|
Dark Knight, you articulate many of my thoughts. I wonder if carbon is the new "debt", given the world is now debt saturated (and therefore now longer useful) as a global control mechanism by the elites.
Think about the public debate in the media and consider the following. Hegelian Dialectic The Hegelian Dialectic is a philosophical approach that in principle explains how human beings progress toward a better and more egalitarian condition but in practice provides the power elite with a strategy for controlling society. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was among the most consequential philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. His was heavily influenced by Plato, whose social ideal was rule by an elite composed of philosopher-kings. Though Hegel may not have intended to provide a Platonic methodology for the modern-day control of the many by the few, that is how his insights have been used. The Platonic influence on Hegel was reinforced by the age in which he worked. Hegel accepted that "enlightened" human beings are responsible for their own destiny, and that culture and history are a product of human development, which in turn is driven by reason. Hegel subscribed to the Rousseauian notion that humans are a blank slate, a tabula rasa. In fact, Hegel was a big fan of the French, in cluding the authoritarian leader Napoleon and the French Revolution itself, a bloodbath he described as the realization of more perfect freedom. Today most behavioral scientists see human beings not as purely rational or perfectly elastic but as complex creatures many of whose behaviors are instinctual or biologically programmed. This has not hindered the practical application of Hegel's conceptual tools, however, which have been used as an effective methodology of control for at least the past century. It is necessary to examine the dialectic in a little more detail to understand this. Hegel postulated that each stage of human advance – and the course of history itself – was driven by an argument (thesis), a counterargument (anti-thesis) and finally a synthesis of the two into a more advanced argument – at which point the process restarted. For Hegel, the dialectic could explain everything – art, culture, history, even nature. From our more modern vantage point, Hegel's dialectic may not seem so persuasive as an explanation of all things – and in fact, it probably is not. But for the elite of his day, and for the monetary elite today, the Hegelian dialectic provides tools for the manipulation of society. To move the public from point A to point B, one need only find a spokesperson for a certain argument and position him or her as an authority. That person represents Goalpost One. Another spokesperson is positioned on the other side of the argument, to represent Goalpost Two. Argument A and B can then be used to manipulate a given social discussion. If one wishes, for instance, to promote Idea C, one merely needs to promote the arguments of Goalpost One (that tend to promote Idea C) more effectively than the arguments of Goalpost Two. This forces a slippage of Goalpost Two's position. Thus both Goalpost One and Goalpost Two advance downfield toward Idea C. Eventually, Goalpost Two occupies Goalpost One's original position. The "anti-C" argument now occupies the pro-C position. In this manner whole social conversations are shifted from, say, a debate over market freedom vs. socialism to a debate about the degree of socialism that is desirable. The Hegelian dialectic is a powerful technique for influencing the conversations of cultures and nations, especially if one already controls (owns) much of the important media in which the arguments take place. One can then, as the monetary elite characteristically do, emphasize one argument at the expense of the other, effectively shifting the positions of Goalposts One and Two. |
43Inches,
No-one (which includes climate scientists) disputes that temperature and CO2 don't vary in a very long timescale cycle. But what is not shown on your graph is what the trend is during your last 50,000 year period. If you take the same Vostok ice core data and expand the scale out for those 50,000 years, you will indeed see the "hockey stick", lurking rather ominously right at the end. It's all too easy to crunch the data into an 800,000 year period (which hides the hockey stick very conveniently) and say "See? No problem!" Fortunately there are scientists out there who pour over the data in a lot more detail than that and go "hey....look at this......that's not normal. Why would that be happening?"
Originally Posted by 43Inches
There is still no proof it is forcing temperature rise
NASA Nimbus weather/climate satellites started launching way back in the early 70s (specifically the Nimbus 4 satellite) with infrared spectrometers and other sensitive instruments to look at what radiation is absorbed and emitted by the Earth. This showed and measured how CO2 was absorbing longwave radiation. In the 1990s, the Japanese Space Agency launched the "ADEOS" satellite, which contained even more sensitive instruments including the Interferometric Monitor for Greenhouse Gases (IMG) - a high resolution Fourier transform spectrometer - which specifically measured greenhouse gas distribution and absorption. From measuring the absorption, it's a simple calculation to figure out how much extra energy is being added within the atmosphere, and therefore you can come up with a reasonable estimate of the expected temperature rise. Of course other factors like clouds, aerosols, ocean heat absorption, etc need to be taken into account too, and admittedly some of these factors need a lot of further investigation. But the basic facts of CO2 forcing temperature are not in any genuine doubt whatsoever. You can look this stuff up, if you want. It's just that no-one usually bothers reading it because no-one wants to change their opinion on the topic. And no-one wants to turn their aircon off or trade in their Hummer. Honestly, I'm not certain about what faces us in the future, but I do know that if you look back at relatively modern history, humans will not change their habits until they really start feeling a lot of pain, no matter what the scientific evidence says. |
There is still no proof, in reality the anticipated temperature increase due to CO2 at this level has not happened.
