Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[redandblack]

st, as tipper says, rates didn't rise (again).

Linking to crackpot climate denial sites which sprout nonsense doesn't help your argument at all. In fact, some of the material you quote on here shows a worrying tendency towards off-the-planet, weirdo sites. It can't be good for your health, mate

I note that you haven't disputed my figures, preferring instead to treat your opinion as fact.

st, we're all entitled to our opinions, but we're not entitled to our own facts.

[straight talker]

no rates didnt rise thank god! But i guess you would be thinking how great a job Gillard and swan have done! It will happen as it did several years ago as inflation is rising so rate rises wont get caught behind like in the past and when they do they will go BANG BANG BANG!

[Psyber]

no rates didnt rise thank god! But i guess you would be thinking how great a job Gillard and swan have done! It will happen as it did several years ago as inflation is rising so rate rises wont get caught behind like in the past and when they do they will go BANG BANG BANG!

ST, you may turn out to be right, but you are not making a solid case for it.
You are making it easy for the somewhat left orientated members here to shoot you down by asserting stuff you can't back up.

I am a Liberal Party member and on a branch committee, and drifted towards the Libs from a Labor family background due to those past experiences.
So, I tend to share your concern that history and form may repeat itself, and I am taking steps to protect my financial position if it does.
However I can't say it will happen.

[I do know the SA ALP government has blown the state superannuation fund again, repeating the Bannon experience.]

[straight talker]

thats correct and we may all be correct that there might not be any need to take drastic measures over rising co2 levels. i mean it is a given that rates will rise especially if they cant get inflation under ctrl. I also see the housing sector is travelling poorly with some of the worst ratings for years on new homes being built and bought and our economy and jobs produced are flying? i beg to differ.

[fish]

http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2011/07/96-of-scientists-dont-believe-in-global-warming.html

ST I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read this. I have read a lot of crazy stuff written by climate change deniers over the years but this just about takes the cake!

First, they look at a survey of 1372 known working climate researchers that revealed that 97% of them believe in climate change. This equates to 1330 out of the 1372 scientists believing in climate change and just 42 not.

Then they quote the "Petition Project", a petition denouncing climate change that has been signed by 31,487 scientists.

Then they make a false leap of logic and say that means that only 1330 (or 4% of) scientists believe in climate change compared to 31,487 (or 96% of) who don't!

This leap of logic is so patently false that it surely must be a joke?

Firstly - surely the result of the first survey should be the end of the matter - 97% of known working climatologists believe in climate change - this result is consistent with previous surveys of climate scientists and I don't know why the Minnesotans didn't just leave it at that.

Secondly, to assume that the 1330 climatologists who answered in the affirmative to the survey represent the total number of scientists who believe in climate change is simply ridiculous and to use this number to calculate a percentage of another completely different group is just plain wrong.

Finally, they neglected to mention that the "Petition Project" covers all fields of science (such as dentistry and medicine and other fields totally unrelated to climatology) and from this account only 39 (or 0.12% of) signatories have a background in climatology! Interestingly this 39 is remarkably consistent with the 42 who didnt believe in climate change in the original survey of climate scientists!

This shameful misrepresentation of the data is typical of the desperation that climate change deniers have to resort to, having lost the scientific argument hands down years ago. If the deniers believe that climate scientists disagree with climate change in such large percentages why do they need to resort to such nonsense to make their point?

[fish]

And another thing - the very idea that there is a group called "Minnesotans for Global Warming" is extremely distasteful.

Unmitigated climate change is predicted to have profound negative impacts on natural systems and human communities - drought, water stress, food shortages, species extinctions, coral bleaching, deaths due to heat stress and floods and droughts, malnutrition, coastal flooding etc. Many of these impacts will be felt most by the worlds poor people who are less able to adapt to climate change.

I find the notion that people in one of the richest countries in the world to be "for" this change absolutely disgusting!

Rant over.

[straight talker]

http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670 guess this scientist is a fruit loop too??

[straight talker]

http://www.co2science.org/education/tru ... Letter.php

[redandblack]

That's a Tea Party site, I think.

