Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel
Grandpa Aerotart
I really need to get back to my work rather than get sucked into arguments with people over conspiracy theories.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I really need to get back to my work rather than get sucked into arguments with people over conspiracy theories.
Garth Paltridge's view is in a small minority. The accepted view of the CSIRO is what is published. It's not just the CSIRO, it's pretty much the same view of every relevant academic and government body that I've come across.
There is no point in arguing with someone ranting over conspiracy theories, nothing, not reason nor facts will change your view.
The science behind Climate Change and Global Warming is good, solid and peer-reviewed. Not everyone will agree with it, but it is still good science.
Garth Paltridge's view is in a small minority. The accepted view of the CSIRO is what is published. It's not just the CSIRO, it's pretty much the same view of every relevant academic and government body that I've come across.
There is no point in arguing with someone ranting over conspiracy theories, nothing, not reason nor facts will change your view.
The science behind Climate Change and Global Warming is good, solid and peer-reviewed. Not everyone will agree with it, but it is still good science.
With due respect to the CSIRO whom you quoted a few posts back, and have most likely included in your opinion on the AGW case being "Good Science" I would like to offer the following comments.
A pruner who I can't recall his user name, once wrote to me identifying who he was and where he worked and what he did prior to leaving the CSIRO in disgust. Why? They spent more time and resources on studying how to get Government funding than they did on anything else. The method for ensuring funding was to pander to political wins which in this case included the pro AGW position. This guy was not a low level clerk either. If he is reading this I would hope he jumps in here but I suspect he has departed ppruneland.
Good science is about testing hypothesis. All it takes to disprove a hypothesis is despite hundreds or thousands of supporting results or claims is to have one prove otherwise. On that alone the AGW position is at least far from sound, and in my opinion it is debunked!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm happy with the scientific basis behind Global Warming.
Introducing a Carbon Tax is good Public Policy and a responsible thing for the government to do.
This rise of China and India, and their growing energy and resource usage, are costing me ten time more than the Carbon Tax ever will.
Carbon Tax = ~ 5 cents a litre, growing demand for oil from emerging economies probably adds 60 cents a litre.
The real cost of the Carbon Tax is having to listen to people whine about it!
Introducing a Carbon Tax is good Public Policy and a responsible thing for the government to do.
This rise of China and India, and their growing energy and resource usage, are costing me ten time more than the Carbon Tax ever will.
Carbon Tax = ~ 5 cents a litre, growing demand for oil from emerging economies probably adds 60 cents a litre.
The real cost of the Carbon Tax is having to listen to people whine about it!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Once again your logic is beyond me... We should be taxed for our relatively small output of less-polluting emissions while the super sized 'emerging economies' don't get taxed for pollution on a far grander scale with little regard for 'clean emissions.'
Maybe that is because you have completely failed to convince us how the carbon tax is going to actually improve 'climate change' - oh, that's right, not even the scientists you refer to can demonstrably show an environmental result for the tax... There is no hard data that shows how this tax will CHANGE 'climate change' - maybe because it won't... Maybe some people don't like paying a pointless tax that has nothing to do with its alleged title. If you don't mind handing over your money for no good reason, no worries, but please don't think you are 'doing your bit for the environment' when you do so...
The real cost of the Carbon Tax is having to listen to people whine about it!
26th Jun 2012 11:06
26th Jun 2012 11:06
Seasonally Adjusted
I think it would be safe to assume that the majority of posters on this forum will not be voting for the ALP come the next Federal Election. No doubt one of their reasons for doing so will be “the Carbon Tax.”
Now this is where science and politics becomes a little unclear. Are those that are opposed to the Carbon Tax, opposed because of the way it was introduced, or because they don’t believe in AGW?
If they don’t believe in AGW, then who will they vote for? After all, the Coalition has a “Direct Action” policy which, just like the current Govts, “aims to reduce CO2 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 based on 1990 levels." Why would they bother with such a policy if they didn’t believe in the effects of AGW?