File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There's the last 10 thousand years and yes there has been a bump in the last few decades. But still no absolute proof CO2 is causing warming, not only did CO2 lag temperature in the past in increases, but it remained significantly high when temperatures dropped. Shouldn't high CO2 levels lead to maintained high temperature in that case. |
There is still no proof There is no "proof" that gravity exists, except a theory formulated by Newton, then pretty much discarded and reinvented by Einstein, to explain some curious observations made a long time ago. Plus a whole bunch of evidence including a near 100% certainty (though still not quite 100%) that if you leap off a sheer cliff, you'll be attracted towards the centre of the Earth at an accelerating velocity of about 10 metres per second per second, until your fall is interrupted by something really hard and immovable (which in some cases may be the surface of the Earth itself). There are even theoretical formulas to calculate approximately how much force will be experienced by your skeletal system, and thus how crumpled your bones will become. It is only an estimate though, and individual results may vary. There is still no proof of this though. But I put enough trust in people who have been researching it for a long while, and who are far smarter than I, to ensure that I do not leap off such cliffs to test it out. |
Zealotry
It appears that this whole climate change argument is fast becoming the modern version of the crusades.
Surely if there are dissenting "scientific" theories, we, as a society can have a sensible debate about the issues. However, it seems that if your opinion can be classified as being opposed to that of the true believers, you will then be excluded from the debate because your are a "denier" or some other similarly emotive tag. The true believers keep talking about "The Science" proving this or that, however true scientists will acknowledge that even the best theories are only in vogue until a new, brighter and shinier theory comes along which disproves the previously held versions of the truth (think flat earth etc). I think that history has shown us that blind faith without questioning leads to dangerous times for humanity. Beware Zealots in any shape or form:ok: |
And additional to that the proponents of the climate change theory, have much monetary gain to be had from their theories.
And given that Labor/Greens are not really funding any alternatives for carbon reduction lifestyle makes it all a bit fishy. They don't support public transport nor subsidise it, in fact they want it more expensive. They managed to abolish the solar power rebate, they don't do anything for Solar power/electric/hybrid cars, they want to rid Australia of aviation but they run around telling everyone that the skys falling in and we have to all go broke as a result. If there was really a carbon pollution problem then they should be shifting things around. Discourage people from driving cars. Encourage mass tranport. Encourage rail freight not truck freight. Encourage local farm markets and reduce the food miles. Encourage people to grow their own food. Encourage R & D in electric vehicles. |
Bottom Line - By how many poofteenths of a degree will Australia's carbon tax reduce the planet's temperature?...............I thought so.
As for the lead by example brigade - usually those who have never had a job in the non-public sector and have to exist in the real world - has any one said they will sign up because we have? Last week the UK reduced it's emission reduction target) from 80% by 2050 to 20% by 2050. NZ is winding back the impact of it's scheme. We are definately shooting ourselves in the foot.:* Avaition has, for the longest time, been putting maximum effort in to reducing emissions since carbon based fuel is one of our biggest costs. Do you really think that giving money to pink batts administrators will help reduce emissions better than the industry investing money on its own to get fuel consumption down, buying the latest tech. jets etc. The real agenda from the Greens is to shut us down - except for government jets to take Greens MP's to important talkfests.:ugh: The big problem with single country schemes is everyone worries about competitive advantage (except Julia - since she doesn't know what it is). How about this for a solution: Send Kev galavanting around the world getting everyone he can to sign up to "I will if you will" legislation. Each country would set up "trigger" legislation such that when the two biggest emitters out side the EU (China and the US ) sign up to an ETS of "x" specification then everyone is in.:ok: Alternatively we could take the common sense views of Bjorn Lomborg on mitigation since change is inevitable. Bjørn Lomborg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
Sheesh....again.
There is debate and dissent among climate scientists about the precise mechanisms, the exact details, the precise numbers, plus or minus the precise possible errors, and the precise contribution of the other factors in climate changes. But what there is NOT any (credible) debate about among climate scientists and similar experts is:
It is not worth your time to quibble over details. This is like saying "well heck, gravitational acceleration could really be only 8 metres per second per second, and I'd argue that it may be substantially reduced by a passing asteroid, so we can't really be certain", as you leap into a graceful swan dive over that cliff.
Originally Posted by DLamination
Bottom Line - By how many poofteenths of a degree will Australia's carbon tax reduce the planet's temperature?...............I thought so.
Of course, virtually zero. So therefore, all of us should cease charitable donations immediately. They obviously have no effect. I will ensure I clearly explain this to the Salvo collector next time he comes around to the pub. I'll point him to the argument on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network. In fact, you've made me feel quite embarrassed about my last donation. It was only about $5 in loose change. Which will have a poofteenth of a poofteenth effect on world poverty. Have I made my point? |
Happening or not happening - the Gillard government doesn't have any idea about how to do anything let alone "the greatest challenge of our time"(k.Rudd)
withdrawing the solar panel rebates, when they want more people using them no funding to geothermal no debate on nuclear power withdrawing the rebate for LPG no expenditure or future thought to greener and more efficient public transport we all know it's just another tax and has nothing to do with climate change... So why are you even debating climate change on here. Even if pollution doesn't cause climate change wouldn't it be nice to see a blue sky in the city instead of Brown smog, colourful corals instead of bleached ****. Unfortunately this government only knows red balance sheets and green greed. I'm definately not a hippy... In fact I'm a climate skeptic... But I have no problems with a cleaner environment with balances to a richer economy with innovations and efficiencies through sponsored programs and government GUIDANCE. Not lies and Robin hood economies that rob from one end to pay the other and fiddle with everything until the beaurocratic bs takes over and destroys what remains... Need a real leader but unfortunatly they're all as bad as each other... |
Have I made my point? So therefore, all of us should cease charitable donations immediately. They obviously have no effect. You my friend are a zealot. |
It's taken decades for any measurable difference in ozone concentration to show up. You could have argued back in the 90s that not spraying a can of Mortein had no immediate effect on ozone concentration and thus ceasing the use of CFCs in favour of HFCs was an expensive, pointless exercise (possibly proposed by communist socialist gay Jewish Nazis intent on world domination :E ).
But you would have been wrong. |
Any donation can have a demonstrable and immediate effect on whatever cause that you are donating to. I mean, you are seriously kidding aren't you? Is this a wind-up? You seriously don't get the point of an apparently small principle which is then multiplied by a large factor? Seriously? :confused: Asinine indeed....... |
Out of interest, what are your views on nuclear power? I guess that like the rest of the true believing zealots you would be opposed, even though it has a very low "carbon footprint".
|
I know you're not asking me but I'll put it out there that honestly I think it's realistically where we're going to end up, provided cold fusion or more efficient solar power sources aren't invested.
I'm all for it, especially since we are blessed with plenty of uranium and other nuclear fuels. Just need to get rid of the stigma created by Chernobyl and Fukushima. Despite the fact that we are talking 'ancient Soviet technology' and 'huge earthquake followed by tsunami' respectively. |
I love this debate, guys and gals, but my original concern was introducing a massive new tax, against the wishes of the people, and making this country less competitive against our competitors. Will Asia have a massive carbon tax (largest in the world)? Do we all want to be flying for Asian owned airlines? As more work is outsourced to Asia, this may one day become the truth. I keep mentioning Asia, because we are part of it, and naturally, that is where OS maintenance, crewing bases and employment of new Aussie start ups will occur. In the end, we send alot of coal and gas to countries like China, and in the future, guess which countries, Australian companies will have to buy carbon permits from? They must be thinking that the Australian government has totally lost the plot on this, to make our companies (Airlines) uncompetitive, compared to them, and they will still hold us to ransom, regarding permits. Sorry, I just don't get it!!:confused::ugh:
|
I can't believe the debate raging here with climate skeptics peddling their nonsense of 'world domination', 'capitalist plots' and 'Ponzi schemes'. Scientific ignorance is obviously 'cool' with some contributors to this thread. Opinion masquerading as knowledge is so tedious. For those who wish to understand how scientists really work in the real world, the following link will lead you to a good starting point. Scientists by nature tend to be modest and media shy. If you have an hour to spare; do yourself a favour and watch this talk in full. It isn't propoganda; just an interview with two of those mysterious people who actually do scientific research. They are Australians which makes their words even easier to comprehend.
Video Full Clip - Browse - Big Ideas - ABC TV |
Originally Posted by craigieburn
Out of interest, what are your views on nuclear power? I guess that like the rest of the true believing zealots you would be opposed, even though it has a very low "carbon footprint".
