Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[Psyber]

As for trusting "authorities":
The Department of Human Services and their Medicare section thinks they know all about effective health care now...
And medical authorities all over the world in the 1980s were absolutely sure eating eggs increased your Cholesterol levels - now we know it does the reverse.
Who knows what we will "know" about that in another 30 years?

Psyber can you please point out the errors in the CSIRO/Bureau of Meteorology analysis?

I haven't read them yet and I didn't say they are absolutely wrong or that there were specific errors.
I was promoting healthy scepticism about blindly believing such "authorities" and saying we should not set up, here or elsewhere, any authority's opinions as unchallengeable proof of a proposition.
(As you did.)

My point was that such authorities are not always proven right by time, and should be listened to cautiously not blindly.
I gave examples where respected authorities have been proven wrong over time, though believed by most when they published their conclusions.

That's what my comparison with religion was about - religion is the ultimate form of believing authority.
Devotees tend to chastise any who express even mild reservations about swallowing their pronouncements without caution.
(Which is what you tend to do.)

[Bully]

Did the governments in 1100BC, 250AD or 1300AD fix the problem by imposing a carbon tax?

Jimmy todays governments would not be concerned about climate change if it was not primarily caused by human activity or if its impacts were not so dire.

love it jimmy, gold

but im sure i will get a mouth full from 'someone' in regards to how good the carbon tax is. Have continually said there are other ways of stopping carbon in the atmosphere, but im told, no pulling more money out of our pockets is the way to go. Im sorry, we all dont earn 100,000 plus a year like a few on here as they agree with paying a carbon tax. And have continually said, that this could be a one in 40 million year event, one in a 100 million year event, with the so called heating of the climate....but i will be told how it is im sure...

But seeing the chart on the temperature rises/falls with the volcano eruptions is quite an eye opener

Waits for a response.......

but yeah, dont wish to start another arguement

[Jimmy_041]

Did the governments in 1100BC, 250AD or 1300AD fix the problem by imposing a carbon tax?

Jimmy todays governments would not be concerned about climate change if it was not primarily caused by human activity or if its impacts were not so dire.

And its predicting a cold snap in 2019
Do we all go here? here

[fish]

I've conceded the point on recent CO2 level rises being at least partly due to human activity.

Psyber as you are aware the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology have concluded that the human component is the primary cause of the current warming:
"Rising CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels has affected global temperature much more than natural climate variability during the past century".
State of the Climate 2012

I don't accept, blindly, anyone's "Bible", or the interpretation of it by their high priests/authorities...

Psyber I am still confused about these claims can you please tell us more about the "Bible" of climatologists and who their high priests are?

[Psyber]

I've conceded the point on recent CO2 level rises being at least partly due to human activity.

Psyber as you are aware the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology have concluded that the human component is the primary cause of the current warming:
"Rising CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels has affected global temperature much more than natural climate variability during the past century".
State of the Climate 2012

I don't accept, blindly, anyone's "Bible", or the interpretation of it by their high priests/authorities...

Psyber I am still confused about these claims can you please tell us more about the "Bible" of climatologists and who their high priests are?

Fish, you are ducking the general point I made in reply to you and trying to shift the focus to a narrow component you know I won't bother to go into.
Your aim is to thus create a situation where you win by default - or feel you do - because your opponent won't play the game you choose.
You know I have no plan to spend the time to attempt to write a full critique for you to mark with your own measuring stick.

In trying to achieve that you only quoted here a very small part of what I said that you want to focus on.
That's a standard trick politicians use to attempt to score cheap points - and you do it often here to those who disagree with you even mildly.
It is a form of bullying...

I made a statement about the general worth of viewing "expert opinion" with some scepticism rather than accepting it totally because of its source.
I didn't say it should be totally rejected either, and I gave examples of past situations where accepted opinion in science has been proven wrong.
I did not say that meant all experts were wrong - just that some scepticism is justified when "expert opinion" is wielded.
I also explained the comparison with religion in a post above.

