So i'm not a sceptic but more importantly neither am I a 'the sky is falling' thinker

here's a nice little PDF looking at what kind of BS the krudd govt's Emissions Trading Scheme is.

http://www.excelerate.com.au/downloads/ls1/ryzz/Modification-Leons_AGW_presentation.pps

yawn

*quickly throws sock in teqs mouth*

I say the ETS, climate change and global warming is the biggest left-wing enviro warrior con of all time.

It will ruin Australia's economy and send unemployment through the roof. Plus we will all pay higher electricity and fuel prices. All just to feel warm and fuzzy.

I don't want a new tax. ETS go f*** yourself.

last edited by infi at 16:18:27 22/Sep/09

pretty sure that kind of thinking got your team bowled out for pretty much a duck last time infi...

hey if you enjoy paying more for your basic cost of living be my guest.

oh and Kevin Rudd, the ETS is urgent, we cannot waste a day on climate change, although we are a consumption minnow and whatever law we pass will make absolutely no difference to the earth's health CO2 output.

oh and also, we are gonna wait until another 6 months has passed. what a goddamn hypocrite. why doesn't the cabinet all drive prius. we are crippling industry on a hunch over global warming. even the ALP's own energy minister Martin Ferguson reckons it's all a bunch of baloney.

last edited by infi at 16:33:41 22/Sep/09

1979 Tv Program In Search Of... New Ice Age




Was reading this today ..
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/09/case-for-an-independent-inquiry asks a few tough questions on Sea Levels Temps Climate etc

and of course The Petition !

http://petitions.listentous.org.au:80/detail/index/pid/16

This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the fact that:

We live on a dynamic planet; natural climate change occurs all the time.
As a nation we need appropriate infrastructure and planning to protect against climate change including long-term warming or cooling and severe weather related events such as cyclones, droughts and bushfires.
Global temperature increased slightly in the late 20th century and has been decreasing since 1998. Neither the warming nor the cooling is of an unusual rate or magnitude.
Cutting carbon dioxide emissions in Australia will result in no measurable change in future climate. Australia contributes less than 1.5% of global emissions.
The introduction of a Carbon Trading Scheme represents a major economic intervention that will drive Australian industries and jobs overseas.
Petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Government:

Invest appropriately in measures to ensure that Australia is well prepared for climate change and severe weather events including drought and floods.
Not attempt to stop global climate change by introducing a Carbon Trading Scheme.

i'm a fence sitter on the subject of man-made global warming... but every ets scheme that i have seen is economic garbage that has nothing to do with decreasing pollution & everything to do with skimming money. carbon trading is fkn joke.

i rekn just ride it out... we'll run out of oil soon enough & then the global temp can stabilise while we kill each other for what energy resources are left.

The Financial Crisis and the collapse of World Growth has done more to Lower Carbon output then this ETS nonsense could have done in 20 years.

The Financial Crisis and the collapse of World Growth has done more to Lower Carbon output then this ETS nonsense could have done in 20 years.

Finaly, faceman has actually said something that is on the money, our worldwide carbon output has gone way down over the past year.

it needs to go up radically so that alternative fuel research is expedited for fear of self-destruction. this is why I'm going to do my part soon and change from a thrifty, efficient 3 litre diesel to a V8 petrol engine

pretty sure that kind of thinking got your team bowled out for pretty much a duck last time infi...

I hope not. Howard was wrong on a lot of things but he had a far better environmental outlook than what we are getting with Rudd. The ETS will have no impact on the environment at all and will only help to pay off Rudds deficit.

If Rudd was serious about the environment he would make it so all new houses have to have white/reflective roofs and be designed with natural airflow in mind. Instead he encourages people to install environmentally unfriendly and disease carrying fibreglass batts that are basically just houses for rats.

This is really going to hurt our economy and will stifle competition as bigger operators will be getting exemptions giving them a big advantage over smaller companies. The worst part is, that once this is in place we will be stuck with it, Libs won't can it any more then the Labor party would can GST.

oh and Kevin Rudd, the ETS is urgent, we cannot waste a day on climate change, although we are a consumption minnow and whatever law we pass will make absolutely no difference to the earth's health CO2 output.

Yeah! Let someone else do it! Rape, pillage, destroyyyyy

Edit; Faceman and infi should so hook up, they have so much in common (in this thread anyway) :D

last edited by Syco at 17:22:29 22/Sep/09

would love to see some sources for a lot of the slides in that presentation.

i'm somewhat sceptical of man-made climate change, but am 100% for r&d into renewable energy, reducing pollution/footprints, etc

edit: hoggy's on the money again.

last edited by taggs at 18:26:20 22/Sep/09

Utterly unconvinced about AGW. There is this zealous urgency to the supporters of it that just strikes me as piss poor science.

Personal reservations aside, even if it is true, I don't understand why Australia should act in isolation. Nobody gives a f*** about what we do. China won't wake up on Day 3 of ETS and be shamed into acting, they just want our f***ing coal and iron.

Australia should be attaching conditions to its sale of resources if it is serious about making a global impact on emissions. Of course that would actually piss people off instead of doing this bloody emo martyr ETS.

Implementing a massive industrial tax all alone is probably less effective than doing nothing. If we go down the gurguler and destroy our economy nobody else is going to follow us, that's for sure.

last edited by Hogfather at 18:17:45 22/Sep/09

1979 Tv Program In Search Of... New Ice Age

Except scientists didn't think that there was a new ice age about to come, at least not any time soon. IIRC, they thought that the next ice age as due in about 100k years, and that it would be more likely that what we were doing would create an overall warming of the system.

Time Magazine posted an article that cited 1 article that mentioned a new ice age was a (remote) possibility. However, it misquoted the author to make the possibility seem like a certainty.


Also, if one scientist had a significant argument for why man-made global warming wasn't a reality, they'd win a Nobel prize - and probably get a cushy job for a oil and gas company.

Also, if one scientist had a significant argument for why man-made global warming wasn't a reality, they'd win a Nobel prize - and probably get a cushy job for a oil and gas company.

haha for someone who makes themself out to be so smart you sure post some dumb s*** sometimes.

There is this zealous urgency to the supporters of it that just strikes me as piss poor science.

You could have probably used a better selection of words for this. The science on this is quite robust, and mature. The zealots on the other hand are fagots (just like all zealots).

Personal reservations aside, even if it is true

I don't know about you, but I have a basic reservation about beurocratic organizations like the UN and National Governments: If they agree on something, they've understated it to such amazing degrees that when reality comes it's going to scare everybody. As such, maybe it is better to just assume that it is true, and that it will be much, much worse than people have agreed upon.

I don't understand why Australia should act in isolation.

Because we should focus on doing what is just, and right.

Nobody gives a f*** about what we do.

