Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.......
As I said "good on you". But the more you are engaged here the more you expose yourself as being fairly well off financially - you show no regard for those far worse off than you.
There is no doubt that this tax will only give people like you a warm fuzzy feeling and unless the rest of the developed world falls in behind (and they largely are not) then stuff all difference will be made to "climate change".
Like all things there is an "ON/OFF" switch - use it.
GAGS
E86
As I said "good on you". But the more you are engaged here the more you expose yourself as being fairly well off financially - you show no regard for those far worse off than you.
There is no doubt that this tax will only give people like you a warm fuzzy feeling and unless the rest of the developed world falls in behind (and they largely are not) then stuff all difference will be made to "climate change".
Like all things there is an "ON/OFF" switch - use it.
GAGS
E86
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big polluters convinced carbon price is here to stay
Below is an interesting article published in The Age this morning:
Big polluters convinced carbon price is here to stay
Big polluters convinced carbon price is here to stay
Adam Morton
July 5, 2012
EVEN if the carbon price is repealed by a Tony Abbott government, it is likely to be brought back again within a few years, according to a survey of experts who work for the heaviest-polluting companies.
The latest study of expectations about the climate change laws, by the Australian National University's Crawford School of Public Policy, found 40 per cent thought the scheme would be repealed by 2016. But 79 per cent expected a price on carbon to be in force by 2020.
''An overwhelming majority think there will be a carbon price in the medium to long term, but more than half the experts from liable entities think the legislation will be repealed along the way,'' said the economist Frank Jotzo, the author of a report on the survey.
''It really puts the spotlight back on to the uncertainty that is dominating the area.''
The Opposition Leader, Mr Abbott, has given a ''blood pledge'' to repeal the carbon price scheme if elected, either with the support of a defeated Labor party or after a double dissolution election over the issue. The survey received 76 responses from big emitters, the carbon finance and investment sector and other experts.
Dr Jotzo said he did not claim the survey was representative of all companies liable for the tax, but that the respondents were responsible for more than half the emissions covered by the scheme.
Among the big emitting companies directly charged the $23-a-tonne tax, slightly more than half expect it to be rolled back. Big emitters paying the tax were twice as likely to believe the scheme would be repealed as investors.
Other findings included 70 per cent of those surveyed believed the bipartisan emissions target of a 5 per cent cut below 2000 emissions levels by 2020 would still be in place in 2015. A quarter thought the target would become more ambitious. Hardly any thought it would be scrapped.
Three-quarters did not expect the Australian scheme to have linked with the seven-year-old European system by 2018. However, 60 per cent thought Australian businesses would be trading carbon permits with Europeans by 2020.
Seven out of 10 representatives from the big emitters said their companies had already cut emissions in anticipation of the carbon price, and 84 per cent said they expected to make cuts over the next three years.
Dr Jotzo said it suggested big emitters were not holding back in starting to cut emissions, but the extent of the action was likely to be limited by uncertainty over its future.
The ANU report follows a survey by multinational GE and The Economist finding that three-quarters of senior executives polled expected the scheme to survive, but only a third believed the opportunities created by carbon pricing would outweigh the longer-term risks of the scheme.
Big polluters convinced carbon price is here to stay
Big polluters convinced carbon price is here to stay
Adam Morton
July 5, 2012
EVEN if the carbon price is repealed by a Tony Abbott government, it is likely to be brought back again within a few years, according to a survey of experts who work for the heaviest-polluting companies.
The latest study of expectations about the climate change laws, by the Australian National University's Crawford School of Public Policy, found 40 per cent thought the scheme would be repealed by 2016. But 79 per cent expected a price on carbon to be in force by 2020.
''An overwhelming majority think there will be a carbon price in the medium to long term, but more than half the experts from liable entities think the legislation will be repealed along the way,'' said the economist Frank Jotzo, the author of a report on the survey.
''It really puts the spotlight back on to the uncertainty that is dominating the area.''
The Opposition Leader, Mr Abbott, has given a ''blood pledge'' to repeal the carbon price scheme if elected, either with the support of a defeated Labor party or after a double dissolution election over the issue. The survey received 76 responses from big emitters, the carbon finance and investment sector and other experts.
