by Q. » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:33 am
by Jimmy_041 » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:56 am
Quichey wrote:Carbon taxes are a good idea if funding is funnelled into renewable energy R&D to promote the uptake of low CO2E energy sources (which is part of the intention of ours). Solar power is set to dominate on a global scale and we have the opportunity to capitalise on this boom like we've capitalised on our mining industry.
by once_were_warriors » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:58 am
Jimmy_041 wrote:Quichey wrote:Carbon taxes are a good idea if funding is funnelled into renewable energy R&D to promote the uptake of low CO2E energy sources (which is part of the intention of ours). Solar power is set to dominate on a global scale and we have the opportunity to capitalise on this boom like we've capitalised on our mining industry.
Instead of blatant wealth re-distribution which is what this proposal is all about
by Sky Pilot » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:31 pm
by Leaping Lindner » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:16 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:My father in law is a scientist and he's says its all a crock of shite
by Drop Bear » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:38 pm
Leaping Lindner wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:My father in law is a scientist and he's says its all a crock of shite
I met a historian once that said the Holocaust was a myth.
by Psyber » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:48 am
I know a Gasroenterologist who says, "It may be sh*t to you, but it's bread and butter to me."Drop Bear wrote:I met a plumber who constantly talked sh*t.Leaping Lindner wrote:I met a historian once that said the Holocaust was a myth.Jimmy_041 wrote:My father in law is a scientist and he's says its all a crock of shite
by Grahaml » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:04 am
Quichey wrote:Grahaml wrote:Climate change has been proven again and again and again using many various scientific techniques. Whether you're talking global or local, scientists have been able to demonstrate the climate both on a global scale and also at any given point on the earth's surface has changed dramatically over and over. They have evidence to show one time of equatorial glaciation and another of an average surface temperature of around 45c (current is around 17-18). There is no doubt that for several thousands of years the global climate has been changing.
However, what is in doubt is the cause. When we can track climate change over millions of years why do we seem to assume the current trend is due to carbon emissions? There is clearly the chance that carbon emissions are increasing the rate we're seeing change but there is so far no proof that carbon is in fact doing such a thing. There is some small scale evidence that backs it up but it is scratchy to say the least. The part of the argument that worries me is we seem to be making the assumption that (A) Climate change is anthopogenic and (B) Once our activities cease we will see it all go back to "normal" (whatever that is). This is clearly false. There are other factors that will continue to drive climate chance whether we contribute or not. I don't think trying to reduce emissions is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a worthy pursuit, but when we put all our eggs in that basket and find it keeps happening, we run the very serious risk or having spent trillions and trillions on a false solution.
Is it your opinion that evidence is 'scratchy' and 'small scale' or are you just regurgitating denialist opinion that fails to examine the scientific data.
I would say a 0.9 correlation coefficient is better than 'scratchy' and that the research is far from 'small scale'.
by fish » Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:28 pm
Well I can't say I didn't try to get some truth out of you - sadly (but not unexpectedly) I was unsuccessful.Sky Pilot wrote:fish wrote:Quichey is right Sky Pilot.
You and "straight talker" have both made ridiculous statements that you have been totally unable to substantiate and that is why I've questioned your credibility. However as I'm in a generous mood I'll give you one more chance - I'm off-line for the next week whilst on holiday let's see if you can come up with anything by the time I return...
The statements I've taken exception to are:Sky Pilot wrote:I don't denounce science - just the whole climate change sham. I firmly believe it is tainted with self interest, corruption, industrial espionage and interest. The science varies from country to country and whose vested interest has the most to lose or gain.Any facts or evidence whatsoever to back up your statements would be appreciated!straight talker wrote:how bout flannery,garnaut and gore i mean they all said the dams would be empty high rise buildings would be engulfed by the rising sea level etc
Nice try Fish.
by fish » Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:35 pm
That's an interesting theory grahaml but it is not what the latest science tells us:Grahaml wrote:Over what period is that? Our year by year data streches back only very recently and the accuracy has in fact changed due to updated techniques being used and if you try to compare the data used in those records and compare to records thousands of years ago and further back collected with other methods you aren't comparing apples with apples. The precision of the techniques such as ice core sampling aren't year by year such as taking average temperatures for a year across the globe. You are confusing 2 totally separate issues. The first is global warming/climate change, the second is the cause. Nobody credible is denying climate change is happening, the real argument is whether and how much we are pushing it along by our activities. I'm not being a denialist. What is being a denialist is ignoring the natural factors that would have existed whether we were here or not.Quichey wrote:Is it your opinion that evidence is 'scratchy' and 'small scale' or are you just regurgitating denialist opinion that fails to examine the scientific data.Grahaml wrote:Climate change has been proven again and again and again using many various scientific techniques. Whether you're talking global or local, scientists have been able to demonstrate the climate both on a global scale and also at any given point on the earth's surface has changed dramatically over and over. They have evidence to show one time of equatorial glaciation and another of an average surface temperature of around 45c (current is around 17-18). There is no doubt that for several thousands of years the global climate has been changing.
However, what is in doubt is the cause. When we can track climate change over millions of years why do we seem to assume the current trend is due to carbon emissions? There is clearly the chance that carbon emissions are increasing the rate we're seeing change but there is so far no proof that carbon is in fact doing such a thing. There is some small scale evidence that backs it up but it is scratchy to say the least. The part of the argument that worries me is we seem to be making the assumption that (A) Climate change is anthopogenic and (B) Once our activities cease we will see it all go back to "normal" (whatever that is). This is clearly false. There are other factors that will continue to drive climate chance whether we contribute or not. I don't think trying to reduce emissions is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a worthy pursuit, but when we put all our eggs in that basket and find it keeps happening, we run the very serious risk or having spent trillions and trillions on a false solution.
I would say a 0.9 correlation coefficient is better than 'scratchy' and that the research is far from 'small scale'.
by Psyber » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:36 am
by Sky Pilot » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:38 pm
by Leaping Lindner » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:08 pm
by redandblack » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:20 pm
Sky Pilot wrote:Meanwhile, back to Abbott. I think its hilarious the way he has completely got Green Labour on the run. They can't take an inch without Tony exposing them for what they are - out of touch, out of control rabble who are ruining our country against overwhelming public opposition. Go Tony
by Sky Pilot » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:21 pm
by Sky Pilot » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:24 pm
by redandblack » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:41 pm
by Psyber » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:14 pm
That is a true statement that gets trotted out regularly as though it proves ongoing debt is sustainable or even desirable.redandblack wrote:Just about the lowest debt level of any major economy in the world...
by redandblack » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:54 pm
by Sojourner » Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:54 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |