|
Common theory has it that a monster asteroid crashed into what is now Mexico, blasting billions of tonnes of material into the atmosphere, killing the dinosaurs (now that's climate change!). The small-bodied, warm-blooded mammals hung on, evolving into PPrUNE readers.
Dillard and co's carbon tax is a socialist con job, taking your 'hard-earned' to hand over to no-hopers and layabouts. Another nail in the GA coffin. |
Chuboy, I reckon that an ice age is a pretty clear cut and extreme example of climate change.
By the way, unless you want to go and live in a commune in Nimbin, there is NO WAY that you can avoid paying this carbon dioxide tax. As stated earlier in this thread, unlike a GST which is imposed upon the end user, this impost will be layered at every stage of production. By the time you consume your goods and services, you WILL be paying. The most invidious part of this process is that a company may be the most energy efficient producer of goods on the planet, however by the time that you end up buying their product, the price that you pay will include several layers of carbon dioxide tax ie: the transporter, the wholesaler and then the retailer will all add an additional cost to your item as their way of apportioning their cost of this tax. At least a GST is clear cut and only imposed once |
There have been massive climate changes in the past, ever heard of the Ice Age. ;)
This is the wisdom about Dinosaurs. :ok: (QUOTE) Scientists theorize that the extinctions were caused by one or more catastrophic events, such as massive asteroid impact(s), or increased volcanic activity. Several impact craters and massive volcanic activity, such as that in the Deccan traps, have been dated to the approximate time of the extinction event. These geological events may have reduced sunlight and hindered photosynthesis, leading to a massive disruption in Earth's ecology. Many researchers believe the extinction was more gradual, resulting from a combination of the events above and others including sea level and climate changes. |
Now I don't claim to be a scientist or even pretty learned, but if we send our money over to another country for them to plant trees so we can be dirty (one of the worst on the planet I'm told) aren't we going to go broke(r) pretty quick, I would think that spending the money to plant trees here using the boat people (at minimum wage ,which will still be better than being tortured at home) and offsetting our nortyness in our own country makes good sense , but this seems to left out of the debate , and for what it's worth T Abbott may not be the best choice but he is hell ova lot better than the current buggers.
And ,although it's very unpopular to say it ,I don't want to join the HOLY FELLOWSHIP OF CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVERS CHURCH pty ltd , unless they start burning the free thinkers at the stake again !!!! |
If you don't believe in the scientific method, how research is carried out, peer reviewed and elevated to acceptance by the general scientific community, you won't be able to agree with any science in general. The facts of what is happening to our climate are out there. You can view it politically or scientifically. You can even dismiss it on the basis of religious belief. But if you can't understand it, your opinion probably isn't helping sensible debate. As pilots, people who use the results of scientific advancement every day, some of the opinions expressed here seem at odds with the modern reality science has given us. Science isn't about confirming what you want to hear. It is a method of learning.
|
Whether you agree or disagree with climate change. Even if we are causing it, why are we going ahead with the carbon tax when Australia CAN NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE to the big picture. A friend works at Boyne Smelter near Gladstone and alerted me to Riotinto's announcement earlier this week. They're selling a lot of their Aluminium assets, and while they have 'said' that the carbon tax did not contribute to their decision, I'm not so sure. Here's an interesting take on where Australia's industry is being driven. Please read this and throw it into the mix.
Rio's aluminium climate of change | Herald Sun |
Spot on CD.