Dr Jotzo said he did not claim the survey was representative of all companies liable for the tax, but that the respondents were responsible for more than half the emissions covered by the scheme.
Among the big emitting companies directly charged the $23-a-tonne tax, slightly more than half expect it to be rolled back. Big emitters paying the tax were twice as likely to believe the scheme would be repealed as investors.
Other findings included 70 per cent of those surveyed believed the bipartisan emissions target of a 5 per cent cut below 2000 emissions levels by 2020 would still be in place in 2015. A quarter thought the target would become more ambitious. Hardly any thought it would be scrapped.
Three-quarters did not expect the Australian scheme to have linked with the seven-year-old European system by 2018. However, 60 per cent thought Australian businesses would be trading carbon permits with Europeans by 2020.
Seven out of 10 representatives from the big emitters said their companies had already cut emissions in anticipation of the carbon price, and 84 per cent said they expected to make cuts over the next three years.
Dr Jotzo said it suggested big emitters were not holding back in starting to cut emissions, but the extent of the action was likely to be limited by uncertainty over its future.
The ANU report follows a survey by multinational GE and The Economist finding that three-quarters of senior executives polled expected the scheme to survive, but only a third believed the opportunities created by carbon pricing would outweigh the longer-term risks of the scheme.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep. Show me an article from a lefty rag and I can show you 10 from the other papers!
The big polluters are quiet because if they are exporters, they wont be paying a carbon tax!
Bbbbbbbzzbzbzbz zbzbz z
The big polluters are quiet because if they are exporters, they wont be paying a carbon tax!
Bbbbbbbzzbzbzbz zbzbz z
Hey Jaba, I think you may have mis-interpreted those maps! If this is one of the ones that you are referring to, with Bolivia and the surrounds with red blotches, its a temperature anomaly map, not an absolute temperature map, charting the differences in temperatures at locations against a long term average for that location.
If the average temperature in QLD goes from 24 degrees to 20 degrees against a long-term average of 22 degrees, it'll get a blue dot - relative cooling. Likewise if the average temperature in Bolivia goes from -5 degrees to - 1 degree and the long term average temperature is -3 degrees, it will get a red dot indicating relative heating. Its not showing - or claiming that - Bolivia is hotter than Queensland. You cannot look at the red dots in Siberia vs the blue dots in Brisbane and say that Siberia is hotter than Brisbane!! (better nightlife maybe, but thats another story!)
Flying Binghi, noone is claiming that the urban heat island effect isnt real, the analysis I linked to was done to compare rural and urban temperature measurements. The aim of that was to determine if the location of some weather stations was skewing the global average temperature measurements. Obviously if a large number of weather stations were in cities that were kept warmer, it would skew the global temperature data. Their conclusions were that - while there is definitely an urban heat island effect - it wasnt causing the observed long-term warming trend at both rural and urban measurement sites. They actually observed a cooling trend at some urban locations too, although not enough to offset the overall warming trend. This is summarised at the end of the Abstract section of the paper:
If the average temperature in QLD goes from 24 degrees to 20 degrees against a long-term average of 22 degrees, it'll get a blue dot - relative cooling. Likewise if the average temperature in Bolivia goes from -5 degrees to - 1 degree and the long term average temperature is -3 degrees, it will get a red dot indicating relative heating. Its not showing - or claiming that - Bolivia is hotter than Queensland. You cannot look at the red dots in Siberia vs the blue dots in Brisbane and say that Siberia is hotter than Brisbane!! (better nightlife maybe, but thats another story!)
Flying Binghi, noone is claiming that the urban heat island effect isnt real, the analysis I linked to was done to compare rural and urban temperature measurements. The aim of that was to determine if the location of some weather stations was skewing the global average temperature measurements. Obviously if a large number of weather stations were in cities that were kept warmer, it would skew the global temperature data. Their conclusions were that - while there is definitely an urban heat island effect - it wasnt causing the observed long-term warming trend at both rural and urban measurement sites. They actually observed a cooling trend at some urban locations too, although not enough to offset the overall warming trend. This is summarised at the end of the Abstract section of the paper:
The small size, and its negative sign, supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change.
Last edited by De_flieger; 6th Jul 2012 at 00:40. Reason: fixing layout and run-on sentence.
