CARBON TAX-It's Started!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yep, funny enough the IPCC are back pedalling as slowly as they can retreat without anyone noticing. They have sold our governments a scam, and eventually it will be found wanting.
Sure, tackle pollution, tackle pesticides herbicides fertillizers in the water whatever you want, but do it based on real polution risks. As a pollutant CO2 is not one of them. In fact a bit more would be good.
Problem is folk today have no idea on what the real issue is. Global warming, the original scare mongering words are just as valid as global cooling, and of the two I know which one I would prefer.
The issue is a grossly unfair tax being placed on CO2 emissions that is applied in a most unjust manner. As I have said before, if the vast majority of the country want a carbon tax, it must be a tax applied to all energy sources equally, and NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY gets an exemption. It never gets turned over to some trading market where corruption will run rife, it goes into hospitals, schools and so on. Or to save all the added overhead of collecting such a tax, lets just ramp up the GST instead. That will cover Juliars and Kevvies little blow outs.
PS: The ABC of all people are reporting a retreat?
Global warming rate less than feared › News in Science (ABC Science)
Sure, tackle pollution, tackle pesticides herbicides fertillizers in the water whatever you want, but do it based on real polution risks. As a pollutant CO2 is not one of them. In fact a bit more would be good.
Problem is folk today have no idea on what the real issue is. Global warming, the original scare mongering words are just as valid as global cooling, and of the two I know which one I would prefer.
The issue is a grossly unfair tax being placed on CO2 emissions that is applied in a most unjust manner. As I have said before, if the vast majority of the country want a carbon tax, it must be a tax applied to all energy sources equally, and NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY gets an exemption. It never gets turned over to some trading market where corruption will run rife, it goes into hospitals, schools and so on. Or to save all the added overhead of collecting such a tax, lets just ramp up the GST instead. That will cover Juliars and Kevvies little blow outs.
PS: The ABC of all people are reporting a retreat?
Global warming rate less than feared › News in Science (ABC Science)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ABC are the propaganda arm of The Labor Party. I wouldn't read too much into anything they say because it will only be a prelude to something a spindoctor is about to say. Perhaps the "media inquiry" should start with examining them.
Hey Mr 'airsupport'.....
Reur - 'Tony is doing the right thing IMHO, instead of waiting for the start of the next election campaign he is warning now that after the next election he will remove the carbon tax, so IF business has any sense they will not get into it.'
Not without the SENATE he won't = CANNOT!!
And he cannot get 'control' of the Senate until.......
Whilst in the Grand Junction area of the Good Ole US recently, it is claimed there that there was more than 3 times the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere in dem dere days of de dinosaurs....'cause there was a heck of a lot more foliage then = jungle everywhere..??
'Cause de CO2 causes de plants to grow......bring it on I say.......
More plants /trees = more rain = more Tassie pure water to make more pi55....
Cheers
Reur - 'Tony is doing the right thing IMHO, instead of waiting for the start of the next election campaign he is warning now that after the next election he will remove the carbon tax, so IF business has any sense they will not get into it.'
Not without the SENATE he won't = CANNOT!!
And he cannot get 'control' of the Senate until.......
Whilst in the Grand Junction area of the Good Ole US recently, it is claimed there that there was more than 3 times the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere in dem dere days of de dinosaurs....'cause there was a heck of a lot more foliage then = jungle everywhere..??
'Cause de CO2 causes de plants to grow......bring it on I say.......
More plants /trees = more rain = more Tassie pure water to make more pi55....
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rescind Tax?
Griffo, if the Coalition win the next election, which I sincerely hope they do, and Tony Abbott rescinds the Carbon Tax and has trouble getting it past the Senate because the Greens would block it, he would have the balls to call a double dissollution. Of that I am confident.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PERTH,AUSTRALIA
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Jaba,but,as Rob White suggests,the world should be run by the UN(Lord help us) and for that you need a one world taxation system. Those that disagree will be sanctioned or bombed into submission, or so say the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 of last 15 years warmest on record
We really need to do a lot more about climate change and a lot sooner:
13 of last 15 years warmest on record | News.com.au
13 of last 15 years warmest on record
November 29, 2011 8:36PM
THIRTEEN of the warmest years recorded have occurred within the last decade and a half, the UN's World Meteorological Organisation said today.
