CARBON TAX-It's Started!

[peterc005]

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

[craigieburn]

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


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

[peterc005]

AGW does not stand for anti-global warming.

I've never been to any sales seminars.

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

[Frank Arouet]

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

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

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

[peterc005]

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

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

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

[peterc005]

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

Here is my position:

• I think the Carbon Tax is a good idea. We need to do all that is possible to protect the environment and a Carbon Tax is a good step forward.
  
• The Carbon Tax will have a minimal effect on the aviation industry. Whenever I book an RPT ticket I always select the option to pay an extra few dollars for the Carbon Offset anyway.
  
• If the magnitude of the Carbon Tax is similar to that of the voluntary Carbon Offset scheme, then the costs are likely to be minimal - 1% or 2%.

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

[Jabawocky]

Peter

Let me try to answer these for you.

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

Here is my position:

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

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

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

peterc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So pony up lads, prove the tax will make any difference. Get all the science, rubbery or not, and show us how it will work. I can't wait!
Not another post from you please until you do.

Thanks in advance.

Ohh you want Tims quotes do you, and yes his bio is interesting
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian
Media Watch: It's elementary, my dear Bolt (04/04/2011)
Global warming over 1000 years: why Flannery is correct | Crikey
The 'Ultimate Millennium Bug' Fuels Climate Fight
Australian Climate Commissioner Prof. Tim Flannery 'CAUGHT OUT' on Climate Change!

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

[sisemen]

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

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

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

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

Talking to Andrew Bolt today – Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery says that even if the whole world slashes its emissions we won’t know what difference it will make for maybe a thousand years

Tim Flannery, a zoologist and author of an acclaimed 2005 book on climage change, “The Weather Makers,” compares skeptics of global warming to “flat Earth believers.” But he made a point that most global warming alarmists gloss over when he threw down this lightning bolt in an interview with Macquarie Radio’s Andrew Bolt:

“If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.”

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

[Ultralights]

i like this bit...

then the costs are likely to be minimal - 1% or 2%

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

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

[teresa green]

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

[sisemen]

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

[parabellum]

Ladies and Gentlemen, if you will allow me to direct you to a now closed thread from Jet Blast:
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4136...ther-name.html

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

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

[Deepsea Racing Prawn]

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

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

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

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

[Towering Q]

Back on page 15 from Lodown...

DutchRoll: I appreciated the discussion with you.

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

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

[Lodown]

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

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

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

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

From this link:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

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

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

[Jake.f]

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

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

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

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

I find this site interesting: Worldometers - real time world statistics
Specifically the sections on the environment and energy. Demonstrates the potential for solar energy with the amount striking the Earth each day. I hope that solar farms in the desert will be something I see within my lifetime. Also this doesn't seem like a bad idea either:



That's my 2c for now.

[blackhand]

I hope that solar farms in the desert will be something I see within my lifetime.

Tender has been approved for solar farm near Cloncurry QLD.
We will soon see if this is economical or needs continuing government support

[Lodown]

Jake.f:

From

Another Contestant In The Durban “Coyote Stupid” Contest

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

Do these people ever do any actual science?

[Jake.f]

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

[Lodown]

Should we be taxing farts?