I used to consider myself somewhat of a Libertarian (socially liberal economically liberalism) but unfortunatley I think I'll have to come up with another term for myself so I'm not associating with the detatched like Gus.
Abbott and the Enviroment
- Thread starter Gough
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
1) WTF, where did I make that assumption?
2) It's a regulated industry, they on cost regardless. but instead of oncosting on $5B of Capex, they are now oncosting over $11B of capex to end users due to over investment plus the tax payer is now being oncosted the subsidies to both renewables and non renewables.
3) The coal power station was closed due to lower electricity demand marrying a slow down in the economy and the over investment in the power sector. That same coal power station is back on and the gas station has been turned off instead due to gas prices.
4) Regardless of the events in queensland, it still doesn't change the fact boilers still need to be kept on even when demand drops or renewables kick in. As they take hours to bring back online and the response time is slow.
I am not suggesting renewables aren't a big part of the future but they are a big part of the problem in an already poorly managed over regulated system.
Pull out the subsidies, pull out the regulation and let some of these things sought themselves out.
Gus Poyet
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 1, 2012
- 9,253
- 4,056
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
- Banned
- #79
I'm not so sure about that,
Wouldn't the fact that the Liberals got voted in with such a large margin with the dropping of the carbon tax a major part of their push indicate there's shitloads of people who don't really care deep down?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Yep
but I would scrap payroll tax and the fuel tax as these are inputs on business. They both may be "efficient" taxes but we shouldn't penalise business from hiring people nor should we penalise business for using fuel especially if it's used off road.
I would also get rid of transaction taxes like stamp duty on property.
Replacing these would be an increase in GST to 15%, an annual property tax designed to penalise under utilisation and under investment (to promote more supply, lower rents, lower prices and more jobs).
Gus Poyet
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 1, 2012
- 9,253
- 4,056
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
- Banned
- #81
You remind me of facists. Always dictating to others what you think they should do. If they don't agree with you, enforce the facism under the guise of policy and law.
Pretty sure teenagers cause less harm to the world than facists.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Its funny, I think the same when I read your posts.
I sense you are a very clever person but for some reason haven't found their groove as yet. As a result, you seem to take shelter in the watermelon collective (red on the inside and green on the outside).
I am all for a better environment and a better world but believe this will be achieved by wealth creation, technology and investment. Supporting this thinking, is wealthier nations tend to look after the environment better than poorer places.
I can't help but feel any person being honest with themselves would believe it will be achieved through taxes and policies that deter investment. I sense you also take pride in exporting industry and pollution overseas. Is that because you think that helps the environment or because higher unemployment help explains the "groove" issue?
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #86
Update on Jul 3, 2013 by
Bishop Hill Later on in the debate, Deben says something about having stopped himself having anything to do with the bit of the company (presumably Veolia) that is involved with grid connections.
BTW never heard of the Bishop Hill.
Doesn't necessary disqualify what he said.
You and your bloody green religion.
One of the things I hate most is this insistence (based on no evidence) that 97% of scientists are in agreeance on climate change.
WRONG.
100% are in agreeance that C02 causes warming. 100% are in agreeance that humans are putting C02 into the atmosphere and therefore humans are causing "some" warming.
Where the debate starts is with the question of how much warming? And is it dangerous.
Sadly for you, there is not one peer reviewed paper with EMPIRICAL evidence that humans emissions of C02 are the main driver of warming, or that human C02 emissions are dangerous. None.
And going back to this so-called 97% consensus. Whilst 100% of scientists agree that humans ae having "some" impact (no matter how small or insignificant, it may be) only 0.5 percent of the authors of 11,944 scientific papers on climate and related topics over the past 21 years said they agreed that most of the warming since 1950 was man-made.
Change your opinion. You won't though, because it's a religion to left wing people, because it suits your ideology of bigger government, higher taxes and more regulations. It's got nothing to do with science to extreme lefties like you, Gough.
So people should change their opinion against the evidence? Seems mad.
The sun rises in the west. If you think it rises in the east - CHANGE YOUR OPINION.
The sun rises in the west. If you think it rises in the east - CHANGE YOUR OPINION.
slicedndiced
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #89
Oh no, Dan's here.
It won't be long until the lecture begins on how the 2000 Bombers were the greatest team in world sport, OF ALL TIME!!
It won't be long until the lecture begins on how the 2000 Bombers were the greatest team in world sport, OF ALL TIME!!
Lack of peer reviewed evidence proves the opinion to be factual.
Maggie5
Moderator
Westerberg
Team Captain
So what happens now - nothing?
I'm not worried, Barnaby reckoned it was cold today so there's probably nothing to worry about.
I'm not worried, Barnaby reckoned it was cold today so there's probably nothing to worry about.
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
inb4 rate rise
What evidence? There is no empirical evidence that human C02 emissions are the main driver of warming. None.
The correct policy on climate change is to do nothing. Only a naïve moron would think that a politician can make the temperatyure change. Nothing any politician does, no matter how much emissions reduce by will reduce the world's temperature by anything other than an irrelevantly small unmeasureable amount.
