Discussion in 'Politics' started by Scotty, Mar 21, 2011.
Anyone else seen this?
How funny is the '2BS' background. Very witty.
Apropos of nothing, but to do with future energy production, scope out of GE have been working on:
That thing is bloody cool.
Of course some on this thread will call the following 'irrelevant', but more IPCC controversy is not irrelevant in my book.
I haven't read much into it yet, but that does sound pretty bad. Why the hell would they let someone from Greenpeace write a report on renewable energy? It wasn't a hugely important report, but hopefully they get a big wake up call.
I haven't read the link (just the excerpt) but, is this really an issue? Greenpeace is non-profit. Would it be a conflict of interest for someone from World Vision to work on a paper isolating poverty in developing nations or would it just be using someone who already has expertise in that area?
Scotty, the other point (which you consistently fail to acknowledge) is that there is nothing you or anyone has been able to point to in the IPCC report which brings into dispute the key finding that there is a greater than 90% probability that humans are causing damaging climate change. Attempts have been made to discredit the report previously but the scientific conclusions remain unaltered.
So your view is that the means justifies the ends?
I mean the other way around of course.
One thing that strikes me about the whole carbon pollution thing is that the main emphasis appears to be on industrial fossil fuel reduction and the main weapon here, the carbon tax. All that is good and well but what about other measures. Why doesn't Austalia for instance join Brazil and outlaw petroleum cars? Petroleum cars produce a number of greenhouse gases,e.g CO2, CO, N2O.
Use mixed fuels initially then phase out petrol, same as Brazil.
Austalia seems perfectly suited to produce ethanol. It can be produced by grains or sugar. Our sugar farmers are struggling aren't they? Here's a job for you! Save your farm as well as the planet!
Sugar farmers adversely affected by government free trade policy can be subsidised by the government to move into ethanol production. Surely a political winner! And this can probably happen quite quickly as well, and could have been implemented years ago, at any rate.
Switchgrass, one of the most efficient producers of ethanol grows well in a semi-arid environment. Wonder where we might find some semi-arid land? And no problems with the old excuse that ethanol replaces food crops as this land is barely used, if at all.
Australian produced ethanol without excise tax should be cheaper as well and therefore a big vote winner, especially with rising petrol prices. A boost to employment as well and instead of talk about a carbon tax stifling the economy we'll talk about our ethanol industry stimulating it! At the same time Australia becomes a world leader in the greenhouse gas-reducing stakes, instead of a bit player.
But, alas, there appears to be few measures in place. Currently Australian ethanol is excise free but, unbelievably, this is set to change in July as a tax is gradually implemented. Is this government serious about climate change, or serious about taxing us?
Same with LPG, a cleaner fuel than petrol. But LPG car conversions are no longer subsidised. Why repeal this policy? Derived from natural gas, plentiful in Australia, more LPG use should help the economy as well as the environment, yet the subsidy disappears? Is the government more interested in saving the planet or saving money?
And then there's the electric car as well. Government subsidised recharging areas at petrol stations? That's a possibility. Don't see it happening though.
Global warming has been on the agenda since the 80s and ignited as a political issue in the 90s. Plenty of time to put policies in place.
But I'm afraid government policy and inaction in some areas has done little to douse the fires of sceptics such as myself.
I've re-read my posts, and I'm still not sure how you reach that conclusion. Why don't you re-read them and then we can talk.
You're right that little has been done by government in this country. However, a better guide is to look at what private industry is doing. Look at how investment houses, investment managers, insurers, pension funds etc are responding. They aren't (as) shackled by politics as governments and they don't need to get re-elected every three years.
Maybe not directly, but that is the feeling I get. Some posts of mine on this subject, particularly on the politics side of things get called 'irrelevant', and you have even gone so far as to imply the politics doesn't really matter and that we should be only talking about the science.
Maybe you can see how I would get the opinion that you don't believe that the dodgy behaviour of organisations such as the IPCC matters, and only the end result is important? Whether or not you actually believe that, it is certainly how the far left works - 'don't you worry about that mr & mrs layperson, we know best, and we will do what is best for you and the world'.
There are many 'facts' and 'predictions' within the IPCC report that have been found to be false. I would be more trusting of this organisation if they didn't rely on WWF and Greenpeace to contribute to key areas, particularly when the individuals aren't experts in those areas. There is a lot of pseudo science flying around on both sides, and it doesn't help anyone make truly informed decisions.
And on the subject, the Productivity Commission just released their report into this very matter, and our response to it. In this report they compared Australia to China and the US, but ('due to time constraints') they didn't bother comparing us to the most similar country, Canada. I beggars belief that they wasted so much time on countries that are very different to ours, to go and ignore on that is very similar. Smacks of picking and choosing for political purposes.
Talking about IPCC predictions. Here is a link comparing the 1990 predictions to the actual data.
Maybe that graph isn't correct, but it does appear that the data has levelled out in the last few years.
Righto my internet friend, let's have them. They need to be sourced from other than right wing blogs as well and, to the extent the science is false, there needs to be credible evidence supporting that.
It is only dodgy if someone is making a personal gain out of it. Greenpeace is non-profit so how is it dodgy that a scientist working for Greenpeace is also an author of the IPCC report? Where is he making a personal gain? He's certainly being consistent, but that is different to being dodgy.
You need to have a consistent rationale for making a post, not just prejudice. Perhaps that is why some of your posts are considered irrelevant.
You're a classic Scotty. You'll look anywhere for evidence, no matter how badly gathered or easily discredited, that climate change isn't happening. Your mate Anthony Watts isn't a credible source - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk&feature=player_embedded.
Why are you so resistant to the science? I've asked time and time again for you to present credible scientific views to the contrary and you haven't done so. Yet you drag out the likes of Anthony Watts.
Glad to see Lord Monckton entering the country with a splash. The more moronic climate denalists like him keep making the headlines, the more people might start to question their stance on the issue. Or they will embrace him with open arms, but even Tony Abbot has deemed him too batshit-insane. :lmao:
The most annoying part is the media are giving him the title of "climate change skeptic". When really, he is opposing the Australian carbon tax as a politician. He is a member of UKIP, a British political party that are strongly against any form of taxing carbon pollution. He has nothing new to bring to the table and i bet the reason he comes to Australia is because of all their air-time he gets. Most people in England don't care for what he has to say about anything.
I don't remember much you producing much science in this thread either. You don't want to engage in debate of what I post at all, you just want to describe is is 'lacking credibility' and look the other way. It seems that everything that you don't agree with you deem 'irrelevant'. No one is credible unless they hold the same views that you do!
Are you saying you know more about the climate than Anthony Watts?
Separate names with a comma.