Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
De flieger, you've linked to papers and articles that indicate the global temperatures have warmed for roughly 150 years up to 1995 or 1998 (accounts vary a little). Very few people deny this. All through its history, the earth has warmed or cooled. There is comparatively very little in its history when the temperatures have remained constant for any period of time. What is missing is proof that man's CO2 emissions are the sole, or even predominant cause for this comparatively recent rise. The fact that temperatures have not risen since 1998 or so while CO2 concentrations have continued to go up, seems to indicate that CO2 is not the cause of rising temps, particularly as some evidence appears to indicate the reverse might be true; that the rising temps might be the reason for much of the CO2 concentration rise.
There is little argument that man is having some affect on the atmosphere. How much affect is the subject of conjecture. You appear to have taken the side of the argument that temperatures have risen for the last 150 years and so has man's industry, so therefore fossil fuels are to blame. Like the alarmist climate scientists, you have chosen to minimise or discount changes to the sun's output, cosmic rays, ocean and air currents, clouds, water vapour, volcanic activity, etc., and have focussed on the CO2.
So the earth has warmed a little. Roughly 0.8 degrees C. Alarmist climate scientists have blamed that entirely on a connection between CO2 (specifically man's component) and those warming temperatures. That's yet to be proven in it's entirety. It is what it is. It's the next step; a set of assumptions and predictions that many people have an issue with. The alarmists use positive feedbacks from clouds and water vapour and a definitive runaway feedback loop from growing CO2 concentrations to predict snowless winters and a catastrophic increase in temperatures. There is simply no evidence of this at all. In fact, as research accumulates, it appears that the catastrophic predictions are no more than the same predictions that we have had from crackpots ever since the dawn of man that the world will end tomorrow. The predictions are simply not holding true. If the predictions (cloaked in the "science" mantra) are not holding true, then that says the assumptions and information that led to those predictions is wrong or incomplete. This is the crux of the matter. However, the alarmists are not to be put off. They continue to fiddle with their models on the basis that the catastrophic prediction holds true. It's the timeframe, or the wrong evidence, or something else that they've overlooked, that is disrupting their predictions. They refuse to consider that maybe they've over-emphasised the affect of CO2. There are many conjectures on why this might be so.
Meanwhile, the Australian government has decided to ignore cautious advice about throwing all their eggs in one basket and has implemented the carbon tax with at best; a dubious outcome, and at worst, hamstringing many businesses and taxpayers for no benefit whatsoever to the environment. This is simply to appease the Greens, who don't really care if the "science" is there yet; they just want to penalise industry and "polluters" who impact on their deluded perception of how the world should be. If the example of California is one to mimic, then the actions of the Australian government will result in reduced CO2 emissions simply because less people can absorb the increased costs, many businesses will move or go broke and economic activity goes backwards.
Renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal) rely heavily on immense government subsidies and cannot provide base load power. It is unlikely at any time in the next 100 years (if ever) that they will despite some of the more optimistic reports. But the subsidies go on. The oil companies don't care. They know full well that any change of regulations benefit them. World oil consumption is rising, despite the flurries of a renewable energy industry that will never seriously threaten their interests. People are and will still buy oil, and natural gas, and coal, and methane clathrates. Changes to regulations help keep the little players out of the big boys' sandpit.
There is little argument that man is having some affect on the atmosphere. How much affect is the subject of conjecture. You appear to have taken the side of the argument that temperatures have risen for the last 150 years and so has man's industry, so therefore fossil fuels are to blame. Like the alarmist climate scientists, you have chosen to minimise or discount changes to the sun's output, cosmic rays, ocean and air currents, clouds, water vapour, volcanic activity, etc., and have focussed on the CO2.
