On 05/01/2014 at 10:52, daisycutter said:

you really over-rate any leadership role australia could take

the majority of the world don't even know (or care) of our existence

we could send ourselves back to the dark ages trying and no-one would blink an eyelid

I am not talking about us taking a leading role... just about us doing something. As I said in my first post... I have the choice of putting my rubbish in a bin, knowing full well it will probably have no impact on the reduction of littering, or I can take the defeatist route and drop it on the ground just because no-one else seems to care about a tidy environment... I know which option I would take... what would you do?

  On 05/01/2014 at 11:06, hardtack said:

I am not talking about us taking a leading role... just about us doing something. As I said in my first post... I have the choice of putting my rubbish in a bin, knowing full well it will probably have no impact on the reduction of littering, or I can take the defeatist route and drop it on the ground just because no-one else seems to care about a tidy environment... I know which option I would take... what would you do?

but putting your rubbish in the bin does have an impact - no rocket science there

but will paying a carbon impost cause temperatures to drop or arrest global warning? that is the question and it is a fair question and not defeatist at all

  On 05/01/2014 at 11:27, daisycutter said:

but putting your rubbish in the bin does have an impact - no rocket science there

but will paying a carbon impost cause temperatures to drop or arrest global warning? that is the question and it is a fair question and not defeatist at all

Sorry, that was my poor wording... I probably should have said "no noticeable impact"... any reduction in carbon emissions will have an impact, maybe just not a noticeable impact until it happens on a larger scale. I don't know whether the carbon tax scheme was going to help or not, but something must be done to reduce emissions... too many people (and this is not directed at you) seem to consider the hip pocket to be more important than what we leave behind for our kids.... and that is not merely some emotionally fraught argument; check that link I put up earlier to NASA'\s Goddard Institute research where it states that: "Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade". That is pretty sobering stuff as far as I am concerned.

And just out of interest... where are the savings we should be seeing with the dismantling of the Carbon Tax scheme? Thus far I have seen no reductions at all in any of my bills or in the costs related to any purchases I make.

  On 05/01/2014 at 21:39, hardtack said:

Sorry, that was my poor wording... I probably should have said "no noticeable impact"... any reduction in carbon emissions will have an impact, maybe just not a noticeable impact until it happens on a larger scale. I don't know whether the carbon tax scheme was going to help or not, but something must be done to reduce emissions... too many people (and this is not directed at you) seem to consider the hip pocket to be more important than what we leave behind for our kids.... and that is not merely some emotionally fraught argument; check that link I put up earlier to NASA'\s Goddard Institute research where it states that: "Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade". That is pretty sobering stuff as far as I am concerned.

And just out of interest... where are the savings we should be seeing with the dismantling of the Carbon Tax scheme? Thus far I have seen no reductions at all in any of my bills or in the costs related to any purchases I make.

it hasn't been dismantled hardtack

labor wouldn't let the legislation pass the senate, so have to wait till new senate in june (i think)

as in said before.....happy to be part of a genuine global emissions reduction program as long it includes all the major emitters. anything less is just masochism for a small economy

  On 05/01/2014 at 21:39, hardtack said:

Sorry, that was my poor wording... I probably should have said "no noticeable impact"... any reduction in carbon emissions will have an impact, maybe just not a noticeable impact until it happens on a larger scale. I don't know whether the carbon tax scheme was going to help or not, but something must be done to reduce emissions... too many people (and this is not directed at you) seem to consider the hip pocket to be more important than what we leave behind for our kids.... and that is not merely some emotionally fraught argument; check that link I put up earlier to NASA'\s Goddard Institute research where it states that: "Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade". That is pretty sobering stuff as far as I am concerned.

The problem is the token efforts you applaud do NOTHING. The whole world could cut emissions and it would do NOTHING. But guess what, they're not going to anyway.

Btw, you may want to read this and report back:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/07/19/nasas-inconvenient-ruse-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/

Then you can read this and come back to me:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

You're just one of the gullible plenty that have no clue as to how popular these government grants are. The worse it sounds the more money these warmists get.