However, according to Treasury, direct action initiatives alone will not do the job. They say, “A broad based market mechanism which prices carbon, is the only realistic way of achieving the deep cuts in emissions that are required.”
Some economists go further and say that the Direct Action policy is a significantly more expensive way to reduce emissions, than what could be achieved with a broad based carbon price.
What I find ironic, is the policy stance on both sides of politics.
The conservative side has adopted a policy which is basically a competitive grants program, and requires a large number of public servants to administer effectively…normally something you would expect from the left side of politics.
And yet the Labor led minority Govt has an emissions reduction policy that empowers the free market to drive the changes…..classic right wing ideology.
We certainly live in weird times.
Now this is where science and politics becomes a little unclear. Are those that are opposed to the Carbon Tax, opposed because of the way it was introduced, or because they don’t believe in AGW?
If they don’t believe in AGW, then who will they vote for? After all, the Coalition has a “Direct Action” policy which, just like the current Govts, “aims to reduce CO2 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 based on 1990 levels." Why would they bother with such a policy if they didn’t believe in the effects of AGW?
However, according to Treasury, direct action initiatives alone will not do the job. They say, “A broad based market mechanism which prices carbon, is the only realistic way of achieving the deep cuts in emissions that are required.”
Some economists go further and say that the Direct Action policy is a significantly more expensive way to reduce emissions, than what could be achieved with a broad based carbon price.
What I find ironic, is the policy stance on both sides of politics.
The conservative side has adopted a policy which is basically a competitive grants program, and requires a large number of public servants to administer effectively…normally something you would expect from the left side of politics.
And yet the Labor led minority Govt has an emissions reduction policy that empowers the free market to drive the changes…..classic right wing ideology.
We certainly live in weird times.
This rise of China and India, and their growing energy and resource usage, are costing me ten time more than the Carbon Tax ever will
You then add GST to that.
Remember that GST is a once off point of sale tax, the carbon tax multiplies throughout the economy. ALL inputs into a product are tax, including the retail costs. Carbon Tax also is not controlled by the government. Once it all gets up and running credits will be traded in a controlled market and you are then at the whim of the world bankers.
Watch the CPI go through the roof, business go offshore, and your purchasing power destroyed.
Watch the CPI go through the roof, business go offshore, and your purchasing power destroyed.
The Green's won't be happy until we're all back swinging from trees, living in caves and putting out the welcome mat to all the world's refugees...the funny thing being that Oz may not be as attractive if the Greens have their way!
In eleven years of flying in India and China I have never seen the horizon. Most days in India the TAF for BOM, DEL, MAA, BLR etc have a vis no better than 5,000m There is a generation of kids in DEL that have never seen the stars. All the rivers in China are sewers and toxic chemical dumps.
Come home to Australia, brown paper bags only allowed at Woolies and a carbon tax on the way, "will fix everything". Laughable, but strangely tragic.
Come home to Australia, brown paper bags only allowed at Woolies and a carbon tax on the way, "will fix everything". Laughable, but strangely tragic.
.
peterc005, im still wondering where is this good, solid and peer-reviewed science ? i had another look-see at the CSIRO links yer provided and all ah see to back up the "scientific basis" to the AGW claims is the IPCC..? ...perhaps ah missed sumthin..
Hmmm... Since the IPCC tells the CSIRO what to think, lets see what the IPCC has to say about their own "scientific basis"
Via Rajendra Pachauri, chairman, IPCC...
"...we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry the credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that..."
Dang, sounds good... ah assumes Pachauri is talkin about AGW there as the climate has been changing since the world began.. ...There is a problem. Donna Laframboise and others had a look-see at the 'fully' peer reviewed claims and found out it is an outright lie. Seems there are several THOUSAND grey 'scientific' claims in the IPCC documents 
...and seems a lot of the so-called scientists are actually "activists, 20-something graduate students, people appointed due to their gender or their country, etc..." ..