Would I be correct in paraphrasing this (and the previous point) like this: "Nobody else is doing the right thing, so why should we?" If so, would you want your kids to be taught that as their basis for ethics?

As for what the ETS would do for a) our environment, or b) our economy is beyond my level of comprehension. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the money raised by ETS was actually put into general revenue, and thus wasted, and that it would f*** the economy.

haha for someone who makes themself out to be so smart you sure post some dumb s*** sometimes.

I'm not sure my humor was transfered in my post. I was saying that if there was a very strong scientific argument that shows humans have almost no impact on global warming, there is nothing stopping them from publishing that research. More to the point, if the science was good (real good), he could very well end up with the highest rewards of academia. The joke being that he must obviously work for 'big oil'.

The problem is that the vast majority of science worth debating has been the argument that shows that human induced global warming is a reality.

I admit I haven't looked too hard into Global warming, but have they had scientific evidence that the effects of man are a causal effect? Is there documentation that variances in the amount of greenhouse gasses that we produce give the same variances in the speed of global warming?

hey if you enjoy paying more for your basic cost of living be my guest.

I am sure you were all for the fuel subsidy removal.

Would I be correct in paraphrasing this (and the previous point) like this: "Nobody else is doing the right thing, so why should we?"

You would not. Get your words out of my mouth.

Within one post we have the crux of why the ETS (and AGW) is not an objective debate. For all your posturing as a rational thinking scientist, you made numerous appeals to emotion (what the f*** do my kids' ethics have to do with the ETS?).

I said that the ETS was stupid, and that we should focus our efforts on making an actual change to emissions given that we are the source of a LOT of fossil fuel and are the stewards of masses of reserves.

Why do you assert that a massive new tax the only just option for us?

last edited by Hogfather at 18:56:43 22/Sep/09

I am sure you were all for the fuel subsidy removal.

I was because the Qld fuel subsidy was not received by taxpayers in any other state.

An ETS on the other hand distorts the cost of living in a positive (negative) manner for no real economic purpose aside from incentivising a reduction in carbon production in an extremely perverse manner.

oh hogfather so instead of a trading scheme or carbon tax, the government should just pick winners and throw money at different industries.

Who should get what? How much? What if something new and cool comes along and all the money has been sunk elsewhere?

ETS ain't perfect by a long shot but if you want to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions you have to make the clean option cheaper, the polluting option more expensive, or both.

Well yeah I am with you infi (heh) climate change and all these expensive measures to fix it just seems so dodgy to me.

Do you read these sites much infi?

ETS ain't perfect by a long shot but if you want to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions you have to make the clean option cheaper, the polluting option more expensive, or both.

How is that different from what Hog said? Nothing we do to Australia's creation of carbon emissions will have any real effect on the Worlds carbon emissions. The coal we export to countries like China however is another matter, which he mentioned.

If we stopped selling our coal we would lose billions of dollars in revenue but there is only one other way for Australia to have a true impact on global emissions. That would be to invent and then export a clean form of energy production. In other words the only sensible path would be to invest in renewable and clean energy. But that too is expensive so it's better for a Government to just placate the masses by pretending to do something green while giving them what equates to a tax increase to help pay off their massive debt. It seems phoney environmentalism is the new anal lube.

Yeh the ETS just reeks of a (bizarrely) populist new tax for the Government so they can be shown to be "doing something" while bazillions of tonnes of coal and gas is exported to China under no carbon duress.

Of course - again assuming there is one - addressing the actual problem of emissions and making a real difference is f***ing HARD. We are a tangible global polluter via exports, yet we are focusing on our negligible impact locally, to f***ing lead the way or do the right thing regardless of whether it actually achieves anything.

last edited by Hogfather at 19:59:52 22/Sep/09

The big problem with the science of grobal walming is that it's not directly measured, locked in 100%, science.

It's measured changes in atmospheric content (aka CO2) and temperature (which does show warming in the last 100 years) and an attempt to fit the data into a model that matches the observations. That model (and in fact there are hundreds) is then used to predict what is going to happen in the future.

The problem is thats horribly unreliable at the best of times, the system they are trying to predict is insanely complex and full of largely unknown or atleast unquantified feedbacks and feedforwards and the cycles that they form. Theres also the danger that they've misread an indicator as a cause. (The whole causation/correlation drama.)

The danger with all this, is that you aren't really *testing* the hypothesis (which is "carbon dioxide is causing global warming"). What you are doing is creating a model which is built on the assumption that the hypothesis is true and testing that. Theres no testing the null hypothesis, because its systemically impossible. The computer models can't predict global cooling, because they lack the mechanisms to do so. Where as the real system, aka the planet, can.

This isn't to say the science is bad, its just that you can't say its rock solid. This isn't measuring the speed of light. This is predicting the outcome of a football game. Home advantages, injuries, winning streaks, off-field antics, if its a player's last game, etc. Theres millions of variables, its a stupidly complex system. You can't be 100% certain that you'll be right, and good luck predicting the score with any degree of accuracy.

However, theres a lot of politics in it all. Politics isn't based on reasonable doubt, its based on no doubt. And the IPCC is political in nature as well as scientific. So are a lot of governmental research departments tasked with studying climate change. The scientific method is intended to be objective, but its not impartial to bias. And the nature of climate science is even more so. A government organisation which is exclusively tasked to man-made climate change is unlikely to thoroughly investigate potential "natural" processes that could lead to the same results, at least not to the same level. This is commonsense an organisation that depends on a theory being accepted isn't going to go out of its way to disprove it and eliminate the need for its own existence. Scientists like to eat as well you know.

There are obviously many groups against the so called conventional wisdom. Fossil fuel producing companies, and the economies they prop up. The companies and countries that rely on cheap fuel and power too.

There are also plenty of groups who are very much for it, and this is something that I think is the problem. There are entire industries popping up whos existence requires global warming to be due to CO2. Carbon trading is the most obvious, there simply wouldn't be a market if there wasn't the belief that harm was being caused by CO2. Theres also the rent seeking industries of renewables as well as, I should point out, the fossil fuel companies (producers and consumers) themselves. They want cash to support clean energy, aka carbon capture. And lets not forget the nuclear industry. Suddenly people are happier to have a nuclear reactor in their suburb so long as the polar bears are dry. They are just happy to not be the bad guys anymore. Yay, nuclear.

Governments have suddenly jumped on the bandwagon and are actively drumming up support for limiting carbons. They don't even care if it doesn't work. It doesn't matter if emissions go up 20% in the next 50 years, rather than down. They'll be taxing it. And they probably will need to. In the UK the goverment is spending nearly 40-50% of GDP, currently tax only covers two-thirds of that spending. And if they can raise tax and be praised for it, all the better.

