I read the evidence, and found it laughable. You either haven't read it, or don't need to read it because your mind is made up.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
I really find it odd that we can accept that the fossil fuel industry is in receipt of all these subsidies, and yet we ignore this and campaign for a tax. Surely we should be campaigning for the removal of these subsidies (even if this campaign is baby steps for the introduction of a tax)? Removal of subsidies would certainly be a more effective market mechanism than a carbon tax on subsidised profit.
lamb22 said:
Oh, it's Mungo, well then, you've swayed me.
What about this excerpt...
Ah yes, the sceptics. Given the state of the science, it is about time we stopped dignifying them with that name, which suggests some sort of commitment to rationality. Even the alternative – deniers – implies they have given the question some serious thought. Let us call them what they are: mendacious, stupid or at best delusional.
Some may sincerely believe the science is still not settled, or that it is all a vast conspiracy; many others are feeding the doubters out of sheer self-interest in search of commercial or political advantage. But their opinions are important only to each other. Their views should no longer be part of any rational discussion and they must not be considered at all by Gillard and her fellow decision makers.
Mmmm - it seems some, like Mungo, are becoming a tad frustrated that independent free thinkers are not falling in behind their lead and taking up the faith without question - damn them..!
Further on Mungo's rant - he bags Howard for taking the GST to an elcection but proceeding to spend $$$ on advertising selling it (stupid public red-necks sucked in by that advertising).
Well Lamb, Julia can spend as much as she likes on advertising to sell the Carbon Tax if she takes it to the polls - just please, please take it to the polls...she won't though, cos she - unlike Howard, but like Rudd - is a political coward..
Well Lamb, Julia can spend as much as she likes on advertising to sell the Carbon Tax if she takes it to the polls - just please, please take it to the polls...she won't though, cos she - unlike Howard, but like Rudd - is a political coward..
Merveille said:
:hihi Merveille the maverick.
You, more than anyone on this thread, have argued from various standpoints, all contrary to AGW. Could you spell out your view on global warming, human's role in this process (if any), the role of CO2, whether any action need be taken and, if so, the best solution?
It is easier to discuss these things with free thinkers, such as yourself, when it is clear exactly what they believe in relation to these issues and the basis for those beliefs.
Panthera, I think Merveille is a 'free' thinker if we intepret "free" as "no cost" . Certainly he is not worried about any costs or ramifications of his thoughts being put ito action.
There are not enough Mungos in the press calling out the nutjobs.
Not one peer reviewed article in the scientific literature in the last 15 year has challenged the theory of human induced climate warming.
Science gives us digital technology, information technology , wireless technology, energy technology, transporataion technology all of which people use as a god given right and then they drive their cars to their homes or office, turn on the electricity, fire up the computer and modem all provided to them by science and then bag the crap out of it, usually without any understanding of it.
Mungo is much too kind to these warriers.
There are not enough Mungos in the press calling out the nutjobs.
Not one peer reviewed article in the scientific literature in the last 15 year has challenged the theory of human induced climate warming.
Science gives us digital technology, information technology , wireless technology, energy technology, transporataion technology all of which people use as a god given right and then they drive their cars to their homes or office, turn on the electricity, fire up the computer and modem all provided to them by science and then bag the crap out of it, usually without any understanding of it.
Mungo is much too kind to these warriers.
mld said:
If we're talking politics MLD, the question will be can the Libs, Murdoch and the shockjocks stop the introduction of the scheme by 2012 and somehow force a breakdown of the current government.
This is what the hysteria and longest ever dummy spit by a losing party is all about.
Re petrol the previous CPRS had a commensurate deduction in excise countering the carbon price increase. I believe something similar will be in this scheme.
If the new scheme comes in July 2012 and we go to an election in 2013, Gillard is a shoe in as compensation will more than cover the price increase for most households and the world wouldn't have collapsed. Good luck to Abbott saying he'll take away $1000 bucks from households without guaranteeing a similar reduction in prices.
As for 2013 and beyond that's when things get interesting with a strong labour green majority......................evil laughter.........................mining tax rates put up, diesel fuel rebate for mining and other fossil fuel subsideis slashed.....................Paul Keating elected emperor for life under revamped constitution agreed to due to huge popularity of Dear Leader Gillard.
Hey Merveille. I see you've gone quiet on your nutjob 'scientist' Spencer, the evangelical who doesn't believe in evolution. Sounds like a pretty mainstream dude eh?
FWIW, I think he actually beleives in man induced global warming and advocates against it in the hope he gets to see his beloved horseman of the apocalypse and laughs at the rest of us as he ascends in the rapture.
FWIW, I think he actually beleives in man induced global warming and advocates against it in the hope he gets to see his beloved horseman of the apocalypse and laughs at the rest of us as he ascends in the rapture.
lamb22 said:
Breaking news: an opposition would like to govern.
The CPRS did. Brown and Milne have already flagged that a cut in excise will be unacceptable this time around. It remains to be seen whether they compromise on this point or not.
Of course, I'm sure Alan will be running hard on the tax-on-petrol issue regardless.