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
That is the one, and yes you are correct, its the anomaly, I do not recall saying it way absolute at all, if I did, my bad!
The point is how can you trust the anomaly map when Bolivia's anomaly is based on a data collection that is now 1000km and at sea level, compared to when it was actually in bolivia.
Any bunch of data can make a story to suit the occasion.
In fact the funniest one is take the same data set, the ones the greenies and IPCC use, and put a line of best fit to determine a trend, the greenies always pick the one that suits their argument at the time. I have seen them. They do show a trend up. No argument. That is true.
But hang on a minute. Now take a climate "snap shot" which is 30 years, and you get a flat line, no climb, no descent...nuthin! From 78 to 2008 a 30 year blink of an eye in climate terms, the satellite data showed no change, it went up a bit down a bit but the reference point was the same.
Now if you can cherry pick a time zone like the greenies do I can show you 10 years with an equal cooling slope.
Bottom line is a 10-20 year sample is worthless unless you compare the types of trends to this that happened in the last few thousand or million years. All trends that are logged and agreed as acceptable science by both sides.
When you do that...... You find that we have nothing remarkable happening at all. NOTHING!
So when when the earth had a CO2 o 4500PPM, not 385ppm, did we not have disastrous Dinosaur Made Global Warming?
Pleas answer that thoroughly and answer my last question. About how if CO2 is such a significant climate driver by forcing temperatures up, we see no correlation of anything like the alarmists still preach, and despite ramping up CO2 levels, the temps are not following?
Two simple things.
I am over the digging up data and so on. I have enough people wanting me to help them with piston engine operation education which is far more satisfying, but also takes too much time away from my work.
So unless you can answer those things for me without my help and input, I am out of here.
I do seriously hope you can answer it, because some very smart well researched AGW believers, one even works for me and he just walks away. He can't provide the evidence.
The point is how can you trust the anomaly map when Bolivia's anomaly is based on a data collection that is now 1000km and at sea level, compared to when it was actually in bolivia.
Any bunch of data can make a story to suit the occasion.
In fact the funniest one is take the same data set, the ones the greenies and IPCC use, and put a line of best fit to determine a trend, the greenies always pick the one that suits their argument at the time. I have seen them. They do show a trend up. No argument. That is true.
But hang on a minute. Now take a climate "snap shot" which is 30 years, and you get a flat line, no climb, no descent...nuthin! From 78 to 2008 a 30 year blink of an eye in climate terms, the satellite data showed no change, it went up a bit down a bit but the reference point was the same.
Now if you can cherry pick a time zone like the greenies do I can show you 10 years with an equal cooling slope.
Bottom line is a 10-20 year sample is worthless unless you compare the types of trends to this that happened in the last few thousand or million years. All trends that are logged and agreed as acceptable science by both sides.
When you do that...... You find that we have nothing remarkable happening at all. NOTHING!
So when when the earth had a CO2 o 4500PPM, not 385ppm, did we not have disastrous Dinosaur Made Global Warming?
Pleas answer that thoroughly and answer my last question. About how if CO2 is such a significant climate driver by forcing temperatures up, we see no correlation of anything like the alarmists still preach, and despite ramping up CO2 levels, the temps are not following?
Two simple things.
I am over the digging up data and so on. I have enough people wanting me to help them with piston engine operation education which is far more satisfying, but also takes too much time away from my work.
So unless you can answer those things for me without my help and input, I am out of here.
I do seriously hope you can answer it, because some very smart well researched AGW believers, one even works for me and he just walks away. He can't provide the evidence.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So when the theory is man made co2 is such a significant driver, and co2 continues to climb at a steep rate, how is it even possible to have cooling?
Turn that current off, as most climate scientists agree will happen with a warming at equatorial latitudes for reasons that are too complicated for me but if oceanographers say so.... and Europe gets colder.
That's one of the reasons you don't hear them calling it global warming anymore. Sure, the average temp will be warmer, but not everywhere on the globe will be. Hence they stopped using the term (it gave people a stick to beat them with) and they use climate change instead.
As for Bob Carter, I actually believe he is well meaning and with no particular axe to grind, but that doesn't mean he is correct. A quick Google will find well qualified people who have debunked his theories.
