Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

Nov 12, 2002
41,685
49,987
AFL Club
Geelong
so you are saying there is not an entire industry built up with a vested interest in AGW?

If you've ever met or worked with scientists (as I have), you'd know how hard it is to get them to agree on anything. The idea of even a few dozen colluding on something - without financial gain remember - is both laughable and risible. Sit in a faculty meeting and see how easily swayed and controlled they are.
 
If you've ever met or worked with scientists (as I have), you'd know how hard it is to get them to agree on anything. The idea of even a few dozen colluding on something - without financial gain remember - is both laughable and risible. Sit in a faculty meeting and see how easily swayed and controlled they are.

I don't think the issue so much relates to the science. Like any industry there is some good work and questionable work including some in science with their own agendas. but this is expected and nothing unusual.

The biggest issue is the agenda of the entire industry built up with a vested interest in AGW. Politics, lobby groups and industry are examples.
 
funny how the science only supports one side of the 'agenda', hey?

why so excited?

I believe we should reduce all pollution. I just don't like the hype and alarmists that actually increases the time to make the transition. Further what makes me smile is we have no time and must act now, but we have the time to wait for renewables to innovate to deliver their potential.
 
Last edited:

pokerspiv

Premiership Player
Jun 23, 2013
4,714
2,713
AFL Club
Fremantle
Hey everyone, lets do an experiment. Drive your SUV into your double garage, completely close the garage doors and other doors, and leave the car running for an hour. I wanna know if the air will be cooler and nicer to breath, after the hour?

What's your point? Ban cars?
 

Footy Smarts

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 19, 2006
9,739
17,586
AFL Club
Geelong
The biggest issue is the agenda of the entire industry built up with a vested interest in AGW. Politics, lobby groups and industry are examples.

Yep. Any campaign pushed by those getting thousands of dollars is a blatantly biased agenda. Any campaign pushed by those getting trillions is the clear and obvious truth.
 
Yep. Any campaign pushed by those getting thousands of dollars is a blatantly biased agenda. Any campaign pushed by those getting trillions is the clear and obvious truth.

two wrongs don't make a right.

oh and not all vested interests are dollars.


out of interest, why do you feel the need to defend it?
 

Footy Smarts

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 19, 2006
9,739
17,586
AFL Club
Geelong
two wrongs don't make a right.

oh and not all vested interests are dollars.


out of interest, why do you feel the need to defend it?

I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out the absolute absurdity of claiming that the AGW "agenda" is "the biggest issue" when considering the truth or otherwise of AGW.

We were talking about what was actually scientific truth. While there are certainly areas of industry who personally gain from AGW being true, in general these aren't scientists. Generally those researching AGW are very intelligent people who work for far less than they could get in business. People with the type of modelling and mathematical ability of AGW researches are like gold to business. Yet instead they work on AGW research normally because they find it enjoyable and important.

What you're saying is because some people (business, politicians, etc) use the fact that AGW exists to promote their personal interests, we should throw out the work of actual scientists. What complete and utter crap.

It's also completely illogical to bring up the very small AGW based industries when billions and billions of dollars are being spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit AGW. It's pretty amusing that you see people not involved in research having a personal interest in AGW as being "the biggest issue" while you don't mention that almost all of those actively campaigning against AGW are funded through fossil fuel groups.
 
I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out the absolute absurdity of claiming that the AGW "agenda" is "the biggest issue" when considering the truth or otherwise of AGW.

We were talking about what was actually scientific truth. While there are certainly areas of industry who personally gain from AGW being true, in general these aren't scientists. Generally those researching AGW are very intelligent people who work for far less than they could get in business. People with the type of modelling and mathematical ability of AGW researches are like gold to business. Yet instead they work on AGW research normally because they find it enjoyable and important.

What you're saying is because some people (business, politicians, etc) use the fact that AGW exists to promote their personal interests, we should throw out the work of actual scientists. What complete and utter crap.

It's also completely illogical to bring up the very small AGW based industries when billions and billions of dollars are being spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit AGW. It's pretty amusing that you see people not involved in research having a personal interest in AGW as being "the biggest issue" while you don't mention that almost all of those actively campaigning against AGW are funded through fossil fuel groups.

AGW is only 1% of the argument. So why get so excited by it?

The real issue is whether the changes are good or bad, moderate or extreme and how we respond to it. Meaning the debate can easily be hijacked by lobby groups, the media, political agendas and industry.

What is certain is the alarmist positions and agendas actually make the transition to a cleaner future more difficult.
 

awaremind

Premiership Player
Aug 11, 2012
4,624
3,448
AFL Club
Fremantle
AGW is only 1% of the argument. So why get so excited by it?

The real issue is whether the changes are good or bad, moderate or extreme and how we respond to it. Meaning the debate can easily be hijacked by lobby groups, the media, political agendas and industry.

What is certain is the alarmist positions and agendas actually make the transition to a cleaner future more difficult.
This was best illustrated by KRudds carbon trading scheme being blocked by liberals who tbh really don't care if its true or not, and on the other side by the *ed greens who didn't think it went far enough. now 5 wait 7... years later we still have insignificant amount of action.
Stupid greens, ever heard of pragmatism.
 
This was best illustrated by KRudds carbon trading scheme being blocked by liberals who tbh really don't care if its true or not, and on the other side by the ******ed greens who didn't think it went far enough. now 5 wait 7... years later we still have insignificant amount of action.
Stupid greens, ever heard of pragmatism.

Yep, agree

We need to de-politicise this, take away the misleading but entertaining media and simply look at this from an engineering and financial task.