Donna Laframboise will be doing a speaking tour here in Oz next month -
Australia, I’m Looking Forward to Meeting You « NoFrakkingConsensus
.
VIA peterc005 #227;
I'm happy with the scientific basis behind Global Warming.
Introducing a Carbon Tax is good Public Policy and a responsible thing for the government to do.
This rise of China and India, and their growing energy and resource usage, are costing me ten time more than the Carbon Tax ever will.
Carbon Tax = ~ 5 cents a litre, growing demand for oil from emerging economies probably adds 60 cents a litre.
The real cost of the Carbon Tax is having to listen to people whine about it!
I'm happy with the scientific basis behind Global Warming.
Introducing a Carbon Tax is good Public Policy and a responsible thing for the government to do.
This rise of China and India, and their growing energy and resource usage, are costing me ten time more than the Carbon Tax ever will.
Carbon Tax = ~ 5 cents a litre, growing demand for oil from emerging economies probably adds 60 cents a litre.
The real cost of the Carbon Tax is having to listen to people whine about it!
Hmmm... Since the IPCC tells the CSIRO what to think, lets see what the IPCC has to say about their own "scientific basis"
Via Rajendra Pachauri, chairman, IPCC...
"...we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry the credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that..."
Dang, sounds good... ah assumes Pachauri is talkin about AGW there as the climate has been changing since the world began..
...There is a problem. Donna Laframboise and others had a look-see at the 'fully' peer reviewed claims and found out it is an outright lie. Seems there are several THOUSAND grey 'scientific' claims in the IPCC documents ...and seems a lot of the so-called scientists are actually "activists, 20-something graduate students, people appointed due to their gender or their country, etc..." ..
Donna Laframboise will be doing a speaking tour here in Oz next month -
Australia, I’m Looking Forward to Meeting You « NoFrakkingConsensus
.
I mean really Binghi! Is someone whose primary credential is a degree in women's studies the best you can come up with? Next thing you'll be offering up Monckton or the Heartland Institute.
New Chum
.
Your new to this, aint yer le Pingouin..
.
via le Pingouin;
I mean really Binghi! Is someone whose primary credential is a degree in women's studies the best you can come up with? Next thing you'll be offering up Monckton or the Heartland Institute.
I mean really Binghi! Is someone whose primary credential is a degree in women's studies the best you can come up with? Next thing you'll be offering up Monckton or the Heartland Institute.
.
.
Well then le Pingouin, looks like yer the one to help peterc005 find some "good, solid and peer-reviewed science" to back up the AGW claims that are suposedly the reason for the avgas 'tax'..
.
via le Pingouin;
Ah, I see you've already plead guilty as charged. So she is the best you can bring.
Ah, I see you've already plead guilty as charged. So she is the best you can bring.
.
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
I'm with you Pete:
Sunday I'm taking the family out for a picnic in the new air. It will be a pleasure to breathe clean unadulterated atmosphere and I feel sorry for those poor Folk who are going to be decimated at Wyalla on the same day and the public who have to pay for the Liberal States "imposed" rectification programmes to the infrastructure left so long to go to rot by the previous incumbants and the other poor Sods that will be unimaginally dead come 1JUL12.
I assume this new air will be available free of charge so my aeroplane can breathe it albeit with a (miniscule) charge for AVGAS and electricity.
I am in the final stages of my "experimental" project of installing a hugh wind generator on the turtledeck so once started I will have "green" energy and possibly ""perpetual" energy.
I'll let you know how I get on with that.
Cheers mate.
Introducing a Carbon Tax is good Public Policy and a responsible thing for the government to do
I assume this new air will be available free of charge so my aeroplane can breathe it albeit with a (miniscule) charge for AVGAS and electricity.
I am in the final stages of my "experimental" project of installing a hugh wind generator on the turtledeck so once started I will have "green" energy and possibly ""perpetual" energy.
I'll let you know how I get on with that.
Cheers mate.