I have no particular dog in this fight. But there are a lot of very well qualified, well meaning, not conflicted scientists who believe this stuff is real. (and some hopelessly conflicted ones - but nowhere near as many), And a very few who don't. That's great, that's how science works, but when non-scientists start sprouting stuff that isn't true on talkback and the like, backed by serious commercial interests, I know who I'll turn to. And it isn't Alan Jones or "Lord" Monckton.
I didn't question the Higgs Boson, and nor did anyone else really, because there is no money involved. Funny that.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since people have used this threat to criticise the economic performance of the government, I'd like to take the opportunity to set things straight.
Australia has the best economic growth and lowest unemployment in the developed world. See attached graph.
The ALP government has managed the economy well in difficult situations and Wayne Swan is the quiet achiever of modern Australian politics.
Australia is probably the best place in the world to live right now.
(Employment)
(Economic growth)
Graph source: Australian Federal Budget 2012/2013 Papers, Canberra
http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/con...erview_may.pdf (page 4)
http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/con...erview_may.pdf
Australia has the best economic growth and lowest unemployment in the developed world. See attached graph.
The ALP government has managed the economy well in difficult situations and Wayne Swan is the quiet achiever of modern Australian politics.
Australia is probably the best place in the world to live right now.
(Employment) (Economic growth)Graph source: Australian Federal Budget 2012/2013 Papers, Canberra
http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/con...erview_may.pdf (page 4)
http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/con...erview_may.pdf
Last edited by peterc005; 6th Jul 2012 at 04:56.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bbbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzz
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
people have used this (sic) threat to criticise the economic performance of the government.
All Bankers, merchants Bankers and Speculators love this scheme. Even Westpac endorse it. What's that tell you?
How goes the "Future fund" BTW?
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 6th Jul 2012 at 07:26.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's late at night and I don't have the reference at hand, but ...
From memory the Australian National Debt/GDP ratio has not exceeded 4% in the last five years.
By comparison the USA Debt/GDP ratio is about 140% and Greece about 300%.
Australian government debt is tiny and very manageable.
The Australian Government debt ratios are probably the best in the world.
I'll check with with definite figures and references on the weekend when I have time.
From memory the Australian National Debt/GDP ratio has not exceeded 4% in the last five years.
By comparison the USA Debt/GDP ratio is about 140% and Greece about 300%.
Australian government debt is tiny and very manageable.
The Australian Government debt ratios are probably the best in the world.
I'll check with with definite figures and references on the weekend when I have time.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter Peter Peter,
as you are an educated man, I am surprised at the purphy you just threw onto the table. I'm starting to think your intellect is begining to overheat a little.
You just attempted to turn a scientific debate into a political one. But I'll take a chomp.
Economy.
We both know that the effects of a previous governments policies/budgeting will carry over into the term of the next government. Good or bad. It sometimes takes several years to play out to the result, unless a government puts in seriously flawed policies.
Trade as an example. When lil jonnie howler got dumped, we had a trade deficet that was diminishing, and became a growing surplus whilst under krudds rule.
Several months ago, that flatlined. And now for the 5th month in a row we have recorded a deficit. Why? come on, you are the educated one, i'm just a dumb year 11 drop out trying to get a better understanding.
Can we blame the high dollar? I don't think so, because when the dollar was 1.05, the trade surplus was still growing.
In your view as an economist, what has caused that turn around?
Jobless rate.
In this country, this is the most falsified piece of data you will ever see!!! And as an economist, you should know that!
Static unemplyment
One of the first things the Gillard government did, was to lower the parameters that dictated if you were employed/unemployed. Now if you work more than 18 hours a week, you are deemed employed, but most likley qualify for part dole. Listing yourself as part time, also removes you from the unemployed numbers if you do more then 9 hours work.
The biggest changer, which was driven under Keating's reign, moved volunteer workers from the unemployed lists to the employed ones. Despite the lack of proper pay.
Dynamic unemployment.
One of the twists the government uses to play the numbers game, is to have 'training courses' set up for the long term unemployed. They enrol them into the courses just before the reporting period. These people are no longer unemployed as they now on TRAINING, and therefore deemed a student. (unemployable)
Hmmm
nice side step there buddy. This guvmint has screwed us for a long time. And I don't have much hope of yabbot repealing it. I only hope at least he comes up with some decent ways to use the dollars.
