Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Save the world

Reply
Created by FlySurfer > 9 months ago, 29 Apr 2012
FlySurfer
NSW, 4453 posts
29 Apr 2012 10:59AM
Thumbs Up

James
WA, 549 posts
29 Apr 2012 9:24AM
Thumbs Up

I knew the tax was based on lies before I watched the vid , found the rest of it interesting though. J

wave knave
306 posts
29 Apr 2012 9:46AM
Thumbs Up

interesting list of 'advisers' in the the galileo movement.
seems legit.

poor relative
WA, 9089 posts
29 Apr 2012 10:09AM
Thumbs Up

I guess the real scientists of the world that devote their life to this will never be heard.

CO2 affects warming. Its a greenhouse gas.
Over the past few millions of years when we go from a glacial into an interglacial an increase in temperature is defined by an increase in both carbon and methane.

i say the guy is talking sh!te.
Its like saying there is already 5 parts hydrochloric acid in water and if you add another part it wont make any difference.

Its also interesting that all the references from the vid are from their own sources.

poor relative
WA, 9089 posts
29 Apr 2012 10:16AM
Thumbs Up

Malcolm Roberts
BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)
Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)
Project Leader (voluntary)
The Galileo Movement (non-profit)


So the guy doesn't have any formal science qualification and is a businessman who has an interest in Mining. Righto his viewpoint won't have any bias.

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
29 Apr 2012 12:23PM
Thumbs Up

grist.org/series/skeptics/ Topics. Flysurfer, how many times are you going to bring up dodgy arguments about GW then just go on to the next bit of dodgy science when someone points out answers to these fake vids. FFS man!

kiteboy dave
QLD, 6525 posts
29 Apr 2012 12:57PM
Thumbs Up

independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/climate-change-denial-with-the-galileo-movement--all-the-usual-suspects,3440
The Movement's panel of advisors are: Andrew Bolt, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and David Flint - his great and good mate Alan Jones is the Movement's "patron".

More rubbish endorsed by Australia's biggest dickhead Alan "cottaging" jones and Australia's 2nd biggest dickhead Andrew "whiny private schoolboy" Bolt.

evlPanda
NSW, 9202 posts
29 Apr 2012 6:17PM
Thumbs Up

I'm sure this will be ignored so here goes an experiment:



Man on video said...

Carbon Dioxide is such a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and our output a fraction of that. It doesn't make any sense that it can have such a huge effect on global warming.

I don't understand it, and neither do you, so it must be wrong!


From the video, proportion of total molecules in atmosphere to CO2 in atmosphere:

85,800 : 33 CO2
85,800 : 1 (man made CO2)

I hate to use analogies, so here is an interesting one.

"A single dose of LSD may be between 100 and 500 micrograms-an amount roughly equal to one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand."

Assuming an 80Kg person

80,000 gm : 0.000001 gm, or
80,000,000,000 : 1

I'm not sure how many football fields that is, but if you were to stack atmospheres on top of each other until you came to the same ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere as LSD in the body you'd have.... (this is kinda fun), and I'm stopping at the top of the Stratosphere, you'd have an atmosphere that stretched ~50,000,000 Km up. That is 1/3 of the way to the sun! (yeah, I'm assuming a 1-dimensional atmosphere, you get my drift)

My point being: small amounts can have enormous effect.

A less artistic comparison would be the amount of ozone in the atmosphere, and I take it nobody is saying the ozone layer is a conspiracy are they? Is it because you can feel the burn as you travel south?

CO2: 0.04%
O3: 0.000007% (max)

So why isn't anybody calling bull**** on ozone? Perhaps because it isn't an inconvenience like CO2 is.

log man said...

grist.org/series/skeptics/ Topics. Flysurfer, how many times are you going to bring up dodgy arguments about GW then just go on to the next bit of dodgy science when someone points out answers to these fake vids. FFS man!


This.

It happens everywhere, but mainly in the US and Australia. You can answer every question, correct every misunderstanding, debunk every myth, again and again and again, and it's like the skeptics just put their hands over their ears and shout "bull****, bull****, bull****". It's very dark ages and if you told people 10 years ago that science in 2012 would be looked upon with mistrust and, irony of ironies, scepticism they'd think ...I don't know what they'd think.

