all it`s worth...pragmatically the overall picture makes for an interesting construct indeed. The Chinese r23 rort readily comes to mind.

All I know is that there has been little significant warming trend, if any, over the last decade or so - which flies in the face of the previous adamant "we are pumping CO2, and look, temps are increasing". So QED.
Except that lately we are pumping even more CO2, but the temps, hmmm...which is where the "but just you wait" argument starts coming in real handy. Pardon my cynicism...

But let`s say you are right...given political and economic world realities I have mentioned in previous posts (and dealing with the thread title itself!) ;
- What to do about it?
- What will Australia`s tokenistic approach achieve in the absence of a whole-of-world emissions actual mitigation process?
[NB - shuffling CERs around the world is not mitigation...except maybe on paper]

Tiring of all this, just quietly - rest assured DR, not a snide reference to this particular exchange! ;)

Might chill out and amuse myself with Climategate II for a while though...that may recharge the batteries...

"What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably"

Gotta love it...hang on, I thought the science was settled?
Jools keeps saying it is... :hmm:

Ultralights

24th Nov 2011, 01:28

wasnt this thread about the impact of this new carbon tax, not a debate over climate change, global warming or whateve it will be called next week...:hmm:

peterc005

24th Nov 2011, 01:49

43Inches

24th Nov 2011, 03:03

First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.

I'm not sure where he got this figure from but the most efficient single cycle coal fired power station in the world has 45% thermal efficiency. A power station like Hazelwood is probably near 30% efficient and the newer ones around 35%-40%. To get higher than 40% you need combined cylcle power stations which use gas turbines and utilise the byproduct heat to further drive steam turbines.

Splitpin44

24th Nov 2011, 03:19

Climate Change is well-established science. No ifs, not buts, the science behind climate change due to man made warming is undeniable.

The Carbon Tax will have a minimal effect on us and it's good to see the government taking action on this important error.

No complaints from me about the Carbon Tax, I think it's a good idea and shows great foresight by the government.

I'll fix it for you;)

Climate Change is far-fetched science. No ifs, not buts, the science behind climate change due to man made warming is dubious.

The Carbon Tax will have a maximum effect on us and it's good to see the government is going to loose the next election on this important error.

Lots of complaints from me about the Carbon Tax, I think it's a bad idea and shows the great stupidity of the government.

Thats more like it:D

Frank Arouet

24th Nov 2011, 04:17

Well fkuc me peter. There is a post worthy of being catalogued.

I now know the calibre of the idiots who put this Country in it's present state and, of more importance, whom to blame.

peterc005

24th Nov 2011, 04:25

I just get a bit sick of listening to all the loud mouthed, ill-informed, climate change sceptics who believe everything they hear on talk back radio or read on conspiracy web sites.

It's very similar to the UFO spotters down at Moorabbin airport. They think there is some government conspiracy to deny UFOs have abducted people.

When I bump into the UFO people I nod or say hello. There is no point in trying to show the fallacy of their deluded thoughts or psychotic conspiracy theories.

It's same with the multitude of climate change sceptics here.

It seems the most popular whacko conspiracy theories are, in order:

UFO landings, Hanger 51
The Mafia assassinated JFK for the CIA
United Nations taking over the world
Climate Change sceptics
CIA blew up the World Trade Centres

The science of climate change is good and proven.

Good on the ALP for taking steps to do something about global warming.

breakfastburrito

24th Nov 2011, 04:27

n a 2004 email Ricardo Villalba, a researcher involved in preparing material for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, writes to a number of other researchers: "The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what's left out."
The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/barrier-reef-job-among-leaked-mail/story-e6frg6xf-1226204095345)

Explain to me how this is not the greatest hoax ever.

peterc005

24th Nov 2011, 04:34

BTW, it's no wind up.

I live in Hampton and fly out of YMMB. My Bachelors degree was in Economics.

I appreciate good science and think the established method of establishing science by testing theories and peer review works well.

Climate change and global warming are good, peer reviewed, science.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change)

Last time I counted there had been six Nobel Prizes for science awarded in the are of climate change research.

Galileo Galilei had "flat earth" sceptics who refused to believe the Earth is round. Today the same type of white, male, conservative people exist as "climate change" sceptics.

teresa green

24th Nov 2011, 06:11

Peter, let me guess you live at the Rocks, right?

ratpoison

24th Nov 2011, 07:14

Little Peter. Below is from an email going around. Have a good read and then sit back for a night and have a real big think about things. I would suggest you go and read the thread about globalization before you open your mouth again!:ugh:
First I should clarify, my name is Terence Cardwell. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.

I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading scheme.

Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so-called incorrectly named man-made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet

Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.

And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.

Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.

As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.

We have, like, the USA, coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.

The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.

Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist

Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.

The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load ‘because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.

The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).

Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro-electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.

Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.

As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types.

Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.

Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, - not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)

We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.

According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.

To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;

If you had a room 3.7 x 3.7 x 2.1 metres the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25 x .25 x ..17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.

Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20%t or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world's total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.

Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by...004%.

Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ....00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).

Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 =...0000008%.

Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 =...00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.

That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.

For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology Renewable Energy, etc, etc.

How ridiculous it that?

The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller businesses.

T.L. Cardwell

teresa green

24th Nov 2011, 09:53

Thankyou Rat Poison for posting such a interesting article, of course the Labor people will find holes in it, but as a bogan as Dutch Roll describes, (a disbeliever) I think it was a sensible and probably truthful article.

RATpin

24th Nov 2011, 10:48

Pathetic attempt at a windup Peter. Could work with the young and gullible though.

justflythething

24th Nov 2011, 11:09

If you haven't already seen this, its a must!

The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film] - YouTube

This was a direct response to the Al Gore film.:yuk::yuk::yuk:

jftt

flyingfox

24th Nov 2011, 15:02

RATpin, teresa, other anti-science contributors. T. L. Cardwell is a power station worker. Apart from the obvious confused nonsense about steam from cooling towers and 96% thermal efficiency of his coal fired power stations, he has added nothing to the debate except his curious opinion. This subject cannot be understood on the basis of such tripe. The idea that burning fossil fuel can be done without CO2 emmissions should give you a clue to the verasity of his letter. Collecting or containing carbon and CO2 from a process by any method whatsoever, does not diminish the fact of it's production in the first place or solve the problem of it's disposal. Likewise, just because a popular 'letter to the editor' is 'going around as an email' or is repeated ad nauseum, does not give it any more substance as to it's value or correctness. The fact that so many people actually repeat, quote and forward such letters is not only an indictment of standards of scientific education in our schools, but also of the limited ability of so many to separate any form of fact from fiction or opinion. I, for instance, hold the opinion that 'god does not exist'. That opinion may have a large following by many others, but it doesn't have any scientific research or credibility to back it. My opinion on that subject is purely based on personal or borrowed anecdotal observations. It is possible that another opinion based also on anecdotal observations could arrive at exactly the opposite conclusion to mine, therefore suggesting 'that god does exist'. Look at the vast hordes of 'god botherers' and 'crystal gazers' peddling their beliefs from Abenaki shamanism to Zen Budhism or new-age spiritualism. All fun stuff if you are so inclined. However 'creationists', 'holy warriors' and 'snake-oil salesmen' are not so philosophically far apart. (Nor are oil industry executives who don't like 'science' which may cause consumers to shun their products in favour of more environmentally friendly energy. Lord Monkton is a hired gun for the oil industry and has been paid millions to muddy the waters with spurious arguments and fake scientific web sites. He personally is not qualified in any scientific discipline, though he does hold qualifications in 'The Classics' and marketing. His role in confusing scientific debate should not be underestimated. He has previously been a spin doctor for the Vatican and later managed the damage control for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It was his expertise which saved Exxon billions of dollars in compensation and left many Alaskans in financial ruin. More recently his utterences on the BP Gulf oil spill have followed the same pattern.) If 'proof' doesn't involve scientific observation and measurements, it can be no more than a subjective or 'belief' based view. 'Flat Earthers' eventually went to ground under the weight of scientific evidence. If you can't understand how science works, start looking for a burrow now. You are going to need somewhere to hide your eventual and inevitable embarrassment. Sure scientific research has some hiccups and misinterpretations along the way. That is why peer review and cross referencing is so critical in reaching scientific concensus. But as the weight of evidence builds, knowledge is gained and made available for new determinations and thinking. Ignorance is so demeaning in an educated society. Swallowing every excuse for ignoring solid scientific findings is childish at best. And there is no point in placing scientific evidence before people who have a zealous and willful determination to ignore it. Looking in the wrong places for scientific research and discussion is laziness of the highest order and would never be tolerated by a trained researcher. The internet has few signposts and finding reputable sources is not automatically assured. It is a discipline in itself. Science is published in a very small group of web sites. Mischievous commentary and misrepresentation of those reports and discussions are sadly more common. It is the nature of the internet as an open forum that much of it's comment and material is at the very best, apocryphal. Scepticism is actually a scientific notion which holds unproven ideas to be nothing more than that until backed by clearly repeatable evidence. Some people contributing to this thread are claiming to be 'sceptics' when in fact they are devout adherents to a worship of 'scientific blindness'. Science is the system and force which is raising us out of the mysticism of prehistory. If you don't wish to be 'raised' that is your choice, but don't hold back those who are heading that way by deception and obstructionism. Science is not a political persuasion either, so keep your politics out of the mathmatics, chemistry and physics. If tea-leaves, tarrot cards and the mark-1 eyeball are all that reside in your toolbag, enjoy the illusion of your precious haven while you can. The 'Galileos' of our time are at your door.

Lodown

24th Nov 2011, 15:29

Al Gore and the IPCC shared a Nobel PR Prize.

My mistake...a Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm wondering how I can get one. Barack Obama was a virtual unknown and received one 4 days after taking office.

(Don't know how this comment slipped in here. I was responding to Frank's post below.)

kotoyebe

24th Nov 2011, 16:48

Peterc005 et al,

I'm asking this question in all seriousness. What are you doing to completely eliminate you and your family's carbon foot print.

I'm paraphrasing Tim Flannery here, but he stated that if no more man made CO2 was put into the atmosphere, it would take up to 1000 years for the CO2 to start coming down. The system is that slow. I'm assuming Tim Flannery knows what he is talking about, as he is a government employee hired to explain to the public the need for climate change action, and you all support the government taking action.

Now if I understand the message you and the government are telling us, then 1000 years will be way too late, and the earth will have runaway climate change. I think we all can say that the carbon tax in Australia will make very little difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This action is knowhere near enough as advised by Tim Flannery.

So I would expect you to lead by example and completely eliminate your carbon footprint. I'm interested in how you are going about this. For example, the airline industry is supposed to be one of the more carbon intensive industries (something like 3% of man made CO2 output), so it surprises me that Dutchroll has in his profile that he is a commercial pilot.

I know we all contribute to man made CO2, but if it's so urgent to take action, then surely you as people who have studied the science (you certainly sound like you have, and good on you if you have) then you will be leading by example?

ferris

24th Nov 2011, 16:57

An interesting choice of words, Flyingfox, because to many of us sitting on the fence in this debate " 'holy warriors' and 'snake-oil salesmen' are not so philosophically far apart", or far apart from AGW proponents.

Everything you accuse 'skeptics' of, is bountiful in the AGW arguments.

Prove, under scientific method as you have described, that the climate is warming. Then, describe your scientific proofs that human activity is THE CAUSE of said warming. Then, show why warming is bad, or at least WORSE than non-warming. THEN you will have credibility- the credibility you seem to think is lacking in any skeptical voice. If, however, you debunk statements such as Mr. Lawrence's above with straw-man argument and rhetoric, you don't speak with moral authority, you just sound like another cretinous zealot guilty of his own accusations- however well-intentioned.

Lodown

24th Nov 2011, 20:15

DutchRoll, you are arguing from a position with one very large misconception. It took me a while to understand why you defended the hockey stick and the models in earlier posts. You have succumbed to the PR of the alarmists. You think you are right and in a select and knowledgeable group. You have taken the position that you are defending the world, and anyone who denies your position must be wrong and committed to eliminating life on earth. Understandable, but one-eyed.

Skeptics are not anti-science, or against the science as the pro-AGWers (and others on here) label them and like to point out. They do not deny CO2 being a greenhouse gas. In fact, if you read the literature from the skeptical viewpoint, you’ll find that in general there is no problem with the science. It’s the inflated, catastrophic predictions of the pro-AGWers where the problem lies.

Whether the ice coverage goes up or down. Whether global temperatures go up or down. Whether sea levels, glaciers and CO2 levels go up or down, is really beside the point. That’s what they do. That human activities are having some influence on the global climate is not denied. Yes, we’re putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere: somewhere around 3-4% of the total as best we can tell. Yes, it will add a little heat to the atmosphere…a tiny amount. It’s in the catastrophic predictions where the problem lies.

The pro-AGWers have built their case on models that have produced a temperature hockey stick predicting global temperatures that should be on an exorbitant climb by now. The pro-AGWer predictions included an absence of snow in some locations, more severe storms, and accelerating sea level rise, etc. The hockey stick is based on the AGW presumption that increasing CO2 will cause a concurrent toppling of dominoes, so to speak, and cause the global temperature to increase. The pro-AGWers have managed to implement an effective and deliberate fear campaign based on these predictions. They’ve managed to get a large policy change implemented in Australia based on these predictions. They’ve publicly and most vocally stated that we should be seeing the evidence already. The hockey stick was their rallying cry.

Just one small problem: the lack of supporting evidence! (flyingfox take note.) Not evidence supporting natural global warming or natural climate change; there’s plenty of that: evidence validating the models and their predictions. There is absolutely NO prediction from the models, the hockey stick or the pro-AGWers for the current leveling of global temperatures and the drop in sea level. They can try and blame natural variations all they like. The subsequent problem with this line is that is that IF the pro-AGWers were so certain of the output of their models, why then didn’t they correctly factor the input of natural variations into their predictions? On the hockey stick predictions, the pro-AGW scientists even provided a range of increasing temperatures that included generous allowances for error. We are currently not even just a little bit, but WELL outside below the lowest range of those predictions and have been for some time. And it's trending away further.

The bottom line is that the models are wrong. The hockey stick is garbage. There is nothing else. The science isn’t wrong per se. It’s the conclusions leading to the predictions that are wrong. You’re stuck on supporting the theory of catastrophic global warming and it seems that you are the one denying the evidence. The pro-AGWers have made predictions based on a theory and on their assumptions. I don’t have a problem with that. Most of the limited science that I know, tells me that if my predictions don’t hold, then my theory and/or my assumptions must be in error and need to be re-evaluated. Even most politicians and their advisors can see this basic fact.