The year 2011 caps a decade that ties the record as the hottest ever measured, the WMO said in its annual report on climate trends and extreme weather events, unveiled at UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa.
"Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement, adding that policymakers should take note of the findings.
"Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached new highs and are very rapidly approaching levels consistent with a 2 to 2.4 Celsius rise in average global temperatures."
Scientists believe that any rise above the 2.0 threshold could trigger far-reaching and irreversible changes on Earth over land and in the seas.
The 2002-2011 period equals 2001-2010 as the warmest decade since 1850, the report said.
2011 ranks as the 10th warmest year since 1850, when accurate measurements began.
This was true despite a La Nina event - one of the strongest in 60 years - that developed in the tropical Pacific in the second half of 2010 and continued until May 2011.
The report noted that the cyclical climate phenomenon, which strikes every three to seven years, helped drive extreme weather events including drought in east Africa, islands in the central equatorial Pacific and the southern United States.
It also aggravated flooding in southern Africa, eastern Australia and southern Asia.
While La Nina, and its meteorological cousin El Nino, are not caused by climate change, rising ocean temperatures caused by global warming may affect their intensity and frequency, scientists say
Read more: 13 of last 15 years warmest on record | News.com.au
13 of last 15 years warmest on record | News.com.au
13 of last 15 years warmest on record
November 29, 2011 8:36PM
THIRTEEN of the warmest years recorded have occurred within the last decade and a half, the UN's World Meteorological Organisation said today.
The year 2011 caps a decade that ties the record as the hottest ever measured, the WMO said in its annual report on climate trends and extreme weather events, unveiled at UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa.
"Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement, adding that policymakers should take note of the findings.
"Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached new highs and are very rapidly approaching levels consistent with a 2 to 2.4 Celsius rise in average global temperatures."
Scientists believe that any rise above the 2.0 threshold could trigger far-reaching and irreversible changes on Earth over land and in the seas.
The 2002-2011 period equals 2001-2010 as the warmest decade since 1850, the report said.
2011 ranks as the 10th warmest year since 1850, when accurate measurements began.
This was true despite a La Nina event - one of the strongest in 60 years - that developed in the tropical Pacific in the second half of 2010 and continued until May 2011.
The report noted that the cyclical climate phenomenon, which strikes every three to seven years, helped drive extreme weather events including drought in east Africa, islands in the central equatorial Pacific and the southern United States.
It also aggravated flooding in southern Africa, eastern Australia and southern Asia.
While La Nina, and its meteorological cousin El Nino, are not caused by climate change, rising ocean temperatures caused by global warming may affect their intensity and frequency, scientists say
Read more: 13 of last 15 years warmest on record | News.com.au
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALP Doing a good job managing economy - The Big Picture: we should be so lucky
The Big Picture: we should be so lucky
The Big Picture: we should be so lucky
November 29, 2011 - 2:03PM
RAW VISION: Treasurer Wayne Swan introduces the government's mid-year budget review framed by a gloomy global outlook.
Never mind the political fixation with a marginal surplus, the middle class welfare nipping here, the tax lurk tucking there, the magic 2.5 per cent productivity bonus expected from Commonwealth agencies, or even the extra half per cent or so being chipped off the economy's growth in the process – in an ugly world, Treasury has come up with what one former treasurer might still call a beautiful set of numbers.
The only dark number in the economic update was that unemployment is expected to tick up to 5.5 per cent by June and stay there for a year, but employment should still grow by one per cent this financial year and 1.5 per cent next. That means more people in jobs earning more money - more customers, if retailers have an attractive enough offer to tempt them.
There's nothing new in Treasury's forecast of "year average" economic growth of 3.25 per cent this financial year and next – that was in the Reserve Bank's quarterly statement at the start of the month - but the detail should refocus attention on how extremely fortunate we are to be maintaining growth at around our long-term trend when pretty much the rest of the developed world is going nowhere or worse.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The budget outcome this year and next assumes the current misery continues in Europe, Japan and the US, ranging from recession to anaemic growth, but it also relies on the Europeans not trashing the global banking system. As the Treasury puts it:
"The risks to the outlook remain firmly on the downside. In the context of an already fragile global economy, rapidly evolving events in Europe have shaken confidence and financial markets, and pose a significant risk that the global economic outlook could deteriorate quickly. In this environment, Australia's terms of trade could also decline more sharply than currently forecast."