I think that rather than continue down the bullet point argument path, that always ends with people flat-out ignoring the responses because they don't match their own pre-conclusions, we start here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Once you understand the Scientific Method, which is the mother of all scepticism, you may become more receptive to the results of the data and hypotheses collected and formed from our collective observations of Nature.

The most important thing to remember is we are observing nature. That is exactly what science is. Nothing more. If you don't like the observations take it up with nature, not science.


The US National Academy of Sciences said...

"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."


Note the humility. There is no 100% guarantee. "vanishingly small", "very likely". It's never completely settled and it can't be. It's all probability. Ranges (which is why warmists say one thing and another). The Heisenburg principle on a macro scale.

The "sceptics" are absolutely sure, however slim their possibilities. I don't get it.

evlPanda
NSW, 9202 posts
29 Apr 2012 6:33PM
Thumbs Up

...maybe people would be more receptive if and when they accept the future will be windier.

AUS02
TAS, 2000 posts
29 Apr 2012 6:37PM
Thumbs Up

evlPanda said...

I'm sure this will be ignored so here goes an experiment:



Man on video said...

Carbon Dioxide is such a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and our output a fraction of that. It doesn't make any sense that it can have such a huge effect on global warming.

I don't understand it, and neither do you, so it must be wrong!


From the video, proportion of total molecules in atmosphere to CO2 in atmosphere:

85,800 : 33 CO2
85,800 : 1 (man made CO2)

I hate to use analogies, so here is an interesting one.

"A single dose of LSD may be between 100 and 500 micrograms-an amount roughly equal to one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand."

Assuming an 80Kg person

80,000 gm : 0.000001 gm, or
80,000,000,000 : 1

I'm not sure how many football fields that is, but if you were to stack atmospheres on top of each other until you came to the same ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere as LSD in the body you'd have.... (this is kinda fun), and I'm stopping at the top of the Stratosphere, you'd have an atmosphere that stretched ~50,000,000 Km up. That is 1/3 of the way to the sun! (yeah, I'm assuming a 1-dimensional atmosphere, you get my drift)

My point being: small amounts can have enormous effect.

A less artistic comparison would be the amount of ozone in the atmosphere, and I take it nobody is saying the ozone layer is a conspiracy are they? Is it because you can feel the burn as you travel south?

CO2: 0.04%
O3: 0.000007% (max)

So why isn't anybody calling bull**** on ozone? Perhaps because it isn't an inconvenience like CO2 is.

log man said...

grist.org/series/skeptics/ Topics. Flysurfer, how many times are you going to bring up dodgy arguments about GW then just go on to the next bit of dodgy science when someone points out answers to these fake vids. FFS man!


This.

It happens everywhere, but mainly in the US and Australia. You can answer every question, correct every misunderstanding, debunk every myth, again and again and again, and it's like the skeptics just put their hands over their ears and shout "bull****, bull****, bull****". It's very dark ages and if you told people 10 years ago that science in 2012 would be looked upon with mistrust and, irony of ironies, scepticism they'd think ...I don't know what they'd think.

I think that rather than continue down the bullet point argument path, that always ends with people flat-out ignoring the responses because they don't match their own pre-conclusions, we start here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Once you understand the Scientific Method, which is the mother of all scepticism, you may become more receptive to the results of the data and hypotheses collected and formed from our collective observations of Nature.

The most important thing to remember is we are observing nature. That is exactly what science is. Nothing more. If you don't like the observations take it up with nature, not science.


The US National Academy of Sciences said...

"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."


Note the humility. There is no 100% guarantee. "vanishingly small", "very likely". It's never completely settled and it can't be. It's all probability. Ranges (which is why warmists say one thing and another). The Heisenburg principle on a macro scale.

The "sceptics" are absolutely sure, however slim their possibilities. I don't get it.


Well said ...

indogus
QLD, 26 posts
29 Apr 2012 7:14PM
Thumbs Up

kiteboy dave said...

independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/climate-change-denial-with-the-galileo-movement--all-the-usual-suspects,3440
The Movement's panel of advisors are: Andrew Bolt, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and David Flint - his great and good mate Alan Jones is the Movement's "patron".

More rubbish endorsed by Australia's biggest dickhead Alan "cottaging" jones and Australia's 2nd biggest dickhead Andrew "whiny private schoolboy" Bolt.