So the earth has warmed a little. Roughly 0.8 degrees C. Alarmist climate scientists have blamed that entirely on a connection between CO2 (specifically man's component) and those warming temperatures. That's yet to be proven in it's entirety. It is what it is. It's the next step; a set of assumptions and predictions that many people have an issue with. The alarmists use positive feedbacks from clouds and water vapour and a definitive runaway feedback loop from growing CO2 concentrations to predict snowless winters and a catastrophic increase in temperatures. There is simply no evidence of this at all. In fact, as research accumulates, it appears that the catastrophic predictions are no more than the same predictions that we have had from crackpots ever since the dawn of man that the world will end tomorrow. The predictions are simply not holding true. If the predictions (cloaked in the "science" mantra) are not holding true, then that says the assumptions and information that led to those predictions is wrong or incomplete. This is the crux of the matter. However, the alarmists are not to be put off. They continue to fiddle with their models on the basis that the catastrophic prediction holds true. It's the timeframe, or the wrong evidence, or something else that they've overlooked, that is disrupting their predictions. They refuse to consider that maybe they've over-emphasised the affect of CO2. There are many conjectures on why this might be so.
Meanwhile, the Australian government has decided to ignore cautious advice about throwing all their eggs in one basket and has implemented the carbon tax with at best; a dubious outcome, and at worst, hamstringing many businesses and taxpayers for no benefit whatsoever to the environment. This is simply to appease the Greens, who don't really care if the "science" is there yet; they just want to penalise industry and "polluters" who impact on their deluded perception of how the world should be. If the example of California is one to mimic, then the actions of the Australian government will result in reduced CO2 emissions simply because less people can absorb the increased costs, many businesses will move or go broke and economic activity goes backwards.
Renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal) rely heavily on immense government subsidies and cannot provide base load power. It is unlikely at any time in the next 100 years (if ever) that they will despite some of the more optimistic reports. But the subsidies go on. The oil companies don't care. They know full well that any change of regulations benefit them. World oil consumption is rising, despite the flurries of a renewable energy industry that will never seriously threaten their interests. People are and will still buy oil, and natural gas, and coal, and methane clathrates. Changes to regulations help keep the little players out of the big boys' sandpit.
Last edited by Lodown; 7th Jul 2012 at 16:29.
a bunch of bloggers...
The internet has given back the POWER TO THE PEOPLE..
(Edit - I hadn't seen the very well written Lodown post prior to my post)
"...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..."
Who cares what the oil companys say. The oil companys know they will be selling all the oil they can pump - if some muppets want to give them even more money to pump CO2 into the ground, then mores the profit (read the oil co's links)
De_flieger, yer either pulling my leg or you've led yer-self clean up the garden path... or perhaps yer trying to avoid addressing the basics - i.e., where is the proof for AGW..
De_flieger since yer want to work with the NASA link perhaps yer can show, this dumb old hill farmer me, the NASA proof fer AGW so we can have a look-see at the claims.
Looking at the basics again - we gots Urban Heat Island (UHI) covered and agreed to. UHI = up to 5-6 degrees. Lets now add temperature history...
Reid Bryson comments -
"...All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd, ...Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”
Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed..."
So who were Reid Bryson (He passed on a couple of years ago)
"Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” ...
Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists..."
WECN May 2007
.
(Edit - I hadn't seen the very well written Lodown post prior to my post)
via De_flieger;
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.
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.
Who cares what the oil companys say. The oil companys know they will be selling all the oil they can pump - if some muppets want to give them even more money to pump CO2 into the ground, then mores the profit (read the oil co's links)
De_flieger, yer either pulling my leg or you've led yer-self clean up the garden path... or perhaps yer trying to avoid addressing the basics - i.e., where is the proof for AGW..
De_flieger since yer want to work with the NASA link perhaps yer can show, this dumb old hill farmer me, the NASA proof fer AGW so we can have a look-see at the claims.
Looking at the basics again - we gots Urban Heat Island (UHI) covered and agreed to. UHI = up to 5-6 degrees. Lets now add temperature history...
Reid Bryson comments -
"...All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd, ...Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”
Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed..."
So who were Reid Bryson (He passed on a couple of years ago)
"Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” ...
Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists..."
WECN May 2007
.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 7th Jul 2012 at 16:14.
.
A quick reminder about the Donna Laframboise speaking tour.
I think somebody said she were just some feminist...
Donna Laframboise is a Canadian feminist, writer, and photographer. She holds a degree in women's studies, and her writing has often supported organizations such as fathers' rights groups. She is the author of The Princess at the Window: A New Gender Morality (1997), a book critical of many aspects of contemporary feminism; and of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert (2011), a book about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She maintains noconsensus.org, a website that argues that there is no scientific consensus on global warming (via wikipedia)
Melbourne and Sydney were sell outs, i think there is still seats for Brisbane and Perth.
book seat via - Institute of Public Affairs Australia
Imagine a REAL ABC TV global warming debate - On the climate realist side we have; Donna Laframboise, Joanne Nova, Jennifer Marohasy, and a token male say, Andrew Bolt...
On the climate hysteria side we have the main hysterics; Tim Flanery, Bob Brown, Milne... who am i kidding. The piss weak climate hysteric crew would be finding all sorts of reasons not to show so it wont happen..
.
A quick reminder about the Donna Laframboise speaking tour.
I think somebody said she were just some feminist...
Donna Laframboise is a Canadian feminist, writer, and photographer. She holds a degree in women's studies, and her writing has often supported organizations such as fathers' rights groups. She is the author of The Princess at the Window: A New Gender Morality (1997), a book critical of many aspects of contemporary feminism; and of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert (2011), a book about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She maintains noconsensus.org, a website that argues that there is no scientific consensus on global warming (via wikipedia)
Melbourne and Sydney were sell outs, i think there is still seats for Brisbane and Perth.
book seat via - Institute of Public Affairs Australia
Imagine a REAL ABC TV global warming debate - On the climate realist side we have; Donna Laframboise, Joanne Nova, Jennifer Marohasy, and a token male say, Andrew Bolt...
On the climate hysteria side we have the main hysterics; Tim Flanery, Bob Brown, Milne... who am i kidding. The piss weak climate hysteric crew would be finding all sorts of reasons not to show so it wont happen..
.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 7th Jul 2012 at 16:44.
De_flieger, yer either pulling my leg or you've led yer-self clean up the garden path... or perhaps yer trying to avoid addressing the basics - i.e., where is the proof for AGW..
De_flieger since yer want to work with the NASA link perhaps yer can show, this dumb old hill farmer me, the NASA proof fer AGW so we can have a look-see at the claims.
De_flieger since yer want to work with the NASA link perhaps yer can show, this dumb old hill farmer me, the NASA proof fer AGW so we can have a look-see at the claims.
There is a section that specifically discusses solar radiance and how it was involved in the Little Ice Age you refer to, in causing the Little Ice Age and when it ended. It also discusses the measured changes in solar radiance over recent years and how there has been a very slight decline in solar radiance in the past 30 years, which should have a cooling effect. Changes to the solar output have been conclusively shown to not be linked to the current warming that is being observed - the solar radiance trend has been a decrease at the same time global temperatures have increased. Regarding volcanic ash distribution, that is another thing that is measured and taken into account - if you look at the graph on the previous page you can see the brown graph that shows volcanic aerosol levels, and it has markings for a couple of key events, major eruptions such as at Mt Pinatubo.
The internet has given back the POWER TO THE PEOPLE..
- It sure has! But at some point you also need to consider the source. Ever read the comments on a YouTube video, and compared them to scientific journals that publish online?? NASA, NOAA and the National Academies Press (publishers for the US National Academy Of Science, among others - heres a book they publish, and make available to read online for free: Advancing the Science of Climate Change ) are just a few of the large number of worldwide scientific organisations in broad agreement on the causes of climate change. In response you are citing a 2007 article published in the Wisconsin Energy Co-operative News....it goes on to discuss the Great Wisconsin Cheese Festival
, so perhaps they arent at the forefront of climatic research. Their website states that they are a magazine "published on behalf of the Wisconsin Electric Cooperative Association by Cooperative Network. Established in 1940, the publication continues to serve Wisconsin’s rural areas, but it also circulates in other parts of the state. "The hysterics, as you describe them, do noone any good - grossly exaggerated claims only damage the causes they are interested in, but at the same time individuals such as Andrew Bolt arent exactly balanced either. If a Labour Government made seatbelts and airbags mandatory he would claim that it was an infringement of individual rights and car crashes toughen you up anyway.