Fate tied to non-G7 nations
Whatever fiddling round the edges Wayne Swan and Penny Wong manage to produce a little surplus ahead of the next election, our fate remains tied to the non-G7 nations in general and the non-OECD nations in particular. That's a very good place to be with non-OECD nations now accounting for more than three-quarters of global growth with the emphasis increasingly on domestic demand.
Yes, China's growth is slowing to something closer to being sustainable and our terms of trade will decline, but the decline is relatively gradual and in the meantime commodity export volume is being ramped up by an investment boom that is itself unprecedented.
Asia would not be immune to European catastrophe, yet even that threat hastens the region's restructuring and sustains investment intentions here.
"Investment decisions in the resources sector are taken over long time horizons, driven by medium-term projections of the growing resource needs of the large emerging market economies," observes Treasury. "These projections remain intact, notwithstanding the recent deterioration in global conditions, with the pipeline of resources investment in Australia continuing to grow since Budget to over $450 billion. Following growth of 34 per cent in resources investment in 201011, resources companies expect to increase their capital expenditure by a further 74 per cent in 201112, supporting a strong outlook for commodity exports and activity in the related construction and services sectors."
The promised budget surplus at $1.5 billion is little more than a rounding error one way or the other, but it becomes a flag for Swan to wave both for domestic political purposes and for international feel-good reasons. It enhances Australia's growing perception as a safe haven in a dangerous world, instead of being part of the "risk on" trade. It should help Australian bond yields continue to fall, but it also could help maintain the strength of the Australian dollar.
Rate implications
The domestic interest rate implications of a little surplus are marginal. Did the RBA learn anything today that it didn't already know about the Australian economy? Probably not. The bank had already noted the expectations of slightly higher unemployment and inflation staying in its comfort zone, hence the move to "neutral" monetary policy.
Next Tuesday, the RBA could move another 25 points to be "more neutral", but there's nothing more to it than that with the need to keep ammunition dry in case it is needed to fight something worse coming out of Europe.
At the margin though, the government's fiscal rectitude does come at a cost. The move from a bigger deficit this year to a flat result in 2011-12 is the removal of a stimulus equivalent to about 2.5 per cent of GDP. The Treasury says the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus is expected to take about half a per cent off real GDP growth this financial year.
The RBA has repeatedly mentioned the contribution being made by fiscal drag on the economy.
For a few souls at the employment margin who might make up that rise to a 5.5 per cent unemployment rate, one hopes they will be able to take compensatory pride in belonging to the nation that's leading the developed world in returning to a budget surplus.
p.s. The Tax Forum has paid very handsomely for itself. Attacks made there on companies getting tax deductions for housing CEOs in harbourside penthouses played a role the decision to reform the tax treatment of living away from home allowances and benefits. Treasury thinks it will raise $682 million over the next four years.
Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor
Read more: The Big Picture: we should be so lucky
The Big Picture: we should be so lucky
November 29, 2011 - 2:03PM
RAW VISION: Treasurer Wayne Swan introduces the government's mid-year budget review framed by a gloomy global outlook.
Never mind the political fixation with a marginal surplus, the middle class welfare nipping here, the tax lurk tucking there, the magic 2.5 per cent productivity bonus expected from Commonwealth agencies, or even the extra half per cent or so being chipped off the economy's growth in the process – in an ugly world, Treasury has come up with what one former treasurer might still call a beautiful set of numbers.
The only dark number in the economic update was that unemployment is expected to tick up to 5.5 per cent by June and stay there for a year, but employment should still grow by one per cent this financial year and 1.5 per cent next. That means more people in jobs earning more money - more customers, if retailers have an attractive enough offer to tempt them.
