Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel

[Flying Binghi]

.


De_flieger, ah been waiting to see if yer commented on the Lowdown post... perhaps yer away ?..... anyway, back-to-it..


"...the NASA proof fer AGW..."

via De_flieger #344;
The NASA details are at the link I provided earlier - Climate Change: Evidence They discuss in a lot more detail than there is room for here, the evidence for global warming and why the scientific consensus is that it is due to man-made CO2 emissions. They also cite all the relevant papers, and a lot of them are freely accessible so you can read the methods involved and how they came to their conclusions...

De_flieger, just to speed things up fer this dumb old hill farmer could you post some quotes from the "relevant papers" seems ah caint find them...
I did seen there were this AGW 'proof' shown - "The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro" .... proof of AGW.. Hmmm..

via De_flieger #344;
...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...

De_flieger, do all that mean there is an agreement that the worlds 'average' temperature has been getting warmer since we came out of the mini ice age in the mid 1800's ? That there would be agreement with at least this part of the Reid Bryson comments ? -
"...the temperature going up... ...It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age..."

via De_flieger #344;
...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. "...

De_flieger, what on earth do it matter where the Reid Bryson comments were reported ?

via De_flieger #344;
...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

Well De_flieger, Bolt covers politics and any other subjects that interests him, I mainly follow his AGW coverage. I'm yet to find where Bolt has been proven wrong on his AGW reporting and commentary - perhaps you can show me where he were wrong..






.

[Lodown]

Max doesn't agree with me about much, but she also feels the climate change skeptics have no credibility.

A BSc doesn't hold much credibility either in comparison to the skeptical PhD's and Nobel Prize winners.

Climate Change is an important and interesting area. It needs to be approached using scientific disciplines, relying on referenced and peer-reviewed material.

Absolutely! I don't disagree with you. Unfortunately, we already know from the Climategate emails between the comparative few running the show how the peer review process can be manipulated. How's that Hockey Stick coming these days? It represented a central, peer-reviewed analysis in support of climate change. It has been totally debunked for selecting data and processing with a specific conclusion intended. It took years to access the original data because the scientists involved did not believe in sharing. Considering the impacts, I would think that the alarmists would take great care in getting their facts correct, welcoming criticism and seeking replication. The actions have been extremely insular.

Anecdotes and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories add nothing to this kind of science.

Would that include Al Gore's Sea water Swindle? Or Tim Flannery's drought predictions; predictions of polar bear extinctions; ice free polar regions; the Sydney Opera House awash in ocean; huge methane expulsions from thawed tundra; Maldives disappearing under the waves; Himalayas being glacier free in just 35 years, and extreme weather events? Articles like U.N. Proposes Global Taxes to Fund ‘Global Challenges’ Such As Climate Change do not bolster the UN's cause either. Let's not forget the deliberate alarmist tactics to release catastrophic warnings from questionable science papers to the media long before the peer review process is complete. Typically, the peer review process results in the deletion of the alarmist propaganda some months later, but there is rarely, if ever, an official retraction or correction in the media.

The graph does show a strong correlation between modeled and observed data.

Of course there's a strong correlation between modelled and observed data! It's easy to fit model outputs with past data. There's not much hope if the scientists get that part wrong. (Although if you go back far enough, they completely omitted the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods until it was pointed out. They argued that these were regional variations until evidence indicated they were global.) The validation comes in predictive outcomes and all the models are failing on that score. What has that graph done since 1998? Temperatures have remained stagnant while CO2 concentrations have continued to rise. The alarmists predicted that we'd be on track for unavoidable continually rising temps. It hasn't happened. So what's up? The alarmists said that we might see periods where world temperatures may level off or even decline slightly, at variance with the model predictions, but there was no way these periods would exceed 7 years...then 10 years...then 14 years...then...you get the picture how the goalposts keep moving. The model projections were correct for the first few years, as could be expected. They've now been wrong for longer than they were right. There are not a few astrophysicists currently predicting a cooling trend based on observations of the sun's activities. Unfortunately, (as I understand it) the CO2 effect in the alarmist models is programmed at a magnitude about 20 times greater than changes to the sun's output. Extended periods of cooling world temperatures are just not in the realm of possibilities for the alarmists.