What evidence do you have that Andrew Bolt is "Australia's 2nd biggest dickhead "? All the data I have suggests he has significantly surpassed AJ in the past 5 years or so. Sure, it was touch and go for a while, but I think the racist scaremongering overtook the deluded cashgrabbing/pseudo advertorialising in about 2007.

Of course, I have been overseas for 8years, so it is difficult to determine the results on this one. Not that those sort of limitations have stopped me from expressing an opinion before, or indeed now.

kiteboy dave
QLD, 6525 posts
29 Apr 2012 7:56PM
Thumbs Up

Hmm you might have a point.

An image search for 'australia's biggest dickhead' did turn up this:


However I don't think AB can truly claim the prize until chopper calls him out on daytime TV.



Unfortunately Chop has but weeks to live, apparently, with the big C hard on his heels.

Kerry-Anne has been axed too which is probably good for her because if she kept looking younger at her recent rates she'd be hitting pubescent soon and/or crossing the threshold from human to cyborg.


pweedas
WA, 4642 posts
29 Apr 2012 6:00PM
Thumbs Up

evlPanda said...

I'm sure this will be ignored so here goes an experiment:



Man on video said...

Carbon Dioxide is such a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and our output a fraction of that. It doesn't make any sense that it can have such a huge effect on global warming.

I don't understand it, and neither do you, so it must be wrong!


From the video, proportion of total molecules in atmosphere to CO2 in atmosphere:

85,800 : 33 CO2
85,800 : 1 (man made CO2)

I hate to use analogies, so here is an interesting one.

"A single dose of LSD may be between 100 and 500 micrograms-an amount roughly equal to one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand."

Assuming an 80Kg person

80,000 gm : 0.000001 gm, or
80,000,000,000 : 1

I'm not sure how many football fields that is, but if you were to stack atmospheres on top of each other until you came to the same ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere as LSD in the body you'd have.... (this is kinda fun), and I'm stopping at the top of the Stratosphere, you'd have an atmosphere that stretched ~50,000,000 Km up. That is 1/3 of the way to the sun! (yeah, I'm assuming a 1-dimensional atmosphere, you get my drift)

My point being: small amounts can have enormous effect.

A less artistic comparison would be the amount of ozone in the atmosphere, and I take it nobody is saying the ozone layer is a conspiracy are they? Is it because you can feel the burn as you travel south?

CO2: 0.04%
O3: 0.000007% (max)

So why isn't anybody calling bull**** on ozone? Perhaps because it isn't an inconvenience like CO2 is.

log man said...

grist.org/series/skeptics/ Topics. Flysurfer, how many times are you going to bring up dodgy arguments about GW then just go on to the next bit of dodgy science when someone points out answers to these fake vids. FFS man!


This.

It happens everywhere, but mainly in the US and Australia. You can answer every question, correct every misunderstanding, debunk every myth, again and again and again, and it's like the skeptics just put their hands over their ears and shout "bull****, bull****, bull****". It's very dark ages and if you told people 10 years ago that science in 2012 would be looked upon with mistrust and, irony of ironies, scepticism they'd think ...I don't know what they'd think.

I think that rather than continue down the bullet point argument path, that always ends with people flat-out ignoring the responses because they don't match their own pre-conclusions, we start here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Once you understand the Scientific Method, which is the mother of all scepticism, you may become more receptive to the results of the data and hypotheses collected and formed from our collective observations of Nature.

The most important thing to remember is we are observing nature. That is exactly what science is. Nothing more. If you don't like the observations take it up with nature, not science.


The US National Academy of Sciences said...

"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."


Note the humility. There is no 100% guarantee. "vanishingly small", "very likely". It's never completely settled and it can't be. It's all probability. Ranges (which is why warmists say one thing and another). The Heisenburg principle on a macro scale.

The "sceptics" are absolutely sure, however slim their possibilities. I don't get it.


Geez Mr Panda,.. so much stuff which sounds convincing but is way off the mark.
Just looking at your comparison to LSD.
There is no LSD normally in the human body so any ammount no matter how tiny has a huge effect.
If we normally had 280 parts per million in our body then an extra 50 parts or more would have little or no effect.


And regarding the quote

The US National Academy of Sciences said...