2) I'd just as soon a have you not call me a "true believing zealot", if it's not too much trouble. I just follow the scientific facts, wherever they lead. If that means I'm descended from lesser primates over thousands or millions of years, or have 95+% of my DNA in common with a Chimpanzee, or am spewing massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but need to do something to correct it, then I'm fine with those facts, relatively speaking. Thanks. |
but my original concern was introducing a massive new tax |
@Dutchroll, trying to explain rational arguments for climate change to skeptics is like preaching evolution to fundamentalist christians... They are right and we are wrong and nothing can be said the change that mindset :ugh::ugh::ugh:
It is a good point, technically gravity hasn't been proven at the quantum level, and for all logical purposes we should be able to walk through walls, given that everything is more than 99% empty space. In-fact as an aside, quantum physics has some very loosely based theories, such as the one explaining why nuclei of atoms (Which are made of positive and neutral particles, and a bunch of positive particles that close should act like trying to hold two north poles of a magnet together and fly apart) stays together, as the explanation stands currently there is a force there, a strong one too, so it is called the strong force and that's the extent of the explanation. Apply the same approach to the climate change theory to the theory of gravity, that throws a spanner in the works I suppose the point is that science is based upon a lot of theory and surprisingly little laws. I think it is most logical to side with the supporters of climate change, i.e. some of the most trusted scientists in the country, who base their theories off evidence. Not fact, but it couldn't be much closer to fact. |
I'll just leave this here. You know, for those who browbeat everyone with their interpretation of "science" and the "OMG greenhouse, we're gonna die" worshippers/guilt ridden baby boomers:
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News |
FF, yes, I do indeed think that it will be a massive new tax, because the cost of living will rise, for no apparent gain. I work very hard, as does my wife. Because of that, we are considered high income earners, and by the government's own calculations, will be approximately $2500 WORSE off every year, and remember this thing goes up every year! And guess what? GST will be calculated on any new inflated bill, such as electricity, which may rise by up to 35%!! I did not want this thread to be a debate about the climate, just the pending threat to this countries ability to compete and ensure all of our futures.
|
1. Gravity is a fact, there is one theory and several hypothesis to explain it.
2. Evolution is a fact, there are two theories to explain it. 3. Climate change is fact, there are several HYPOTHESIS to explain it. Remember that natural phenomena are real, the explanations of how they happen are either theories, i.e have supporting evidence; or hypothesis - an explanation that the evidence is still being developed for. All is of no consequence as Aust people now have to get on with the new paradigm. Those that are against it can take heart from the fact that the Durban Conference will see the major "polluders" walk away from any commitment and leave Aust by its self with the carbon penalty on industry. A carbon price mechanism places artificial pressure to force change in both consumers and producers of energy, whether one thinks this is a good or bad idea influences which side of the argument one is on. There appears to be adequate compensation in the Clean Energy Bill to offset consumer disadvantage. It is important that one uses more sources than Andrew Bolt's blog to inform ones self on this debate. Cheers BH |
Typhoon650. This is a 'Press report' as the language used will clearly attest. The finding may be significant or may be 'just another factor'. Any data gathered by NASA will be added to the scientific information available and the current position will be adjusted accordingly. The report was not a scientific conclusion. Your "I'll just leave this here" remark doesn't show that you are capable of 'critical thinking'. One press release and your all done and dusted. Hope your not a pilot with such 'scatter brain' reasoning!
|
AA. Well if we can keep our way of life protected, if not somewhat modified, I expect that your $2500 will be money well spent. I believe European countries are doing roughly the same thing. The USA isn't yet. (What a surprise!) I watched a film called 'Bag It' during the week about plastics in the environment. It was amazing to see how US plastics manufacturers spent millions on lobbying law makers to preempt any restrictions on their trade. Don't wait for the good'ol USA to lead the world when there is a problem. (I'm not anti USA. Just stating how they are not leaders in some fields because of their fraught politics.) We all have to do our own bit. If that means losing a 'competitive edge' for a few moments, then so be it.
|
Originally Posted by Tyhpoon650
I'll just leave this here. You know, for those who browbeat everyone with their interpretation of "science" and the "OMG greenhouse, we're gonna die" worshippers/guilt ridden baby boomers:
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News One of the common problems we see with "fake" sceptics, ie people who think they're genuine sceptics but actually haven't studied the real scientific research like a serious sceptic would, is that they're prone to latching onto things which confirm their political bias but don't stand on any solid scientific ground. Genuine scientists with many years of qualifications and research showed that the paper you highlighted was seriously flawed after it was published. So much so that the editor of the journal was so embarrassed that he subsequently resigned. Naturally this was all part of the global scientific conspiracy to those who are that way inclined. The paper you link to has been variously described as "garbage" and numerous other things. Far from just calling it names, other scientists have demonstrated very fundamental errors in the paper. For example, the "climate model" used by the sceptics hero Dr Roy Spencer has been shown to be grossly over-simplified. Also he was shown to use variable values in his formulae which had no resemblance to earthly reality. It was shown to be badly flawed on both a scientific basis, and a mathematical basis. I don't mean this as an insult, but if you want to consider yourself as a sceptic, you should at least understand the details of what you're looking at. |
Hey, and anyone who latches onto carbon as the reason for global warming has some real issues... the reality is due to other factors global temperature anomalies will climb more than 10 degrees in the next couple of hundred years... now you all have some real issues to contend with. If i'm wrong ok, if not...