The pro-AGWers have tied their catastrophic warnings into political and ideological beliefs for a new world order. They can see the current evidence no longer supports their predictions. They are hoping and praying it turns around soon. The "scientist" within them would readily admit that they were wrong and set about re-evaluating their experiments and adjusting the models and the input to get it right. Just one small issue: they’ve taken a political stand. “I was wrong.” is a career ending statement for a politician.

P.S.: If Strim is still following the discussion, here's an article that might be of interest:
The Myth of Renewable Energy (http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/the-myth-of-renewable-energy)

Ultralights

24th Nov 2011, 21:06

We had a wasted decade with Howard where the Libs did nothing. The conservatives are still living in the 1950s, They are dusty, grumpy and short sighted - just like a crazy old uncle.

10 Years wasted under Howard???

no, it was 10 yrs of throwing money at the previous labor governments debts..:mad: money that could have been spent on infrastructure, not saving our hides from the GFC Mk1, so whats left in the kitty for GFC new and improved MKII with upgrades?
ZIP. Nadda.:mad:

http://pamuva1.smugmug.com/Other/webcrap-images/i-rfxzKcc/0/L/Screen-shot-2011-11-10-at-L.png

what will the next liberal government be doing? paying off Labor debt, again...:hmm:

Frank Arouet

24th Nov 2011, 23:07

Last time I counted there had been six Nobel Prizes for science awarded in the are of climate change research.

Yes one was Al Gore. Who were the others?

sisemen

25th Nov 2011, 00:13

And now we get Juliar and her team of slimeballs taking the Australian public for a bunch of gullible fools by her smart-arse tactics of pressuring Harry Jenkins, the Speaker, to step down and railroading Slippery Slipper into his place before the Libs had a chance to de-select him.

She's certainly living up to Richo's mantra "whatever it takes".

Still, it's only until 2013. Hopefully they won't cause too much irreversible damage until they get booted out.

teresa green

25th Nov 2011, 00:41

Harry Jenkins was always to good for Labor Siseman. This gentleman is perfectly suited.

peterc005

25th Nov 2011, 04:11

I think Julia is doing a great job and that poaching a disaffected Lib as Speaker so improve the numbers was a smart and practical move to improve government stability.

At least with the ALP they are doing things and moving forward.

We had a wasted decade with Howard where the Libs did nothing. The conservatives are still living in the 1950s, They are dusty, grumpy and short sighted - just like a crazy old uncle.

peterc005

25th Nov 2011, 05:02

I'm not trying to wind anyone up.

Look at the big picture:

What country had a better political system or politicians (transparency, participation, fairness etc)?
What country had better economic performance (growth, public debt, employment etc)
Can you think of another country you'd rather live in?

Instead of bitching and moaning (which doesn't achieve anything except depression) people should just get out there and get on with living, not spending all their time making psychotic and paranoid rants on forums like this.

Got to get to bed now. I've got an early start and a full tank of Avgas.

Deepsea Racing Prawn

25th Nov 2011, 12:41

That should see the Tory-Boys frothing at the mouth.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

25th Nov 2011, 19:01

No ifs, not buts, the science behind climate change due to man made warming is undeniable

I've got an early start and a full tank of Avgas

Mate, if you want to talk the talk, then at least walk the walk.

Hypocrite.

teresa green

25th Nov 2011, 20:08

Peter, please not at this hour of the morning. All rusted ons and labor trolls should go to the SMH or THE AGE, for your kicks, not this blog.

Andu

25th Nov 2011, 21:56

That should see the Tory-Boys frothing at the mouth.More than likely, seeing the thread binned by the moderators (as promised) - which is probably what he's aiming for.

peterc005

25th Nov 2011, 22:18

I happen to think the environment is important and want to make sure my kids inherit a healthy globe.

If the Carbon Tax increases the cost of flying by a couple of bucks an hour, then I'm happy to pay it. No qualms or complaints from me. Keep it in perspective, it's not a large amount of money and looking after the environment is important.

Thinking about it, maybe I should start donating the equivalent of a couple of dollars per hour of flying to Greenpeace until the Carbon Tax is implemented.

teresa green

25th Nov 2011, 22:50

Whatever Peter.

psycho joe

25th Nov 2011, 23:49

I'm always intrigued by people who honestly believe that whatever ungodly calamity is about to befall us at any time in the future can be resolved by a government.
In this case A calamity that was unknown until governments dutifully informed the people.
We should consider ourselves lucky that this calamity can be resolved by simply paying more tax. That's a lucky coincidence.

People are willing to believe that the government can change the climate when they can't put ceiling batts in houses and build half a dozen good classrooms.

It should be remembered that most recent natural disasters in this country have been aggravated By a combination of government incompetence and the green movement.

We can't build dams for times of drought because they're bad for the environment, so we'll build desal plants which don't work and are actually worse for the environment, so we'll ration water instead, and then we won't release any excess until the existing dams are about to burst so when it does rain it will flood everything.

And we won't light fires to reduce Forrest fuel because that's bad for the environment too, so we'll wait it naturally combusts so it can kill absolutely everything.
On the other hand we will light fires to reduce the fuel load, but only at a daft time of the year and then we'll knock off for the weekend and hope for the best.

As for "greenpeace"; Before the populist carbon movement, they were little more than a pseudo-terrorist movement that spiked trees in an effort to kill sawmill workers. :ugh:

Frank Arouet

26th Nov 2011, 04:58

Posters like peterc, red prawn are Labor trolls with their only aim to upset the clever populace into abuse whereby the thread gets closed. Don't get sucked in by answering them directly.

Post to make a point, not answer their insane ravings.

If you ignore them they will go away.

Someone recently said, want to make sure my kids inherit a healthy globe. Fair enough, but if mankind is the problem why breed more in the first place. That poster probably needs reporting to Family Services for abuse to children. (and you can't say there was no intent, he knew all the time).

:yuk::yuk:

Deepsea Racing Prawn

26th Nov 2011, 07:40

This thread was ticking along quite nicely, with an interesting and informative debate taking place between DutchRoll, Lodown and others.....and then....along comes Frank with...

Well fkuc me peter. There is a post worthy of being catalogued.

I now know the calibre of the idiots who put this Country in it's present state and, of more importance, whom to blame.

You then have the audacity to say...

Posters like peterc, red prawn are Labor trolls with their only aim to upset the clever populace into abuse whereby the thread gets closed.

Just because posters like Peterc005 and Chuboy have views that differ from yours, (the clever populace :yuk:), it does not follow that they are 'Labor trolls'.:ugh:

Jabawocky

26th Nov 2011, 11:22

Just been looking at the last few pages, and I notice that Dutch Roll has posted some lovely big graphs about Arctic sea Ice declining.

Now lets assume these are real untampered graphs (many have been distortion of facts in the past) and lets have a think about it for a minute.

At the same time Antarctic Ice GREW.....and yes as a result of growth it it also broke off surplus into the sea from on land, and the greenies said...more proof about global warming :ugh:.

Nobody denied that from the 1980's till 2000 there was global warming. This is in fact true. The avearge temperatures did rise. So what the heck did you expect??? Of course some melts were happening IT GOT WARMER....derrr!

Just like it did how many times before???? The North West passage became navigable again. Hang on did I say AGAIN? Surely not. But yes it did, so Jaba are you saying again, as in it was once able to be sailed through hundred + years ago? Long before man made CO2 was even thought of?? :hmm:

So chaps, just because a graph shows the truth, about sea ice decline, and average Global temperatures were higher, does not mean one bit man made CO2 had anything to do with it.

That is like saying you are a man, you have a penis therefore you raped that woman. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Man Made CO2 has so little to do with it the REAL climate scientists can not distinguish the effect from the data captured noise signal. Climate change is predominently SOLAR driven. Get over it.