  On 05/01/2014 at 06:20, The Myth said:

Yes, all of 1.5% of the world's total emissions.

You're just another sucked in by this new religion.

And what are these progressive practices you speak of and how will they change the world's temperatures ?

Just got back to this thread

sorry for the delay

I am not sucked in and thought that was the neutral position I was displaying

Would have been better had you looked at the whole of my sentence "Australia did have some of the highest rates of emission per head of population and as a developed country with aspirations for some influence as a well educated country our adoption of progressive practices inspired continued studies and considered action." and instead of the response to the limited selection (I know we are only 1.5% of total emissions but we are also a minnow in most other endeavors. The point I was trying to make was that as an intelligent progressive country with aspirations to be recognised as such we can lead to change behaviour through our actions. It would seem that the current government reflecting the views of a sort of democratic result (look at the large informal vote, the selective policy positions of the Liberal, National,Liberal National and Country parties coalition before informing me of "the mandate" please) is determined that Australia will return to its position of being a middle order thinker and influencer, inoffensive to the major players and repository of international investment (takeovers)as we continue to wallow in a serfdom of sorts.

Sorry got a bit distracted there

Just hope we can endure this government until a more enlightened leadership emerges, (I dont see any on the Labour horizon either) which reflects my aspirations.

Incidentally I think I did read that the limited actions taken did lead to a reduction in the increases, that is they have not increased as badly as some models predicted. This was in regard to Australias reduction in energy use and consequent carbon emission as well as world wide impacts (Germany etc) I havent got sources to link you too as it was just another article in the comprehensive debate and probably too insignificant to most. However I am also reminded of the words of the song "Big things from little things grow". Hope that doesnt open me up to a tirade as some sort of left wing pinko looney a charge I was never accused of when I was secretary of the young country party>

I could add and bring this back to a footy analogy (rather than litter) that I hope that our new coach and administration are looking to change the paradigms of footy to come up with a new system to lift us out of mediocrity to lead the field.

I was also interested in the links you provided (post 756) and yes I think they confirm my argument that there is much contradictory modelling, no wonder we are all confused.

However the empirical factual evidence is now coming in and being very carefully presented due to the challenges that are likely to arise from opponents to doing something.

We do know that if you continue to do what you have done you will get the same results so like my football team I merely want my government to change what it is doing. The ill fated Rudd Gillard Rudd governments were not totally successful with what they achieved it lokks like Tony and the team will be taking us back to the Howard years (unfortunately the rest of the world has changed.

  On 06/01/2014 at 01:40, dpositive said:

The point I was trying to make was that as an intelligent progressive country with aspirations to be recognised as such we can lead to change behaviour through our actions.

This argument is just a nonsense. The rest of the world doesn't care what we do and what we're doing does NOTHING to the world's temperatures.

And yes, the models have been embarrassingly wrong.

  On 05/01/2014 at 23:27, The Myth said:

The problem is the token efforts you applaud do NOTHING. The whole world could cut emissions and it would do NOTHING. But guess what, they're not going to anyway.

Btw, you may want to read this and report back:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/07/19/nasas-inconvenient-ruse-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/

Then you can read this and come back to me:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

You're just one of the gullible plenty that have no clue as to how popular these government grants are. The worse it sounds the more money these warmists get.

Oh, you mean THIS Larry Bell?

You would rather do nothing because you are, in essence, a conspiracy theorist who believes that everything the left side of politics does, is designed to bring down the right side of politics and go completely against the interests of the "common" people. You love the likes of Bell, Bolt and no doubt Alex Jones, because they feed your sense of paranoia and hatred of anything slightly left of centre.

One difference between warmists and your denialsts... warmists show some concern for the future (even if it is not always well considered), while you denialists are simply interested in your own welfare and your own wallets and couldn't give a toss about what may come after you're dust and maggots.

  On 06/01/2014 at 02:11, hardtack said:

Oh, you mean THIS Larry Bell?

You would rather do nothing because you are, in essence, a conspiracy theorist who believes that everything the left side of politics does, is designed to bring down the right side of politics and go completely against the interests of the "common" people. You love the likes of Bell, Bolt and no doubt Alex Jones, because they feed your sense of paranoia and hatred of anything slightly left of centre.

One difference between warmists and your denialsts... warmists show some concern for the future (even if it is not always well considered), while you denialists are simply interested in your own welfare and your own wallets and couldn't give a toss about what may come after you're dust and maggots.

It doesn't matter who pens the articles, you're well within your rights to refute what is in them. But, of course, you don't/can't. Rather than acknowledge that some of your concerns may not be in fact valid you don't bat an eye and no doubt turn to the next source of misplaced paranoia.

I go for ''common sense''. I'm not ''right wing'', I'm conservative.

The left love to seem as though they're doing good when often their actions have worse consequences than what they're trying to rectify. A dopey lot with all compassion and no care for the consequences. Mind you, if I was Jewish I doubt I'd see the left as compassionate.

Warmists love grants and thankfully for them they have good hearted dopes who want to believe in their alarmism supporting them.

  On 06/01/2014 at 02:25, The Myth said:

I go for ''common sense''. I'm not ''right wing'', I'm conservative.

Nonsense... you are right wing conservative

  On 06/01/2014 at 02:36, hardtack said:

Nonsense... you are right wing conservative

Just conservative, thanks.

  On 06/01/2014 at 02:01, The Myth said:

This argument is just a nonsense. The rest of the world doesn't care what we do and what we're doing does NOTHING to the world's temperatures.

And yes, the models have been embarrassingly wrong.

Some models have been embarrassingly wrong. Many have overstated impacts while some have understated impacts also.

The data collection of some models has been questioned and there have been many new models developed from the scrutiny of collection methodologies.

Much of the current data is still pointing to change and much of the weather impacts are still being analysed.

One thing for sure when the insurance companies are convinced that the costs of restoration are caused by the weather changes we will see some greater emphasis on behaviour change to limit that impact. The major impacts even of the much maligned sea level changes are on the poorer populations who are under represented on the insurance companies radar.

As to Australian impact I think we have a greater influence than you may recognise. Certainly in our region and when it comes to supply of coal gas and uranium the very real energy production and perhaps polluting products our influence on supply, markets and behaviour is considerable. We are powering the Chinese expansion through our resources.

This discussion is getting more difficult and needs to be held over a convivial beer or two I doubt that we know the answers because we dont have all the detail. Maybe we can agree to disagree and as I commenced hope that some more enlightened powers are able to sort it out.

  On 06/01/2014 at 02:25, The Myth said:

Mind you, if I was Jewish I doubt I'd see the left as compassionate.

Care to explain this little pearl ?

  On 06/01/2014 at 05:43, nutbean said:

Care to explain this little pearl ?

Some views for you. Btw, do you live in a frigging cave ?

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/front-page/how-the-academic-left-came-to-hate-israel/2012/04/18/

http://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/26344/why-british-left-hates-israel

http://www.anorak.co.uk/362810/news/the-left-wing-hates-israel-because-it-despises-the-western-way-of-life.html/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/01/why_does_the_left_hate_israel.html

Surely you're aware of the left picketing Max Brenner coffee shops even in your own country ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/max-brenner-protesters-walk-free/story-e6frg6nf-1226433393159

"Little pearl'', you say. Read a paper.

  On 06/01/2014 at 02:25, The Myth said:

It doesn't matter who pens the articles, you're well within your rights to refute what is in them. But, of course, you don't/can't. Rather than acknowledge that some of your concerns may not be in fact valid you don't bat an eye and no doubt turn to the next source of misplaced paranoia.

I go for ''common sense''. I'm not ''right wing'', I'm conservative.

The left love to seem as though they're doing good when often their actions have worse consequences than what they're trying to rectify. A dopey lot with all compassion and no care for the consequences. Mind you, if I was Jewish I doubt I'd see the left as compassionate.