|
Go on 43Inches! Decode your post for us! :confused:
|
1. You won't even notice the carbon tax.
2. The sceptics arguments about Global warming mirror Bart Simpson: 3. Unfortunately it is happening and the results will not be good as far as we can tell. The latest evidence is from a research project set up by skeptics! The Berkeley Earth analysis shows 0.911 degrees Centigrade of land warming (+/- 0.042 C) since the 1950s. |
blackhand
A carbon price mechanism places artificial pressure to force change in both consumers and producers of energy Where's the incentive for either side to do anything? Sunfish 1. You won't even notice the carbon tax. |
In what way will the current mechanism do that? As a producer I pay the carbon tax and pass on the extra cost to the consumer. As a consumer, the Government has decided it will compensate me so that I'm not out of pocket so am happy to pay the extra cost. The Clean Energy Bill encompasses more than just the Carbon Price, and perhaps some of those parts of the Bill would assist in clean air technology better than the Carbon Price. In this discussion I am on the side of the planet - but to the anthropogenic influence on the 1.0 degree increase in average temerature in the last 150 years I am not sure. Cheers BH |
Sorry, I'm not sure that answers my question.
Using the mechanism the Government has adopted i.e. tax producers/compensate consumers, how will this promote any change in behaviour by either side? Wishful thinking? |
Using the mechanism the Government has adopted i.e. tax producers/compensate consumers, how will this promote any change in behaviour by either side? Wishful thinking? |
@bekolblockage
De Flieger explanation is correct. Historicaly, commercial imperatives forced the western world to move from horse power to mechanical power; that imperative being the need to increase production. There is no commercial imperative to move to the next energy source, so the government is creating one. The compensation package seems to be a political move, to stop the bogans whinging. Cheers BH |
Nice in theory.
My Chinese colleagues here in HK look at me and laugh and say, "you gweilos are so naive". |
Nice in theory. The consequences of the Durban Conference not increasing or even keeping the Kyoto Protocol limits will leave Australia exposed to influx of goods far cheaper than that can be produced in Aust. Also will impact on Australia's exports, but maybe not primary resources. As for your friends in Honkers, my rent is cheaper, my food is cheaper, and it is cheaper to educate my kids in Aust than Honkers. Naive but happy. |
Bekol (should that be Mr Blockage?), Im curious as to their reaction. Is this the same China that according to that hotbed of green-left/communist propaganda that is The Australian ;) is planning their own emissions trading scheme? Cookies must be enabled | The Australian
While I dont doubt that China produces a large amount of greenhouse gas, they are taking steps to reduce it or at the very least slow the rate of increase of emissions, and investing heavily in renewable energy and their sustainable cities programs. |
I have no argument with the objective.
It is the mechanism that the Government has chosen that will ensure that absolutely zero happens. That is what my Chinese colleagues roll their eyes at. They, probably better than anyone, know what human nature is like when it comes to this typical bob-each-way approach, hoping that someone will do the right thing. |
DutchRoll....thankyou for your concise, well-reasoned and informative contributions to this thread.
I also notice that you have managed to keep your remarks non-emotive and have avoided "playing the man, and not the ball." Pity the same can't be said about the contributor who labelled you a "true believing zealot". As much as it pains me to quote Alan Jones, he was right on the money when he made this comment...(even if he is one of the worst offenders) "name-calling is the province of those who can't sustain an intellectual argument." |
It is the mechanism that the Government has chosen that will ensure that absolutely zero happens. You could be correct in your prediction. Economists are rarely correct in their "predicted" outcomes. Cheers BH |
Jeez wake up sheeple!
It's a con! More tax, and another avenue for the big players to play with the trading scheme, bundle and confuse with another derivatives type scheme and make shed loads of money! We the small people will YET AGAIN be donating more of our meagre salaries to them. I'm all for making the environment cleaner, but the way this is being implemented is crazy! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:42. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.