Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
The sky is going to fall.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Do you really not understand what he is saying?