There's nothing new in Treasury's forecast of "year average" economic growth of 3.25 per cent this financial year and next – that was in the Reserve Bank's quarterly statement at the start of the month - but the detail should refocus attention on how extremely fortunate we are to be maintaining growth at around our long-term trend when pretty much the rest of the developed world is going nowhere or worse.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The budget outcome this year and next assumes the current misery continues in Europe, Japan and the US, ranging from recession to anaemic growth, but it also relies on the Europeans not trashing the global banking system. As the Treasury puts it:
"The risks to the outlook remain firmly on the downside. In the context of an already fragile global economy, rapidly evolving events in Europe have shaken confidence and financial markets, and pose a significant risk that the global economic outlook could deteriorate quickly. In this environment, Australia's terms of trade could also decline more sharply than currently forecast."
Fate tied to non-G7 nations
Whatever fiddling round the edges Wayne Swan and Penny Wong manage to produce a little surplus ahead of the next election, our fate remains tied to the non-G7 nations in general and the non-OECD nations in particular. That's a very good place to be with non-OECD nations now accounting for more than three-quarters of global growth with the emphasis increasingly on domestic demand.
Yes, China's growth is slowing to something closer to being sustainable and our terms of trade will decline, but the decline is relatively gradual and in the meantime commodity export volume is being ramped up by an investment boom that is itself unprecedented.
Asia would not be immune to European catastrophe, yet even that threat hastens the region's restructuring and sustains investment intentions here.
"Investment decisions in the resources sector are taken over long time horizons, driven by medium-term projections of the growing resource needs of the large emerging market economies," observes Treasury. "These projections remain intact, notwithstanding the recent deterioration in global conditions, with the pipeline of resources investment in Australia continuing to grow since Budget to over $450 billion. Following growth of 34 per cent in resources investment in 201011, resources companies expect to increase their capital expenditure by a further 74 per cent in 201112, supporting a strong outlook for commodity exports and activity in the related construction and services sectors."
The promised budget surplus at $1.5 billion is little more than a rounding error one way or the other, but it becomes a flag for Swan to wave both for domestic political purposes and for international feel-good reasons. It enhances Australia's growing perception as a safe haven in a dangerous world, instead of being part of the "risk on" trade. It should help Australian bond yields continue to fall, but it also could help maintain the strength of the Australian dollar.
Rate implications
The domestic interest rate implications of a little surplus are marginal. Did the RBA learn anything today that it didn't already know about the Australian economy? Probably not. The bank had already noted the expectations of slightly higher unemployment and inflation staying in its comfort zone, hence the move to "neutral" monetary policy.
Next Tuesday, the RBA could move another 25 points to be "more neutral", but there's nothing more to it than that with the need to keep ammunition dry in case it is needed to fight something worse coming out of Europe.
At the margin though, the government's fiscal rectitude does come at a cost. The move from a bigger deficit this year to a flat result in 2011-12 is the removal of a stimulus equivalent to about 2.5 per cent of GDP. The Treasury says the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus is expected to take about half a per cent off real GDP growth this financial year.
The RBA has repeatedly mentioned the contribution being made by fiscal drag on the economy.
For a few souls at the employment margin who might make up that rise to a 5.5 per cent unemployment rate, one hopes they will be able to take compensatory pride in belonging to the nation that's leading the developed world in returning to a budget surplus.
p.s. The Tax Forum has paid very handsomely for itself. Attacks made there on companies getting tax deductions for housing CEOs in harbourside penthouses played a role the decision to reform the tax treatment of living away from home allowances and benefits. Treasury thinks it will raise $682 million over the next four years.
Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor
Read more: The Big Picture: we should be so lucky
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.
The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece.
Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.
The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece.
Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.
Breakfastburrito: I wouldn't trust that graph you posted any further than I could kick it. It's one thing in theory from some guys in a laboratory setting, but it doesn't hold up in application. Wind energy is one of the very worst examples of utilising renewable energies. The evaluation you posted makes no allowance for the need for backup availability and the reduced efficiency of those backup supplies because the demand/supply is constantly fluctuating. As an example, Texas is installing hundreds of wind turbines in West Texas. Trouble is the infrastructure isn't there yet to bring all the power back east. Cost is US$1M per mile just for the infrastructure. That doesn't include the cleared swath through the countryside. Nor does it include the direct loss of wildlife as the rotors decimate the local bat populations and migratory birds. The farmers in the area though are making out like Rockefellers. They're getting paid a fortune for rent and some are getting extra income from natural gas drilling as well. The land doesn't support a great deal in terms of farming.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but every person I have spoken with who has wind turbines supplementing home energy and actively tracks the power output, is unimpressed with the cost/benefit.