Last edited by De_flieger; 8th Jul 2012 at 06:34.
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
evidence for global warming
cold? (Oh, yes.. it's Winter),The whole thing is a fraud, and the only people who support the notion are those who are strangely addicted to socialism or have a vested interest in share trading.
Saving the planet is a fraud.
Saving General Aviation in Australia is a worthy cause and the case for extreme countermeasures that only support the CAA to decimate it further are not worth counter discussion.
A fool and his money are easily parted. (someone said that).
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The young female receptionist at work believes in fairies, psychics and magical crystals.
Trying to talk facts and logic with her has the same level of futility as arguing with anti-global-warming conspiracy theory nutters. The difference is she is much prettier than the nutters.
Trying to talk facts and logic with her has the same level of futility as arguing with anti-global-warming conspiracy theory nutters. The difference is she is much prettier than the nutters.
A tax based on a lie is a corrupt tax.
.
The reason for a tax is part of the discusion about the tax is it not..
If yer got nothing to contribute peterc005 - Please Leave..
.
via peterc005;
...this thread is about the Carbon Tax and Aviation...
...this thread is about the Carbon Tax and Aviation...
If yer got nothing to contribute peterc005 - Please Leave..
.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Carbon Tax has been here for a week now and it's been a big non-event.
There were a couple of articles in the paper about businesses (Brumbys the first one) using Carbon Tax as an excuse to price gouge customers, but apart from that not a lot.
Here's how the Carbon Tax will affect aviation.
NET EFFECT: somewhere between nil and a tiny bit.
The Carbon Tax was a big non-event for Australian aviation.
There were a couple of articles in the paper about businesses (Brumbys the first one) using Carbon Tax as an excuse to price gouge customers, but apart from that not a lot.
Here's how the Carbon Tax will affect aviation.
- The cost of fuel will rise by about 4.5 cents a litre, which is about 3%.
- The cost of fuel is typically something like 30% of the total cost of aviation.
- The net effect is that Carbon Tax might add, say, 1% to the cost of aviation in Australia.
- Luckily for us, the price of oil-based fuels in Australia has fallen in recent months due to the strong Australian dollar, meaning overall fuel prices have probably fallen.
NET EFFECT: somewhere between nil and a tiny bit.
The Carbon Tax was a big non-event for Australian aviation.
Last edited by peterc005; 9th Jul 2012 at 04:34.
Seasonally Adjusted
On a lighter note....I have recently discovered a few 'climate' apps for the iPhone/iPad. There is one for the alarmists and another for the sceptics. I understand the alarmist version has a few bugs that are yet to be sorted out.
To save me the trouble of going through all the links generously provided can some-one please provide a link to where the scientists have correlated their modeling with data going back a very long time. Being scientists they would naturally see how good their model is in predicting temperatures in the past. A simple graph of actual vs predicted for a simple person. And I expect the usual error bars on the actual data.
I haven't seen anything like that, surprisingly, as I'd expect it to be an inherent part of validating the models.
Of course, as some-one pointed out, that has nought to do with this thread on the carbon tax.
pretty much sums up why there is this tax.
I haven't seen anything like that, surprisingly, as I'd expect it to be an inherent part of validating the models.
Of course, as some-one pointed out, that has nought to do with this thread on the carbon tax.
THE Labor Party thinks that the Greens are "extremists" and "loonies". The Greens think that the Labor Party "doesn't stand for anything" and are "diseased".