Now here is another FACT. There are very very few real and proper climate scientists in the world, and you can count on one butchers hand the number in Australia. No Tim Flannery does not make that list.:rolleyes:

How many of you, from both sides of the argument have spent any time one on one with any of the suitably qualified to comment scientists? I reckon the answer will be very low. Out of all the folk on this thread, I doubt ther number exceeds 2. :ooh: The rest are most likely victims of the media and blind faith in what ever they want to believe, be they on either side.

Climate is measured in 30 year chunks, which are looked at like milliseconds. So take all the data, and take all the data going back millions of years, so you are not making opinions based on facts in isolation. Remember facts from the last hundred or five hundred are only facts in isolation. And then make an educated decission on what to believe.

Trouble is I doubt any of you have the resources or the help in doing that. I certainly did not until a few years ago. I was like a student pilot in cloud at the controls of a Jumbo.....lost!

Can I suggest most of you take up a MECIR in climatology :ok:

So bottom line is, man made CO2 has nothing to do with it, its solar, and a carbon tax will do nothing but harm.

If the government wanted to have a carbon tax to make us all feel good about something, the it MUST, I repeat MUST be applied to all carbon dioxide emmitting fuels usage on a rate per watt. be it Coal, Petrol Diesel JetA or whatever. It MUST be a flat rate and NOBODY gets a rebate or compensation. NOBODY. This is a "you use it you pay" Carbon tax. Therefore it is consumption based.

Hang on....a Consumption based tax......:hmm: Why have all the BS just raise the GST from 10 to 11%, same effect. The carbon tax with all these offsets and handouts and so on is nothing more than a steal from some and give to others. And that is morally wrong.

flyingfox

26th Nov 2011, 13:23

Jabawocky, Lodown, Frank, teresa, traffic, psycho, myself, ....... 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. It's usually politics that is behind most of the angst driven and intemperate comments posted. Once politics becomes the over riding motivation for commenting, the obvious frustrations of that inane art gets the better of reason. Not that I'm completely against politics and it's practitioners. (Most of my good friends vote for politicians from time to time!) Political parties will always stir the pot in different directions to one another. We have so many issues which require the attention of scientists and so little resources and focus. Issues such as artificial hormones changing the food chain and human genetics; industrial chemicals killing micro organisms; vaccines altering immunity and favouring resistant bacterium; plastics bonding heavy metals into our foods; plants and animals dying or going extinct for lack of habitat; important animals and birds dying en masse from exposure to human medicines in the environment; normal decomposition processes being replaced by toxic anaerobic putrefaction; etc etc etc etc. Indeed a seemingly endless list of issues which don't get the slightest airing in popular media and are waiting to deliver the greatest 'ass bite' humans have ever encountered. Endless bickering over irrelevancies causes the main games to slip by unnoticed. Those not noticing probably includes said politicians who have a mainly 'election time' based functionality. Not noticing the tide of changes we are causing to our tiny planet is the modern day version of fiddling while Rome burns.

Lodown

26th Nov 2011, 14:43

Flyingfox, personally I'm trying to keep somewhat within the topic of the original thread posting.
CARBON TAX-It's Started!
I cannot believe that the government is imposing this on the country, when the whole world economy is so fragile. I lost my job once at Ansett, and don't want to lose my current jet job, because of costs imposed on my airline, by a tax that will do nothing for the climate!!
Domestic fare hikes will slug travellers | The Australian
I suppose the thread creep that occurred was really about our opinions on global warming. I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion so far. I hope we can continue it, but we need to relate it back to aviation (at least a little bit) otherwise I won't blame the moderators if they choose to lock the thread.

craigieburn

26th Nov 2011, 22:47

Fox, you can't leave politics out of it unfortunately. It seems that views about AGW are so closely aligned to the proponents political bias, that there is no option other than to dismiss it as simply another tool of the left that is being used to try and redistribute wealth.
I am sick to death of the smugness and self righteousness of left leaning tossbags who will not hear a counter view to their own. If someone does dissent, it is because they are variously: uneducated, ill informed, low intelligence or a bogan.
Rather than having constructive debate, they tend to shut it down by making sweeping motherhood statements and then figuratively sticking their fingers in their ears so they can't hear anymore bad things. If someone continues to not toe the party line, they must be silenced. If you want evidence, look at the attempts to get this thread locked, look at the inquiry of the thought police into News Limited.
There is a warning on the PPrune home page about sciolists. I think this thread is where they all lurk!

Arnold E

26th Nov 2011, 23:38

If someone does dissent, it is because they are variously: uneducated, ill informed, low intelligence or a bogan.

Hmmm

Rather than having constructive debate,

Again Hmmmm:ugh:

sisemen

27th Nov 2011, 02:03

"climate change" is inextricably linked to politics. That's what the whole thing is about. It's an unholy alliance between the loopy left that want to redistribute wealth; the greedy capitalists who can see a killing in trading thin air (called carbon nowadays); and naive scientists who think that by 'bigging it up' they can attract grant money that they have been chasing for decades in order to keep them in a job.

I find it fascinating to see that the IPCC are now saying that there isn't enough evidence to back up claims of extremes of weather; that evidence is now coming forward that the various "experts" have deliberately put massive spin on their "findings" in order to scare everybody into forking out for grants.

The whole thing is a crock.

And anyway the thread title is about the Carbon Tax. That's political. It's also one the many big, big cons used shamelessly by this sorry excuse for an Australian government in their attempts to scam the people of this country. But, the day of reckoning will arrive even though, by underhand tactics, that day is now a little further away.

Jabawocky

27th Nov 2011, 08:58

Well said siseman :D

now here is a balanced view of things, from one of the very few qualified to comment climatologists.

The Factors and Fundamentals of Climate Science
Air & Waste Management Association
Annual Conference 104, June 21-24
Coronado Springs, USA