Last edited by Lodown; 29th Nov 2011 at 22:22.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowdown, in theory I'm in favor of renewable energy. However, in practice, the costs are extraordinary. As I mentioned, a lot of them simply don't scale (your lab observation). They also depend on REE (rare earth Elements) of which China holds 97% global production. Renewables are simply not going to work on the scale that we need them to work to maintain our current patterns of energy use.
I've mentioned her before, Nicole Foss has done a huge amount of work in the economics of energy, including renewables.
See her interview page at FSN Nicole M Foss | FINANCIAL SENSE
There is a link to her blog from there, the automatic earth.
From my reading, it's not climate change that we should be worried about, but the impending energy shortfall for liquid fuels.
I've mentioned her before, Nicole Foss has done a huge amount of work in the economics of energy, including renewables.
See her interview page at FSN Nicole M Foss | FINANCIAL SENSE
There is a link to her blog from there, the automatic earth.
From my reading, it's not climate change that we should be worried about, but the impending energy shortfall for liquid fuels.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be too worried about liquid fuels. The recovery rate from oil wells is only about 5%. It's just a matter of time before some smart engineer works out how to improve on that and tap back into old drilling areas like they've done for natural gas. There's at least 200 years of supply for natural gas and it's only a matter of time before there is a push to get more refueling stations to carry natural gas and the carmakers won't be far behind. We've barely touched shale oils, which are now viable. Nor have we touched methane clathrates yet. The technology to tap into that area will be coming. A conservative estimate on methane clathrate deposits is twice the total of all other carbon-based fuels (coal, natural gas, oil, etc) combined.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Word or Two About Denialism - from Michael Shermer
Jabberwocky, Jabberwocky, Jabberwocky.
a) the data you chose is HADCRUT3 variance adjusted, not the UAH which Bob Carter used in his chart.
b) you need to learn something about cherry-picking start dates (you stumbled on a great choice with 2001).
c) you need to learn something about putting different datasets in context
If you are going to play with the big boys, you need to know roughly what you're doing, because if you posted that up on a science blog with real scientists watching, then alleged it proved the planet isn't warming, you'd be torn a new one.
I'm tiring of the claptrap on this thread. Here is some food for thought taken from an excellent issue of New Scientist about 18 months ago, titled "The Age of Denialism". For a few on this thread, this will indeed provoke thought. For others here, it will simply go straight over their heads.
Dr Michael Shermer, founding publisher of "Skeptic" magazine, Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, contributor to Scientific American, the world's most respected sceptic and a regular speaker at sceptic conventions everywhere:
Shermer goes on to rate Climate Denial as the single most influential form of denial today, followed in order by: Evolution denial, Vaccine denial, AIDS denial, Tobacco Denial, and 9/11 denial.
There follows an excellent article titled "Living in denial - Why Sensible People Reject the Truth" which explores the psychology behind denialism of all forms (including climate denial, but especially things like vaccine and smoking denial). This is the introduction:
Anyway, on it goes into a rather depressing analysis of the denialism sweeping some sections of the community in recent years.
I see many similarities between what was written in the article and what I read on this thread from particular contributors. The sifting of facts, the stripping of context, the "climate science is all a crock" followed immediately by the usual political diatribe against Gore, or the UN, or the IPCC, or <insert the government organisation or politician you love to hate here>. The fact that most of these posters cannot separate themselves from their political views when arguing that climate science is all a crock (ie, just stick to the scientific facts only) is a dead giveaway as to what is really driving their opinions. And it sure ain't an interest in science!
I don't think there's any point in going any further in the discussion. As Shermer states: "Deniers just keep on denying". As much as you try to insert context into their "evidence", they simply move on to the next argument and pretend it didn't happen.
More food for thought: the world's foremost sceptics (eg Shermer, Randi and so on) and sceptical societies do not deny the reality of climate change, the human influence, the potential ramifications, and the need to address it. The fake-sceptics here on Pprune live in their own bubble, comforted by the "sceptical wisdom" of various non-scientific and politically motivated websites like Wattsupwiththat. In fact, they're so enamoured with such websites that they don't even realise when those websites kick an own goal.