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Dave: there are many sources of this information to be found via Google. This one seems to be the easiest to follow and has credible source references:
[IMG]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png[/IMG
File:Climate Change Attribution.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Carbon Tax was inevitable in Australia and is a good measure towards reducing carbon emissions with a view to mitigate global warming. I support the Carbon Tax and other moves to deal with climate change.
Getting back to the original topic. See my post higher up on this page. The Carbon Tax has a negligible effect on Australian aviation.
There is no real financial cost, the real cost is time wasted talking about the Carbon Tax in anonymous internet forms.
[IMG]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png[/IMG
File:Climate Change Attribution.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Carbon Tax was inevitable in Australia and is a good measure towards reducing carbon emissions with a view to mitigate global warming. I support the Carbon Tax and other moves to deal with climate change.
Getting back to the original topic. See my post higher up on this page. The Carbon Tax has a negligible effect on Australian aviation.
There is no real financial cost, the real cost is time wasted talking about the Carbon Tax in anonymous internet forms.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Carbon Tax has been here for a week now and it's been a big non-event
So there has been no indication that these taxes are doing anything at all.
What a FRAUD!
Thanks Peter but its not what I was after. Others have mentioned the last 20 years to add on to that graph (it was done in 2004 so much of the predicted data was there and now there is actual data to be added).
I want to see a correlation going back many many more years.
(That image also shows the cooling effect of sulfate emissions - I saw somewhere about an engineering solution based on that. I wonder what I need to burn in the bipe to get merit points.)
Even Gillard avoided that subject in her recent blog.
I want to see a correlation going back many many more years.
(That image also shows the cooling effect of sulfate emissions - I saw somewhere about an engineering solution based on that. I wonder what I need to burn in the bipe to get merit points.)
good measure towards reducing carbon emissions with a view to mitigate global warming.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Dave - yes, the Sulfate curve is interesting.
My daughter Max now has a BSc (Chem) so I'll ask her about the Sulfate. Speaking with her I understand that the science behind global warming is universally accepted and taught in the Monash Uni Science Faculty.
Max doesn't agree with me about much, but she also feels the climate change skeptics have no credibility.
Climate Change is an important and interesting area. It needs to be approached using scientific disciplines, relying on referenced and peer-reviewed material.
Anecdotes and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories add nothing to this kind of science.
The graph does show a strong correlation between modeled and observed data.
The Greenhouse Gas curve also seems to correlate with rising temperatures since 1950, which is what is expected.
When I get some more time I'll fish around for a good set of data for your question.
My daughter Max now has a BSc (Chem) so I'll ask her about the Sulfate. Speaking with her I understand that the science behind global warming is universally accepted and taught in the Monash Uni Science Faculty.
Max doesn't agree with me about much, but she also feels the climate change skeptics have no credibility.
Climate Change is an important and interesting area. It needs to be approached using scientific disciplines, relying on referenced and peer-reviewed material.
Anecdotes and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories add nothing to this kind of science.
The graph does show a strong correlation between modeled and observed data.
The Greenhouse Gas curve also seems to correlate with rising temperatures since 1950, which is what is expected.
When I get some more time I'll fish around for a good set of data for your question.
When I get some more time I'll fish around for a good set of data for your question.
I do get to make a decision relevant to the carbon tax when next I get to vote.
.
Here's some golden words displaying complete understanding of the Australian economy from one of the prime architects of the Oz carbon tax...
CHRIS UHLMANN: A lot of that money is circulating in the economy. It's creating job, Senator, it's bouncing through to our cities.
BOB BROWN: Yes, Chris, and what we would do is take the advice of the Treasury of this nation and recoup the $145 billion over the next 10 years through a super profits tax. Tony Abbott says...
CHRIS UHLMANN: But you can't recoup it if you shut the industry down.
BOB BROWN: Treasury...
CHRIS UHLMANN: If you shut the coal industry down there won't be that money...
BOB BROWN: I'm sorry...
