Credlin: It was never a carbon "tax". We just pretended it was for political gain.

[volcboy]

He was the Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission, the Government body responsible with disseminating information about climate matters to the public. He isn't just some individual with an opinion. Frankly people who have a habit of making these sort of predictions are exactly the wrong people to lead climate advocacy.

I agree with you - he is a good self-promoter who wrote a book about climate change. It doesn't make him an expert.

Making concrete predictions based on modelling which isn't specifically predictive of shorter term climate fluctuations is not sensible, and harms the cause of promoting an understanding of the actual science in the medium term.

 

[kwikfix]

So, one individual (not a trained climate scientist - he's an evolutionary biologist and palaeontologist) makes some specific claims in the media which turn out to be not true, and therefore all of climate scientist is flawed? He was stupid and arrogant enough to make specific claims and can be caught out, fair enough. This isn't to say that all of these cities won't have periods of extreme weather again in the future, which will include more severe and/or lengthy droughts than in the past.

One year ago, California was in the grip of one of its worst droughts, but over the past 12 months has received double its normal average rainfall, and its dams are filled to bursting (as seen on the news this week). Most of the precipitation has fallen as rain rather than snow as was historically the case (due to increased temperatures at altitude), thus leading to massively increased runoff (i.e. not slow release runoff from an accumulated snowpack) and thus the issues currently being faced at the Oroville Dam.

Rather than attacking individuals for their public statements, how about you actually try and understand the science (if you're mentally capable, that is)? Or, getting back to the topic of the thread, acknowledge that it has now been admitted by Credlin that the current Government knowingly lied about a central policy to assist in the mitigation of climate change for their own nefarious gain? And that they are currently engaging in the same type of self-serving, dishonest behaviour brought about by their financial ties to companies and individuals in the fossil fuel industry, as they toss around lumps of coal and lie about the cause of power outages.

The two major parties wonder why voters are deserting them in droves, but it's pretty obvious.

Climate is defined as the average of thirty years of weather. Mark Twain explained the difference: “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get”.
In the Brave New World of global warming alarmists, a long frigid winter is “just weather”, but one stinking hot summer day is “clear evidence of dangerous man-made climate change”. And despite an un-predicted 17 years of stable global temperature trends, their prophets still chant their doleful dirge: “Unless we have a carbon tax, extreme weather disasters are coming your way soon”

 

[Hawk Dork]

Climate is defined as the average of thirty years of weather. Mark Twain explained the difference: “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get”.
In the Brave New World of global warming alarmists, a long frigid winter is “just weather”, but one stinking hot summer day is “clear evidence of dangerous man-made climate change”. And despite an un-predicted 17 years of stable global temperature trends, their prophets still chant their doleful dirge: “Unless we have a carbon tax, extreme weather disasters are coming your way soon”

If you're younger than 30, you've never experienced a month in which the average surface temperature of the Earth was below average.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-years-above-average-temperatures-climate.html#jCp

 

[Bomberboyokay]

At least she's honest about being a total scumbag.

Refreshing.

Easy to be honest after you've been made redundant and switched careers.

 

[Chief]

If you're younger than 30, you've never experienced a month in which the average surface temperature of the Earth was below average.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-years-above-average-temperatures-climate.html#jCp

God that is so depressing.

 

[kwikfix]

Why Big Mining Loves Big Green
Wind and solar power are indeed “free”, but to extract electricity from them is not free – it needs turbines and solar panels, generators and transformers, transmission towers and power lines – all of which boosts demand for metals like steel, copper, zinc, nickel and rare earths.

Moreover, wind and solar are very diffuse power sources and need large areas of land together with webs of access roads and power lines in order to collect significant power. The heavy machinery needed for construction, maintenance and replacements in these green power networks provide ongoing demands for petroleum and mining products. Before one watt of green electricity is generated for consumers, green power has boosted demand for most products of Big Mining.
http://carbon-sense.com/category/wind-power/

 

[volcboy]

In the Brave New World of global warming alarmists, a long frigid winter is “just weather”, but one stinking hot summer day is “clear evidence of dangerous man-made climate change”. And despite an un-predicted 17 years of stable global temperature trends, their prophets still chant their doleful dirge: “Unless we have a carbon tax, extreme weather disasters are coming your way soon”

The bolded is where you out yourself as a non-scientific denier basing their belief on discredited analyses put forward by the bought and paid for (by fossil fuel interest) denier camp.
Show me one peer-reviewed, published paper that supports the bolded and I'll start listening.

 

[kwikfix]

The bolded is where you out yourself as a non-scientific denier basing their belief on discredited analyses put forward by the bought and paid for (by fossil fuel interest) denier camp.
Show me one peer-reviewed, published paper that supports the bolded and I'll start listening.

You wouldn't listen even if the truth was shoved up your nose.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

You wouldn't listen even if the truth was shoved up your nose.

Somebody else might; why not give it a go anyway?