But hey, if you even bothered to read all that you'll be bored stupid of the whole thing. Really the only thing I'd want people to do is to be skeptical of the whole thing, from both sides of the story. There are plenty of agendas out there and none of them have the good of the people at the heart of them. The main thing is to question the source of what you hear, but thats common sense to everyone surely. Or start to panic. Whatever.

grobal walming

!! you buy you buy

Well said, nF.

For anyone interested in reading a thorough discussion of the evidence regarding CO2 and climate change (for those chasing references for the data in the presentation, they are all provided in this book), check out 'Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science' by Ian Plimer. A fantastic read.

Read Plimer's 'Heaven and Earth'

That's all you need to know. AGW is a myth.

definitely right, nf. the science is not 100% for sure.

But there still is a significant consensus, and it seems a little foolish to do nothing because someone down the track might find the answer that makes AGW all wrong.

There's a lot of stuff at risk here (1000's of species, unique ecosystems, s***, people on pacific islands, food) and if turns out that in 25 years we can prove 100% absolutely that AGW is real but have done nothing in the meantime, that's a pretty serious f***up with major consequences. On the other hand, if you act and AGW is debunked at some later date, least you've done a lot of good to clean up the way humans treat the planet, which surely noone can deny is pretty despicable in many ways.

Anyway that's my view on it. If everyone comes on board doing something about emissions, the cost is really not that relevant as everything is on a level playing field (in theory).

Also, totally not saying that what the government is planning to do is necessarily the right way to go about it!

i dunno i think there are very, very serious risks to crying wolf.

such as when the next global catastrophe comes along and everyone tells the scientists to go f*** themselves :P

Additionally it diverts attention and resources from tangible, glaring environmental issues. There are so many genuinely s***ty things we've done to the planet that need the enviro dollar.

If AGW is determined to be bulls***, then the very real dangers to the biosphere may well later be ignored by a population who mortgaged a generation on a load of crap.

what orbitor said..

if you have the sword of damocles hanging over the worlds head and you have a chance to blunten the edge of the sword 20-100 years before it might fall so it doesnt do as much damage or risk so much.. you take it

the risk is to great

E missions
T AXING
S cheme

More penny pinching - end of story.

Ok so AGW doesnt exist. But find me someone who thinks that continuing to pump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmos at current rates... is a good thing?

Sword of Damocles?

A little less rhetoric wouldn't go astray. The world isn't going to end because it gets 0.5 to 1.5 degrees warmer. In fact warmer temperatures and higher CO2 PP could, for a start, increase crop yields. Thats based purely on the trends continuing from the little ice age though, which saw the opposite.

The talk of pacific island disappearing is misleading because what you don't hear is that a lot of those islands are sinking because of tectonics, and the actual sea level rise is not greater than long term trend. The fact there is a long term trend in sea level and the fact that some islands are sinking because of subduction isn't exactly covered in the general media though is it?

The IPCC suggests a sea level rise of 59cm by the year 2100. Of which 1/3rd would have occured anyway. I wouldn't start building an arc just yet.

On the other hand something like 40 million people die each year because they have no food. Mostly in Africa. How is that not a bigger crisis than global warming? I'm guessing because white people might be affected?

Saving africans is so 1980s, plu-lease.

I wouldn't start building an arc just yet.

oh great, where were you 6 weeks ago?

f*** f*** f***

Now I've heard mention of one bloke actually saying that we need to produce more CO2 then what we is currently doing.

Anyone else heard along these lines?

V8's all round

Australia might have contributed "ourselves" 1.5% of global emissions to date, but per capita consumption we are world leaders, seconded only by the USA. Even Saudi Arabia uses less than we do.

That 1.5% is fudgery too because we export 50 billion worth just in coal alone per year, and that coal is burnt just like any other, and has a carbon cost associated with it. (not even counting the container ship transportation costs) Same as China has a good case whereby they didn't create most of the existing carbon, and what do they produce? Goods for other countries to consume.

If there is any fair, ambitious and binding framework laid out in Copenhagen, the full costs wrt who pays what should pass on to these industries, not only in sourcing the hydrocarbons, but transportation and generation, and ultimately consumption. As a net energy exporter, that affects us dramatically.

nF, I don't have a solid science background but why do you question the assumption of carbon as the root cause? I've read and heard in person from a number of experts of their field that carbon traps heat, and that anthropogenic carbon at the margins is responsible for climate change.

Arnie had a great quote a few years back:
"“Well, as I said, that I believe the scientists. It is like when my child is sick and has a huge fever, and I go to 100 doctors, and 98 doctors says this child needs immediate medical care, and 2 say no, forget it, go home and just relax, I go with the 98. It’s as simple as that.”"

How can you go against the overwhelming majority ?

last edited by dranged at 06:18:08 23/Sep/09

because there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding the IPCC 'majority'.

do a little goddamn reading. you could start by looking at the pp posted.

edit: i'm not a hard-core sceptic. i'm just not entirely convinced one way or the other yet.


last edited by taggs at 07:45:39 23/Sep/09

oh great, where were you 6 weeks ago?

FS: Partly constructed ark, about 300 x 50 cubits. $4000 ONO.

taggs you don't seem to have your mind made up very much, apart from extended warranties :p

That pp is posted on crank independent political party website I've never heard of until today, and where the hell are the references for the oodles of statistics it claims??

I'm more inclined to believe the masses of physicists, geologists, climatologists, chemical and mechanical engineers opposing him. You know, qualified & verifiable sources.

dranged - the majority IPCC scientists were hand-picked alarmists and often are writing in areas which they do not specialise.

Just read Heaven and Earth - you'll see it's the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles that dictate climate. In Roman times, olive trees grew in northern Germany - it's too cool today.

Also, Warm times (Roman Warming, Medieval Warming) = prosperous times in history. Cold times (ie Dark ages) = famine and overa'l civilisation decay.

fade: Reactions on Heaven and Earth

Also, if I'm a director of a mining company, of course the whole notion is rubbish!

nF, I don't have a solid science background but why do you question the assumption of carbon as the root cause? I've read and heard in person from a number of experts of their field that carbon traps heat, and that anthropogenic carbon at the margins is responsible for climate change.

Arnie had a great quote a few years back:
"“Well, as I said, that I believe the scientists. It is like when my child is sick and has a huge fever, and I go to 100 doctors, and 98 doctors says this child needs immediate medical care, and 2 say no, forget it, go home and just relax, I go with the 98. It’s as simple as that.”"

How can you go against the overwhelming majority ?

Rule of majority isn't science, thats politics. My issue with the science is the holes in it. What isn't often talked about is that carbon itself can't be responsible for the level of heating we have seen as it is at a level of practical saturation. At the wavelengths it absorbs at, the near saturation means that there would be an ever decreasing extra heating with concentration. Effectively the atmosphere is opaque at those wavelengths. This concentration versus absorbance plot is called beers law. This is rock solid science I should say. Directly measurable in labs.

