CARBON TAX-It's Started!

[Frank Arouet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

well-established and proven science.

You are kidding me surely?

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?

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]

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 (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]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

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]

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

Offset Projects | Virgin Australia

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

[teresa green]

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]

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.

[Towering Q]

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]

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]

Climate Change - Fact or Fiction

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]

Climate Change = Fact

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]

Proven Science

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]

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

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]

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.