The Climate Change Thread

[Bruwheresmycar]

The sky is going to fall.

 

[ACT Crusader]

"The biggest swindle since the door to door vacuum salesman"

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

LOL, you watching Barnaby Joyce on sky as well?

The man is hilarious. Just a shame he actually has an influence on federal politics.

 

[Bowside]

If I may chime in, as a casual observer I find it hard to take the anti-carbon tax bunch seriously when the public face of their movement seems to be a bunch of shock-jock fuelled retirees who have nothing better to do than disrupt question time.

If they genuinely dispute the science (and are in a position to do so) than that is one thing, but it seems on the surface at least that their reasons for disputing the legislation are purely selfish.

 

[Lior]

From my observations it appears the debate in this country is fractured and lacks any sort of substance. No party has clean hands in this debate either, not even the Greens who claim to be God's gift to the environment but they showed when they voted down the Rudd/Turnbull ETS that they were just as bruised as the other parties on this issue.

For an Abbott government to repeal a carbon tax would be idiotic, besides when he gets in it will nearly be an ETS and he could just water it down as well. So I don't see the problem. To repeal it and introduce Direct Action is absolutely idiotic as well. It would have been much easier for Abbott to say, "Oh look USA and China aren't acting so we won't." It is far easier for him to say that, rather than take this Direct Action nonsense to an election that no one would even think about taking seriously.

Can I just say it also makes me feel nauseus seeing the moral posturing of Wayne Swan on this issue where he was a significant player in telling Rudd to get rid of the ETS.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Bowside,
I spent some months this year reading as much serious sceptical writing as I could. I did the same with the believers answers to the sceptics claims.
As they say I'm none the wiser but better informed.
Frankly there as bad as each other and I would not bet the house on an thing either of them said.
I'm not sure why we need to lead the world.
I am sure that an ets will be a field day for derivatives traders: it's almost as if the whole thing is to be understood on the basis that we needed another "commodity" to trade

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I spent some months this year reading as much serious sceptical writing as I could. I did the same with the believers answers to the sceptics claims.
As they say I'm none the wiser but better informed.
Frankly there as bad as each other and I would not bet the house on an thing either of them said.

Really? The claims of climate "skeptics" are all demolished in great detail all over the internet. What skeptic claims where you investigating?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Really? The claims of climate "skeptics" are all demolished in great detail all over the internet. What skeptic claims where you investigating?

None in particular just generally trying to follow a thread.
You say demolished but unless you're a scientist it seems to me there's too much jargon and assumed knowledge to know WTF is true and what is... Something other than true.
Try reading wattsupwiththat if you want to see how confusion reigns

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

None in particular just generally trying to follow a thread.
You say demolished but unless you're a scientist it seems to me there's too much jargon and assumed knowledge to know WTF is true and what is... Something other than true.
Try reading wattsupwiththat if you want to see how confusion reigns

I don't think reading Anthony Watts blog will achieve anything other than a loss in brain cells tbh. His whole case against weather stations has been debunked over and over. By the way, you don't need to be a scientist to debunk a bad argument, or understand why a bad argument is in fact, bad. Most of these famous climate skeptics aren't even scientists themselves, hence why it doesn't take a scientist to call them on their flaws.

Also, I'm not sure if following an internet forum thread is the best way to assess the climate science debate. Maybe you should read the blogs of climate scientists who both support and don't accept climate change to see where the real scientific disagreements are. Such as: What is causing the current warming trend? As you will find, the (apparent) debate is not so much whether or not the global average temperature is rising, but what is causing the rise.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't think reading Anthony Watts blog will achieve anything other than a loss in brain cells tbh. His whole case against weather stations has been debunked over and over. By the way, you don't need to be a scientist to debunk a bad argument, or understand why a bad argument is in fact, bad. Most of these famous climate skeptics aren't even scientists themselves, hence why it doesn't take a scientist to call them on their flaws.

Also, I'm not sure if following an internet forum thread is the best way to assess the climate science debate. Maybe you should read the blogs of climate scientists who both support and don't accept climate change to see where the real scientific disagreements are. Such as: What is causing the current warming trend? As you will find, the (apparent) debate is not so much whether or not the global average temperature is rising, but what is causing the rise.

Can you give me some links on both sides
That was only an example.
In a sense all I am interested in is understanding whether it's anthropogenic or not

 

[Cutter]

Cutter - tell me what you think of the Carbon Tax. Explain to me what beneficial effects this scheme will have on Climate and why it won't make Australian businesses less competitive globally and Australian domestic products more expensive. We know what happens when inflation gets a little high, so explain to me how there isn't going to be an economic knock-on effect. And please tell me why when most of the World Economy is in the toilet this is a good time for a social experiment by a Government with an uninterrupted track record of backflips, backfires, blowback and generally stuffing everything they touch?

And what do you think of this Government breaking a clear, unambiguous, unqualified promise NOT to introduce a carbon tax, a promise made with the intention that the people of Australia rely on it when voting at a federal election?

I think BWMC has dealt with most of your points.

My view on the carbon tax is that:

i) the science suggest we need to reduce carbon pollution (that one's for you Scotty) so that is what this policy is attempting to do;
ii) the politics in Australia is so flawed that they weren't willing (and possibly not able) to get a less compromised ETS through;
iii) it remains to be seen whether it makes Australian business less efficient and competitive. In the long term, if we transition to a clean energy or low emissions economy faster than our competitors it will give us an advantage;
iv) there is never a good time to introduce structural reform. As I understand the modelling, the economic effect will be relatively insignificant as compared to, for example, recent movements in the exchange rate. It also allows business to begin to invest and make investment decisions with certainty regarding the carbon price (to the extent the Mad Monk's nonsense regarding its repeal isn't believed);
v) whether or not the Government broke a promise or not is not relevant in any analysis of whether this is good policy.