|
If you don't believe in the scientific method, how research is carried out, peer reviewed and elevated to acceptance by the general scientific community, Like the IPCC "hockey stick" graph? And the fact that IPCC predictions of the global temperature increase for the past decade have been spectacularly wrong? And saying over and over again that increased CO2 levels will raise global temperatures -with no evidence to back it up -because everyone 'knows' that that is how it works. And ALL the carbon offsetting that mankind is going to do over the next century can be negated by just one volcanic eruption. No, I'm not a believer. |
I was being a bit sarcastic, but the things i understand are these,,we're a small country that is relativity under populated, our impact on the global pollution is minimal ,in spite of the political spin we are not the evil mass polluters the labour/green coalition keeps telling us, (FFS have a look at the air in India or China) ,
this government has taken a pretty good financial position and screwed it up quite badly, the ONLY way they could pretend to be a government is by doing "deals" we got screwed, they got to keep their jobs,we got LIED to, regardless of the science we are being governed by a bare faced liar,and some may think thats okay but I don't, I am offended by the religious fervor of the climate change believers ,if I dare to disagree or even want to listen to differing facts I am branded as a fool ,of the mental equivalent of and eggplant. It disgusts me to see a political leader blabber on how she has represented the majority when the facts are to the contrary, kisses and hugs all round, goods news ,WE WILL GET TO WAVE GOODBYE TO MOST OF THEM!!! |
Even if we are causing it, why are we going ahead with the carbon tax when Australia CAN NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE to the big picture. |
The move towards a cleaner planet has to start somewhere. BTW the demise of the dinosaurs took many millions of years, fast in geological time but not an instantaneous event. Unless of course one subscribes to the Biblical version, and then took about 40 days. Cheers BH |
Originally Posted by still single
Like the IPCC "hockey stick" graph?
Saying "liar liar pants on fire" doesn't destroy several decades of scientific evidence. And the fact that IPCC predictions of the global temperature increase for the past decade have been spectacularly wrong? And saying over and over again that increased CO2 levels will raise global temperatures -with no evidence to back it up -because everyone 'knows' that that is how it works. If you want to say that it doesn't or cannot do this, then you're going to need to invent new laws of physics. I await with baited breath........ And ALL the carbon offsetting that mankind is going to do over the next century can be negated by just one volcanic eruption. Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption 1991 (2nd largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century): 42 million tonnes of CO2 (Gerlach, 1996, US Geological Survey) Human/industrial emissions of CO2 in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2 (CO2 Information Analysis Centre, Oak ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy) |
How does the carbon in a volcanic eruption come to be there in the first place?
The difference between natural events like volcanic eruptions and bushfires and human activity is that although carbon is put into the atmosphere it is reabsorbed down the line through carbon sinks like the ocean and plants. When you start taking carbon that was trapped underground (i.e. oil) and releasing it into the atmosphere, compounded with the problem that we are not just not adding extra carbon sinks to compensate, but actively removing them, then you start to get issues when you look at the carbon balance in the end. The earth will be unaffected in the end. But you can't say the same for the life that lives on it. The ocean absorbs carbon dioxide just as it does oxygen and other gases. When you dissolve carbon dioxide in water you get some carbonic acid. There is a complex equilibrium in ocean water that is easily disturbed. I don't want to sound like a doped up hippie but there are more important things we should care about on the planet than the state of the economy. We went on without one for thousands of years. But in a fraction of that time we have, as one example, caused the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef (it's happening as we speak). I shouldn't need to go on about why that's a bad thing, if you don't see why then I'm sorry, but you must have the intelligence of an eggplant as one poster so eloquently suggested. [As it happens, the reef is also highly at risk to changes in the ocean chemistry due to imbalance of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Carbonic acid attacks coral and shells.] You would think that on the whole, someone whose job depended on Australian tourism would care more about looking after the things people come here to see... |
CO2 measurements from historical data (talking millions of years here) suggest we are at the lowest levels of CO2 in global history. Granted it is rising but we have a long way to go to even match the CO2 levels when the dinosaurs existed.
File:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As stated in the notes Ice ages have come and gone with significantly higher CO2 levels than we presently have and the scientist are at a loss as to the mechanisms which caused the global cooling. This all suggests that CO2 is not the direct cause of global temperature, larger factors are involved. There is another graph which plots Co2 levels vs past significant temperature changes and the data suggest CO2 lags the temperature variations suggesting it is not a causal factor but a symptom. There is some data suggesting global vegitation levels vs temperature which seem more credible than CO2 in explaining variations. File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia What caused the peaks and troughs over the last 800,000 years? Cycles of cave-man carbon tax? I beleive global warming is and will happen and in the future it will reverse into global cooling. Man may have an significant input but he can not stop it happening, merely slow it down and by how much is very debatable. In any case more problems for animal life have occured with global cooling than warming, ice ages have by far been the main conrtributor to mass extinction than any other cause. |
Not another CO2 is killing us all or not argument, but the simple fact remains, a carbon TRADING scheme, is NOT a REDUCTION scheme...
as for the hockey stick graph, and its Prediction, just what has happened to the Prediction part up to 2010? and finally, after all the past "non man made" climate change, over far greater temperature differences than the 1 or 2 deg predicted, we are STILL HERE! it seams everyone has forgotten the fact that we, humans, and countless other animal species can ADAPT! its why we are all over the planet from the Ice wastelands to the deserts... just as those bloody black crows are everywhere from the snowfields at -10 deg, to the middle of Lake Eyre when its 40deg+... where the real issue lies is with POLLUTION. now a Pollution reduction scheme i can get behind, carbon is Not and never will be "pollution" as for this tax, well, adapt.. i just sold my fuel burning Subaru WRX, for a Diesel i30 that uses 4.5L/100km... no amount of whinging will change the fact its going to happen.. so use your head, and adapt. |
As has been mentioned above, CO2 dissolves in water to form Carbonic Acid. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more has the chance to dissolve in rain, which leads to rain that is more acidic than it naturally is which can have massive environmental effects all on it's own.
Completely agree with the above post on the CO2 equilibrium in the oceans as well. Once upon on time we all thought that CFC's were harmless, remember. They were thought to be harmless as they were inert at sea level, and odourless and had no real effects. However once we kept pumping these into the atmosphere as by-products we found out that the higher levels of UV light strips Chlorine radicals off the molecules, which then go looking for something to react with, and what do they find? Ozone, they react with that and destroy ozone in the stratosphere. This leads to less UV light being absorbed by this ozone, which is it's primary function (read: the ozone layer), thus allowing more harmful UV light to reach the Earth's surface, which is a BAD thing. Since CFC's have been phased out there has been a recorded drop in their presence in the stratosphere, this is scientific fact, and to ignore this is sheer stupidity. The point I'm trying to make is that we may think that excess CO2 is all well and good now, but sooner or later we may realise it is doing more harm than we first thought. I think that as well as the CO2 tax, something should be done about reducing carbon monoxide and elemental carbon particulate pollution (In most cases this is as simple as getting the air to fuel mixture right in engines, as CO and C are formed when a fuel is burnt in limited oxygen) |
43 inches, you are talking about different scenarios and different causes.
The cycles you refer to occurred over very long periods of time. What is happening now is occurring over an incredibly short period of time, unmatched in the historical record. Not only that, there is no reason to believe it will stop, unlike other CO2 and temperature increases. The reason scientists do not believe it will stop and/or reverse, is simply because we continue to pump greenhouse gas into the atmosphere unabated. It really comes down to very simple laws of physics: you keep adding it, and it will keep warming above and beyond the Earth's ability to naturally absorb it. It's so simple, yet so many people don't get it.
Originally Posted by ultralights
carbon is Not and never will be "pollution"
What comprises "pollution" depends very much on what effects a given substance has on a particular environment under certain circumstances. It doesn't just have to be black soot. |
Saying "liar liar pants on fire" doesn't destroy several decades of scientific evidence. The whole problem with the scientific argument is that they are using 100 years of reliable data to say that the earth temperature is rising over the last 2000. They haven't even established what is actually normal before they can say it is getting hotter. And the global temperature in that time period has gone in both directions and that was with very little human impact. Michael O'Leary sums the whole situation up pretty well: I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the global temperatures will be in 100 years time. ELECTRICITY generators have written to all senators warning that unless the carbon tax laws are amended consumers could face power price rises of 20 per cent in the first year rather than the 10 per cent increase on which the government has calculated its household compensation. The Energy Supply Association is angry the government plans to force immediate payment for forward-dated emission permits, rather than the deferred payment allowed under the former Rudd government's emissions trading scheme. The generators' association delivered its warning as the Treasury secretary, Martin Parkinson, said he and his colleagues might have to ''make a choice with their feet'' should the Coalition win office and direct them to dismantle the carbon trading scheme. Advertisement: Story continues below Also, the Coalition warned yesterday that the government's $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which will help fund green investment, would ''be a honeypot to every white shoe salesman imaginable''. The opposition finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, said the fund would be spent on ''all sorts of wild and wacky proposals that the banks would not touch in a fit''. Mr Robb said he was referring to ''those energy companies who have been critical but who have strong interests in renewables and could potentially be major beneficiaries of these subsidies.'' The opposition would scrap the fund. The Energy Supply Association says the change from deferred payment means some cash-strapped generators will not be able to afford to nail down their carbon price liability by entering into forward contracts with retailers and big industrial companies and instead power prices will rise as they try to manage their financial risk. ''Our members need to begin purchasing forward permits … if they can't afford to they won't be able to lock in a future price for carbon … and that means prices will rise,'' said the association's interim chief executive, Clare Savage. Modelling by the economic consultancy ACIL Tasman found that even a 5 per cent reduction in forward electricity contracts could lead to an additional 10 per cent price rise for households and 15 per cent for big electricity users. ''And that's in a single year,'' Ms Savage said. ''You could have two years in a row of that, which would dwarf the carbon price impact. ''It is the Senate's job to fix obvious errors and in our view there is an obvious error in these bills. We have drafted an amendment and … just 20 words and they could fix this problem.'' Dr Parkinson secretary has worked on three versions of the scheme for three prime ministers, heading the secretariat that drafted John Howard's emissions trading scheme, running Kevin Rudd's Climate Change Department and helping draw up the Gillard government's scheme as Treasury head. Asked in a Senate hearing yesterday whether he would assist a government elected on a policy of rescinding the carbon tax he had helped build, the Treasury secretary said as a public servant he would serve the Australian people through the government of the day. ''Everybody has a choice in front of them,'' he said. ''If they are not prepared to implement the policies the government chooses to pursue, and that government has been democratically elected, then they essentially have to make a choice with their feet.'' On the issue of payment for permits, Ms Savage said the government had ''its head in the sand'' and the Coalition was not advocating the industry's proposed changes either. The government is proposing to auction 15 million forward-dated pollution permits in 2012-13, and the electricity generators say they would like to buy 10 times more than that but do not have the working capital to pay for the impost immediately. The Senate will vote on the carbon tax laws next month. The government is offering loans to generators struggling to find the cash to buy future permits but the generators have criticised the measure because the loans are above commercial rates. Businesses have also been warning about price rises due to the financial risks caused by the Coalition's promise to repeal the carbon tax. The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said yesterday those claims were coming from companies who could profit from carbon pricing. Dr Parkinson said the choice about staying in his job might not be his to make. ''Whether I was secretary of the Treasury would be a matter for the prime minister of the day,'' he said. Read more: Tax flaw: power bills may rise 20% |
The first place to start is carefully reading the Copenhagen Climate Change Convention which will illustrate completely how big a Ponzi Scheme, Scam Climate Change/Global Warming is.