Also the greatest scientific minds this planet has ever offered in the modern day, from the late famous and enormously respected astronomer Dr Carl Sagan right through to the likes of the brilliant physicist Professor Stephen Hawking do not deny the reality of climate change and the human influence or need to address it. These are people who know scientific evidence when they see it.
a) the data you chose is HADCRUT3 variance adjusted, not the UAH which Bob Carter used in his chart.
b) you need to learn something about cherry-picking start dates (you stumbled on a great choice with 2001).
c) you need to learn something about putting different datasets in context
If you are going to play with the big boys, you need to know roughly what you're doing, because if you posted that up on a science blog with real scientists watching, then alleged it proved the planet isn't warming, you'd be torn a new one.
I'm tiring of the claptrap on this thread. Here is some food for thought taken from an excellent issue of New Scientist about 18 months ago, titled "The Age of Denialism". For a few on this thread, this will indeed provoke thought. For others here, it will simply go straight over their heads.
Dr Michael Shermer, founding publisher of "Skeptic" magazine, Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, contributor to Scientific American, the world's most respected sceptic and a regular speaker at sceptic conventions everywhere:
"Living in Denial - When a Sceptic isn't a Sceptic
What is the difference between a sceptic and a denier? When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.
A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing "confirmation bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.
Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence.......Denial is today most often associated with climate science, but it is also encountered elsewhere.
Though the distinction between scepticism and denial is clear enough in principle, keeping them apart in the real world can be tricky. It has, for example, become fashionable in some circles for anyone who dares to challenge the climate science "consensus" to be tarred as a denier and heaved into a vat of feathers. Do you believe in global warming? Answer with anything but an unequivocal yes and you risk being written off as a climate denier, in the same bag as Holocaust and evolution naysayers.
Yet casting questions like these as a matter of belief is nonsensical. Either the Earth is getting warmer or it is not, regardless of how many believe it is or is not. When I say "I believe in evolution" or "I believe in the big bang", this is something different from when I say, "I believe in a flat tax" or "I believe in liberal democracy".
One practical way to distinguish between a sceptic and a denier is the extent to which they are willing to update their positions in response to new information. Sceptics change their minds. Deniers just keep on denying."
What is the difference between a sceptic and a denier? When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.
A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing "confirmation bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.
Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence.......Denial is today most often associated with climate science, but it is also encountered elsewhere.
Though the distinction between scepticism and denial is clear enough in principle, keeping them apart in the real world can be tricky. It has, for example, become fashionable in some circles for anyone who dares to challenge the climate science "consensus" to be tarred as a denier and heaved into a vat of feathers. Do you believe in global warming? Answer with anything but an unequivocal yes and you risk being written off as a climate denier, in the same bag as Holocaust and evolution naysayers.
Yet casting questions like these as a matter of belief is nonsensical. Either the Earth is getting warmer or it is not, regardless of how many believe it is or is not. When I say "I believe in evolution" or "I believe in the big bang", this is something different from when I say, "I believe in a flat tax" or "I believe in liberal democracy".
One practical way to distinguish between a sceptic and a denier is the extent to which they are willing to update their positions in response to new information. Sceptics change their minds. Deniers just keep on denying."
There follows an excellent article titled "Living in denial - Why Sensible People Reject the Truth" which explores the psychology behind denialism of all forms (including climate denial, but especially things like vaccine and smoking denial). This is the introduction:
Heard the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money.
Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.
This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines - and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial?
Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics (see "How to be a denialist"). All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain, atheism.
This common ground tells us a great deal about the underlying causes of denialism. The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases - diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work.
Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.
Many people see this as a threat to important aspects of their lives. In Texas last year, a member of a state committee who was trying to get creationism added to school science standards almost said as much when he proclaimed "somebody's got to stand up to experts".
Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.
This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines - and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial?
Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics (see "How to be a denialist"). All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain, atheism.
This common ground tells us a great deal about the underlying causes of denialism. The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases - diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work.
Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.