PREFACE
Twenty five years ago, in the Dark Ages, climate scientists were doing what scientists used to do – which is to say beavering away in their laboratories, and out in the field, collecting meteorological and climatic data with which to pursue their research. It was an exciting time because high quality data streams providing truly global coverage were starting to become available from new satellite-mounted instruments, and a spanking new international body had been created that was relevant to climate research, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which augured well for increasing both the research funding and the public importance of climatic studies in future.
And how! For looking back at what has elapsed since then, it is truly astonishing to observe the way in which a number of arcane, and rather immature, branches of science have morphed into perhaps the single most potent political issue in the world today. The IPCC has gone on to produce four large Assessment Reports regarding parts only of climate science (those parts concerned with the potential for dangerous increases in global temperature caused by human-related greenhouse gas emissions). And the political stage has become littered with the metaphorical corpses of leaders who have mismanaged the generally poisonous politics global warming, which are dominated by a worldwide push by environmentalists for introduction of carbon dioxide taxation or emissions trading schemes in a claimed attempt to “stop global warming”.
For example, in Australia, from where I write, in the last four years battles over the global warming issue have helped to claim the scalps of two prime ministers (John Howard and Kevin Rudd) and two opposition leaders (Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull), and resulted in the election of the incumbent opposition leader Tony Abbott. Current Prime Minister Julia Gillard is currently in hot pursuit of legislating a carbon dioxide tax against public opinion that is now so strong (not least because Gillard’s plans are a flagrant breach of an election promise) that the issue bids fair to send her to the same political graveyard as her predecessors.
The scene has, of course, been just as vigorous in the US, with a ruling by the Supreme Court that carbon dioxide is a pollutant (a ruling, it must be said, that represents an abuse of language, logic and science), endless battles in Congress and state legislatures in pursuit of cap and trade legislation and, more latterly, the involvement of the EPA in regulatory activities towards the same end.
In short, the politics of global warming have come to have extraordinary political potency, and now involve every lobby group and interest group in our western societies. Yet sweeping away the baggage, much of which is self-serving activity with financial or political intent, the matter at hand is a SCIENTIFIC issue and in principle a simple one. Put simply, until there is a proven, as opposed to speculative, scientific problem, no political or economic problem exists – and, were that to be the case, then much of the many tens of billions of dollars of expenditure and political busy-bodying that has occurred over the last two decades would simply be costly irrelevancies.
It is commonly said that there are “two sides” to the issue of dangerous global warming, which is often caricatured by the press as a battle between the IPCC “alarmists” and the scientifically independent “deniers. This is to grossly over-simplify a complex debate. For given that there are upwards of 100 subdisciplines of science, sociology and economics involved, there are almost as many sides to the issue in detail as there are professional persons competent to comment.
The nub of the issue is this, and in the late 1980s this was a good question to ask: “Are human carbon dioxide emissions causing dangerous global warming?”
Currently that question is answered in flatly contradictory ways by two main groups of scientists. Those who advise the IPCC, whose ranks are dominated by some meteorologists, geographers and computer modellers, say “Yes, and we need to do something about it by reducing carbon dioxide emissions”. In the other camp are thousands of independent scientists, many of whom work in empirical disciplines like astrophysics, geochemistry and geology, who say “Good question, but no empirical evidence exists that the late 20th century warming was either dangerous or was materially caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. So rather than wasting money on unnecessary (and, as it happens, ineffectual) mitigation measures, we should instead concentrate on managing better the all too real risks of natural climate-related events and change, i.e., the natural hazards of storms, floods, droughts and bushfires”.
Who is right, and how should policy makers proceed when faced with such an impasse?
Many will answer that they should “apply the precautionary principle” (or put another, sloganistic way, “give Earth the benefit of the doubt”). But the precautionary principle is a “principle” of sociology and politics, not of science, and its application in policy making has been adjudicated a failure by no less a body than the U.K. House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology – which recommended in 2006 that:
“We can confirm our initial view that the term ‘precautionary principle’ should not be used, and recommend that it cease to be included in policy guidance… In our view, the terms ‘precautionary principle’ and ‘precautionary approach’ in isolation from any such clarification have been the subject of such confusion and different interpretations as to be devalued and of little practical help, particularly in public debate.”
Nonetheless, it is anyway the case that the precautionary principle is impotent when faced with the embarrassing fact that - the much vaunted GCM models notwithstanding - statistical-empirical models and a continuing solar quietude support the likelihood that over the next few decades the climate will cool rather than warm. Are we, pray, to take precautions against cooling or warming?
Confronted with this situation, the average member of the public says, simplistically in view of the depth of the politics now involved, “Well, why can’t we just get a bunch of talented scientists who represent both main sides of the issue into a conference hall for them to discuss and resolve the matter”. Many have striven mightily towards such an end, in many different countries, and nearly all have failed. The reason is that, with extraordinary arrogance, leading IPCC scientists, arguing that “the science is settled”, simply refuse to engage in public debate with other qualified scientists, whom they often badge and dismiss as “climate deniers”.
Which brings us to the A&WMA Panel on The Factors and Fundamentals of Climate Science. Persons attending this Panel will be offered a full briefing on many major aspects of the currently intense debate amongst scientists regarding global warming and climate change. Not that there is any dispute about whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, increases in which will ab initio cause some warming - for that is a given. Rather, the essence of the controversy lies in three things.
· First, what EMPIRICAL evidence exists that the warming of the late 20th century was dangerous, i.e., lay outside previous natural limits of climate change;
· Second, HOW MUCH future warming will be caused by likely human-caused levels of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (the climate feedback and sensitivity issues); and
· Third, to what degree have the IPCC’s complex GCM computer models been validated, and should their PROJECTIONS be taken seriously for use in framing policy advice.
The Panel convenors have assembled for you a distinguished group of scientists who are leaders in their fields. All have public reputations for both the high quality of their research, and for the balanced way that they give equal consideration to all the information bearing on the most important scientific question in our society today. That question is: Are human carbon dioxide emissions causing, or likely to cause, dangerous global warming?
It has been my great pleasure to write in introduction for this outstanding public session about the science of global warming and climate change. Please listen, learn and enjoy.

Professor Bob Carter
Emeritus Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne
Chief Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa
Academic Advisory Panel, Global Warming Policy Foundation, London

teresa green

27th Nov 2011, 09:27

Well gentlemen, I posted on this blog previously about our little shack on the far north coast of NSW built right on the water 60 years ago. I reported the xmas tides that actually went thru the shack and have done so as long as I can remember. Sadly I have to report that the last two xmas tides have been very disappointing. We were told to expect 2mm, so dutifully packed all the furniture fairly high, sadly all we got was 1.7 mm which was only a spit not a flood, ( I rely on this flood to kill the bindies in the grass, and saves the xmas guests hopping on one foot, you all know what I mean) I am beginning to fear that global warming has passed us by, but am hoping the tax will restore all.:confused:

Frank Arouet

27th Nov 2011, 09:30

Is it me or is it getting hot in Socialist circles?

A tax on air, and the greens want a tax on gold, (which is like a tax on money), plus the new Mining tax is unconstitutional in that the minerals belong to the States who levy royalties and not The Commonwealth to redistrubute to the poor, the lazy, the incompetent, the bureaucracy, and foreign hot air brokers and merchant bankers out to make a quid by getting something for nothing and selling it for anything, thus making 100% profit.

Yes the Laborites and greenites posting here have shown us all who is to blame for the mess we're in.

De_flieger

27th Nov 2011, 10:11

The idea of a carbon tax certainly isnt a "tax on air". If anyone is convinced that CO2 is effectively the same as air, they are welcome to stand in a sealed box filled with it for an hour or two then report on the effects. Another way of looking at it is as a tax on byproducts of industrial processes. I assume you pay council rates for garbage disposal and there is a sewerage charge associated with your water bill; companies pay industrial refuse removalists, mechanics have procedures to collect used oil and all these have a cost associated with them. Now the refuse being produced is in gaseous form, and its somehow magically different? Those companies that minimise their production of this particular byproduct will be financially better off, those that dont will be worse off.

Making the debate about party lines, Greens/Labour/Liberal/etc is a simple way to stop thinking about the real issues and allows people who are on a particular side of politics to agree with the line taken by their party and disregard the opposing views as the rantings of those fools on the left/right/commies/hippies/merchant bankers/whatever.

with their only aim to upset the clever populace into abuse whereby the thread gets closed. Don't get sucked in by answering them directly.

Post to make a point, not answer their insane ravings.One point would be that referring to those who hold a particular view as "the clever populace", and that those who hold a different view have "insane ravings", isnt helping advance the debate much.

Arnold E

27th Nov 2011, 10:27

Yes the Laborites and greenites posting here have shown us all who is to blame for the mess we're in.

And who might that be Frank??

peterc005

27th Nov 2011, 10:58

Whenever I fly RPT I always check the "Carbon Offset" option and pay an extra couple of bucks on the ticket to minimise my environmental foot print.

Does anyone know where this money goes or who manages this scheme?