What all this means though is that you can't graph temperature and CO2 concentration on the same scale. PP of CO2 needs to be graphed on a logarithmic scale or probably more correctly a cummulative logarithmic graph. People don't like logarithmic graphs and they dislike them even more when they are combined with linear ones. They are a c*** to read.

The point is that because of beers law those nasty looking linear graphs where CO2 production is getting steeper and steeper are completely misleading. Someone find me a log graph of CO2 versus temperature.

dranged - wikipedia is a left-leaning authority. Of course it will support alarmists.

See - it's so hard to ascertain the truth. Charging in blind is the worst thing to do.

i'm all for cleaning up our collective acts with regard to pollution... whether the global warming bogie monster is real or not. but i really don't see how these ets schemes help achieve that in any significant way.

i'd rather see incentive schemes (development grants) for r&d teams to develop more efficient power stations/supplies/distributionetc..

What isn't often talked about is that carbon itself can't be responsible for the level of heating we have seen as it is at a level of practical saturation. At the wavelengths it absorbs at, the near saturation means that there would be an ever decreasing extra heating with concentration. Effectively the atmosphere is opaque at those wavelengths. This concentration versus absorbance plot is called beers law. This is rock solid science I should say. Directly measurable in labs.

But its too much to risk and there is no time to waste on this issue nF, its too important.

to be fair even the IPCC doesn't state that AGW is fact.

They do in fact say that "global warming is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

haha touche pave

Uhh isnt Water like 92% of Greenhouse gas ?

actually...
" When these gases are ranked by their CONTRIBUTION to the greenhouse effect, the most important are "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%

Fixed with link.

last edited by FaceMan at 14:49:41 23/Sep/09

last edited by FaceMan at 15:00:45 23/Sep/09

last edited by FaceMan at 15:02:19 23/Sep/09

fair nuff, pp shows different figures i can recall reading different articles showing different figures again. i'd try to track them down but i'm far too lazy :D

last edited by taggs at 15:37:50 23/Sep/09

I've heard it said before - and from people who argue that AGW is real. Not sure about the percentages, but water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas there is.

Without it the planet would be too cold to support life. AFAIK a lot of discussion on terraforming mars is conditional on water vapor as an essential greenhouse gas to bring up surface temperature. Read a good (fiction) book where they were doing just this, dudes wanted to nuke the s*** out of underground Martian ice to get it into the atmosphere.

last edited by Hogfather at 15:14:53 23/Sep/09

That depends on relative concentrations.

CO2 is very effective but the wavelength bands it absorbs in are fairly narrow. Those bands are mostly saturated for incoming solar radiation beyond ~100ppm i believe. In other words its opaque, the heat never reaches the earth, but heats the upper atmosphere. Some heat gets radiated back into space. The thing is the earth itself radiates heat, and the (low level) CO2 also traps that heat. During the day the majority of the absorbance occurs in the upper atmosphere, at night its near the surface. This is just because the larger heat source is the sun during the day, the earth at night (re-rediating the heat it collected during the day).

It's the same principle as clouds and weather. Most people would know that cloudy days are cooler than clear days, but cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. Overly simplified but that's how it works. The theory of how CO2 can still have an effect at such high concentrations is that the opaque "blanket" is closer to the surface. That and positive feedbacks. This is where all the computer models come in, and this is where the science gets uncertain.

Water vapour does the same sort of thing, except heat increases evaporation. Increased evaporation increases cloud cover. Which is both positive and negative, depending on a million different factors. Once again its all down to modelling and the assumption that the negatives are outweighed by the positives.

It is insanely complicated and its incredibly naive to think we understand all the inputs, outputs and interactions, let can model it accurately on a computer.

It's important to note that no model predicted the current (apparent) stasis in global temperatures. ~7 years of no heating is starting to get statistically significant.

last edited by nF at 16:03:19 23/Sep/09

last edited by nF at 16:06:09 23/Sep/09

I'm all for a tax on every tonne of coal they pull out of the ground. As long as all of the proceeds of that tax go towards lowering carbon outputs and increasing efficiency, which it won't.

Apologies for the terrible grammar in that last post. I can't be f***ed editing again.

Some good points in there nF, I need to go get a science degree for beers' law, but, I still think the elephant in the room is that we're going to run out of resources. Oil, gas, and in some aspects even coal have a pretty inelastic demand curve, and hydrocarbons are in everything from polymers to synthetics to resins to fertilizers; We can say well we have heaps of Oil & gas at home (we do), but much of our modern conveniences are imported & have inputs which depend on fossil fuels.

I don't really have faith in the market to correct itself gradually, it will spiral because everybody is going to be gimmie gimme until the end, and we can't rely on some magical new technology to suddenly appear and clean up. A carbon tax is a good mechanism to allow alternative sources to prosper, and can funnel funds desperately needed into r&d.

we have ridiculously large amounts of coal still, and if you didn't care about the environment, you can actually produce petroleum from coal (they do it South Africa).

look at temp and co2 over the last 400,000 years - cycles are clear also the lag between temp and co2 is obvious.

dollar to anyone that can explain to me how this is not caused by the concept of Milankovitch cycles

and explain to me what energy does co2 absorbs that other molecules with a much higher concentration in our atmosphere don't.


gg man made global warming, if anything the extra co2 is just slowing down the onset of the next ice age.

blue:

Different substances have different wavelengths at which they have peak absorbances.

Something that appears blue absorbs visible light at the wavelengths of red and green, the blue light is reflected or transmitted at much higher levels and that's what you see. The wavelengths it absorbs can be visible or outside of the visible range. When a molecule absorbs light from one wavelength it will often retransmit it at a lower wavelength (and lower energy), in the case of visible light that might be IR (aka heat) or if the wavelength it absorbs is in the UV range it might retransmit it as visible light (aka fluorescence). The difference of energies goes towards raising the temperature of the molecule. (Temperature is different to heat.)

The concept of the greenhouse effect is that IR radiated from the earth is absorbed by the atmosphere on its way back to space.

Apparently at 1atm at standard atmospheric concentrations, the absorbance bands of CO2 are completely saturated after about 10metres. If the concentration of CO2 were to double, it'd half that distance to ~5metres. It doesn't really scream world in crisis.

Sunspots caused the last warming period.
A new cycle began early this year.

so what range of wavelengths from the ir spectrum does co2 absorb that other molecules like n2o and h2o don't?

The 3 main peaks are at:

2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers

And the earth peak emission wavelength is 10 micrometres, though covers the range of 5-30 micrometres.

h2o absorbs ir at two of those peaks 1st and 3rd
and n2o the middle on



out of curiosity how many people following this thread have read atlas shrugged?