CHRIS UHLMANN: ..available to you.
BOB BROWN: I'm sorry, Chris, Treasury has no intention to shut the industry down. it tends to- it tends...
CHRIS UHLMANN: No, but you do.
BOB BROWN: No, I'm not.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Didn't you say back in 2007 that we had to kick the coal habit?
BOB BROWN: No, I did not. You're looking at the Murdoch press, where I said back in 2007 we should look at coal exports with a view to phasing them out down the line.
CHRIS UHLMANN: It wasn't the Murdoch press, it was a comment piece that you wrote. So you want to phase out the coal industry?
BOB BROWN: The world is going to do that because it is causing massive economic damage down the line through the impact of climate change.
CHRIS UHLMANN: But the question-
BOB BROWN: No, let me...
CHRIS UHLMANN: The simple question is how do you replace $50 billion worth of export income?
BOB BROWN: You go to renewables over the coming decades and you do that by exporting... Look, Germany did this. It's closed its coal mine. It's closing its nuclear power stations. It's gone into exporting renewables - including using Australian technology...
CHRIS UHLMANN: And those jobs...
BOB BROWN: It's created 350,000 jobs and a multibillion dollar export industry and Australia- China's going to have as many solar panels by 2020 as the whole world has now, using, again, a mission of technologies, including those from Australia while this country is captivated by the old polluting industries which are making climate change worse.
Now, we can do much better than that. This is a resource rich country. We should follow 37 other countries, take some of the money from those resource riches, put it into a sovereign fund and make sure this country can be educated, wealthy and wise into the future.
CHRIS UHLMANN: We're going to have to leave it there, thank you.
7.30 - ABC
.
Here's some golden words displaying complete understanding of the Australian economy from one of the prime architects of the Oz carbon tax...
CHRIS UHLMANN: A lot of that money is circulating in the economy. It's creating job, Senator, it's bouncing through to our cities.
BOB BROWN: Yes, Chris, and what we would do is take the advice of the Treasury of this nation and recoup the $145 billion over the next 10 years through a super profits tax. Tony Abbott says...
CHRIS UHLMANN: But you can't recoup it if you shut the industry down.
BOB BROWN: Treasury...
CHRIS UHLMANN: If you shut the coal industry down there won't be that money...
BOB BROWN: I'm sorry...
CHRIS UHLMANN: ..available to you.
BOB BROWN: I'm sorry, Chris, Treasury has no intention to shut the industry down. it tends to- it tends...
CHRIS UHLMANN: No, but you do.
BOB BROWN: No, I'm not.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Didn't you say back in 2007 that we had to kick the coal habit?
BOB BROWN: No, I did not. You're looking at the Murdoch press, where I said back in 2007 we should look at coal exports with a view to phasing them out down the line.
CHRIS UHLMANN: It wasn't the Murdoch press, it was a comment piece that you wrote. So you want to phase out the coal industry?
BOB BROWN: The world is going to do that because it is causing massive economic damage down the line through the impact of climate change.
CHRIS UHLMANN: But the question-
BOB BROWN: No, let me...
CHRIS UHLMANN: The simple question is how do you replace $50 billion worth of export income?
BOB BROWN: You go to renewables over the coming decades and you do that by exporting... Look, Germany did this. It's closed its coal mine. It's closing its nuclear power stations. It's gone into exporting renewables - including using Australian technology...
CHRIS UHLMANN: And those jobs...
BOB BROWN: It's created 350,000 jobs and a multibillion dollar export industry and Australia- China's going to have as many solar panels by 2020 as the whole world has now, using, again, a mission of technologies, including those from Australia while this country is captivated by the old polluting industries which are making climate change worse.
Now, we can do much better than that. This is a resource rich country. We should follow 37 other countries, take some of the money from those resource riches, put it into a sovereign fund and make sure this country can be educated, wealthy and wise into the future.
CHRIS UHLMANN: We're going to have to leave it there, thank you.
7.30 - ABC
.