The reason I ask is that it would be appropriate and fair to also make a Carbon Offset payment for my GA flying in my own plane. I image it would only add a couple of bucks an hour of flying and would be very worthwhile.

The science behind Global Warming has twenty years of peer review at all levels and cannot be rationally denied. Arguing with Climate Sceptics is about as useful as trying to be logical with the UFO spotters.

flyingfox

27th Nov 2011, 13:05

Still many of the posts here are suggesting that this debate is one of political leanings. I'm personally not a 'left wing voter' and am not likely to become one. Up until Tony Abbott became the leader of the Liberal Party, there was general agreement amongst Aussie political parties that an emmissions trading scheme would be desirable due to the scientific evidence of global warming. Tony Abbott came to lead the Liberals and reputedly described the science as "crap". When later, under pressure, he proposed a different approach to emissions control involving direct action, some economists said that such a scheme would be too expensive. Tony's response then was to dismiss economists also. (Possibly because he is a staunch Catholic, he doesn't have quite the same regard for science or economics compared to faith.) Whatever is the case, it is certainly frustrating for scientifically inclined people to listen to scientists being demonized as a group and they may be forgiven for taking their political support elswhere while such leadership is predominant. (I seem to remember pilots being described in very derogatory terms 'as a group' back in the unmentionable year. Certain politicians on the Labor side decided that demonising 'pilots' served their political aims at that time.) Group demonization is a good tool for stifling debate. The point is that politicians don't generally lead. They are mostly opportunistic and move where votes are possibly more abundent. Leaders on both sides come and go, so similarly the debate on climate will appear to have different political ownership according to those changes. I'm still with the science. Suggestions of plots, new world orders, money making schemes, secret agendas, biased political leanings or any other smoke screen is going to have me ditching science for histrionics. Research and fact finding eventually equates to knowledge. Complex modern aircraft certainly weren't invented by dismissing science. Hopefully understanding the issues of carbon in the environment will lead to greater efficiencies in propulsion design, which in turn will allow us to enjoy ever more sustainable aviation.

peterc005

27th Nov 2011, 21:07

@flyingfox - very concise and valid points. Sums it up well.

When I look at Climate Change Sceptics is sad to see internet-based conspiracy theories and conservative talk back radio hosts taken seriously at the cost of well-established and proven science.

teresa green

27th Nov 2011, 23:21

Of course Peter. And our head bloke is not a scientist, but a paleontologist, who has just happened to build a house right on the water and is notorious for breaking the wash rule with his tinny. Thank God we have him, or we would have been left behind.

Jabawocky

27th Nov 2011, 23:24

well-established and proven science.

You are kidding me surely? :ugh:

Science is about testing hypothesis, all it takes is one test to shatter the previously accepted, and the game changes forever. World is flat, Swans are white etc.

So the accepted science puts up the hockey stick, the accepted science puts up graphs and charts with two seperately sourced data sets but fails to note them or make any distinguishable remarks.....that is fraud. Not even bad science. So when the hypothesis is tested and found wanting, that is a denial conspiracy? :rolleyes:

I assume you are a pilot, and hopefully a good one, as your career in science is going to need a little work on it.;)

breakfastburrito

27th Nov 2011, 23:26

Up until Tony Abbott became the leader of the Liberal Party, there was general agreement amongst Aussie political parties that an emmissions trading scheme would be desirable due to the scientific evidence of global warming.

flyingfox, this is not a criticism of you personally, rather a textbook case of Hegelian dialectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegelian_dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic) (Thesis, anti-thesis ---> synthesis). Frame two extremes of the argument to mark the boundaries knowing full well most people will come to a conclusion somewhere in the middle (synthesis).

But the issue is the setting of the boundaries to "constrain" the debate within the broad structure that "the science is a given", rather than testing the science itself.

DutchRoll

27th Nov 2011, 23:53

Well said siseman

now here is a balanced view of things, from one of the very few qualified to comment climatologists.

Actually Bob Carter is not a "climatologist", having primarily researched ocean sedimentation. What limited research related to modern climate he has done in recent years has been done in conjunction with certain agencies and organisations whose background you'd be well off exploring, and in particular his main published paper with DeFreitas copped withering criticism from a large number of prominent scientists. Most of his recent "climate research" has been published in economic journals (this is what you do when your opinion has little credibility or carries no weight in the scientific world) or "Energy and Environment" (the Marvel comic book of climate research). Or of course you have his address to the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Google Scholars can check all of this by simply going to Bob Carter's James Cook Uni webpage and carefully reading through his list of "research".

Bob Carter is the scientist who famously thinks CO2 cannot be harmful in any way because you can't see it or smell it. An argument so absurd that it still makes me laugh out loud. There are several egregious errors in that copy of Bob Carter's article. And a couple of outright lies. An example is this bit:

"Those who advise the IPCC, whose ranks are dominated by some meteorologists, geographers and computer modellers....."

Absolute rubbish. A quick check of the university pages of the IPCC lead and contributing authors will dispel this comprehensively. The fake-sceptics of course will not carry out such a background check, as Carter has already told them it's true, it's what they want to believe, and therefore no further investigation is required. This is the standard pseudo-sceptical technique.

Also this bit following on:

"In the other camp are thousands of independent scientists, many of whom work in empirical disciplines like astrophysics, geochemistry and geology, who say “Good question, but no empirical evidence exists that the late 20th century warming was either dangerous or was materially caused by human carbon dioxide emissions."

Again, nonsense from Carter and easily disproven. The first bit is a classic straw-man. Scientists don't argue that it's "dangerous" in the sense that Ice Man accused Maverick of being "dangerous" in Top Gun. They simply argue that if unchecked, it could lead to significant adverse consequences. That is not the same thing.

The second bit is rubbish too. Well over 90% of actively publishing and researching climate scientists agree that human CO2 emissions have contributed. The empirical evidence for this is substantial: observed warming temperatures + observed increases in CO2 + measured input from human fossil fuel use + elementary physics of greenhouse gases. Carter is in a tiny minority who thinks that it's all still "natural" even though they have comprehensively failed to demonstrate how that can fit in with what we know and observe. Not once has he ever published any substantial research which would justify overturning that consensus.

Once again though, the fake-sceptics don't know any of this, and frankly they don't care. And so it goes round.........

peterc005

27th Nov 2011, 23:59

I noticed that Virgin Blue use a renewal energy project in Thailand for the carbon credit offsets.

Offset Projects | Virgin Australia (http://www.virginaustralia.com/AboutUs/CarbonOffset/carbonoffsetprojects/index.htm)

Interesting. I thought maybe they'd just plant a few trees locally.

Does anyone know of a local carbon credit offset scheme in Australia for GA?

Ideally I'd like to find one that I can contribute to using my Paypal account.

I average 100 hours a year and figure $200-$300 of carbon credit offsets would be reasonable.

I also notice that Virgin Blue are talking about renewable Bio Fuels. I know there are issues running Ethanol in piton engines but hope this changes sometime.

Sustainable Aviation Biofuel | Virgin Australia (http://www.virginaustralia.com/AboutUs/CorporateResponsibility/Sustainability/SustainableAviationBiofuel/index.htm)

teresa green

28th Nov 2011, 01:02

I tell you what Peter, I will give you the Minister for Goldman Sachs (MT)phone nbr, he will be delighted to help you get involved in a carbon credits scheme. You could end up making a motza, and help save our ailing planet at the same time. Or alternatively go on to his website, and offer your services, who knows where it will lead you. Sheez, you could end up flying Mals private jet, ( its emission free, runs on solar panels, they just have a few problems they have not solved yet), but you'r only a young fella ah, you can wait.

Jabawocky

28th Nov 2011, 01:22

Dutchie...you are talking rubbish. Typical cherry picking AGW rubbish.

Bob is a palaeontoligist, stratigrapher, marine geolist, environmental scientis and who just happens to have been studying palaeoclimatology for a lot longer than the AGW debate has been going on.

In fact before he got going on the climate change debate he was working away quietly just observing until some moron came out with an outrageous claim about something relating to palaeoclimatology which Bob knew was 100% pure BS. Instead of just calling a press conference and making a spray he started to do his homework. The more he did that he realised he needed to be well versed in about 42 areas of science to be well heeled enough to comment on the various sectors of climate science. Something most others have never done by the way. So some 9-12 moths (i dont remember) later he started a rebuttal, of course this is where it all started.

Bob is more a climatologist than the vast majority on your side of the fence. Get over it.

If you want to put your money where your mouth is, go to Townsville and have a chat over a few days. If you need some help to make this possible let me know.

Bob Carter is the scientist who famously thinks CO2 cannot be harmful in any way because you can't see it or smell it. I think you write the QF Spin Dr press releases. Get your facts and context in the same place, which is what you would ask of QF management would you not? ;)

His words are CO2 is a clourless, odourless and naturally occurring gas that is a benefice to life. Sure go stand in a chamber of 100% CO2 and see how long you last, but if you won't do that how about a chanber of 100% Nitrogen??? Ok Dutchie that is stupid, so how about 100% oxygen? Nope did not think you would be in that either. ;)

Here are Bobs words.....in context.
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the
atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative
carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence
that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise.
As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food
chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening
of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and
science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook
University
Again, nonsense from Carter and easily disproven. The first bit is a classic straw-man. Scientists don't argue that it's "dangerous" in the sense that Ice Man accused Maverick of being "dangerous" in Top Gun. They simply argue that if unchecked, it could lead to significant adverse consequences. That is not the same thing.I have to correct you again Dutchie, the IPCC and AGW's have always maintained a fear campaign on DANGEROUS......go watch the Al Gore movie again, without rose tinted glasses. ;)

OK now to some meat and potatoes.
The second bit is rubbish too. Well over 90% of actively publishing and researching climate scientists agree that human CO2 emissions have contributed. The empirical evidence for this is substantial: observed warming temperatures + observed increases in CO2 + measured input from human fossil fuel use + elementary physics of greenhouse gases. Carter is in a tiny minority who thinks that it's all still "natural" even though they have comprehensively failed to demonstrate how that can fit in with what we know and observe. Not once has he ever published any substantial research which would justify overturning that consensus.Bob himself will tell you humans have contributed to CO2 levels, he will also add that the effect of that incrimental addition is real, however it is so small that it can not be measured from the background noise in the emperical data.

He will also agree we have measured warming, and cooling. He will also agree that CO2 levels have been on the rise over the last 30-50 years, but lets look at what happens. CO2 levels lag temperature, not lead it. Go back to Al Gores movie, find the graphs, and filter out the proven fraud and what do you see? ;)

To put this in laymans terms if you take the effect CO2 has on the overall greenhouse effect, and then take into account man made CO2, it is like the difference between me taking my laptop with me on your B767 or leaving it at home with respect to fuel burn BN-SY. It has an impact, but it is hard to measure.

If we accept that the Al Gore and AGW camp mindset is correct, and that CO2 rose, and so did temperature, therefore they are directly related, which is what predicated the hockey stick, explain to me how when CO2 has kept increasing, the temperatures have done the opposite?

Here is a balanced comment, not cherry picked data or "facts in isolation".
The statement that “the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record” is a deliberately misleading piece of scientific trivia, for the “record” referred to is the instrumental record of the last 150 years only. This, comprising 5 climate data points, is a completely inadequate period of record over which to make climate change judgements in context. Records of an adequate length, for example for the last 5,000 years of a Greenland ice core, show that the late 20th century warm peak corresponds to a predictable temperature high on the well known millenial temperature cycle. It is no more surprising that temperatures were warm at the end of the 20th century than it is that, during the annual seasonal cycle, temperatures are warmest around and shortly after midsummer’s day. Believe what you like, but data, uncorrupted data will be all I can follow. And of course Climategate 1.0 and Climategate 2.0 has shown that you can't follow the IPCC sources of data. :ooh:

Towering Q

28th Nov 2011, 01:49

And our head bloke is not a scientist, but a paleontologist

Isn't a Paleontologist still a Scientist?

Teresa...to gain a better understanding of the issues, you may need to shift your focus from xmas tides at the shack and where Tim Flannery has built his house.

teresa green

28th Nov 2011, 01:59

Why Towering Q? As nobody seems to be able to agree what is actually happening, what better place to look, then where it is supposed to be happening. Simplistic yes, but the rest is just baffling by bovine manure, nobody can truly claim the rights to the truth. We can argue this to kingdom come, but the sad hard facts for this country, is regardless if the planet is warming or not, its people are going to take a hit, on something that might or might not be.

Old Fella

28th Nov 2011, 03:02

The argument around Climate Change and the effects of Co2 emissions has about as much validity as the Millenium Bug had. The Climate has been changing since day one. As each day goes by more and more evidence is being put forward to question the dire predictions of the "Climate Change" believers. Who cares about where Prof Flannery built his house? I would be more interested in just where he has been hidden since being honest enough to tell us that, even if we met the emission reduction target today, it would be at least 600 years before any reduction in global temperature could be measured. Now one of our own CSIRO scientists tells us that even if all Co2 emissions were stopped we could not restrict global temperature rise to the 2 degrees C the target emission reductions are aimed at. This is an inexact science folks. The prophets of doom will have us all believe the end is nigh. The rest of the world must be wondering how a country with the "Worlds best Treasurer Mk 2" can be the lone imposer of a Co2 Tax with an outcome akin to Mission Impossible. For me, it is a SCAM. If Prof Flannery is right, and he is the Government's man, we have little to worry about, nor will many of our future generations.

peterc005

28th Nov 2011, 03:39

The science behind Climate Change is proven and good.

Luckily, government policy on Climate Change is determined by scientists with expertise in relevant fields, not random posters on anonymous internet forums.

Old Fella

28th Nov 2011, 03:59

peterc005, you may believe the science is "proven and good". That is your right, just as it is my right to question it. What makes your pro-Climate Change stance any more valid than my questioning the proclamations of doom proffered by those on your side of the discussion? My primary concern is that an inept federal government is imposing upon us a tax which, by the admission of their own experts, will be ineffectual in reducing global temperature increase. It is also a tax which we were promised we would not have by our PM and the idea of which was dismissed as "scare mongering" by our Treasurer. The science is only "proven and good" if you are a believer. Some of the predictions of sea level rises are so wildly differing in their dimensions it is difficult to believe any of them. You can worry all you wish, personally I'll take my chances on this whole thing being another "Millenium Bug".

breakfastburrito

28th Nov 2011, 04:13

Pete, you seem very unworldly. Agenda's can be influenced through the allocation of resources. In this case, the funding of the Pro vs Anti cases. I don't have the figures, but I would guess it would be at least 10:1, but probably higher.

I have witnessed the grant application processes (not climate) first hand, and I can assure you that sexy buzzwords du jour are added simply to get funding. If that means being pro climate change to get money, so be it.

Google Agenda 21 - Ban Ki-Moon mentioned it on his last appearance on ABC 7.30. That is the true agenda.