"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."



That's probably true, but they said "activities" not CO2.
Why attribute the whole effect to CO2?
Why not blame chopping down all the trees we can find?
Why not blame airliners belching out truckloads of exhaust gasses including CO2 at high altitude where it is less likely to be recycled by the normal mechanisms for dealing with the stuff because there is nothing up that high to deal with it?
Why not (a dozen other things) ?
It just seems a bit too convenient to pin all the blame on CO2.
Is it because that way they can make somebody pay for it? Probably.
And that somebody will be the average muck in the street.
That's you and me!
And in the end, after all this trouble, when it turns out in 30 years that it's made no difference at all to the problem then those who blamed CO2 will be long gone and insisting that it wasn't really their idea anyway.

We will stop burning stuff only when there is an alternative method of producing energy,.. not before.
So best we spend a LOT more on looking for what that might be.


chrispychru
QLD, 7932 posts
29 Apr 2012 8:06PM
Thumbs Up

geez you blokes know heaps of smart stuff. i saw so many sentences with big words that i just knew i should be impressed and believe all sides. now were has my tin foiled hat gotten to

rod_bunny
WA, 1089 posts
29 Apr 2012 6:42PM
Thumbs Up

Forget CO2, global warming, whatever, blah blah blah...


Did that dude EVER blink?




Nictating membranes... just putting it out there

evlPanda
NSW, 9202 posts
30 Apr 2012 1:27PM
Thumbs Up

pweedas said...
Geez Mr Panda,.. so much stuff which sounds convincing but is way off the mark.
Just looking at your comparison to LSD.
There is no LSD normally in the human body so any ammount no matter how tiny has a huge effect.
If we normally had 280 parts per million in our body then an extra 50 parts or more would have little or no effect.


After my fun and colourful analogy that promoted the idea that small amounts on any type of body can have a large affect I clearly mentioned ozone and its (maximum) percentage of the atmosphere. Let's not ignore that:

Mr Panda said...
A less artistic comparison would be the amount of ozone in the atmosphere, and I take it nobody is saying the ozone layer is a conspiracy are they? Is it because you can feel the burn as you travel south?

CO2: 0.04%
O3: 0.000007% (max)

So why isn't anybody calling bull**** on ozone? Perhaps because it isn't an inconvenience like CO2 is.


pweedas said...
And regarding the quote


The US National Academy of Sciences said...

“Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”


That's probably true, but they said "activities" not CO2.
Why attribute the whole effect to CO2?
Why not blame chopping down all the trees we can find?


That's an "activity". Clearly.


Why not blame airliners belching out truckloads of exhaust gasses including CO2 at high altitude where it is less likely to be recycled by the normal mechanisms for dealing with the stuff because there is nothing up that high to deal with it?


Also an activity (and I suspect things being the way they are the CO2 from airliners will sink to its natural level; also airliners are actually super efficient when cruising).


Why not (a dozen other things) ?


They've looked at more than a dozen other things. Name a thing and we'll see what the research about it said. You're talking about tens of thousands of people over more than a hundred years now. I know it's hard to believe for some but they have thought about it as much as you or I have. Perhaps even more.


It just seems a bit too convenient to pin all the blame on CO2.


It's very inconvenient actually. Everybody agrees on this. There is no question. That is the actual problem, how inconvenient it all is.


Is it because that way they can make somebody pay for it? Probably.


There are two options. Pay some now, or pay more later.

Ignore the science if you want and listen to the insurance companies or economists. They agree.


And that somebody will be the average muck in the street.
That's you and me!


If you mean the Carbon Tax the money is collected from the top 500 polluters. We get a rebate to compensate (I hate more complexity BTW). End result is the polluter puts up prices, our rebate covers them, polluter looks for more cost effective solutions. Nobody wants to be in that top 500.


And in the end, after all this trouble, when it turns out in 30 years that it's made no difference at all to the problem then those who blamed CO2 will be long gone and insisting that it wasn't really their idea anyway.


And then in the end, after we've ignored it, the cost to the economy will be seriously enormous, and possibly cripple civilisation for centuries. This is about the economy as much as the environment.

It won't go away. This is not new science.
The greenhouse effect of CO2 has been well known since ~150 years ago.


We will stop burning stuff only when there is an alternative method of producing energy,.. not before.
So best we spend a LOT more on looking for what that might be.


That sounds like a collective effort. That would take a collective effort. Business is not us. Business exists to make a profit. That's what they do, mine included. By nature a company is sociopathic, that's why on many levels they work so well. By nature a company won't do what's best for all, they ignore the big, long-term picture. That's why they have not spent a lot more on looking for what that might be. You can't make them... unless.

But I'd like to ignore $$$ and just focus on "Global Warming is, lately, man-made."
That is the driving fact we all need to start from before we begin on which solution is best, because it is only getting worse.

Personally I think we're screwed.

Sailhack
VIC, 5000 posts
30 Apr 2012 2:35PM
Thumbs Up

I found this a very interesting show last week.

www.abc.net.au/qanda/qa-climate-debate/10661338

Unfortunately, the best looker on the program (young 'Anna') also was way out of her depth & kept rattling on about how "we need to 'fix' climate change", when even the scientists know that 'climate change' can't just be 'fixed' as it's out of our hands (not to say we can't try to reduce our footprint).

Clive came across as the multi-billionaire that he is with vested interest in mining...although made very valid points that were supported by most panellists.

poor relative
WA, 9089 posts
30 Apr 2012 12:46PM
Thumbs Up

Nasa have a wicked website with interactive flash things going on.
All a bit scary really

climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

choco
SA, 4037 posts
30 Apr 2012 2:44PM
Thumbs Up

Global warming is real!! every arvo the sun light hits my outside shed light globe and it warms ups dramatically!!!

GreenPat
QLD, 4083 posts
30 Apr 2012 3:19PM
Thumbs Up

evlPanda said...


Once you understand the Scientific Method, which is the mother of all scepticism, you may become more receptive to the results of the data and hypotheses collected and formed from our collective observations of Nature.



pweedas
WA, 4642 posts
30 Apr 2012 1:26PM
Thumbs Up

evlPanda said...
Personally I think we're screwed.



Ahhhh! Finally a logical conclusion! And you're right!

As I said once before on a similar thread, if the problem is CO2 then wherever that's taking us then that's where we are going, because the rest of the undeveloped world will not sit around forever in grass huts and walking when we sit in big houses with plasma tvs and drive around in 2 ton 4wds.
So best we either devise the means for them to get the power to achieve all this by doing something other than burn stuff or start building levy banks to hold back the rising sea levels.
If private industry wont do this, and I fully accept the statement that they wont unless they can see a profit at the end of it, then the government has to step in and do the research to find an alternative energy source.
Not just the Australian government. All governments.
Nuclear power was not made viable by private investment.
It was all government money.
The incentive and primary motivation was that it could be used to blow the excrement out of people it didn't like.
Considering how much money we still spend on doing this I think it's way past time to divert some of this towards developing a new energy source.

If the companies being hit with the carbon tax had some alternative energy source that they could use instead of coal/oil/gas then I would be happy to encourage them to switch to that by whatever means possible, including a carbon tax.
The problem is that at the moment they have nowhere else to get it so whatever the tax is, they have no alternative but to pay up and pass the charge on to the end user. That is,.. you and me.
The fact that compensation for this tax will be given to the lower income groups makes the whole exercise nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme. Almost none of it will be used to actually find a solution to the problem.
This is completely consistent with labor philosophy so I'm not all that surprised that they see this as a good idea. It's not a good idea. It's another labor smoke and mirrors to give the impression that they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing to solve the underlying problem

Soooo, I wouldn't disagree with a carbon tax if the tax raised was used to develop new power alternatives.
A smaller tax with all the money going into new energy research would be a much better idea.
I totally disagree with the tax in it's present form because it achieves nothing.

Cambodge
VIC, 851 posts
30 Apr 2012 5:11PM
Thumbs Up

The key sticking point is that humans are emotional beings. We respond to emotion...Not facts or logic. Which is why you can't truly change someone's mind by logical, factual argument. You have to win their core, primitive emotion.

It's why noone changes their mind after reading this thread.

Humans are far simpler than we think we are. Logic and facts are a thin veneer. We have to win the emotional argument of global warming...But how the f#$% do you do that when the solution is all short-to-mid-term inconvenience, pain and downside?