Nope, the bands don't seem to be the same. Remember they are very narrow bands but CO2 is a very opaque to IR in those bands. Something to do with the =O bonds I gather.

The thing is there isn't just a block of absorbance @ 2.7um or even from 2.6-2.8um. It's a very steep (probably parabolic) curve that peaks at 2.7. So there are bits of the spectrum which aren't at saturation on either side of the peaks. (Think the tails of a bell curve.) These do get dragged up, but they still follow beers law. In other words for a linear change in absorbance you need an exponential change in concentration. Remember it took 150 years to go from 280ppm to 390ppm. Its currently going up by about 1.5ppm/year.

Even so these taily bits aren't enough to explain the heating of the last 100-150 years.

The thing is this accepted by the climate modellers, and they use unspecified feedbacks (amplifiers, like water vapour) to generate the observed heating. They then fit that to the predicted future change in CO2 concentration and extrapolate.

It's messy and that's why the models are so inaccurate. None of the models can explain why temperatures haven't increased as much in the 2000s as they did in the 90s (or at all if you love your statistical analysis). They can't explain what caused the little ice age, or the ~1000 year ago warm period, because there was no change in CO2 concentration in either of those periods. Seems to me like something is missing from the equation.

I find it a bit odd we can't explain either of those geologically recent events using the same models that they want to predict future warming with. If the models can't retrospectively predict something 150 years ago, how can they predict something 100 years from now.

nf what makes you think humanity has any hope of modelling climate change? I find it funny that you think it's odd that we can't model this. I mean how will the boffins factor in your flatulance over the next christmas break? it's impossible to model on empirical level and any other kind of model is working backwards to fit the data.

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/absorbspec.gif


h2o absorbs the higher energy ir radiation over a much broader spectrum than co2. Consider what you said about the relationship between concentration and absorbance. if h2o and co2 shared the same concentration in our atmosphere, the h2o would still be absorbing a significant amount of energy more than co2. now consider reality and how insignificant the concentration of co2 is compared to h2o. ok...so you have two more peaks. n2o covers the second peak pretty well, but is lower in concentration ( fair enough...it's still a lower energy wavelength, and not as significant as the first peak). With the 3rd peak co2 peaks earlier than h2o, but look at h2o's absorption range, it's spread over a much larger range of frequencies, but these are all lower energy frequences and it's not going to have the same kind of warming as the first peak.


nf what do you make of the concept of Milankovitch cycles and it's realtionship to climate change?

http://leadthewaybc.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/co2-temp.gif

I mean look how clear the cycles are...how can anyone think it's going to get hotter. it looks like it's a system in equlibrium with a 100,000 year cycle. Do you think co2 has the ability to knock us off this cycle?


out of curiosity nf what is your background?

out of curiosity nf what is your background?

Don't answer that, its a trap! People don't have authoritative opinions unless their field of expertise is the subject topic.

edit:

Also just my two cents about emissions trading - Other countries do it, and the only reason that seems to be thrown around in some circles that australia want's in, is to uh encourage other countries.

Because you know, people who don't know what the capital of australia is will care whether or not we have a trading scheme.

This scheme was an idealic invention while we were going through great economic times by people who had too much money and not enough financial trouble. The instant effect of introducing the ETS may be anywhere up to a 40% (was the speculated % 2 years ago) inflationary period as a one off, as the cost of everything which relies on electricity will rise. PS: thats just about everything from your fast food chain, to your celery stick on the kitchen table which was made using electric tools in your home lit with electricity.

The scheme makes no sense in the current economic climate as no matter what the reward is to enriching our sense of smugness, its going to cost too much to our lifestyle.

Even if the artificially taxed cost of production is fed back into the economy through stimulus programs, then inflation will still rise as the way its fed back in will likely be a much quicker turnaround than otherwise if left alone, causing money to change hands faster causing both potentially growth and inflation.

Or so I remember being told in an economic overview of the emissions trading scheme..

last edited by skythra at 12:21:55 25/Sep/09

nf what makes you think humanity has any hope of modelling climate change?

Then why are the alarmists at the IPCC justifying economic destruction on the basis of models?

I'm no greeny but when the vast majority of scientists say we are effecting our environment and climate in negative ways I'm kind of inclined to listen. Seems to be more DONT MESS WITH TEXAS christian types who argue against it, but then, they also argue against evolution and other such things.

Either way, we have finite resources, even if we aren't doing any damage we're going to run out one day. I do find it funny though that the people who argue against reductions in emissions (which are caused mostly by burning fuels) are the same people who argue against going into debt to keep our economy going citing that their children will have to pay for it. It won't matter if they have nothing left to burn to keep their world running.

but taxing the s*** out of everyone in australia while the chinese keep living large isn't going to solve anything.

because the rich people paying them are about to get a s*** load richer.

it's about greed....always is - have you seen al gores investments?


everyone on this forum should read atlas shrugged...

but taxing the s*** out of everyone in australia while the chinese keep living large isn't going to solve anything.

True, but it is *something*. However small the difference it's still a difference.

so negligable difference (At best) on AGW in exchange for destruction of the economy.

Great logic sunshine.

you are happy for your quality of life to regress, on the basis of moral conviction?

why haven't you sold your car, your hot water heater, every electrical appliance you own yet?

True, but it is *something*. However small the difference it's still a difference.

Thats true, we can sustain our planet 0.5% longer by destorying our economy.

Seems like a pretty good trade. Especially as naturally it will start to cool down (according to projected cycles) at some point so by this time next global warming period we should have kept the average temp down just enough to get off the planet and start space travel.

PS: my irrational defense is irrational because the subject matter is stupid. This world is finite, why should we expect that it alone is the only resource we should ever use? Are we not entitled to invest in using resources from other planets in the long term future? I'm just satying 40% of our incomes globally would be better spent in research into space travel and so forth, rather than solving global sustainability.

We have an impact on the planet, we always have, but I don't feel bad about it. The only thing i worry about is whether or not we kill ourselves by depleting all our resources while trying to make everything in some harmonious balance instead of just finding new resources like we always have.

last edited by skythra at 13:13:59 25/Sep/09

Syco -

Majority doesnt make a fact (see: Galileo)
Models which are being used are using c. 20 years data instead of looking at the entire history.
Alarmists tend to look at indicators discretly, rather than considering the whole picture.

I could go on, but you wouldn't listen.

you are happy for your quality of life to regress, on the basis of moral conviction?

why haven't you sold your car, your hot water heater, every electrical appliance you own yet?

this.

syco you're like 15 or something aren't you?

you are happy for your quality of life to regress, on the basis of moral conviction?

why haven't you sold your car, your hot water heater, every electrical appliance you own yet?

But to do that would be subscribing to your consumerist life. Exchanging goods for money? PAH!

Make some more leaps from my statement, I'm sure you could :)

Edit:

syco you're like 15 or something aren't you?