 

[Power Raid]

The bolded is where you out yourself as a non-scientific denier basing their belief on discredited analyses put forward by the bought and paid for (by fossil fuel interest) denier camp.
Show me one peer-reviewed, published paper that supports the bolded and I'll start listening.

I'd be really surprised if changing the composition of the atmosphere didn't effect temperature. I'd also be really surprised if all the change in temperature was CO2.

I'd be really surprised if the change in temperature resulted in just negative impacts and confident the claims by the radical political-left are not true.

 

[kwikfix]

Somebody else might; why not give it a go anyway?

http://carbon-sense.com/category/climate-modelling/

 

[volcboy]

http://carbon-sense.com/category/climate-modelling/

A greenwash denier website cherry picking quotes to construct its own version of the truth is not peer-reviewed evidence. Do you even science, bro?

 

[volcboy]

I'd be really surprised if changing the composition of the atmosphere didn't effect temperature. I'd also be really surprised if all the change in temperature was CO2.

I'd be really surprised if the change in temperature resulted in just negative impacts and confident the claims by the radical political-left are not true.

Prepare to be surprised then. Your surprise at having your beliefs overturned is of no consequence. The great thing about evidence-based science is it is true whether you believe it or not.

I'd advise learning how to understand the science, then have a go at updating your beliefs. It doesn't even hurt too much.

 

[Lebbo73]

God that is so depressing.

I wonder what those from the 1800's or medieval times would say!

 

[Power Raid]

Prepare to be surprised then. Your surprise at having your beliefs overturned is of no consequence. The great thing about evidence-based science is it is true whether you believe it or not.

I'd advise learning how to understand the science, then have a go at updating your beliefs. It doesn't even hurt too much.

Nice comeback but having worked in marine science in the 90s gives me some appreciation not only science but a greater appreciation of the effect of politics around the agenda.

 

[Power Raid]

Can any explain why they think it wasn't a tax given it fits the treasuries definition?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Why Big Mining Loves Big Green
Wind and solar power are indeed “free”, but to extract electricity from them is not free – it needs turbines and solar panels, generators and transformers, transmission towers and power lines – all of which boosts demand for metals like steel, copper, zinc, nickel and rare earths.

Moreover, wind and solar are very diffuse power sources and need large areas of land together with webs of access roads and power lines in order to collect significant power. The heavy machinery needed for construction, maintenance and replacements in these green power networks provide ongoing demands for petroleum and mining products. Before one watt of green electricity is generated for consumers, green power has boosted demand for most products of Big Mining.
http://carbon-sense.com/category/wind-power/

Guess what also requires all those things to build, pollution generating fossil fuel power stations. I'd rather the thing that only needs them during construction and not ongoing operation.

 

[volcboy]

You wouldn't listen even if the truth was shoved up your nose.

Ahhh....personal insults. The last place to go in an argument

You don't have any actual evidence to back up your statement, do you?

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Where is my $550?!?!?!?!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Pessimistic]

Why Big Mining Loves Big Green
Wind and solar power are indeed “free”, but to extract electricity from them is not free – it needs turbines and solar panels, generators and transformers, transmission towers and power lines – all of which boosts demand for metals like steel, copper, zinc, nickel and rare earths.

Moreover, wind and solar are very diffuse power sources and need large areas of land together with webs of access roads and power lines in order to collect significant power. The heavy machinery needed for construction, maintenance and replacements in these green power networks provide ongoing demands for petroleum and mining products. Before one watt of green electricity is generated for consumers, green power has boosted demand for most products of Big Mining.
http://carbon-sense.com/category/wind-power/

I think everyone knows and accepts this fact. Itll be even more with widespread use of batteries.

bu you know, when they first built combustion engines, they probably used steam power in order to produce them

 

[Pessimistic]

I'd be really surprised if changing the composition of the atmosphere didn't effect temperature. I'd also be really surprised if all the change in temperature was CO2.

I'd be really surprised if the change in temperature resulted in just negative impacts and confident the claims by the radical political-left are not true.

Maybe just look at our planet and see how its balances of nature have endured over millions of years. case in point energy from the sun in - energy radiating back out = balance of heat continuous in the earths system : its delicately balanced.

Then look at all the planets man has scrutinised, often they had river systems once. now they are stone cold dead

So Ok something has made the earth resilient and self righting. but all those dead rocks indicate there may be a tipping point of no return

 

[Hawk Dork]

You wouldn't listen even if the truth was shoved up your nose.

Quoting anything to do with Viv Forbes as a source of truth suggests you may have a problem deciphering politics from fact
https://www.desmogblog.com/carbon-sense-coalition
http://pickeringpost.com/blog/viv-forbes/6232

 

[Power Raid]

Maybe just look at our planet and see how its balances of nature have endured over millions of years. case in point energy from the sun in - energy radiating back out = balance of heat continuous in the earths system : its delicately balanced.

