Global Warming

[KnightersRevenge]

Its not "no point in acting" but "no point in us acting", while the rest of the world pump out new coal powered stations.

If we were massive greenhouse gas emitters and agreed that man-made gases were the main culprit then I may agree with you....but...well...

It's only you and a group of muppets who refuse to accept the science that think 100+ years of industrialised human activity have had NO effect on our atmosphere. The point is there is reason in us acting even if our effect on the global atmosphere is tiny. The positive effect on our economy and our ecology from not relying on fossil fuels is obvious. Solar is already at the break even point in terms of cost a local level. Wind is pretty close but for Big Ted's stupidity and Victoria has excellent conditions for wind energy supply. Australia is a monty for solar thermal but for small mindedness in government over the last decade at a state and federal level.

 

[Liverpool]

The point is there is reason in us acting even if our effect on the global atmosphere is tiny. The positive effect on our economy and our ecology from not relying on fossil fuels is obvious.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one mate.
If our effect is tiny then from a stopping global warming point of view, our efforts would be miniscule at best.
From an economic standpoint, another tax on top of the already growing obstacles that Australian manufacturers face compared to competitors overseas is not positive at all.



Nearly half of Australian manufacturers are looking at moving their operations offshore, according to a new survey of over 100 sales directors, marketing executives and general managers in the manufacturing industry.
The survey by Huthwaite Asia Pacific revealed more than 75% of sales and marketing executives were concerned about manufacturing being sent overseas with 45.8% saying their company was already looking into offshoring their operations.

http://blog.huthwaite.com.au/s/348/Sales-Survey-Manufacturing-Survey.html

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one mate.
If our effect is tiny then from a stopping global warming point of view, our efforts would be miniscule at best.
From an economic standpoint, another tax on top of the already growing obstacles that Australian manufacturers face compared to competitors overseas is not positive at all.



Nearly half of Australian manufacturers are looking at moving their operations offshore, according to a new survey of over 100 sales directors, marketing executives and general managers in the manufacturing industry.
The survey by Huthwaite Asia Pacific revealed more than 75% of sales and marketing executives were concerned about manufacturing being sent overseas with 45.8% saying their company was already looking into offshoring their operations.

http://blog.huthwaite.com.au/s/348/Sales-Survey-Manufacturing-Survey.html

Come on mate that blog is crap and you know it. Sensationalist tosh does not make for a convincing argument, haven't you learned that yet? It just makes you look silly. Or like the bloke Merveille is busy quoting over on the Free Speech thread. All change happens slowly, with the exception perhaps of market crashes which are the exclusive purview of the right wing ultra-capitalist monkeys you think have a better handle on things than the rest of us.

 

[tigersnake]

Its not "no point in acting" but "no point in us acting", while the rest of the world pump out new coal powered stations.

If we were massive greenhouse gas emitters and agreed that man-made gases were the main culprit then I may agree with you....but...well...

Um. well yes, insert 'us' in there. I thought that was self evident.

 

[Liverpool]

Come on mate that blog is crap and you know it. Sensationalist tosh does not make for a convincing argument, haven't you learned that yet? It just makes you look silly. Or like the bloke Merveille is busy quoting over on the Free Speech thread. All change happens slowly, with the exception perhaps of market crashes which are the exclusive purview of the right wing ultra-capitalist monkeys you think have a better handle on things than the rest of us.

Sensationalist tosh and crap because you don't believe the figures? or?


High costs spur companies to move offshore
Woodside Petroleum chief executive Peter Coleman says its new $1.3 billion Israeli joint venture is a reminder that companies will move their capital to overseas jurisdictions when the cost of doing business in Australia rises.
“I think what [investors] are doing is starting to send signals that investment in Australia is becoming less competitive compared to their other choices,” Mr Coleman said.
“It’s not just a matter of simply waiting a couple of years and they’ll come back. If they leave, they probably won’t come back for a long period of time.”
http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/high_costs_spur_companies_to_move_PZxG7xpSTSQHOvbLYylWUP


Now this is my concern with you and some of the other pro- carbon tax lobbyists on here.

If we already are becoming less competitive for industries to do business here, then they will go...and the last thing we should be doing is forcing them to adopt and invest in a completely new way to run their businesses, when firstly there is no short-term return for investors, and also, based on a science that is still not 100% convincing regarding man-made activities even being the culprit anyway.

You are risking the economic future of Australia based on a premise that we are going to save the planet (or, at least slow its extinction) and then hope that other countries will follow suit.

Antman made some good points yesterday in his post regarding short-term losses becoming long-term gains but there is a tipping point where we will have so many short-term losses here, that businesses will simply see it as not viable and will look at other alternatives.

Its why we need to be 100% sure of the path we are going down and I fear the present Government have one minute denied that they are even going down a carbon tax route, then cobbled together to appease the Greens or other parties, and now the country is headed down another route.

If you don't get developing countries on board immediately, then you will lose businesses here.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Now this is my concern with you and some of the other pro- carbon tax lobbyists on here.

If we already are becoming less competitive for industries to do business here, then they will go...and the last thing we should be doing is forcing them to adopt and invest in a completely new way to run their businesses, when firstly there is no short-term return for investors, and also, based on a science that is still not 100% convincing regarding man-made activities even being the culprit anyway..

You can argue many fronts Livers but this one is done and dusted. The rest of your argument falls down when you revert to denialist dogma over science. Business is not going to wholesale shift off shore. Companies will do business where they see the greatest profits. But by your argument Australia should set up as an anti-competitive tax haven with no regulation. Companies would flock here. I wonder if anyone else ever thought of that? Hang on....the Irish did. And it worked right up until it didn't....spectacularly!

 

[Liverpool]

Business is not going to wholesale shift off shore. Companies will do business where they see the greatest profits. But by your argument Australia should set up as an anti-competitive tax haven with no regulation. Companies would flock here. I wonder if anyone else ever thought of that? Hang on....the Irish did. And it worked right up until it didn't....spectacularly!

I agree, and companies are seeing greater profits by moving offshore.....and thats before we really get a carbon tax kicking in.

I think we are in the envious position of being a low emitter of carbon and don't have to drastically change what we do here and risk our economy and livelihoods trying to save the planet on some promise that other, bigger emitters, will follow suit.

The problem also is that the biggest emitters in Asia are the developing nations that can offer low overheads and less regulation and are happy to risk the future of the planet (if we are to believe the science you support) by taking our business.
By doing that, not only are we losing out economically, but the total greenhouse emissions won't lessen just because we have lowered our own.

If we have been railroaded down a carbon tax path, we just have to be very smart on how we go about it.

 

[Liverpool]

Don't know if I'll get back on here before Christmas now...so merry christmas all you tree-hugging lefty green-tea sipping pro-gay anti-nazi ALP voting socialist commies :grinsanta


"its the blue blue blue sea of Ibrox..."

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Don't know if I'll get back on here before Christmas now...so merry christmas all you tree-hugging lefty green-tea sipping pro-gay anti-nazi ALP voting socialist commies :grinsanta


"its the blue blue blue sea of Ibrox..."

Well quite frankly I resemble that remark Livers. :laughsanta happy to be called anti-nazi too. Not a fan of green tea except when I'm eating Chinese - oh *smile* they're commies too aren't they? - definitely a socialist, though not a dogmatic ALP voter. Merry Christmas mate. If it wasn't for you I'd have to do actual work.

 

[Disco08]

Hilarious that Livers sees "pro gay" and "anti Nazi" as snide little putdowns. :hihi

Very revealing.

 

[tigersnake]

I know nobody reads the Aus, but the issued a rare correction to their front page CC denying story on Tuesday. Of couse the denying 'exclusive' which was completely factually incorrect, was on the front page (Tuesday) and big, while the apology/ correction was tiny and on page 5, still, its the principle that counts. I think it was a first.

The front fage story had a headline 'Sea level rise not due to CC' cited a new peer reviewed study. It was obviously designed to provoke the IPCC meeting in Tassie. Thing is, the study actually said the opposite, that sea level rises would have been higher but for volcanic eruptions. Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that editorial meeting.

 

[AngryAnt]

I know nobody reads the Aus, but the issued a rare correction to their front page CC denying story on Tuesday. Of couse the denying 'exclusive' which was completely factually incorrect, was on the front page (Tuesday) and big, while the apology/ correction was tiny and on page 5, still, its the principle that counts. I think it was a first.

The front fage story had a headline 'Sea level rise not due to CC' cited a new peer reviewed study. It was obviously designed to provoke the IPCC meeting in Tassie. Thing is, the study actually said the opposite, that sea level rises would have been higher but for volcanic eruptions. Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that editorial meeting.

News Limited wears its heart on its sleeve when dealing with either climate change or the Labor government.

 

[tigersnake]

Bloody pinko scaremongers at it again. Must be research grant time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos

 

[AngryAnt]

Bloody pinko scaremongers at it again. Must be research grant time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos

It's a huge evil conspiracy that rivals 9/11 in its scope and audacity.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Check out these pics of China's 'air'.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/01/chinas-toxic-sky/100449/

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Check out these pics of China's 'air'.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/01/chinas-toxic-sky/100449/

Is it just me? That 5th photo looks like a still from the opening scenes of Blade Runner.

 

[Liverpool]

Check out these pics of China's 'air'.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/01/chinas-toxic-sky/100449/

And people want us to have a carbon tax? :cutelaugh

Lets get the countries who are causing the majority of the issues on board first and work our way down from there, if you think man-made emissions are the real problem regarding global warming.

 

[tigersnake]

And people want us to have a carbon tax? :cutelaugh

Lets get the countries who are causing the majority of the issues on board first and work our way down from there, if you think man-made emissions are the real problem regarding global warming.

If you believe that reducing emissions is the right thing to do (I appreciate you don't but there is no point arguing on that anymore), the position of waiting for others to act, regardless of how big those others are, is ethically bankrupt.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Here is a rebuttal to the latest lies and nonsense from The Bolt including some that explains the garbage posted on this thread last year using data from UK's HADCRUT (The Met Office).


Grog's Gamut Schools the Bolt in Graph Creation

For those that can't bothered reading the whole thing here is a taster: It is basically about Bolt mouthing off on his blog about how Craig Emerson and Dr Karl got it wrong in a twitter conversation recently in relation to warming trends and he was going to set them right with his graphs. The blogger "Grogs Gamut" decided to check and found Bolt had made some very basic and errors in his graphs and thus drawn completely the wrong conclusion from the data. He also suggested that Dr Karl and Emerson ought to apologise to him...oh dear. To be clear these are just the exact same data sets used by Bolt but constructed correctly it is not a "different interpretation" of the data. Bolt was using the wrong data to create a trend line through the graph.




I will simply extract the graphs (they are in .png format so some browsers probably won't display them, sorry) and make a few comments, if you want the whole thing, click the link above to "Grog Gamut's blog"

Here is the first doozey, note the graph's title: "The UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) satellite data confirms(the Bolts emphasis not mine) a pause in warming"



Does it really? Something fishy here, even an untrained eye, I think, would wonder about that green trend line. Here is the graph properly constituted:



NEXT!

This one is just silly, different data set but same trend line. Does anyone else think The Bolt might have been on The Sauce?




And the real data:



Now for the controversial one that set tongues wagging last year. This is the data that lead to the graph at the top of the post:





Here (above) Bolt is still using the same trend line on the wrong data, but the difference is negligible. A small downward trend does become a small upward trend with the proper data set. And finally (below) the latest data from the same source:



I hope this is last we hear from the Bolt and his supporters on this issue, the rest of the world moved on long ago and so did most governments.

 

[tigersnake]

Yeah, thanks Knighter. This is the thing, I used to think that either Bolt doesn't get science, or he pretends not to get science in order to promote his views. But looking at your post, particularly those trend lines, I think he just doesn't get science.