Why? Looking for a date?

No I don't think we can model climate accurately, not at this time anyway. Which is my whole point, I think the uncertainties are understated by far. I think to state that "CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of current warming" as fact is very questionable.

Its interesting that so many people are prepared to have such blind faith in science, especially the concept of scientific consensus. Its incredible that one of the major proofs in the public eye of CO2-caused global warming is scientific consensus, not experimental data.

There have been plenty of beautiful theories to explain phenomenons (if that's a word) that fell over when someone bothered to test it. Take for instance the theory of ether. It worked brilliantly to explain a whole bunch of things (like propagation of light) then the main proponent of it decided to test it to prove his theory once and for all and it failed miserably. To his credit he published it, even though he knew it would ruin his rep. That is great science. Attacking the reputation of people who don't accept your theory isn't. If there's no solid evidence for the theory, or it can't explain things completely, then there's a bloody good chance its wrong.

this is like a religion thread

Majority doesnt make a fact (see: Galileo)
Models which are being used are using c. 20 years data instead of looking at the entire history.
Alarmists tend to look at indicators discretly, rather than considering the whole picture.

I could go on, but you wouldn't listen.

That creationist guy in the other thread should read some of the arguments in this thread and incorporate them into his own.

True, but it is *something*. However small the difference it's still a difference.

But to do that would be subscribing to your consumerist life. Exchanging goods for money? PAH!

Make some more leaps from my statement, I'm sure you could :)

Well then give your carbon-consuming possessions away. Are you committed to making A DIFFERENCE, no matter how small it is or not? Don't be a hypocrite now :)

That creationist guy in the other thread should read some of the arguments in this thread and incorporate them into his own.

I'm sure you infelicitous wording is unintentional, but can you please clarify, or make some sort of reasoned rebuttal?

last edited by fade at 13:24:21 25/Sep/09

I haven't got any kids, I don't really mind. Burn everything now, spend everything now. I just like fanning the flames to be honest.

Besides, I'm just one person, if one country apparently can't make a difference how could one possibly ever hope to? haha

I'm sure you infelicitous wording is unintentional, but can you please clarify, or make some sort of reason rebuttal?

As for your statement, the one I quoted, he listens to the vast minority of scientists who defend creationism and ignores the vast majority. The people who deny we are doing any damage to our environment do the same.

last edited by Syco at 13:26:39 25/Sep/09

last edited by Syco at 13:27:16 25/Sep/09

The people who deny we are doing any damage to our environment do the same.

Depends if you call it destruction or creation.

"Its interesting that so many people are prepared to have such blind faith in science, especially the concept of scientific consensus. Its incredible that one of the major proofs in the public eye of CO2-caused global warming is scientific consensus, not experimental data. "

syco that's why I asked, people like you amaze me.

"I'm no greeny but when the vast majority of scientists say we are effecting our environment and climate in negative ways I'm kind of inclined to listen. Seems to be more DONT MESS WITH TEXAS christian types who argue against it, but then, they also argue against evolution and other such things"


I was going to let you off if you were a kiddin, now i'm not sure.. and just feel sad that we have some common dna.

totally different syco

magical men in the sky VS proven scientific facts, that really have no bias

bias largely unproven science that makes big assumptions VS scientists questioning those assumptions

last edited by paveway at 13:35:09 25/Sep/09

As for your statement, the one I quoted, he listens to the vast minority of scientists who defend creationism and ignores the vast majority. The people who deny we are doing any damage to our environment do the same.

My point is that majority/minority is irrelevant to the factual accurarcy of their respective propositions.

ie:
1000AD everyone was sure the world was flat
Before Galileo everyone was sure the sun revolved around the earth


capiche?

My point is that majority/minority is irrelevant to the factual accurarcy of their respective propositions.

ie:
1000AD everyone was sure the world was flat
Before Galileo everyone was sure the sun revolved around the earth


capiche?

Sweet, how long till we find out that our oil and coal supply is infinite?

Sweet, how long till we find out that our oil and coal supply is infinite?

Does it matter if they aren't? Will the world with less lubrication and rock in those forms becomes so structurally unstable that we'll end up being destroyed?

We switch to a new resource, we learn, we continue to further the science (which to this point has been pretty damn reliable) and eventually with furthering knowledge we may come across new ways for energy use. We already know there is a sun with (also finite) energy available, which is constantly being improved as a source of energy.

The people who deny we are doing any damage to our environment do the same.

Very few people who are critical of AGW would make this assertion.

Stop being stupid, please.

Sweet, how long till we find out that our oil and coal supply is infinite?

Peak Oil and limited carbon fuel supply is a completely different problem to AGW and ETS. They only partially overlap as they deal with the consumption of the same resource.

An ETS is not needed - or appropriate at all - to deal with the the problem of tapering oil availability. Can you imagine it?

Fuel shock #4, petrol at 10 bucks a litre. Solution? TAX IT HARDER!

last edited by Hogfather at 13:45:43 25/Sep/09

I'm no greeny but when the vast majority of scientists say we are effecting our environment and climate in negative ways I'm kind of inclined to listen. Seems to be more DONT MESS WITH TEXAS christian types who argue against it, but then, they also argue against evolution and other such things.

I've been trying to avoid quoting people to make points, but this was so stupid I had to.

Richard Lindzen - hugely respected scientist, doesn't accept GW theory as stated by the IPCC. He's not exactly an outsider or a religious nutjob. He was even an author for several of the IPCC reports (i think).

Ian Pilmer - perhaps not as respected, but he is massively anti-creationist, and generally known as a vocal sceptic of nutbags theories.

In the late 1990s, Plimer went to court alleging misleading and deceptive advertising under the Trade Practices Act 1974 against creationist minister Allen Roberts, arising from Plimer's attacks on Roberts' claims concerning the location of Noah's Ark.

There are plenty of very smart people and mainstream scientists who don't buy the theory.

Also, if you raise the price of electricity, raise the price of fuel, raise the price of carbon intensive goods, foods, etc. Who are you going to hurt most?

It'll be the people least able to afford to change their lifestyle. The people who can't afford to throw solar panels on their roof or buy a Prius. The poor, not the rich. It won't redistribute wealth, that's for sure.

Sweet, how long till we find out that our oil and coal supply is infinite?

Arguably, coal is - it just needs time, pressure and decaying plant matter. I'm not sure on oil.

I'm actually surprised you can wiipe your own ass.

Fact = something that can be proved.

Fact != assumptions and inadequate historical modelling of a single source (often atmospheric or temperature) to explain the complex web of interactions that is the earth's climate.



last edited by fade at 13:43:07 25/Sep/09

Does it matter if they aren't? Will the world with less lubrication and rock in those forms becomes so structurally unstable that we'll end up being destroyed?