There are so many other ways the guvmint could have extracted the dollars to fund pollution reduction measures.
The irony is, that my business generates some pretty nasty waste. I, being environmentally aware, ensure that said waste is disposed of by the proper means of the day. That costs money, money I try to pass onto the consumer. The problem is, the more educated the consumer is, the more they object to the charge.
I'd place you in that group in an instant Peter.
You realise, when I do an oil change on your car, every litre of oil I extract and send away for recycling/proper disposal, costs almost as much as each new litre i put in your car. I cannot even add a processing surcharge equalling my trade discount on your new oil, else it would cost more to send each litre away than it would to on sell you a new litre.
This tax, just means the govmints of the world found a way to tax us for air. I am anti conspiracy theory..but not on the carbon tax
as you are an educated man, I am surprised at the purphy you just threw onto the table. I'm starting to think your intellect is begining to overheat a little.
You just attempted to turn a scientific debate into a political one. But I'll take a chomp.
Economy.
We both know that the effects of a previous governments policies/budgeting will carry over into the term of the next government. Good or bad. It sometimes takes several years to play out to the result, unless a government puts in seriously flawed policies.
Trade as an example. When lil jonnie howler got dumped, we had a trade deficet that was diminishing, and became a growing surplus whilst under krudds rule.
Several months ago, that flatlined. And now for the 5th month in a row we have recorded a deficit. Why? come on, you are the educated one, i'm just a dumb year 11 drop out trying to get a better understanding.
Can we blame the high dollar? I don't think so, because when the dollar was 1.05, the trade surplus was still growing.
In your view as an economist, what has caused that turn around?
Jobless rate.
In this country, this is the most falsified piece of data you will ever see!!! And as an economist, you should know that!
Static unemplyment
One of the first things the Gillard government did, was to lower the parameters that dictated if you were employed/unemployed. Now if you work more than 18 hours a week, you are deemed employed, but most likley qualify for part dole. Listing yourself as part time, also removes you from the unemployed numbers if you do more then 9 hours work.
The biggest changer, which was driven under Keating's reign, moved volunteer workers from the unemployed lists to the employed ones. Despite the lack of proper pay.
Dynamic unemployment.
One of the twists the government uses to play the numbers game, is to have 'training courses' set up for the long term unemployed. They enrol them into the courses just before the reporting period. These people are no longer unemployed as they now on TRAINING, and therefore deemed a student. (unemployable)
Hmmm
nice side step there buddy. This guvmint has screwed us for a long time. And I don't have much hope of yabbot repealing it. I only hope at least he comes up with some decent ways to use the dollars.
There are so many other ways the guvmint could have extracted the dollars to fund pollution reduction measures.
The irony is, that my business generates some pretty nasty waste. I, being environmentally aware, ensure that said waste is disposed of by the proper means of the day. That costs money, money I try to pass onto the consumer. The problem is, the more educated the consumer is, the more they object to the charge.
I'd place you in that group in an instant Peter.
You realise, when I do an oil change on your car, every litre of oil I extract and send away for recycling/proper disposal, costs almost as much as each new litre i put in your car. I cannot even add a processing surcharge equalling my trade discount on your new oil, else it would cost more to send each litre away than it would to on sell you a new litre.
This tax, just means the govmints of the world found a way to tax us for air. I am anti conspiracy theory..but not on the carbon tax
Lets have a look-see...
I'm a bit bemused by yer thought proccess ther De_flieger. Why do you think that "with NASA, ExxonMobil and Shell all in agreement" suddenly we got 'enough evidence'..
...ah can see why Towering Q is -
Houston, we have a problem...
April 10, 2012;
"...49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance..."
Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models | Watts Up With That?
De_flieger, do yer really wanna use NASA as yer scientific 'proof' ? shorely yer got somethin better...
If yer do no problemo, we'll go thru yer link point by point...
No, due to our higher costs the money goes to China.
.
via De_flieger #302;
...With NASA, ExxonMobil and Shell all in agreement, is that enough evidence for you?...