[fish]

Psyber pointing out ridiculous comments posted about climate science and climate change is not bullying - it is simply an attempt to bring some honesty and intelligence into the discussions...

[Gozu]

Climate change deniers 'are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists’:

The study, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, also found that those who reject the scientific consensus on the human contribution to climate change are more likely to to reject other scientific findings such as the linkage between tobacco and lung cancer or between HIV and Aids.

The paper, titled “NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”, was based on a survey of more than 1000 visitors to blogs dedicated to discussion of climate change.

“We find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science,” the paper says. “We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings.”

The paper says that a staunch belief in free markets was an overwhelmingly strong factor in the rejection of climate science and was a stronger factor than conspiratorial thinking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... rists.html

[Jimmy_041]

[scoob]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/g ... ns/4243888

Talks aimed at closing down some of the country's dirtiest power stations have collapsed, undermining a key element of the Federal Government's carbon tax package.


This Carbon tax is really doing wonders for the environment..... another failure for the government

[once_were_warriors]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/government-scraps-plans-to-shut-down-dirty-power-stations/4243888

Talks aimed at closing down some of the country's dirtiest power stations have collapsed, undermining a key element of the Federal Government's carbon tax package.


This Carbon tax is really doing wonders for the environment..... another failure for the government

It is a long term thing , so relax.

[scoob]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/government-scraps-plans-to-shut-down-dirty-power-stations/4243888

Talks aimed at closing down some of the country's dirtiest power stations have collapsed, undermining a key element of the Federal Government's carbon tax package.


This Carbon tax is really doing wonders for the environment..... another failure for the government

It is a long term thing , so relax.

Hope you are not talking about the ALP...

[Sky Pilot]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/government-scraps-plans-to-shut-down-dirty-power-stations/4243888

Talks aimed at closing down some of the country's dirtiest power stations have collapsed, undermining a key element of the Federal Government's carbon tax package.


This Carbon tax is really doing wonders for the environment..... another failure for the government

It is a long term thing , so relax.

Hope you are not talking about the ALP...

I think Gillard's socialists are on a slippery slope along with their coalition partners the loopy Green Party - whose primary vote is now down to 8.3%. Note to Fish...pleased don't request that I furnish proof of the 8.3% - just catch up with the media reports inbetween drooling over the Gowan's

[scoob]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-06/c ... ax/4246100

Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power stations are up to $1 billion better off because of the Federal Government's carbon tax package, according to new analysis by a private economic forecaster.


Carbon Tax and the ALP getting the job done!

[Sky Pilot]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-06/coal-fired-stations-1b-better-off-under-carbon-tax/4246100

Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power stations are up to $1 billion better off because of the Federal Government's carbon tax package, according to new analysis by a private economic forecaster.


Carbon Tax and the ALP getting the job done!

I just went outside and sniffed the air and looked at the leaves. Definitely less carbon now than there was this time last year.

[Bully]

love this thread now

good to see a few are seeing my way of things, and my thoughts on the 'carbon tax'

[Q.]

Well, flat-earthers do tend to enjoy confirmation bias

[scoob]

Well, flat-earthers do tend to enjoy confirmation bias

My opposition to the carbon tax doesn't make me a "flat earther"... I love how you pull out these names when you have very little to argue on.

Any mechanism that's purpose is to reduce the amount of carbon produced, actually put the dirtiest carbon producers in a much better of financial position ($1B better off as quote in the story above) is surely a failure?

Pink Batts anyone?

[Q.]

lol, it's called a joke.

Though you are right, allowing the most emissions intensive power stations to successfully operate into the next decade is contradictory to their clean energy policy.

[scoob]

lol, it's called a joke.

Though you are right, allowing the most emissions intensive power stations to successfully operate into the next decade is contradictory to their clean energy policy.

LOL!!! your jokes are hilarious

[Q.]

Hilarious, I know.