Essentially the aim is to create a World Government controlled by, guess who?, the Burgermiesters of Europe under the guise the of climate change. Said Government to create a huge bureaucracy to run this government, unquestioned and financed by the rest of the world. We are talking multi Billions of dollars here. Next read the Draft Agreement from Cancun where, interestingly, a final agreed document cannot be found. This expensive, farcical gabfest took the result of Copenhagen purely dressing the same policy in unreadable, incomprehensible `Eco Babble’ the aim of which is to make it so difficult and hard to read for the average punter, journalist that they will give up attempting to decipher it. That climate change is, has occurred is not disputed it has been occurring since the beginning of time and there is no doubt is some ways man has contributed to the variations which occur. However, the real question is how should we deal with it? Not wishing to incur the wrath of the moderators by turning to an aviation theme we firstly only need to look at our own industry. In the last Forty (40) year the aviation industry has reduced/improved its Fuel efficiency (reduced carbon dioxide footprint) by 70%! Just two weeks ago Boeing introduced to service the Boeing 787 which is 20% more efficient than its predecessors; Airbus claim their next aircraft directly competing with the 787 will be another 5% more efficient; Airbus are redesigning the A320 NEO aiming for a 15% increase in efficiency as are Boeing with the B737 redesign. Boeing redesigned the 747 aiming for 15% improvement and it appears the Boeing 747-800 entering service will be 20% more efficient than earlier models. Essentially, the industry has met every proposed target set yet is to be taxed unmercifully plus there is additionally an increase in FUEL tax. However, the story does not stop here because more than significant improvements in the carbon footprint of the industry have occurred in many other areas: Navigation; improvements/efficiencies in routing, weather use, etc ATC; improvements in ATC procures, routes, control, etc Improvements, changes in ground handling both of aircraft and servicing the flights The list is long and many. There is also one other very significant area of reduction (and The ALAEA Fed Sec may wish to take note of this and review what he says and tells his members; an area which the unions are extremely reluctant to acknowledge and admit too {and, before you shoot me, I am a card carrying union member}) which is in the use and number of personnel used and employed within the industry. Less Employees required! Then number of people employed per aircraft has been significantly reduced over the period, pilots, cabin crew, engineers, baggage handlers, caterers, counter clerks, clerks, etc, that is in every area of the airline industry. Much has been created by the efficiencies introduced by computerisation enabling increasingly efficient use of personnel and procedures thus there is a need for far less personnel in every area. This search for improvement will continue with further decrease in personnel required and implementation of a Carbon Dioxide Tax will only add to the need to reduce personnel. One small illustration show less staff means less staff travelling to work creating a reduction in CO2 produced, less staff at work means less CO2 produced (they are not there breathing out CO2); one graphic illustration is self check in – the number of check in staff required per pax is significantly reduced. When fully and properly analysed there have been major reductions by this industry which have been completely and totally ignored. Lindsay Fox (over the years self admitted friend of the unions and Labor supporter {which I do not have a problem with}) ; Owner of Fox Transport reports his organisation has reduced its emissions (carbon footprint) by 58% with further improvements in the pipeline. Apart from improvement to his fleet improvements similar the airline industry includes the reduction of personnel, i.e. less staff. When a full analysis is undertaken of what has, is happening right throughout industry and business with Australian and the World, is there have been major reductions in every area contributing to improved energy use with reductions in emissions. Carbon TAX, Carbon trading is naught but a gigantic wealth redistribution scheme. Two final points: World population according to the UN will increase by some 37% by the year 2050 yielding a natural 37% increase in CO2 production just by these new people breathing. Furthermore, each and every one of these new people will require, want the energy, utilities and benefits we have today requiring further increase in emissions to provide this. However, because of the efficient use and production of these from our efforts to this time the amount of emissions to provide this will be significantly less. This 37% plus increase in emissions without any method or policies to control the increase shoots an immediate huge hole in the whole climate change/global warming reduction targets Secondly, let us not forget, here, on each and every one of the `small’ increases which will occur to `our – the taxpayers’ budget is an as yet unaccounted, unmentioned 10% increase i.e. Plus 10% GST! |
Dutchroll,
If you look at the graph i provided earlier which correlates temperature to CO2 over 800,000 years you will see the last 50,000 years there has been a sharp increase in core sample temperature. This suggest that we are indeed in an overall warming phase. There has been a mild plateau for the last 10 thousand years and are mildly cooler then 6000 years ago but its a minute step in the historical cycle. In the past CO2 has followed temperature because of the nature of the environment. There is still no proof it is forcing temperature rise. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.