The Greenhouse Gas curve also seems to correlate with rising temperatures since 1950, which is what is expected.

Maybe a little Freudism there? Surely you mean the rising temperatures seem to correlate with the Greenhouse Gas curve? It's important to get that right, otherwise it might be assumed you are supporting some of the skeptical arguments.

Half a century? What is expected? Of course it's expected when it suits your argument. Does it show where man's emissions are to blame? It certainly doesn't correlate over the last 15 years, but let's just ignore that. Must be black carbon, missing deep ocean heat absorption or some other furphy. According to the alarmists, we should also expect an atmospheric hot spot. Despite the billions spent looking for it, it still hasn't materialised.

[peterc005]

Back to the original topic. 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.

• 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.

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.

[eagle 86]

Today's polls and the political comment would indicate there are more against than for and if you don't believe this is an indication of people's dissatisfaction with the co2 tax then it must be because juliar is stuffing up in other areas - and of course we know the lobster has!!
GAGS
E86

[Towering Q]

An interesting article about the Galileo Movement...

"Galileo Movement" Fuels Climate Change Divide in Australia: Scientific American

[Jabawocky]

David Archibald is involved with them too! Well there ya go, another smart guy who refuses to be hood winked.

He went to a really good school too!

[peterc005]

The topic is this thread is the the effect of the Carbon Tax on Australian Aviation.

It should not be used as a platform for anti-global-warming conspiracy theory nutters.

[Flying Binghi]

.

via peterc005;
The topic is this thread is the the effect of the Carbon Tax on Australian Aviation.

The thread title is -

Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel


peterc005, with yer conspiracy theory talk and such yer seem to suffer from a bit of befuddlement there. Perhaps you is a product of the Oz Whackademia system..



(Whackademia, by Richard Hil, is a book about the 'troubled' Oz universtys)







.

[Flying Binghi]

Outright Lie

.


"Gillards Carbon Tax and..."


"Julia Gillard has said there will be no tax on carbon while she leads the federal government.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said last week that if Labor won the election there would be no carbon tax during its three-year term.
Ms Gillard seemed to go a step further yesterday. ''There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,'' she told Network Ten..."


Read more: Gillard rules out imposing carbon tax





.

[Captain Nomad]

The Carbon Tax was a big non-event for Australian aviation.

9th Jul 2012 18:15

If you really are in banking you should know that companies don't necessarily go bankrupt overnight. Besides, this is just the start - we have only been promised increases once it morphs into an ETS with no cap on where the price can go. Plus there will be other exemptions that will be withdrawn and more industries affected with the passing of time.

[Lodown]

It should not be used as a platform for anti-global-warming conspiracy theory nutters.

And who would the conspiracy theory nutters be peterc005? I don't think there's been a conspiracy. I think there's been a lot of snouts in the trough and millions of unknowing people with good intentions encouraged and led by vote-grabbing politicians (and money/fame hungry ex-US politicians) and complicit, irresponsible and lazy sections of media; both of whom should know better, and money-grubbing non-profits, in willingly handing over their money and the money of others for some imaginary, ridiculous and unattainable ideal. And what greater ideal can there be, To Save the Earth!

...but she also feels the climate change skeptics have no credibility.

A consensus! I guess the Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever doesn't have any credibility either when he asks members of the audience to judge for themselves whether climate change is a "pseudoscience" at the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates, 2012.

Lindau Mediatheque

In the video linked above, he outlines how science comes in many forms: real science, pathological science, fraudulent science, junk science, and last on the list, pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is where you begin with a hypothesis which is very appealing to you. And then you only look for things that confirm the hypothesis. You don't look for other things.

Global warming has become a new religion, because you can't discuss it...and that's not right.

Do the quotes have familiar overtones?

BTW, I don't expect you'll watch the video, but others might.

•The cost of fuel will rise by about 4.5 cents a litre, which is about 3%.

In 150 years, the earth's temperature has supposedly gone from an average of 288K to 288.8K. A rise of 0.3%.

NET EFFECT: somewhere between nil and a tiny bit.

[Flying Binghi]

.

via Towering Q #264;
I have yet to complete all 49 pages of the Global Warming Policy Foundation Report number 4, so I cannot tell you what the GWPF would like Australia to do.