We switch to a new resource, we learn, we continue to further the science (which to this point has been pretty damn reliable) and eventually with furthering knowledge we may come across new ways for energy use. We already know there is a sun with (also finite) energy available, which is constantly being improved as a source of energy.

Of course it matters. Until we have viable other sources (which are being worked on but are a long way off mass consumption) it's almost all we have to rely on.

Personally I reckon the government should be looking at putting some real money into developing/helping make more accessible more alternative energies but then they'd have to find the cash laying around to do so. The clean car funding was pretty much a joke.

I never said I thought ETS was a great idea, I just said it's *something*. People presenting theories that we aren't affecting our environment as fact to rebut an almost consensus in the scientific community that we are (also mostly theory) is kind of odd. Even if we are warming naturally we are still growing larger and larger as a people and stripping the planet of more and more resources. Someone should type "SHOW ME THE MONEY" a few times :)

Peak Oil and limited carbon fuel supply is a completely different problem to AGW and ETS. They only partially overlap as they deal with the consumption of the same resource.

I only chimed in when people had been talking about resources and global warming. Just entered the conversation where it was at. It was them who went off on a tangent heh.


Double edit:

This is the first time I've mentioned the words 'global warming'. Everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that's both what and the only thing I'm talking about.

Arguably, coal is - it just needs time, pressure and decaying plant matter. I'm not sure on oil.

I'm actually surprised you can wiipe your own ass.

Fact = something that can be proved.

Fact != assumptions and inadequate historical modelling of a single source (often atmospheric or temperature) to explain the complex web of interactions that is the earth's climate.

Frankly I'm somewhat surprised someone so quick to butthurt could store such astounding knowledge.

last edited by Syco at 13:59:45 25/Sep/09

The thread is about global warming fyi syco. Just a heads up.

rofl - damn that s***s funny

rofl - damn that s***s funny

I wholeheartedly agree with this post but will apply it to posts not intended by, but perhaps made by its author :)

Oh, and how about that date big-boy?

The thread is about global warming fyi syco. Just a heads up.

I read the thread title and first few posts then got to where people agreed with Faceman (didn't watch his clip either) and skipped forward. I probably should install powerpoint and watch the link.

Passed half an hour for me. I might hit up the religion thread for some angry feet stamping, arms flailing, replies now.

i love it when people get called out on s*** they don't have a clue about. then they try to claim they were trolling or entertaining themselves. such an easy fall back when you're caught talking s***.

i love it when people get called out on s*** they don't have a clue about. then they try to claim they were trolling or entertaining themselves. such an easy fall back when you're caught talking s***.

Damnit, you're foiling my religion thread time. What s*** exactly? I said that I believe we are affecting our environment, even climate change sceptics with real degrees in a field that somewhat relates can agree with this.

I said that the same people who are quick to put down any plan to cut back a bit on emissions (which are bought about generally by using our finite resources) are the same people who bitch about government debt and their children having to pay it off when it's their children who will feel the heat when resources get lower.

I said that there is a large consensus within the scientific community that we are affecting our environment.

I said that our resources are finite and that we probably should be doing something about it.

People kept jumping to me being some left wing pinko hippy that was screaming about the world getting hotter but .. eh .. whatever, it's the internet, it happens.

don't worry, it's taggs who is trolling now. you just got trolled hard.

s***

hi-5!

As it happens I'm in New York for climate week (obamas big carbon speech in which he said lots of impressive stuff about mutual partnerships but neglected any binding detail). There are *a hell* of a lot of smart people & large wall st. type investors throwing *gobs* of cash into green or 'carbon-free' energy, within sectors of transportation, agriculture, built environment, water and utility-scale generation. Yesterday another 500 million US was announced by US. govt in grants for renewable startups. Off the top of my head Exxon also dropped 500 million a couple of months ago on a pondscum photo-biorefinery in Texas.

Regardless if the boogieman is real or not; the market certainly believes the opportunity as real, and I reckon consumers are now actively buying on 'green' credentials, and getting smart about 'greenwash' or 'marketing-makeovers'.

Cynically, maybe this is our new 'war on terror' ?

What if the data that Global Warming is based around is false ??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

I feel so privileged to be in such smart company that knows everything.

FWIW, I am somewhat with Lindzen, especially in regards to how the science ends up as position statements for policy makers. The IPCC research is quite balanced imo, and does state shortcomings of models. But the summary reports aren't so much...

He [Lindzen] described the full 2001 IPCC report as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science"[10] although he criticized the Summary for Policymakers. Lindzen stated in May 2001 that it did not truly summarize the IPCC report[11] but had been amended to state more definite conclusions

However, an ETS in some form or another is coming whether you like it or not. The best thing to do now is to convince the government of the best design of it.

so basically resign to defeat? Whatever happened to standing up for something you believe in?

As Churchill said - You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.

How does Malcolm in the Middle plus his sidekicks the Liberal Party fit into all this with them agreeing on an ETS just differ on the model, quotas and compensation? Does that make Liberal supporters two faced and disinegnuous, out of synch or out of their heads.

I assume Mr Turnbull believes in Global Warming. The problem is he is supposed to represent his constituents, and they don't believe in it.

Malcolm has a lot to learn about politics, the more I watch him in action.

^ I don't get it, the majority of Liberal Parliamentarians support an ETS, only a few Liberals and all the Nationals don't. Are you saying the Liberal Parliamentarians are charlatans and do not reflect the desires of those that voted them in.

Are you the only gifted and perceptive?

Does that make Liberal supporters two faced and disinegnuous, out of synch or out of their heads.

Are you referring to infi specifically or everyone who thinks this idea is s***? The idea that you could possibly agree 100% with all of a party's policies and applications is pretty unrealistic. No one who cares about the environment would seriously consider phoney environmentalist crap like the ETS to be helpful to the cause. When it's implemented and the truth that it does nothing to help the environment is apparent to all then people will be less likely to support the next environmental policy even if the next one is actually of some use.

^ Are you saying the majority of Liberal supporters and their Parliamentary representatives aren't smart like you. Getting a bit arrogant aren't we.

Being such a widely publicised, debated topic I'm pretty sure most have taken a side based on the wealth of information at hand. I take it is weak to think people wouldn't have an opinion by now. Of which it appears the majority of Liberal supporters agree with the ETS. It's not whether we want one or not, that debate is now concluded I'm afraid. It's now down to how to make one work.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 11:22:41 27/Sep/09

The Nationals will NOT be supporting an ETS.
If Malcolm in the middle(i lol at that) supports this then the Coalition will be getting a Divorce.
That means an Opposition resembling the dogs breakfast we have here in QLD.
I still think the best way to defeat an ETS s to attack the flimsy Science.

Apologies for the thread bump.

