Carbon Tax Poll

[jim]

I'm sorry Lance but your post doesn't really support the contention that you understand most of the science. For example the name "climate change" wasn't coined to cover any change in the basic model. It is used to emphasise the fact that general warming can have complex effects in our massively complicated and chaotic (in the scientific sense) climate system, and that can include local cooling among other effects.



Plus are you sure these are all the same scientists? Because I doubt many meteorologists would have expressed a professional opinion about the safety of mobile phones.

[ApolloLXII]

But you drew the parallel, ie, "unless we want to end like up like them". So, you drew them into the discussion in some way as to make us think that their demise is linked to ours if we don't stop carbon dioxide emissions.

I don't see how you can say that I drew them in by inference or anything else. There demise is certainly NOT linked to ours because, as I said previously, scientist and paleontologists are not sure why they disappeared. It is common knowledge that the end of the dinosaurs was not caused by carbon dioxide because, logically, had that been the case, then all other animal life that was co-existing with them at the time (ie. the prototype forms of marsupials and other creatures) would have gone along with them seeing how they all required oxygen to live.

Our demise will not be linked to carbon emissions directly. It will be linked to our environment becoming inhospitable for us to live in, leading to a dwindling of numbers of the human species across the globe and quite possibly into extinction. As I said in a previous post, the notion that we're all going to asphyxiate from carbon dioxide is ridiculous so I don't see how you can say that I said or even inferred that we're going to die in the same manner they did. Perhaps I should have said "We'll end up as dead as a dodo if nothing is done about the amount of pollution." and no, I'm not drawing any parallel about everybody being eaten by rats, cats and dogs either.

[Kym]

This (very long) page encompasses most of my concerns about CO2 hype etc. and why a tax now is a very bad idea.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

I do think we need to minimise pollution and ultimately eliminate the use of non-renewable energy sources, put the poli-hype going on now serves no good purpose.

Also, I have NO faith in Juliar and her co-horts to do anything near the right thing with the collected revenue anyway.

[Lance B]

I'm sorry Lance but your post doesn't really support the contention that you understand most of the science. For example the name "climate change" wasn't coined to cover any change in the basic model. It is used to emphasise the fact that general warming can have complex effects in our massively complicated and chaotic (in the scientific sense) climate system, and that can include local cooling among other effects.

Well, but I do understand and have read widely on the subject and the fact that I believe that the term climate change was coined to cover any change in the basic model has nothing to do with my "understanding the science" and I object to your inference that somehow this belief makes my opinio less credible. A very strange remark to make. The fact still remains that the term climate change was was conveniently used at a later date when it was found that there was not a blanket global warming as they had predicted using their computer models. The fac still remains, the term climate change has only been used recently.

Plus are you sure these are all the same scientists? Because I doubt many meteorologists would have expressed a professional opinion about the safety of mobile phones.

The term "these same scientists" was used in the context that we seem to hold these scientists up as the carriers of all knowledge yet they get it wrong all the time and I am sure you know that, but you are being deliberatley nefarious in your selective understanding of what I write to gain cheap points.

[Lance B]

[QUOTE=junqbox;854565][QUOTE=Lance B;854555][QUOTE=jim;854533]
So, these are the scientists we are supposed to have such faith in!?? Hmmm.

And if the ones you're so vociferously supporting that are wrong, what then?

I am supporting these scientists because having read widely and looked at the data and therefore I have come to the conclusion that climate change is not man made, but a natural phenomenon, so I haven't relied soley on the scientists opinions who also do not believe in man made climate change. The scientists who you are so "vociferously supporting" who believe in climate change are adding 1 and 1 and arriving at 3 top support their conclusions.

[Lance B]

I don't see how you can say that I drew them in by inference or anything else. There demise is certainly NOT linked to ours because, as I said previously, scientist and paleontologists are not sure why they disappeared. It is common knowledge that the end of the dinosaurs was not caused by carbon dioxide because, logically, had that been the case, then all other animal life that was co-existing with them at the time (ie. the prototype forms of marsupials and other creatures) would have gone along with them seeing how they all required oxygen to live.

Our demise will not be linked to carbon emissions directly. It will be linked to our environment becoming inhospitable for us to live in, leading to a dwindling of numbers of the human species across the globe and quite possibly into extinction. As I said in a previous post, the notion that we're all going to asphyxiate from carbon dioxide is ridiculous so I don't see how you can say that I said or even inferred that we're going to die in the same manner they did. Perhaps I should have said "We'll end up as dead as a dodo if nothing is done about the amount of pollution." and no, I'm not drawing any parallel about everybody being eaten by rats, cats and dogs either.

Why did you bring dinosaurs into the discussion if they didn't die of self inflicted carbon dioxide caused global warming or any other self inflicted demise? It is completely irrelevent to the discussion.

[kiwi]

I agree, dinosaurs, dodos, fondue sets, all victims of changing times not changing climate

[Lance B]

I agree, dinosaurs, dodos, fondue sets, all victims of changing times not changing climate

Haha! well put.

[junqbox]

[QUOTE=Lance B;854618][QUOTE=junqbox;854565][QUOTE=Lance B;854555]

So, these are the scientists we are supposed to have such faith in!?? Hmmm.

I am supporting these scientists because having read widely and looked at the data and therefore I have come to the conclusion that climate change is not man made, but a natural phenomenon, so I haven't relied soley on the scientists opinions who also do not believe in man made climate change. The scientists who you are so "vociferously supporting" who believe in climate change are adding 1 and 1 and arriving at 3 top support their conclusions.

