Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[Q.]

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.

[Jimmy_041]

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

[once_were_warriors]

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

Has happened since the dawn of time.

Sometimes it is distributed up the ladder, sometimes down the ladder.

Coupled with Canada and New Zealand , Australia is one of the best countries to live in.

[Sky Pilot]

Abbott's performance in Parliament today was outstanding. BOG - 3 votes A Abbott.
Gillard was worse than pathetic - incompetent even when filibustering her t!ts off.

[Leaping Lindner]

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.

[Drop Bear]

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.

I met a plumber who constantly talked sh*t.

[Psyber]

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.

I met a plumber who constantly talked sh*t.

I know a Gasroenterologist who says, "It may be sh*t to you, but it's bread and butter to me."

[Grahaml]

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'.

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.

[fish]

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:

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.

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

Any facts or evidence whatsoever to back up your statements would be appreciated!

Nice try Fish.

Well I can't say I didn't try to get some truth out of you - sadly (but not unexpectedly) I was unsuccessful.

These posts illustrate perfectly the lack of credibility from the climate change deniers camp - the lies and unsubstantiated rubbish the deniers spread never ceases to amaze me!

Thankfully many governments, policy-makers, corporations, communities and individuals stopped listening to this crap from deniers years ago and are getting on with the job (albeit slowly and in an ad-hoc manner) of tackling climate change when and where they can.

[fish]

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'.

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.

That's an interesting theory grahaml but it is not what the latest science tells us:

It is beyond reasonable doubt that human activities – the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation – are triggering the changes we are witnessing in the global climate.

A very large body of observations, experiments, analyses, and physical theory points to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – with carbon dioxide being the most important – as the primary cause of the observed warming.

Increasing carbon dioxide emissions are primarily produced by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, as well as deforestation.

Natural factors, like changes in the Earth’s orbit or solar activity, cannot explain the world-wide warming trend.

[Psyber]

While I was initially sceptical about how significant the human contribution to global warming was, my discussions with staff at the Uni of Adelaide's Environment Institute, and reading the references supplied by John Tibby, has convinced me it is a significant additional factor on top of the current peak in the Milankovich Cycles.

Now, I am concerned that we in Oz are ignoring the energy science that can supply reliable energy while reducing our CO2 output most significantly.
India is developing Thorium Fission and will ultimately sell the technology to China, as they phase out their dependency on Coal.
And the German government, in concert with BMW, is gradually rolling out totally carbon free Hydrogen fuel for cars.

[Sky Pilot]

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

[Leaping Lindner]

Had a laugh last night on the news not only as we have seen in the past does Tony know more about climate change than scientists he now knows more about how to handle refugee boats on the seas than the most senior officer in the Australian navy, Admiral Griggs.
Is there ANYTHING this guy isn't an expert on?? We are SO lucky to have him.

[redandblack]

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

"Ruining our country"??

I suppose if you keep spouting Liberal propaganda, you eventually think it's true.

How is the country being 'ruined'.

Low unemployment, low inflation, reasonable growth, strong exports, positive balance of trade and interest rates that have been steady for nearly a year and are likely to fall soon.

Our economy is the envy of the world.

If that's a ruined country, I'm happy.

(PS: remember the old line "Interest rates will always be lower under a Liberal Government")

[Sky Pilot]

I don't think he plays lawn bowls or lacrosse

[Sky Pilot]

Mmmm. I think we were $20bn in surplus when the greens took over and now we are $100bn in debt and no one is in control.
Yep we are the lucky country

[redandblack]

Just about the lowest debt level of any major economy in the world.

Got through the GFC in better shape than anywhere else because of that spending.

I'm sure you could do better than that if you're saying the country has been ruined.

If you want to debate the question, have another go. 'Ruining the country", you said.

Surely it's not just a mantra to parrot whenever the facts get in the way>

[Psyber]

Just about the lowest debt level of any major economy in the world...

That is a true statement that gets trotted out regularly as though it proves ongoing debt is sustainable or even desirable.
But it may be meaningless if the present world trend continues and any debt just slowly grows because it doesn't get paid off.
All those massive debts we hear about now started small and grew because governments thought "just a little bit more won't hurt".

Our lower debt level may just mean we are the last "developed" country to go under.
Any debt we can't be sure we can pay of in future is a bad idea in the present world environment.

[redandblack]

That's very true, Psyber and a proper warning if deficits are used to just spend.

In this case, it was used to stimulate the economy during the GFC and IMO only the churlish (not you) would say it wasn't effective in keeping people in jobs and the economy ticking.

Some will stress about pink batts, some will look at the bigger picture.

[Sojourner]

Its interesting that the ALP are very keen to return the budget to surplus ASAP, clearly we need to pay down our debt, but at the same time I don't see a problem with having some level of debt if its being used to create infrastructure and is within the capacity to be repaid promptly. I am pretty sure Chifley had to borrow in order to set up the Snowy Scheme and that was a pivotal moment of our history in terms of actually boosting our economy as a result.