If we weren't driven by emotion over logic and facts then noone would ever get married!!

pweedas
WA, 4642 posts
30 Apr 2012 4:29PM
Thumbs Up

Cambodge said...
If we weren't driven by emotion over logic and facts then noone would ever get married!!



Another logical conclusion, and you're also right!

evlPanda
NSW, 9202 posts
30 Apr 2012 6:38PM
Thumbs Up

pweedas said...
Soooo, I wouldn't disagree with a carbon tax if the tax raised was used to develop new power alternatives.


http://www.ausindustry.gov.au/programs/CleanTechnology/CleanTechnologyInnovation/Pages/default.aspx


A smaller tax with all the money going into new energy research would be a much better idea.


Agreed.

[b]Cambodge said...
Humans are far simpler than we think we are. Logic and facts are a thin veneer. We have to win the emotional argument of global warming...But how the f#$% do you do that when the solution is all short-to-mid-term inconvenience, pain and downside?


You're soooooooo good lookin'! Have you ever considered that global warming just may be caused by an increase of CO2, a thoroughly proven greenhouse gas known about since the late 19th century? Behind those gorgeous, deep blue eyes have you considered the obvious link between the industrial revolution, CO2 levels and warming of the atmosphere, and ocean? Damn you're soooooo good lookin'!

I miss Seinfeld.

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
30 Apr 2012 7:27PM
Thumbs Up

pweedas said...

evlPanda said...
Personally I think we're screwed.



Ahhhh! Finally a logical conclusion! And you're right!

As I said once before on a similar thread, if the problem is CO2 then wherever that's taking us then that's where we are going, because the rest of the undeveloped world will not sit around forever in grass huts and walking when we sit in big houses with plasma tvs and drive around in 2 ton 4wds.
So best we either devise the means for them to get the power to achieve all this by doing something other than burn stuff or start building levy banks to hold back the rising sea levels.
If private industry wont do this, and I fully accept the statement that they wont unless they can see a profit at the end of it, then the government has to step in and do the research to find an alternative energy source.
Not just the Australian government. All governments.
Nuclear power was not made viable by private investment.
It was all government money.
The incentive and primary motivation was that it could be used to blow the excrement out of people it didn't like.
Considering how much money we still spend on doing this I think it's way past time to divert some of this towards developing a new energy source.

If the companies being hit with the carbon tax had some alternative energy source that they could use instead of coal/oil/gas then I would be happy to encourage them to switch to that by whatever means possible, including a carbon tax.
The problem is that at the moment they have nowhere else to get it so whatever the tax is, they have no alternative but to pay up and pass the charge on to the end user. That is,.. you and me.
The fact that compensation for this tax will be given to the lower income groups makes the whole exercise nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme. Almost none of it will be used to actually find a solution to the problem.
This is completely consistent with labor philosophy so I'm not all that surprised that they see this as a good idea. It's not a good idea. It's another labor smoke and mirrors to give the impression that they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing to solve the underlying problem

Soooo, I wouldn't disagree with a carbon tax if the tax raised was used to develop new power alternatives.
A smaller tax with all the money going into new energy research would be a much better idea.
I totally disagree with the tax in it's present form because it achieves nothing.



Mate, I don't think you get the idea of the carbon tax. By loading the price of Carbon intense manufacture or service or whatever it changes the the cost structure and therefore brings other forms of power generation, manufacture etc into play. For example: ALL forms of solar power generations will suddenly become more economic to buy and use.....win/win....Solar gets a huge kick, coal has to deal with the real costs of high carbon generation and Co2 output is reduced. Consumers decide. This is pure market....with a twist. Lower income people then buy the goods and services that are re balanced with the governments compensation package....but wait there's more....as Panda pointed out, the innovation grants should provide Australian bright sparks with start up cash to really generate some inventive minds. I reckon it's a great solution to a serious problem

Razzonater
2224 posts
30 Apr 2012 5:57PM
Thumbs Up

Trees breathe co2 and turn it into oxygen that is good but we keep chopping them all down and excess co2 that doesn't get absorbed by trees gets stored in the ocean it affects ocean ph which therefore affects everything it can't go into the atmosphere as the atmosphere is saturated with it so it goes in the ocean theph change kills fish and creates dead zones it affects all world currents

petermac33
WA, 6415 posts
30 Apr 2012 6:04PM
Thumbs Up

From song viva la vida,

Never an honest word
that was when I ruled the world.