Step 1: set the national objective
Step 2: implement a carbon tax by region (smaller than states and determined by current power and industry frameworks) but no tax rates lock in.
Step 3: Determine the project solutions and have a broader mandate than just carbon
Step 4: Implement and finance the solutions which can be done by private industry, public or co-operation
Step 5: Set up trading desks where required. These desks would trade power

The project group should be set up like the RBA being independent from the legislative arm of government, have tight controls over media and lobby groups.
 

pokerspiv

Premiership Player
Jun 23, 2013
4,714
2,713
AFL Club
Fremantle
The question of science is completely unrelated to the question of whether we need a new tax, or whether a tax would even help.

That's what the pro-AGW camp never seems to get.
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,544
4,361
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The question of science is completely unrelated to the question of whether we need a new tax, or whether a tax would even help.

That's what the pro-AGW camp never seems to get.

of course the tax helped/had an impact. let's stop pretending there isn't already research available.

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eenccepwp/1411.htm
http://www.rggi.org/docs/Investment_of_RGGI_Allowance_Proceeds.pdf
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate...arbon-pricing-benefits-outweighing-costs.html
 

Footy Smarts

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 19, 2006
9,739
17,586
AFL Club
Geelong
AGW is only 1% of the argument. So why get so excited by it?

The real issue is whether the changes are good or bad, moderate or extreme and how we respond to it. Meaning the debate can easily be hijacked by lobby groups, the media, political agendas and industry.

What is certain is the alarmist positions and agendas actually make the transition to a cleaner future more difficult.

And here we have the classic case of "I'm not anti-science" followed by bashing of science.

You want to know whether changes are good or bad? Go read some of the scientific literature! See how mass extinction of flora and fauna and massive changes in farming region climates are likely to affect our ability to feed the world. Anybody even considering that the sort of changes projected might be "good" needs their head read and have been completely and utterly brainwashed by climate deniers.

Debate what we should do all you want, but these are some basic scientific facts that need to be acknowledged:

1. The climate is changing faster than ever in recorded history.
2. This is predominantly driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
3. This is causing significant challenges to the long-term livability of the planet in terms of producing the resources humanity requires (ignoring the significant environmental impacts).
and 4. These challenges will be significantly exacerbated without deep cuts in emissions within the next few decades.

Until you acknowledge these things as being true, as acknowledged by the vast, vast, vast majority of the scientific community, you're just putting your head in the sand. You have the temerity to suggest that it's "alarmist positions" (aka the ones who are generally linked with the science) that are preventing action while you trash a working carbon price, complain about vested interests in AGW without doing the same for fossil fuel companies and talk about "all polution not just CO2" as though there is evidence of a challenge remotely as big as climate change out there. You criticise those who take the problem seriously as preventing progress on the issue while consistently refusing to acknowledge the reality of the issue we face. Frankly you've made so many anti-scientific comments in this thread that on this topic you're nothing more than a troll.
 

pokerspiv

Premiership Player
Jun 23, 2013
4,714
2,713
AFL Club
Fremantle

awaremind

Premiership Player
Aug 11, 2012
4,624
3,448
AFL Club
Fremantle
The question of science is completely unrelated to the question of whether we need a new tax, or whether a tax would even help.

That's what the pro-AGW camp never seems to get.
Unless emitters are regulated in some way or another they will have no motivation to change their behavior, a tax that ideally is going to increase the public purse to solve the problem seems like a good idea to me. Perhaps the addition of carrots for exemplary levels of cleanliness and efficiency in industry or particular products would be a good idea. For example subsidised solar led to many people changing their behavior and getting solar systems, which grows a new industry. This stuff could be funded by the tax.
 

pokerspiv

Premiership Player
Jun 23, 2013
4,714
2,713
AFL Club
Fremantle
Unless emitters are regulated in some way or another they will have no motivation to change their behavior, a tax that ideally is going to increase the public purse to solve the problem seems like a good idea to me.

And you're an economist?
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,544
4,361
AFL Club
Hawthorn
None of these papers talks about the effect the carbon tax had on the climate, because there was none.

huh? the first one from ANU specifies a reduction figure of 11-17 million tonnes over the course of the tax's should life (the US one was 10% to 2018). why would that miniscule amount (globally) have a measurable effect on climate, especially in the timeframe we're talking? it's completely disingenuous to criticise the tax on the basis of impossible criteria. you have no point.
 

awaremind

Premiership Player
Aug 11, 2012
4,624
3,448
AFL Club
Fremantle
Make highly pollu
And you're an economist?
Does that matter?

Australia has to find alternatives to simply resources to drive our economy, a shift into renewable technology and systems is an emerging industry that its not too late to catch up in and we have perfect conditions on our continent to transform it both environmentally and economically through a wide range of sustainable development. Two things Australia will always have - Wind and Sun, is this not a f-ing hot and windy place. Also we are blessed with these minerals so our prospects could be enhanced significantly if we at the least invested in modernising the steel industry. We would need a lot of steel to construct the infrastructure required to have a majority of our power produced renew-ably.
 

awaremind

Premiership Player
Aug 11, 2012
4,624
3,448
AFL Club
Fremantle
Also into the future we need to consider water supply, this could involve either more desalination plants or pumping water from the north. requireing massive amounts of power and materiel
 

awaremind

Premiership Player
Aug 11, 2012
4,624
3,448
AFL Club
Fremantle
Non - diverse economies are more at the mercy of macro-environmental factors damaging the economy, see Russia and its dependence on its oil and gas revenues. plus once we have sold all that is profitable to sell, what then? Why wait to prepare for the future?
 
Back