Yes, I know how the true belivers think it will go. Rudd handed out free cash and didn't even make it to the next election, I think you may be surprised how ungrateful voters are when it comes to free cash.
MLD
As I've said before I dont even vote labor. If you want to label me try 'democrat' but not in any wussy australian incarnation.
I believe in open and accountable government. I believe in checks and balances on power and the westminster system. I believe in a bill of rights guaranteeing freedom of thought, movement, association speech et al.
I beleive an an independant, diverse free press who act as a check on power.
I believe in wealth creation and the distribution of that wealth to maximise happiness and well being in a community.
I am happy that diverse communities such as Bob katter's North Queensland, Oakeys and windsors and crooks electorate or even the Western Sydney bogans get their voices heard and concerned aired.
But finally after striving to get the institutions right and protecting those institutions the exercise of power should be devoted to pursuing fact and evidenced based policy to make us wealthier, healthier, wiser and happier.
Labor are a fair way from the ideal and as such dont get my vote but the realistic altenative in Australia is horrendous. They have abdicated policy to the venal, the stupid and the heartless. They have no vision other than pandering to short term politicval imperatves, are disengenuous and ecomically illiterate.
The attack on the Westminster system started by Howard and his culture wars by brazen politicisation of the public, service, judiciary and the ABC was appalling. Rudd to his great credit avoided similar politicisation by not re-attacking the PS, and appointing merit based directors to the ABC and judges to the High Court.
Australia's greatest problem is the poverty and narrowness of our press efffectively representing the interest of Rupert Murdoch and like minded barons like Stoke, Packer and now Rinehart.
One of the next items on the aganda will be tackling the morass that is the australian media. They know that. That's why they are even more feral than usual.
As I've said before I dont even vote labor. If you want to label me try 'democrat' but not in any wussy australian incarnation.
I believe in open and accountable government. I believe in checks and balances on power and the westminster system. I believe in a bill of rights guaranteeing freedom of thought, movement, association speech et al.
I beleive an an independant, diverse free press who act as a check on power.
I believe in wealth creation and the distribution of that wealth to maximise happiness and well being in a community.
I am happy that diverse communities such as Bob katter's North Queensland, Oakeys and windsors and crooks electorate or even the Western Sydney bogans get their voices heard and concerned aired.
But finally after striving to get the institutions right and protecting those institutions the exercise of power should be devoted to pursuing fact and evidenced based policy to make us wealthier, healthier, wiser and happier.
Labor are a fair way from the ideal and as such dont get my vote but the realistic altenative in Australia is horrendous. They have abdicated policy to the venal, the stupid and the heartless. They have no vision other than pandering to short term politicval imperatves, are disengenuous and ecomically illiterate.
The attack on the Westminster system started by Howard and his culture wars by brazen politicisation of the public, service, judiciary and the ABC was appalling. Rudd to his great credit avoided similar politicisation by not re-attacking the PS, and appointing merit based directors to the ABC and judges to the High Court.
Australia's greatest problem is the poverty and narrowness of our press efffectively representing the interest of Rupert Murdoch and like minded barons like Stoke, Packer and now Rinehart.
One of the next items on the aganda will be tackling the morass that is the australian media. They know that. That's why they are even more feral than usual.
Your ignorance is breathtaking. You think that science is on your side of the argument, yet you don't even know of the existence (or more likely you don't care) of one piece of counter evidence. I suppose it would be a bit hard to care about counter evidence when you aren't even interested in reading the evidence you present.lamb22 said:
It is unbelievable that Australian politics has stooped to the level that people that think like Lamb actually have the power to affect our lives.
Giardiasis said:
And exactly which part of the sentence of mine you quoted is incorrect. Stop listening to climate experts Jones, Bolt and Mitchell and get some learnin inta ya!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
To Gia and Merveille
The article below is a terrific article on how the scientific method and the scientific community works. The first part goes on about a rebuttal of some of Spencer's arguments and is fairly technical.
The second half though gives a good acount of the scientific method and the aims and sometimes imperfection of scientists as people in the process. But understanding the process gives context to the present debate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html
The article below is a terrific article on how the scientific method and the scientific community works. The first part goes on about a rebuttal of some of Spencer's arguments and is fairly technical.
The second half though gives a good acount of the scientific method and the aims and sometimes imperfection of scientists as people in the process. But understanding the process gives context to the present debate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html
The whole part of it.lamb22 said:
This has proven to be a joke. Already remember reading a debunking, here is one link I found in the comments: http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/
I don't see the point of putting this information to you though, you aren't interested, your mind is made up.
Try something different to skeptical science blog
Giardiasis said:The whole part of it.
This has proven to be a joke. Already remember reading a debunking, here is one link I found in the comments: http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/
I don't see the point of putting this information to you though, you aren't interested, your mind is made up.
Try something different to skeptical science blog
I think we are in agreement Gia.
If you were serious about the subject you'd address the science rather than fnd ways to ignore it. Your view on how science works and the scientific method is truly scary.
But as you have said, no point in continuing this argument.