...With NASA, ExxonMobil and Shell all in agreement, is that enough evidence for you?...
...ah can see why Towering Q is -April 10, 2012;
"...49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance..."
Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models | Watts Up With That?
De_flieger, do yer really wanna use NASA as yer scientific 'proof' ? shorely yer got somethin better...
If yer do no problemo, we'll go thru yer link point by point...
via De_flieger #303; ...the money goes round in a circle and nothing is gained...
.
Had to check the top of the page to check the topic for this thread....nope definitely 'Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel'!
Peter and co if your serious about debating climate change and Oz politics...why not get serious and put your money where your mouth is...
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4710...debate-51.html
and here...
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4776...litics-80.html
...because this thread has been perpetually drifting (although somewhat more relevant), spare a thought for the fresh food producers and fishmongers..
Industry fumes as refrigerant costs soar - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
So aerial application costs are set to go up with the rise in avgas, refrigerant costs up and there are probably a lot more hidden costs yet to be discovered....Girrard better get the carbon cops onto this one hey!!
Peter and co if your serious about debating climate change and Oz politics...why not get serious and put your money where your mouth is...
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4710...debate-51.html
and here...
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4776...litics-80.html
...because this thread has been perpetually drifting (although somewhat more relevant), spare a thought for the fresh food producers and fishmongers..
Industry fumes as refrigerant costs soar - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
So aerial application costs are set to go up with the rise in avgas, refrigerant costs up and there are probably a lot more hidden costs yet to be discovered....Girrard better get the carbon cops onto this one hey!!
Last edited by Sarcs; 6th Jul 2012 at 23:00.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well worth the read:
http://hockeyschtick.********.com/20...s-climate.html
...but there is no way that it will ever affect Australia in the same way...yeah right!
Click on the link above, then, substitute "blog-spot" for the asterisks and remove the hypen between the "g" and "s". Direct link to Wall Street Journal requires a subscription.
http://hockeyschtick.********.com/20...s-climate.html
...but there is no way that it will ever affect Australia in the same way...yeah right!
Click on the link above, then, substitute "blog-spot" for the asterisks and remove the hypen between the "g" and "s". Direct link to Wall Street Journal requires a subscription.
Last edited by Lodown; 7th Jul 2012 at 02:05.
Flying Binghi - regarding this
maybe I didnt explain it as well as I should. When a number of massive global corporations who have significant financial interests in being allowed to emit as much CO2 or other gases as they can, all express very similar views about the benefits of reducing these emissions, and share these views with the CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, Greenpeace and any number of other environmental activist groups, then it tends to suggest that this view is correct. The oil companies and Greenpeace obviously have different views on the action to be taken, but none of them are actually disputing the science behind climate change.
Chevron Climate Change | Environment | Chevron Australia
BP Climate change | BP
and BHP Billiton BHP Billiton - Environment
all have similar views about the role of greenhouse gas and climate change, although with different views on the best method to approach the problem. These arent radical environmentalists, they are the companies that make fortunes selling us our petrol and aviation fuel. If they had legitimate evidence that showed that CO2 emissions werent involved in climate change, or that climate change wasnt occurring, they could present this evidence and not only take a massive swing at Greenpeace and other organisations that have caused them problems in the past, but make billions of dollars in increased profits through not taking the CO2 emission reduction steps they are taking. Thats what I was getting at there. Do I want to use NASA as my only proof? No, absolutely not, but NASA, the CSIRO, NOAA and numerous other scientific organisations all in broad agreement is more convincing than a bunch of bloggers.
Interesting article Sarcs! Particularly the bit about how the impact of the carbon tax would increase the cost of the refrigerants by $75 per kilo, but suppliers have increased the price by $285 per kilo. Someone's definitely making some money there...
Jaba, I'm not sure where you get the idea that the temperature records for Bolivia are measured somewhere else entirely. I couldnt find a reference anywhere for it, but 30 seconds of googling did turn up todays weather forecast for Bolivia with output from 36 separate stations at various locations around the country recording and reporting data. Obviously there's more than one thermometer in Bolivia, and the La Paz station as a quick (2 clicks from google) example lists a station elevation of 4014 metres, so nowhere near sea level. I suspect this may be an urban legend you've been told.