I used to rule the world
SEAS WOULD RISE WHEN I GAVE THE WORD
Now in the morning, I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
"Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!"

One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles [BELIEFS] stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
Once you go there was never, never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world

It was a wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become

Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king

rickwindt
WA, 245 posts
1 May 2012 12:00AM
Thumbs Up

poor relative said...

Nasa have a wicked website with interactive flash things going on.
All a bit scary really

climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/


that is some scary sh!te

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
1 May 2012 10:44AM
Thumbs Up

So Flysurfer,I take it from your non response that you, a: can't be bothered to reply to some of the responses to your "rice video". b: Have no response to give, or c: don't really care about the science but see the issue as a way to promote an attack on the government policy. Normally, in a discussion like this you might come back with a response conceding that your position has changed and you now support the science.........................waiting

echunda
VIC, 764 posts
1 May 2012 11:57AM
Thumbs Up

evlPanda said...

I'm sure this will be ignored so here goes an experiment:



Man on video said...

Carbon Dioxide is such a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and our output a fraction of that. It doesn't make any sense that it can have such a huge effect on global warming.

I don't understand it, and neither do you, so it must be wrong!


I didn't read all your post, but it seemed legit enough for a green thumbs up!

From the video, proportion of total molecules in atmosphere to CO2 in atmosphere:

85,800 : 33 CO2
85,800 : 1 (man made CO2)

I hate to use analogies, so here is an interesting one.

"A single dose of LSD may be between 100 and 500 micrograms-an amount roughly equal to one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand."

Assuming an 80Kg person

80,000 gm : 0.000001 gm, or
80,000,000,000 : 1

I'm not sure how many football fields that is, but if you were to stack atmospheres on top of each other until you came to the same ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere as LSD in the body you'd have.... (this is kinda fun), and I'm stopping at the top of the Stratosphere, you'd have an atmosphere that stretched ~50,000,000 Km up. That is 1/3 of the way to the sun! (yeah, I'm assuming a 1-dimensional atmosphere, you get my drift)

My point being: small amounts can have enormous effect.

A less artistic comparison would be the amount of ozone in the atmosphere, and I take it nobody is saying the ozone layer is a conspiracy are they? Is it because you can feel the burn as you travel south?

CO2: 0.04%
O3: 0.000007% (max)

So why isn't anybody calling bull**** on ozone? Perhaps because it isn't an inconvenience like CO2 is.

log man said...

grist.org/series/skeptics/ Topics. Flysurfer, how many times are you going to bring up dodgy arguments about GW then just go on to the next bit of dodgy science when someone points out answers to these fake vids. FFS man!


This.

It happens everywhere, but mainly in the US and Australia. You can answer every question, correct every misunderstanding, debunk every myth, again and again and again, and it's like the skeptics just put their hands over their ears and shout "bull****, bull****, bull****". It's very dark ages and if you told people 10 years ago that science in 2012 would be looked upon with mistrust and, irony of ironies, scepticism they'd think ...I don't know what they'd think.

I think that rather than continue down the bullet point argument path, that always ends with people flat-out ignoring the responses because they don't match their own pre-conclusions, we start here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Once you understand the Scientific Method, which is the mother of all scepticism, you may become more receptive to the results of the data and hypotheses collected and formed from our collective observations of Nature.

The most important thing to remember is we are observing nature. That is exactly what science is. Nothing more. If you don't like the observations take it up with nature, not science.


The US National Academy of Sciences said...

"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."


Note the humility. There is no 100% guarantee. "vanishingly small", "very likely". It's never completely settled and it can't be. It's all probability. Ranges (which is why warmists say one thing and another). The Heisenburg principle on a macro scale.

The "sceptics" are absolutely sure, however slim their possibilities. I don't get it.


whippingboy
WA, 1104 posts
1 May 2012 11:44AM
Thumbs Up

Too late suckers.

For the first time on record, the Tasmanian capital managed six days in April at 24C or above.
Hobart's average daytime temperature of 19.6C equalled the record for the month, achieved only once before in 130 years of record-keeping, in 1993.



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Save the world" started by FlySurfer