If global warming (sorry, I mean climate change) IS a problem (and there is no actual empirical evidence than it is) then adapatation is far more cost effective than mitigation.
The problem with you, and other idiots like you, is that you don't understand science or economics, and you're useless at presenting a viewpoint that's remotely logical.
Take the above. Your first paragraph is absolute bullshit. There's plenty of evidence. Drop the word 'main' and there's even more.
Your second para makes some sort of sense. Pollys lowering the 'temperatyure' is unlikely. But you arrive at that position based on your idiocy in para 1.
Para 3's conclusion is eminently sensible. 'Adapatation' versus mitigation is a debate that hasn't been had properly yet. Again, you get there via false logic and stupid assumptions.
You're like a right wing Christine Milne.
I'm extremely logical. That's why I don't vote Green. Assuming you're a Green or Labor voter, it's a bit rich criticising someone else on economics when your parties of choice plunge the economy into more debt than we've ever had.
There is not one peer reviewed paper anywhere in the world that shows empirical evidence that human emissions of C02 are the main driver of warming. Only 0.5 percent of the authors of 11,944 scientific papers on climate and related topics over the past 21 years said they agreed that most of the warming since 1950 was man-made.
We know that C02 causes warming. That is well established physics that we've known for 100 years. Plenty of evidence of that I agree
We knows humans are putting C02 into the atmosphere, therefore we know with 100% certainty that humans are causing "some" warming, however small or insignificant it may be.
What we don't know is how much warming, or if it is dangerous. There is simply no empirical evidence to suggest that human activity is any match for the natural forces of the climate.
The problem with mitigation is that you inevitably have to make predictions on what you are mitigating for, and you go too far, spending more money than you need to (which in this case would be trilliions). Adaptation means only adapting to what you need to. It is 10-100 times cheaper to adapt than to mitigate.
Dan logic again. I disagree with him, therefore I vote Labor or Greens. FYI the last six elections I've voted in, the score is Coalition 3, Labor 3. Unlike you, I think and weigh up the issues before I vote.
Well, you sound like a climate alarmist to me. Like most alarmists (if indeed you are one) you seem woefully inadequately prepared to deal with a debate on the facts. Like your claim that there's "plenty of evidence." Um, not really.... that's why the alarmists are losing the scientific debate despite outfunding sceptics 3000:1 and having the power of governments behind them.
You want to know what the debate is REALLY about? I'll explain it, in as simple terms as possible.
Feedbacks. That's the debate right there. Feedbacks.
The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, known for about 100 years. As C02 doubles it warms by about 1.1 degrees (that's if you leave all of the feedbacks out)
Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The "times 3" amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping and extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models
So, how can the main conjecture between alarmists and skeptics be shown in a diagram? Right here. Here is the whole debate below in two simple diagrams:
WHAT ALARMIST SCIENTISTS say
WHAT SCEPTICAL SCIENTISTS SAY
The effect of the feedback is hard to pin down because there are other factors other than C02 which affect temperature. But observed data, seems to have it around 0.5 (based on the real empirical evidecen that we can measure), not the 3.0 that the climate models predict.
The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds, but there are others. There are actually thousands of feedbacks, and they all either either reinforces or opposes the direct warming effect of the extra CO2. Overall, how do those thousands of feedbacks stack up? Do they make the warming closer to the 3.0, as the models assumed?
And how well have the climate models predicted the temperature? Does the empirical data better support the climate models or the skeptic’s view? Let's look.
Hansens model clearly exaggerated temperature rises.
A more realistic prediction was made by the IPCC below.
It’s 24 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.
Now, Ocean temperatures! Did you know that we have only been measuring Ocean temperatures properly since 2003, when these devices that have been built can dive down to 2000 meters deep and radio the results back? There are 3,000 of these devices. It’s called the “Argo” system, and you can look up “Argo” and find out all about it.
So, given that we have only been able to do this accurately since 2003, what have the results been?…. the REAL EMPIRICAL DATA as opposed to the climate model predictions. Here it is:
The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.
Now, remember I mentioned about the “amplifying” theory and how the models assumed an amplification of about 3? If that was the case there is supposed to be a “hotspot” in the atmosphere to back this up. This hotspot would be proof of this amplification that the models predicted.
Millions of weather balloons have measured temperatures over the last few decades. So, what is the actual empirical evidence? The real life data, and how does that compare to the computer models? Lets look:
In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification – the amplification does not exist
Now, the graphs below might look confusing at first, but it’s not. I’ll explain. These graphs measure outgoing radiation. Now to simplify it, the graph on the top left is the actual empirical real life data. It's the only graph based on real data. Every other graph is from the computer models assuming the amplication that all those models predicted.
Notice the one difference with the graph with the real data? THE SLOPE OF THE GRAPH IS DIFFERENT!!! This shows the opposite of what the climate models predict and that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification is not there.
The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not exist. The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to C02.
The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both prove that the amplification in the climate models isn’t there. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore:
The skeptical view is compatible with the data.
The alarmist view is not.
Similar threads
