Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

CARBON TAX-It's Started!

Old 19th Nov 2011, 09:39
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
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.
Duff Man is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 10:30
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 339
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.
Fonz121 is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 11:56
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 753
Originally Posted by RATpin
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.

Originally Posted by konstantin
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!
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 13:41
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 139
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 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 ). 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.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 18:44
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Morobe
Posts: 84
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.
tolakuma manki is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 00:14
  #126 (permalink)  
Seasonally Adjusted
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: ...deep fine leg
Posts: 1,127
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!!
Towering Q is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 04:39
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 753
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 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.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 06:28
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 82
Posts: 1,345
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.
teresa green is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 07:54
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 753
Originally Posted by teresa green
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?
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 09:32
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PERTH,AUSTRALIA
Posts: 156
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.
RATpin is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 10:14
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 259
Cancel all future planning and thinking. RATpin has spoken. Life is now hopeless due to Iran!
flyingfox is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 10:54
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 57
Posts: 1,437
Fertilizer tax

Carbon Tax is a complete crock of shit. 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.

Last edited by gobbledock; 20th Nov 2011 at 21:54.
gobbledock is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 11:41
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 82
Posts: 1,345
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.
teresa green is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 11:55
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 259
teresa. Your old man was an astrologer. That answers most of my doubts about your reasoning!
flyingfox is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 14:13
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Burnaby BC
Posts: 80
Absolutely pointless in telling me what some Scientist said
Copernicus anyone?
MattGray is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 19:41
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 82
Posts: 1,345
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.
teresa green is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 21:50
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Gobbledock, you are making way too much sense!!!!
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

Last edited by Mr.Buzzy; 20th Nov 2011 at 22:01.
Mr.Buzzy is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 23:28
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
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
breakfastburrito is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 23:48
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
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.
Splitpin44 is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2011, 23:52
  #140 (permalink)  
Seasonally Adjusted
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: ...deep fine leg
Posts: 1,127
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.
Towering Q is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.