Ok then. Much as I dislike citing Wikipedia, they have a graph which charts satellite temperature anomaly measurements on the same axis as the measured surface temperatures.
No, I am afraid you dont. One of the very few places I have heard that claim was in an article by Bob Carter. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature has a similar graph showing the surface temperature measurements and they discuss how short-term fluctuations within a few years can give gross positive or negative trend lines depending on where you start and stop measuring, but the overall trend is still up. Here is their image:
That should cover your 1978-2008 period hopefully!
I'm a bit bemused by yer thought proccess ther De_flieger. Why do you think that "with NASA, ExxonMobil and Shell all in agreement" suddenly we got 'enough evidence'..
...ah can see why Towering Q is -
...ah can see why Towering Q is -
Chevron Climate Change | Environment | Chevron Australia
BP Climate change | BP
and BHP Billiton BHP Billiton - Environment
all have similar views about the role of greenhouse gas and climate change, although with different views on the best method to approach the problem. These arent radical environmentalists, they are the companies that make fortunes selling us our petrol and aviation fuel. If they had legitimate evidence that showed that CO2 emissions werent involved in climate change, or that climate change wasnt occurring, they could present this evidence and not only take a massive swing at Greenpeace and other organisations that have caused them problems in the past, but make billions of dollars in increased profits through not taking the CO2 emission reduction steps they are taking. Thats what I was getting at there. Do I want to use NASA as my only proof? No, absolutely not, but NASA, the CSIRO, NOAA and numerous other scientific organisations all in broad agreement is more convincing than a bunch of bloggers.
Interesting article Sarcs! Particularly the bit about how the impact of the carbon tax would increase the cost of the refrigerants by $75 per kilo, but suppliers have increased the price by $285 per kilo. Someone's definitely making some money there...
Jaba, I'm not sure where you get the idea that the temperature records for Bolivia are measured somewhere else entirely. I couldnt find a reference anywhere for it, but 30 seconds of googling did turn up todays weather forecast for Bolivia with output from 36 separate stations at various locations around the country recording and reporting data. Obviously there's more than one thermometer in Bolivia, and the La Paz station as a quick (2 clicks from google) example lists a station elevation of 4014 metres, so nowhere near sea level. I suspect this may be an urban legend you've been told.
But hang on a minute. Now take a climate "snap shot" which is 30 years
and you get a flat line, no climb, no descent...nuthin! From 78 to 2008 a 30 year blink of an eye in climate terms, the satellite data showed no change, it went up a bit down a bit but the reference point was the same.
That should cover your 1978-2008 period hopefully!
Last edited by De_flieger; 7th Jul 2012 at 04:15. Reason: Re-size image for Sarcs ;)
Anyone read Gillard's blog at the Herald Sun with her responses to questions? There was a follow up with more questions and answers by Combet's staff: Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun
(not sure that link will work)
I wasn't impressed with Gillard's answers at all - reading earlier posts here I can see the sort of advice she gets. Combet's bureaucrats must've spent a long time developing their story - I'd like to see their answers to the questions posed to Gillard earlier but that won't happen.
(not sure that link will work)
I wasn't impressed with Gillard's answers at all - reading earlier posts here I can see the sort of advice she gets. Combet's bureaucrats must've spent a long time developing their story - I'd like to see their answers to the questions posed to Gillard earlier but that won't happen.
Particularly the bit about how the impact of the carbon tax would increase the cost of the refrigerants by $75 per kilo, but suppliers have increased the price by $285 per kilo.
On its website it says there are other costs, such as financing, insurance and compliance, which all contribute to the rise, which estimates will cost the industry $270 million.
With all due respect DF can you take your lovely (oversized) graphs and widgets across to jetblast as I now can't fit the thread page on my (energy efficient) electronic notepad!
Personally in my household we've got everything pared back to the max to try and survive the rising cost of living (and that was before the carbon tax). I'm more interested in the present and whether the GA industry can survive further imposts from a totally disenfranchised, illegitimate Labor government!
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
spare a thought for the fresh food producers and fishmongers
Where did Asians come into the discussion.
Whales will be my fault next I suppose.
........Australian fishing. Oh, and Jules wears red mainly, or orange whenever she can