Towering Q, how goes the reading? Now that yer probably getting a bit conversant with the IPCC 'discusion' (via the GWPF report) you could probably help De_flieger find some 'proof'..


Towering Q, De_flieger used NASA as a 'proof' though if yer have a look-see yer will note the NASA source of info for the linked page of evidence is...


The following are the key sources of data and informationcontained on this page:
- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers.
-IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Technical Summary.
- NOAA Paleoclimatology.

Climate Change: Evidence



Towering Q, dont yer wonder why NASA scientists and astronauts went to the extraordinary step of sending this letter -

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?





.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Another kick in the nuts for the already neutered hockey stick

Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought - environment - 10 July 2012 - New Scientist

I read something a few days ago where Gavin Schmidt was suggesting that, yes, for 10s millions of years Temperature variability DID in fact PRECEDE CO2 variability - but, since 1800 - a mere 212 years - it doesn't.

And they call US deniers

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Was listening to NewsRadio yesterday and just about fell out of the truck...

World Today..Professorial Debate over Teaching Science

EMILY BOURKE: Do they not have a point though, in that there are some scientific theories, such as those around climate change, that are contested, that are the subject of vigorous scientific debate and their argument about the subjectivity of science is borne out there?

JOHN RICE: We have no problem with people pointing out that science is a contestable thing, and you have only to look at its history to see that there were great and vigorous debates. And in a climate change situation of course we are in a situation where, although some people want to say that the science is settled, clearly with the level of argument that's going on around the place, there are a lot of things which are not settled.
And I think that's all perfectly appropriate. If that's the point that people want to make, they should make it and we're happy for them to make it.

But if they want to say that scientific knowledge in itself is nothing other than a consensus among a group of scientists, that is wrong. That vastly oversimplifies what has happened in order for people to say that science is settled in a whole lot of respects.

warms the heart...sainer people are returning to the argument!

[Towering Q]

Chimbu chuckles...I've just read the Tree Ring article, and noticed this statement, 3rd paragraph from the end....

The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age.

And this from the hockey stick guy...

But others have doubts. Mann argues that Esper's tree-ring measurements come from high latitudes and reflect only summer temperatures. "The implications of this study are vastly overstated by the authors," he says.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I have often noted similar statements in articles like this. I suspect they feel the need to put that in so they're not ostracised by the true believers...or maybe so the magazine publishes the article.

What else would you expect Mann to say? He also insisted against all evidence that there was no MWP. The MWP was deemed 'inconvenient' back in the 90s by the true believers. if it was warmer back then by a significant margin but it was good for mankind/planet (all evidence points to exactly that) then it would be impossible to convince people that another degree or two now will lead to hell on earth.

[Lodown]

I can understand the doubts Towering Q. It's ironic how Mann embraced one set of data from tree rings (the debunked Hockey Stick) that supports his POV, and then readily disses another far more extensive and authoritative study that appears open to criticism and replication. It seems to be sound evidence against the hypothesis of climate change, but give it a little while for other scientists to disect it. At least the information and data appears open to independent analysis and review. That's a change...

Your first quote might be designed to give the alarmists a means for a graceful exit. Who knows?

[Flying Binghi]

.


CO2 - the magical gas...

- Added CO2 makes plants grow better.

- Added CO2 makes more food to feed the world.

- Added CO2 and plants need less water.


...the deserts will bloom. Handy fer a country like Oz that is mainly dry..






.

[Flying Binghi]

.


Hmmm... looks to me like more of the corruption of Oz science is exposed..


Australian Bureau of Meteorology altering temperature data - rewriting Melbourne climate history by eliminating many frosts


http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1653


A job fer Dick Smith perhaps...

Via the book, Dick Smiths Population Crisis...

"...Thirty years ago i was involved in the foremation of a group called the Australian Skeptics. This organisation is dedicated to exposing fraud, silliness and innocent foolishness among the gullible. I have found its work, as we have proceeded to expose both fraudsters and the genuinely deluded... ...to be very revealing about human nature. During my sceptiacal research I have learned that, while there have been a small number charlatens, most are true believers who are genuinly deluded when they make claims that defy natural laws..."






.

[Lodown]

That the same Dick Smith in full support of global warming some years ago?