Then you have completely misunderstood what I wrote above and what those scientists claim, ie- the current activities of humankind is CONTRIBUTING to the PACE of climate change. They do not state that climate change is only happening because of the activities of humankind only.
By mis-representing the common claim of those scientists who make the case for change because of our (collective mankind) influence perhaps you are the one going for cheap points instead.

[mudman]

as stated above, i don't think carbon is the issue.
i also think that a major part of what is happening is a natural climate phase.
i also think that the pollutants we put into the atmosphere are probably adding to the 'problem'.
so, any action that can decrease/remove these man made pollutants can only be a positive influence on our climate and quality of life.

[terry.langham]

What astounds me about this issue is that you have one side that can't make up their mind on whether climate change is real or if humans contribute to it, and on the other side anybody who questions their CT Policy is labeled a denialer. Yet there would be very few politicians or people that would argue moving to renewable and greener energy sources isn't necessary or at least a very good idea. Most seem to be caught up in arguing semantics rather then productively debating the best course of action, which I don't think the policies of either side come close to.

Juliar seem hellbent on wealth redistribution and a step towards the casteless fantasy world of the Greens, and won't tell us exactly how that will change the climate. MissedahRabbot is to busy trying to dig himself out the hole he has got himself in, and out of, then in again, then out, then in...........

[WhoDo]

... those scientists claim, ie- the current activities of humankind is CONTRIBUTING to the PACE of climate change. They do not state that climate change is only happening because of the activities of humankind only.

Agreed, and that's the sort of double-speak that creates panic because it can so easily be misunderstood by those not fluent in the language (of double-speak). I am very, VERY big compared to many others - 170+kg in fact - so it might be argued that I am CONTRIBUTING to the pressure on the earth's crust. Somehow I don't think it is a significant enough contribution to make any perceivable difference. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be doing my best to lose weight, but for the RIGHT reasons and without expecting anyone else to fund the effort.

[jim]

Well, but I do understand and have read widely on the subject and the fact that I believe that the term climate change was coined to cover any change in the basic model has nothing to do with my "understanding the science" and I object to your inference that somehow this belief makes my opinio less credible. A very strange remark to make. The fact still remains that the term climate change was was conveniently used at a later date when it was found that there was not a blanket global warming as they had predicted using their computer models. The fac still remains, the term climate change has only been used recently.

What do you mean by blanket global warming? If you mean general warming across the globe, this is still predicted. If you mean warming everywhere, well I'm not aware of any peer reviewed papers that have predicted this. Even the earliest attempts to model the global climate seem far more sophisticated than you suggest, with uncertainty about such things as oceanic absorption, variables affecting the reflectivity of clouds, and a bunch of other stuff leading to fairly tentative predictions initially. Even when climate scientists started to issue fairly confident warnings in the early '80s, I see no suggestion of uniform or consistent warming. See for example Manabe and Wetherald's 1980 paper On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting from an Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere: "[The model's response to raised CO2 was] Far from uniform geographically."

So, while I admit to not being particularly well read in the subject, I see nothing to suggest that any idea of consistent or uniform warming was ever predicted by serious scholars. Can you tell me what is the source of your claim that blanket warming was predicted by computer modelling?

[PH005]

An interesting debate on the tele last night on this very topic. One interesting point made by the guest scientist ( American, who works for WPCC ), was that it is the job of the scientists to convey the " Risk Factor ". Depending on how it is looked at, the risk factor can be anything between 10-90 % chance that a change is definately coming. Peoples views on risk vary in every different situation and topic. So his idea, and I could kinda see his logic, is that scientists from both sides must come to the same % of risk before people will take anything seriously. I hope some of you caught the debate. It was very enlightening.

[ApolloLXII]

Why did you bring dinosaurs into the discussion if they didn't die of self inflicted carbon dioxide caused global warming or any other self inflicted demise? It is completely irrelevent to the discussion.

Dinosaurs once ruled the world (like we do now), now they don't exist (for whatever reason). Will we be walking in their footsteps? That is why I mentioned them.

[ApolloLXII]

In life, I find that most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.

[terry.langham]

In life, I find that most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.

There is also those that speak with the intent to preach and not to discuss.

[ApolloLXII]

There is also those that speak with the intent to preach and not to discuss.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

[Art Vandelay]

So, after all that, have any of the CT supporters worked how much money earned from this tax is actually going to be used for something purposeful ?

[junqbox]

The proposed process is to use the revenue to subsidise those who will least be able to afford the inevitable price increases of energy production (with or without a carbon tax) and to subsidise the polluters so they can have time to restructure their businesses to produce less, thereby over time paying less tax themselves. The proposal then suggests moving to an ETS which would then flit into a global ETS.
The economic theory is that the money is not directly returned in terms of a reduction of actual cost of energy used (lower bill price) but to let the energy bill price remain and increase (as above) which encourages people to use less and to use the money returned to invest in their own lower energy use solutions, or more beer, or whatever they choose. This economic theory is not dissimilar to the way excise works on cigarettes (I know, we don't all smoke, think of theory rather then the semantics of the application). Increase on the price cigarettes has a direct correlation to the number of people who stop smoking as the price increases, ie- the more energy costs, the more people will find ways in their lives to use less. This could be as simple as installing larger windows in your house to allow more natural light, thereby using less energy to illuminate your house, as one example.
This is not pie-in-the-sky economic theory, it is a proven outcome, as per the cigarette excise example above.