Then look at all the planets man has scrutinised, often they had river systems once. now they are stone cold dead

So Ok something has made the earth resilient and self righting. but all those dead rocks indicate there may be a tipping point of no return

I wonder how Indonesia values and looks after the environment? China? DRC? etc etc

Then take a look at how we value the environment. However, there is a disconnect between how we care for the environment and the consequence of our policy, actions and consumer activity. We "export" our pollution by shifting industry to higher polluting jurisdictions resulting in greater global pollution.

The reason for raising this simple question is two fold:

1) I 100% agree with everyone else on this forum crying out for a better environment but where I differ in view is I prefer a global outlook over a NIMBY outlook.
2) the wealthier a nation, the better the environment. We have two choices of returning to cave man days or using our wealth and knowledge to continue to advance our processes. Anything in between, as history proves, is a worse outcome for the environment.

The other issue is, we need to remove politics from the issue. SA's power is case and point.

 

[Windhover]

^^ Juliar referred to it as a tax. It raises money like any other tax.

First, I agree with you that when Julia Gillard, our last great PM, stated "There will no carbon tax under the Government I lead" she was ruling out as a policy taken to the election having a price on carbon in the form that the carbon-pricing legislation ultimately took. And although the carbon pricing mechanism was not a tax on carbon in the strictest sense it was not unreasonable to call it, based on its effect, a "carbon tax".

In the same breath she also made clear she "would be leading our national debate to put a cap on carbon pollution."

As it happened, in fulfilling the policy commitment to lead the national debate, the multi-party Parliamentary committee she caused to be set up and to which all Parliamentary parties were invited recommended pricing carbon initially with a transition to an emissions trading scheme, which had long been known to be the preferred ALP option.

Also, as it happened, the voters in their infinite wisdom did not return a majority ALP government. Gillard was faced with a political choice. Either she honoured the commitment to lead the national debate to put a cap on carbon pollution by accepting the compromise scheme imposed by the Greens and Indies OR she did nothing and "honoured" a commitment that the Government she led would not put in place what was in effect a carbon tax.

But the commitment that the Government she led would not put in place what was in effect a carbon tax was necessarily premised on her leading a Government that could govern in its own right. Regrettably, the voters in their infinite wisdom did not empower her to that extent. Given the limited power she had it is clear that legislating the multiparty compromise was the most honest, ethical, committed and courageous choice she could have made.

And ning nongs like you call her "Juliar" for it. About as clever as me calling out Malcolm Turnbullshitter for his 2009 claims re climate change, taken from Mike Seccombe's recent article: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au...turnbulls-switch-power-sources/14873364004242

Human-induced climate change, he said back then, was the “ultimate long-term problem” for Australia and the world. Inaction would have “catastrophic” consequences.

“We have to make decisions today, bear costs today,” he said, “so that adverse consequences are avoided, dangerous consequences, many decades into the future.”

He did not resile from the fact that the major cost would be a substantial increase in the price of electricity.

Australia could not wait for the world to act, he said. It had to lead.

“How,” he asked, “can we credibly expect China, with per capita emissions less than a quarter of ours, or India with per capita emissions less than one-tenth of ours, to take our call for global action seriously if we, a wealthy, developed, nation, are not prepared to take action ourselves?”

And the best mechanism for combating climate change, Turnbull said forcefully, was a market-based emissions trading scheme such as Labor was proposing.

He explained: “An ETS works by setting a limit, a cap, on the amount of CO2 which the total covered industry sectors can emit. These industries are required to acquire permits to emit CO2 within the overall cap.

“Note: the government does not set the price of carbon; it sets the cap on emissions and the rules of the scheme, and then it is up to the market, the laws of supply and demand, to set the price.”

Turnbull dismissed an alternative proposal – having the government pay polluters to reduce their emissions – as “a slippery slope which can only result in higher taxes and more costly and less effective abatement of emissions”.

 

[Windhover]

I'm not a climate change denier nor am I convinced the science is settled.

This statement is not even a fig leaf. Had you instead written . . .
I am not a climate change denier and this remains so notwithstanding that in science I know nothing is finally settled.

. . . one might have (wrongly) thought perhaps you are not a climate change denier.

Any doubt that you are in fact the climate change denier you ironically deny being is blown away by your next sentences . . .

I do suspect the implications have been overstated. For example there's emerging evidence climate change is actually enhancing global food production.

If you were NOT a climate change denier you might have provided a sciency link to your extraordinary claims. For you to "suspect" the implications of climate change have been overstated is for you to "doubt" the science (usefully collated by the Australian Climate Council at https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/5-reasons-why-climate-change-may-be-worse-than-we-think).

If you read the link you would realise that suspecting "the implications have been overstated" and "that there is emerging evidence (unstated source) climate change is actually enhancing global food production" is a bit like:

Suspecting the implications of eating dog food have been overstated and that there is emerging evidence dog food is actually good tucker.

You may be right about dog food but you won't convince me to eat your "stew". Why? Because I am not prepared to take the known risk.