Interesting bit of science that's come out recently. All those images you see of temperatures from the last thousand or so years graphed right up to the present showing how hot today is are generated using proxies. Often what they do is use tree ring growth to establish how warm it was at the time. It's a bit questionable to use this kind of thing, because how warm it is is only one factor in the growth of a tree. Anyway, apparently the guy from CRU (UK climate research centre) who was generating some of these graphs using this tree ring data has been caught excluding data.

This just goes to show the importance of peer-review, and open, accessible and reproducible scientific data. (Which in this case there wasn't.)

Quite an interesting read:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/ (not too one-eyed a read)

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html (much more one-eyed, but goes into a lot more depth of the story)

Also interesting news story on ABC Radio, malcolm turnball is going to his party soon to say that the party must produce ammendments to the ETS that they will then pass if the ammendments get accepted, if people flat out dont want the ETS, then he basically said there will be a leadership vote.

Source

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/01/2701605.htm?section=justin

nF thanks for the post, interesting read (and pretty technical especially the second link). What a bombshell indeed.

good bump imo

he came
he saw
he conked out.
goodbye malcolm.

if malcolm was bullying me to accept his position, i would quit the party. The ETS is toxic.

Is it that you dont believe in climate change, or dont believe any ETS would fix it.

I dont think it matters if you believe in climate change, industry should be doing things to save energy anyway.

Australia is never going to stop mining coal while people are still buying, even then we would just use it for ourselves.

if the costs of our manufacturing go up and china's (etc.) do not then even more Australian jobs will be shipped overseas, and our existing exports e.g. will become uncompetitive against exporters who don't have any ETS. there really is no reply to that.

cutting back pollution/carbon/climate change whatever you want to call it needs to be done without destroying our economy.

cutting back pollution/carbon/climate change whatever you want to call it needs to be done without destroying our economy.

why ?

It's obviously a false economy if it requires destroying the environment (if that is what is happening).

the old saying: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." Comes to mind.

In other words, you would rather possibly rape the environment for short term even economic playing field rather (be irrational) then worry about any long term problems or trying to get everyone to play on a still even but sustainable field (be solvent) ?

I mean its totally unrealistic to expect any government to care about problems with more then a 3 year timeline, and getting everyone to agree to something even when it is actually sensible etc etc is impossible.

well if it means rendering australia to a lower relative standard of living while the standard of living of other countries which do not commit to an ETS enjoy an increasing standard of living, then yes.

in terms of global impact, Australia's adoption of an ETS would be negligible.

infi is right. Didn't you watch the link in the OP, obes?

Here's the thing though, carbon-intensive export industries are going to get ~90% of their tax back in the form of rebates. Everyone else won't. You're punishing local industries and promoting imports and exports because likely other countries will include export rebates in their own ETS. All its going to do is massively distort markets, and isn't that precisely what the last 30 years of trade liberalisation was designed to remove.

And if you are going to reduce carbon emissions on the order of 5-20% from current levels you might as well not even bother. And half the time they aren't even referring to reducing emissions, they are referring to emissions growth reductions (for example, China).

Its not about saving the environment.
Its a new Tax and like a GST it will appear on EVERYTHING.

In London they are testing a plan whereby they deduct a Carbon Tax from your wages depending on the method you use to travel to work.
THATS where this is headed.

Lie, say you walk?

People who emit more than their fair share of carbon emissions are having their pay docked in a trial that could lead to rationing being reintroduced via the workplace after an absence of half a century.

Britain’s first employee carbon rationing scheme is about to be extended, after the trial demonstrated the effectiveness of fining people for exceeding their personal emissions target. Unlike the energy-saving schemes adopted by thousands of companies, the rationing scheme monitors employees’ personal emissions, including home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights.

Workers who take a long-haul flight are likely to be fined for exceeding their annual ration unless they take drastic action in other areas, such as switching off the central heating or cutting out almost all car journeys. Employees are required to submit quarterly reports detailing their consumption. They are also set a target, which reduces each year, for the amount of carbon they can emit.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6832964.ece

Carbons are currently trading at ~12 euros a tonne on the EU carbon exchange.

That works out to be about 400litres worth of petrol. Or about 5200kwh (in the UK). I personally use about 12kwh a day.

A flight from London to New York will generate 1.5tonnes (per passenger). So, I'd just buy a bunch of tonnes from the ECX and tell them to go f*** themselves.

that was a cool article nf.

It obviously doesn't mean that AGW is made up or whatever, but it certainly makes reliance on the tree proxy for historical temperatures look REALLY shakey.

And not allowing the data for peer review? These dudes should be excluded from future journals imo.

All this because China and the U.S want to be c***s

ETS is bad because it is the worst way to cut carbon emissions. however, it is very popular with politicians because they get to hand out massive rents to their supporters in industry while the public who are paying the costs are not clued in enough to understand what is going on. in most situations ETS costs will be passed on 100% to consumers so free permits are basically a wealth transfer from consumers to industry. the important thing to understand is that the permits are distributed based on past pollution/skill at rent seeking and not current pollution (which would of course be pointless :)). for example if the government decided to give woolworths free payroll tax i doubt grocery prices would change much because woolworths would probably just pocket all of the supernormal profits they would be receiving. however, if all supermarkets and all new supermarkets received free payroll tax then the savings would be passed on to consumers. nice to see the environmental movement continuing to advocate policies that help big business :)


last edited by hast at 19:54:23 02/Oct/09

and the funniest thing is they don't even know it. the socialist-enviro-warriors hate the idea of business making profits. ETS is the biggest con ever.

however, i think the positives for the socialist-enviro movement probably outweight the negatives. the current batch of socialists are nationalist and not internationalist like the old ones and they will be happy with the trade wars and protectionism that will be encouraged by carbon taxes/ETS.

in a perfect world i can see the benefits of a carbon tax/ETS. but there are massive f***ing frictional costs associated with them which i think will swamp any benefits. we are going to end up with the worst option (ETS over carbon tax), end up with massive transfers from the public to skilled rent seekers, and endanger international trade. i would probably support a carbon tax that was revenue neutral (imo it has to better than the other ways we are raising tax) but there is almost zero chance something like that could pass parliament.

last edited by hast at 20:27:18 02/Oct/09

we just need more dust storms to defeat the evil carbons!@ ;p

THE thick blanket of red dust that settled on Sydney two weeks ago caused the harbour to bloom.

Nutrient-rich topsoil from the city's worst dust storm in about 70 years led to a tripling in the number of microscopic plants, or phytoplankton, in the upper layers of water, Sydney scientists have found.

They also calculate this invisible explosion in photosynthetic life in the harbour and Tasman Sea would have soaked up an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to a month's emissions from the Munmorah Power Station on the Central Coast.

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/10/06/772788/bush-tucker-new-420x0.jpg

link to full story on smh