CARBON TAX-It's Started!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
#237 – Conspiracy Theories « Things Bogans Like
Cheers
BH
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
I
...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
I
t'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.
We the small people will YET AGAIN be donating more of our meagre salaries to them.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
But the aviation industry will still be here in some form or another.
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.
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.
But the aviation industry will still be here in some form or another.
Tis a pity that the vast green cloud of smug that hovers over sections of the community can not be taxed.
Smug: the leading cause of Global Laming.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,
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.
• 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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Last edited by flyingfox; 25th Oct 2011 at 19:31. Reason: spelling
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Lodown; 25th Oct 2011 at 23:15.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Meanwhile, the Australian Labor Party will be navel gazing plotting its strategy for re-election in 2045.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 3rd world Oz
Age: 54
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slip of the tongue?
Hyperbole anyone??
Another of our PM's little slip ups, along with visiting Cans, you know, the French city
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
T and there will be more to come.
Underlying economy is RS
T and there will be more to come.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some of which are yet to happen but are in the pipeline.
And for craigieburn - I think every one now knows how it is pronounced, even the illiterate who had never heard the word before.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 3rd world Oz
Age: 54
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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