From the transcript (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3313605.htm)
BAN KI-MOON: The first Earth summit in 1992 adopted a very ambitious Agenda 21. However, international community has not done much. That is why I regard the summit this real ??? 20 summit on sustainability development will be the most important for the international community. That is why I'm going to ask the member state of the General Assembly September, this month, to take this sustainable development as a top priority of the United Nations.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 08/09/2011
Reporter: Chris Uhlmann

teresa green

28th Nov 2011, 04:13

Then Peter, pop onto the CSIRO website, you can talk to the truly converted and educated there. What would a bunch of old and young aviators know about the WX anyway. :(

Frank Arouet

28th Nov 2011, 04:34

The science behind Climate Change is proven and good.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

peter old mate. Go straight to rule 25;

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Can one ask if you are one of the Trolls paid for with Taxpayer expense to the tune of $300K per week to respond and ridicule dissent on websites?

sisemen

28th Nov 2011, 06:29

The science behind Climate Change is proven and good.

Incontrovertible; set in stone; can't be questioned; science must be right; the science is settled.

So how come in this last version of the IPCC report (them wot said that the science is settled) they're now backtracking furiously on the claims that more extremes of climate will be experienced because of human induced carbon pollution?

Science is settled? Pig's arse.

Anybody who quotes that mantra obviously still believes that fairies live at the bottom of the garden. And any self-respecting scientist who actually believes in the process of science would never, ever say that the science is settled.

It's a political scam pure and simple.

Towering Q

28th Nov 2011, 06:49

Agenda's can be influenced through the allocation of resources.

In much the same way as industry advocates and large oil and gas corporations provide resources to the anti-AGW side.

Jabawocky

28th Nov 2011, 08:20

I know one PPRUNER knows the answer, because as a retired CSIRO scientist and pilot, he was in the right job to know........But what is it that CSIRO spend more time and effort researching than anything else?

Chocky frog to the winner! ;)

Frank Arouet

28th Nov 2011, 08:28

Cancer, diabetics, small tits, big tits?

Am I getting close?:rolleyes:

Chimbu chuckles

28th Nov 2011, 08:45

Worth a read

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ridley_rsa.pdf

peterc005

28th Nov 2011, 10:14

@Frank - see a doctor regarding the dose of your medicine.

flyingfox

28th Nov 2011, 14:42

Thanks Breakfastburrito for alerting me to my apparent 'Hegelian dialectic' efforts. I can't say that I was aware such a crime existed and certainly wasn't aware of it's potential to coerce a debate in any direction whatsoever! knowing full well most people will come to a conclusion somewhere in the middle Maybe I could have a future 'calling' in whatever field that is!! :8

breakfastburrito

28th Nov 2011, 19:06

flyingfox, perhaps you misinterpreted what I was saying, I wan't accusing you of being the perpetrator, just the opposite, the victim of someone else's campaign.

Chimbu Chuckles, excellent piece, I would suggest everyone on both sides of the debate read it. He eventually gets to the meat of the problem:

Well here’s why it matters. The alarmists have been handed power over our lives;
the heretics have not. Remember Britain’s unilateral Climate Change Act is officially expected to cost the
hard-pressed UK economy £18.3 billion
a year for the next 39 years and achieve an unmeasurably small change in carbon dioxide levels.

At least sceptics do not cover the hills of Scotland with useless, expensive,
duke-subsidising wind turbines whose manufacture causes pollution in Inner
Mongolia and which kill rare raptors such as this griffon vulture.

At least crop circle believers cannot almost double your electricity bills and
increase fuel poverty while driving jobs to Asia, to support their fetish.
At least creationists have not persuaded the BBC that balanced reporting is
no longer necessary.

At least homoeopaths have not made expensive condensing boilers, which
shut down in cold weather, compulsory, as John Prescott did in 2005.
At least astrologers have not driven millions of people into real hunger,
perhaps killing 192,000 last year according to one conservative estimate, by
diverting 5% of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel.

That’s why it matters. We’ve been asked to take some very painful cures.
So we need to be sure the patient has a brain tumour rather than a nosebleed.

That is my concern - that what strikes me a scam is being used to control millions of lives, and if they had their way billions for dubious science. It would appear that science has been hijacked too justify a pre-ordained outcome: the control of the populous.

DutchRoll

28th Nov 2011, 22:26

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"

He uses this same argument repeatedly. Carter (or "Bob", as you and he seem to be great mates), is clearly inferring that being colourless and odourless has something to do with CO2's alleged harmlessness. It has nothing to do with the debate at all. Zero. Carter is simply absurdly attempting to prop up his argument by using CO2s physical properties when they bear no relevance.

Sure go stand in a chamber of 100% CO2 and see how long you last, but if you won't do that how about a chanber of 100% Nitrogen??? Ok Dutchie that is stupid, so how about 100% oxygen? Nope did not think you would be in that either.

Huh? ITS A GREENHOUSE GAS. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BREATHING IT IN A CHAMBER. Oh yeah, and I'd be happy to stand in a chamber of 100% oxygen, BTW, as long as no-one lit a match. But I don't get it - how can oxygen be so life-giving yet so potentially harmful?

Do you understand that something may be detrimental in some ways yet not in others? Can you understand, for example, that phosphorus is an essential trace element in the body with detrimental effects if you have a deficiency, yet in other circumstances, like when it's stacked in drums in the corner of a fireworks factory, that it can be extremely hazardous? Can you get your mind around this "might be good in some ways, bad in others" concept? Honestly, if you don't comprehend that principle, I'm at my wits end as to how to explain it to you. I don't think I can help you any further and I don't think this avenue of the argument can progress at all.

I have to correct you again Dutchie, the IPCC and AGW's have always maintained a fear campaign on DANGEROUS......go watch the Al Gore movie again, without rose tinted glasses.

Once again, your crystal ball malfunctions badly. You really need to get it checked out. I have never watched Al Gore's movie. Al Gore is not the IPCC. I don't care what Al Gore says and I never have. I have never read his book. He is not a scientist. I do care what the scientists say, and I subscribe to and read online (and in hardcopy for a few) a lot of scientific articles, magazines, journals, and a university textbook or two. Which is a heck of a lot more than I can say for some people on this thread. Because hey, when you're a sceptic, why would you actually read about science from a science book when you can learn everything you need from a conspiratorial website or movie?

explain to me how when CO2 has kept increasing, the temperatures have done the opposite?

They haven't "done the opposite". They have risen at a slower rate for a decade. This phenomenon of natural variability is not unusual, and has been addressed many times. The rising temperatures still continue either side of it though (since industrialisation). Also what is happening now, and what happened thousands of years ago, are not the same thing.

And of course Climategate 1.0 and Climategate 2.0

They are the same batch of emails! The 2nd batch are the previously unreleased ones which were hacked with the first batch. They're referring to exactly the same things that were referred to years ago and have been addressed by a multitude of different inquiries. 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.

And just like the first time, they are cherry picked one-liners which feed the fake-sceptics all the info they need without any context (which fake-sceptics don't need). Example:

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”

Fake-sceptics are right onto this one as evidence of yet more vast scientific conspiracies to mislead the public, and it even gets a mention a couple of pages back on this very thread. But some fake-sceptics are so freaking stupid and lazy, that they don't realise that the full email says this:

“I think the hardest yet most important part is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking back over your good outline, sent back on Oct 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just after this time) you cover A LOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data – not inconclusive information.”

Puts a totally different perspective on it, right? They were doing nothing more conspiratorial than editing a large chunk of information down to what was really relevant and essential.