That's one scientist, st. I'll Google him and find out more, but take Psyber's advice. Linking to Tea Party sites, secessionist sites and the like doesn't help your argument. These sites are just propoganda arms with a specific agenda to discredit their opponents. You won't find any balanced debate on them, let alone any dissenting voices.

Listen to the debate and contribute some serious argument, mate, instead of just regurgitating extreme sites vomit.

[straight talker]

ok what sites do you go to again? what are all the scientists and believers go on? I know you already listen to garnaut,flannery and gore but who else?

[redandblack]

http://www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v14/TruthAboutClimateChangeOpenLetter.php

And here's a link showing that the Chairman is totally wrong.

SDo you read these and then follow up the debate to see if what you're reading is backed up by science?

Open your mind, st, there's another world out there. Go back and read the debate on this thread between fish and Psyber and you'll learn something about climate change and reasoned, intelligent debate from both of them.

[Psyber]

ok what sites do you go to again? what are all the scientists and believers go on? I know you already listen to garnaut,flannery and gore but who else?

Here are some links to stuff "fish" and I have debated in the past here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30294
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=33264&p=1325101&hilit=Environment+Institute#p1325101

[straight talker]

thanks for that il have a read later i gather there would be a 50/50 balance of for and against as there would bound to be some very good scientists who dont believe surely? every site i go to where people say they dont believe and put their argument forward i get shot down and told they are crack sites!

[Psyber]

thanks for that il have a read later i gather there would be a 50/50 balance of for and against as there would bound to be some very good scientists who dont believe surely? every site i go to where people say they dont believe and put their argument forward i get shot down and told they are crack sites!

Unfortunately there are a lot of crank sites.
I've never doubted the climate was changing.
But, I was debating whether it was human induced or just part of the Milankovitch Cycles - you'll find them in Wikipedia.

At this stage I do think the human contribution is significant as an addition to the underlying cycles.
I still doubt the ALP Carbon Tax is the best way to tackle it but I believe we can't go on using coal even with sequestration.
The Green's and Democrat's policies, which you'll find on their web sites, are actually better than the ALP's proposals.
[I'd have no major problem with the Greens if they would accept Thorium Fission for base load supply.]

On the Liberal Party side, Malcolm Turnbull was for the Emissions Trading Scheme when he was leader, but he is keeping quiet out of loyalty now that Tony Abbott is leader.
Unfortunately, politicians on both sides just say whatever they think the voters will buy - politics is not about truth.
[And I'll say that to my friends who are Pollies.]

Funnily enough I was at lunch with some old school friends, including a former state ALP Minister today, when Vicki Chapman of the Liberal Party came in with some other people.
I hadn't met her so my ALP mate introduced us, introducing me as "one of your team".

[fish]

Here are some links to stuff "fish" and I have debated in the past here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30294
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=33264&p=1325101&hilit=Environment+Institute#p1325101

There's also this one that has had a lot of the scientific aspects discussed by a whole lot of posters.

[fish]

...every site i go to where people say they dont believe and put their argument forward i get shot down and told they are crack sites!

ST everything you ever wanted to know about everything can be found on this website.

[straight talker]

thats true and im not convinced it is wholly man made either and certainly dont agree with the carbon tax i mean if the government was fair dinkum they would be charging all polluters not just 500! and letting them buy credits for eg: and they want coal out well why dont they do it and go trhe whole hog? How do they let lead and zinc smelters get away with it in tasmania and south australia? Thats why i cant agree with the whole carbon/pollution argument because if it was so severe and dangerous wouldnt gillard/brown/garnaut/gore/flannery stop it all together? Good for some but not others. Surely what i am writing has some merit can you see why im against the whole thing? This is my opinion. I think it was about 2007 when turnball didnt agree with it ?? could be wrong of course!

[Q.]

Where is the logic in closing down entire industries? Part of the plan is to have the country's biggest polluters move toward adopting carbon efficient models and utilising renewable energy resources.

[straight talker]

so they want the coal industry to shut up shop dont they or am i that dumb?? I know that the lead and zinc smelter in tasmania and south australia have said they have the best technology in place to produce there product and they are still polluting so how does the government let them get away with this if they are fair dinkum?

[Q.]

AFAIK they haven't released the list of 500 companies, so you can only speculate on exemption.