In Europe, it's been accepted for some time that man made climate change is happening. The "debate" in Australia is, and most of its non-scientific participants are, juvenile.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think BWMC has dealt with most of your points.

My view on the carbon tax is that:

i) the science suggest we need to reduce carbon pollution (that one's for you Scotty) so that is what this policy is attempting to do;
ii) the politics in Australia is so flawed that they weren't willing (and possibly not able) to get a less compromised ETS through;
iii) it remains to be seen whether it makes Australian business less efficient and competitive. In the long term, if we transition to a clean energy or low emissions economy faster than our competitors it will give us an advantage;
iv) there is never a good time to introduce structural reform. As I understand the modelling, the economic effect will be relatively insignificant as compared to, for example, recent movements in the exchange rate. It also allows business to begin to invest and make investment decisions with certainty regarding the carbon price (to the extent the Mad Monk's nonsense regarding its repeal isn't believed);
v) whether or not the Government broke a promise or not is not relevant in any analysis of whether this is good policy.

In Europe, it's been accepted for some time that man made climate change is happening. The "debate" in Australia is, and most of its non-scientific participants are, juvenile.

Calling people names only lowers the tone and detracts from what seem to me like reasonable points.
Given this government's track record for non delivery of hoped for outcomes (ber, home insulation, migration, nbn) there's a case for skepticism about this one.
Leaving that aside:
No one has explained why, on this, we need to be first. What difference will this tax, now, in Australia make to the fate of mankind?

 

[mark_s]

I think the labour party should be criticised for false advertising. All I have heard this week was how there was going to be a vote on a carbon tax. Instead parliment passes yet another wealth redistribution tax, unless of course you really believe that it is only Australian tax payers earning more than $80,000 a year which need to change their behaviour in order to reduce carbon levels around the globe.

 

[Cutter]

No one has explained why, on this, we need to be first. What difference will this tax, now, in Australia make to the fate of mankind?

If we agree that it needs to be done and done without delay (which is what the science tells us), then those are the issues which should determine the starting point not whether anyone else is doing it.

The target is hardly ambitious and certainly not as ambitious as required. This may, however, give us the moral highground to ask why others aren't acting.

 

[Cutter]

I think the labour party should be criticised for false advertising. All I have heard this week was how there was going to be a vote on a carbon tax. Instead parliment passes yet another wealth redistribution tax, unless of course you really believe that it is only Australian tax payers earning more than $80,000 a year which need to change their behaviour in order to reduce carbon levels around the globe.

You might have to explain that a little.

 

[waratahjesus]

The funny thing about it for me is, I have a mate who runs a company that installs ands consults on companies becoming green, yet due to the amount he earns he will pay increased tax.

 

[Scotty]

You might have to explain that a little.

Do you really not understand what he is saying?

 

[Scotty]

Cutter, if I may:

My view on the carbon tax is that:

i) the science suggest we need to reduce carbon pollution (that one's for you Scotty) so that is what this policy is attempting to do;

This policy is what got Gillard in power. I doubt it really has much to do with carbon dioxide reduction at all. If she really believed in the issues she wouldn’t have pushed Rudd to back down on the ETS in the first place. And further to Mark's point - if they are truly trying to reduce carbon dioxide, why are some people going to be better off under this tax? Why are only some paying for the excesses of all? (Vote buying anyone?)

ii) the politics in Australia is so flawed that they weren't willing (and possibly not able) to get a less compromised ETS through;

Agree

iii) it remains to be seen whether it makes Australian business less efficient and competitive. In the long term, if we transition to a clean energy or low emissions economy faster than our competitors it will give us an advantage;

It could give us an advantage, but that is assuming all other economies make the transition. At the moment it doesn’t seem to be working to give the European countries any advantage, particularly the likes of Spain.

iv) there is never a good time to introduce structural reform. As I understand the modelling, the economic effect will be relatively insignificant as compared to, for example, recent movements in the exchange rate. It also allows business to begin to invest and make investment decisions with certainty regarding the carbon price (to the extent the Mad Monk's nonsense regarding its repeal isn't believed);

There may never be a good time to introduce ‘structural’ reforms (not sure if this is structural as such, it is just a tax), but there are certainly bad times to introduce them. This is a bad time. Continuously referring to the leader of the opposition as ‘Mad Monk’ degrades your points, and says more about you than him. The fact is he seems to be a pretty average politician, but the performances of the likes of Swan and Gillard are making him a credible alternative.

v) whether or not the Government broke a promise or not is not relevant in any analysis of whether this is good policy.

However it is relevant to your point above. If they have broken such a large promise on the eve of the election, what is to say they won’t change their minds again to save their own skins. Where is the so called ‘certainty’ for business in their performance (ie first ETS, then no ETS, no Carbon Tax, then a Carbon Tax).

 

[Cutter]

Do you really not understand what he is saying?

Yep, I'm pretty slow.

 

[Cutter]

Scotty, I'm trying to take out the politics and look at the issue in isolation. Ultimately, how our government deals with the issues of importance to us is what will effect me and you long term, not anything else.

Next, I'm looking for some leadership on coal seam gas mining.