Warmists love grants and thankfully for them they have good hearted dopes who want to believe in their alarmism supporting them.

I love how denialist always point to conspiracy of scientists and Goverments in search of a grant here or there!

If there is a conspiracy on climate change is it thousands of scientists conspiring to alter data and corrupt models with the aid of governments across the world for a few million in grants or perhaps could it be a small group of billionaires, multinational directors and managers who have billions or even trillions at stake if they can't get all their known oil and gas reserves out of the ground. Please see big tobacco tactics for a precedence. They are still peddling their poison in Asia and denying its Heath consequences.

Hmmm my guess is that maybe they with limitless money might just be funding the numerous think tanks that don't do any empirical data research, they just cast doubt on the scientific data that is published.

Myth I will bank my future with the IPCC reports and the conservative, consensus findings they report on rather than the articles published from the various right wing think tanks funded by multinational company interests. Where is their empirical data research? No they don't do data, they just reinterpret other research and reports to muddy the waters.

  On 06/01/2014 at 10:03, The Hood said:

I love how denialist always point to conspiracy of scientists and Goverments in search of a grant here or there!

If there is a conspiracy on climate change is it thousands of scientists conspiring to alter data and corrupt models with the aid of governments across the world for a few million in grants or perhaps could it be a small group of billionaires, multinational directors and managers who have billions or even trillions at stake if they can't get all their known oil and gas reserves out of the ground. Please see big tobacco tactics for a precedence. They are still peddling their poison in Asia and denying its Heath consequences.

Hmmm my guess is that maybe they with limitless money might just be funding the numerous think tanks that don't do any empirical data research, they just cast doubt on the scientific data that is published.

Myth I will bank my future with the IPCC reports and the conservative, consensus findings they report on rather than the articles published from the various right wing think tanks funded by multinational company interests. Where is their empirical data research? No they don't do data, they just reinterpret other research and reports to muddy the waters.

I know. It's a religion to you.

In time you'll feel like an absolute dope.

  On 06/01/2014 at 10:26, The Myth said:

I know. It's a religion to you.

In time you'll feel like an absolute dope.

Great response. How can I argue with such relentless logic and facts? Let us hope that in time I do feel like a dope that would be a great outcome but I fear the overwhelming evidence is that I won't be and I will take no pleasure in you looking like a dope. We will all be losers.

This thread reminds me of this:

  On 06/01/2014 at 10:43, The Hood said:

Great response. How can I argue with such relentless logic and facts?

Facts ?

I started this 12 page thread and have posted facts galore. How many posts do I need to make on the subject ?

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/27411-carbon-dioxide-tax/

Knock yourself out.

  On 06/01/2014 at 05:43, nutbean said:

Care to explain this little pearl ?

I think it's what they call a "strawman". Anyway, here's a bit more to feed Myth Ben Her'th great warmist conspiracy theory:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/chilly-warning-from-scientists-on-impact-of-antarctica-changes-20140106-30dmr.html

  On 06/01/2014 at 21:05, hardtack said:

I think it's what they call a "strawman".

Do you only do platitudes ?

Perhaps you can elaborate and provide your in depth analysis regarding the academic left and their views of Israel.

  On 06/01/2014 at 22:08, The Myth said:

Do you only do platitudes ?

Perhaps you can elaborate and provide your in depth analysis regarding the academic left and their views of Israel.

It got what it deserved... it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion that was talking place... and to tell the truth, I am not interested in what the academic left think about anything.

  On 06/01/2014 at 22:17, hardtack said:

It got what it deserved... it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion that was talking place... and to tell the truth, I am not interested in what the academic left think about anything.

It was an aside about the ''compassionate'' left and was pertinent when one considers much of the content in this thread. It was picked up by another poster and duly answered.

You then further highlighted it by needlessly responding to a post not directed at you, which is surprising seeing as you think it had nothing to do with the thread. Do you always dredge up asides that you don't think should be highlighted only to further highlight them ?

The following is from one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. Flannery even rates him.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot on September 27, 2013:

I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.