Many people see this as a threat to important aspects of their lives. In Texas last year, a member of a state committee who was trying to get creationism added to school science standards almost said as much when he proclaimed "somebody's got to stand up to experts".
I see many similarities between what was written in the article and what I read on this thread from particular contributors. The sifting of facts, the stripping of context, the "climate science is all a crock" followed immediately by the usual political diatribe against Gore, or the UN, or the IPCC, or <insert the government organisation or politician you love to hate here>. The fact that most of these posters cannot separate themselves from their political views when arguing that climate science is all a crock (ie, just stick to the scientific facts only) is a dead giveaway as to what is really driving their opinions. And it sure ain't an interest in science!
I don't think there's any point in going any further in the discussion. As Shermer states: "Deniers just keep on denying". As much as you try to insert context into their "evidence", they simply move on to the next argument and pretend it didn't happen.
More food for thought: the world's foremost sceptics (eg Shermer, Randi and so on) and sceptical societies do not deny the reality of climate change, the human influence, the potential ramifications, and the need to address it. The fake-sceptics here on Pprune live in their own bubble, comforted by the "sceptical wisdom" of various non-scientific and politically motivated websites like Wattsupwiththat. In fact, they're so enamoured with such websites that they don't even realise when those websites kick an own goal.
Also the greatest scientific minds this planet has ever offered in the modern day, from the late famous and enormously respected astronomer Dr Carl Sagan right through to the likes of the brilliant physicist Professor Stephen Hawking do not deny the reality of climate change and the human influence or need to address it. These are people who know scientific evidence when they see it.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those documents peter, are put out by the same mob who said “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” and that same Treasurer said it was a Liberal party plot and would never ever happen.
This same party will say and do anything to get into power and then put to the sword any dissent or counter argument or contrary opinion.
Flannery is a paid employee. He is as believable as Gillard.
It was recently written- “this is yesterday's party destroying tomorrows future, it's average intelligence is on par with the children of lord of the flies and at the first sign of trouble, out come the long knives. Socialists/ Labor are the last western scourge. A party of superficial solutions to non existent problems attracting fools, halfwits and bleeding hearts that can barely see through mistly eyes.
Labor policies are not just wrong, they are dumb. This party whose core ideology has been so thoroughly discredited they will pretend to be something they are not to gain power and hide their true prosperity destruction agenda”.
It is truly amazing that people actually admit to being followers of this party and who no doubt will continue to vote for them irrespective of the depth of corruption and putrifying decay.
It's as if they can't afford a lobotomy and following Labor dogma is cheaper and achieves the same aim.
DutchRoll. When the tax was based on a lie it ceases to have any scientific validity.
This same party will say and do anything to get into power and then put to the sword any dissent or counter argument or contrary opinion.
Flannery is a paid employee. He is as believable as Gillard.
It was recently written- “this is yesterday's party destroying tomorrows future, it's average intelligence is on par with the children of lord of the flies and at the first sign of trouble, out come the long knives. Socialists/ Labor are the last western scourge. A party of superficial solutions to non existent problems attracting fools, halfwits and bleeding hearts that can barely see through mistly eyes.
Labor policies are not just wrong, they are dumb. This party whose core ideology has been so thoroughly discredited they will pretend to be something they are not to gain power and hide their true prosperity destruction agenda”.
It is truly amazing that people actually admit to being followers of this party and who no doubt will continue to vote for them irrespective of the depth of corruption and putrifying decay.
It's as if they can't afford a lobotomy and following Labor dogma is cheaper and achieves the same aim.
DutchRoll. When the tax was based on a lie it ceases to have any scientific validity.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggest Con.
One very big difference BD. We have a choice as to whether or not we want to be a believer (Religious that is). We have no choice about the Carbon Tax we would not have!!! It has been mandated by a corrupt and inept bunch of loonies with an agenda to bring our country down, no matter what.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been mandated by a corrupt and inept bunch of loonies with an agenda to bring our country down, no matter what.
sadly as much as we complain about it, we are getting it forced upon us, so all we can do is adapt, i sold my gas guzzling turbo forester for a new econo diesel that uses 4.5l/100KM, so, where do i collect my carbon credits juliar? oh, thats right diesel will be copping the carbon tax, not petrol!
you Juliar! and Bob Brown.