Global Warming

[Panthera tigris FC]

Not a fan of the excessive quoting, it becomes very tiresome.

Fair enough. I find it easier than scrolling up and down.

1. Yes, because it would be far too difficult to measure. Do you actually know how much CO2 is emitted from cans of drink?

Still missing the point. It isn't a measurement issue. It is a source issue. Carbon cycle.

2. Yes as viewpoint it is unhelpful. It is more pointing out the fact that saying unsustainable is not very helpful either. We need to know what period of time of availability is sustainable, and what is not sustainable. How can you call it "screwing the potential prosperity of future generations" when your intention would be that no-one exloits that resource in any generation.

I would say no one over-exploits that resource in any generation. If no alternatives are available, then so be it. If the consequences of its use are inherently risky (ie. fossil fuels and CO2 emissions) then you are playing Russian roulette with future generations.

3. No they are not gone, once they become too expensive people will stop using it long before they are used up. Unfortunately coming up with solutions that have a longer source of supply isn't as easy as you make it sound. It is only worth it if it is profitable. Otherwise it is not in anyone's interest to persue it. Remember making something artificially profitable does not generate real wealth.

I agree on some finite resources where their use is not damaging long term. However the topic of this thread is about a resource that has potentially damaging effects for the habitability of the planet for humans with long lead times. If decisions aren't made sooner, rather than later, it will cause problems for future generations.

4. It seems that any proceeds that go to inhibiting profitable industry will go to the government. The government will use this money to re-distribute wealth in an attempt to lower voter backlash or to send the money to various green schemes designed to boost green industry that have been a monumental failure, hence waste.

Or they could collect the tax to fund programs for Australians whose finite mineral resources are being shipped overseas for the profit of large multinational corporations? How they are spent is up for debate.

Where exactly do you see the 'green industry' being a monumental failure?

5. No they have not been clearly measured. I've already alluded to the issue of feedbacks as a point of contention. Inconvience is an argument to distract from the real issues.

Rubbish. Tigersnake made the very salient point that you seldom see scientists questioned (except by fellow scientists) when the conclusions don't have an impact on someone's beliefs or ideologies. The 'inconvenience argument ' is completely relevant.

As for your issue of feedbacks, these have more to do with the scale and timing of effects as opposed to the direction of the general effect. Yes, the Earth's climate does have feedback mechanisms that are still be studied and characterised. However, we are aware of many of them and the effect that they have. As we collect more data it is incorporated into the models. That is how science works! The scientific consensus from this modelling is that action needs to be taken. Apparently you know better? On what basis?

6. The incentives to develop other technologies increase naturally through Entrepreneurship and competition. The world population would be a lot smaller if everyone enjoyed the West's standard of living.

So you consider the haves v have nots something to aspire for? Convenient for you as a 'have'. I'd agree that continued population growth, which is primarily occurring in the third world will make the attainment of a higher standard of living next to impossible. However, there are steps that can be taken to try to reduce that growth.

7. I don't see why it would hurt us in the long term. Productive dialogue sounds warm and fuzzy, but provides what exactly? Concessions to countries that do not value Western values of equality of opportunity, freedom of expression, and economic liberalism would have no value, in fact it would probably be deleterious.

Because we recognise that the means by which the West became prosperous could be damaging in the short to medium term for everyone on this planet.

I agree that differences in fundamental rights represent a barrier to such progress and partially underpin some of the reasons why such nations and people remain impoverished. Is it insurmountable? I don't know.

 

[Giardiasis]

1. Where do they source the CO2 for soft drinks?

2. I don't agree it is risky so we're never going to agree here.

3. See 2.

4. Fund programs? What programs? Will these programs generate wealth? You are severely undervaluing the benefits of foreign investment. Without that investment we wouldn't be able to generate that wealth for Australia in the first place. Green industry is a failure because solar and wind will never be the answer. We've wasted a lot of money pursuing these technologies. Picking winners never works, it always leads to the inefficient allocation of resources.

5. It is not relevant to the question of does human induced CO2 cause dangerous climate change.

No actually we are not aware of them. We have a poor understanding of them. Your models assume values because they don't know, and without strong positive feedbacks you have no AGW. You change a couple of these variables and the difference to the models are significant.

6. Yes, because that is what drives people to better themselves. You consider me a have yet you don't know anything about me, and even so convenience does not change anything. You must realise that the have nots do not stay have nots for their whole life, they become haves through working. You either have a system of haves and have nots or a system of have nots. There is no such system of only haves, demand always exceeds supply. As people increase their standard of living, the incentive to have children drops is what I meant. Yes steps like getting them out of poverty through productivity growth and real wealth generation.

7. See point 2.

Glad we could agree on something

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

2. I don't agree it is risky so we're never going to agree here.

And this is where we part ways and arrive at different conclusions.

Which begs the question (again) as to the basis for this assessment? You clearly differ from the scientific consensus, you refuse to acknowledge the potential bias from inconvenient conclusions and yet you dig your heels in as if it were a matter of opinion.

You seem to think that the scientists involved in this research haven't considered the issues with feedback mechanisms and incorporated them into their models and the predicted error margins in these models. If they haven't you should publish these findings and put them up for scientific scrutiny. Otherwise it is just another empty argument from incredulity.

 

[Giardiasis]

I just don't think they have figured it out yet, and given how it is the fundamental piece of knowledge that underpins AGW, I'm not prepared to pay one dollar for it. I have seen papers that indicate negative feedbacks, so not all scientists agree on it.

 

[tigersnake]

Second: It is clearly not a few white lab-coated nerds against big bad oil. There are many people that stand to make millions from carbon trading, not to mention the bureaucratic dream of regulation and the political dream of spending other people's money for them. Not to mention people with a stake in green industry and green politics.

Third: No you are right, it will cost trillions. Er, what is the difference between phased out and shutdown? So you think "phasing out" productive industries and replacing them will less productive industries (I'd argue not productive)
will be a boom for employment? Which one of us knows nothing about economics actually? Comparing taxing productive industry to the introduction of technology and the abolishment of slavery is strange to say the least.

Fourth: Indeed.

When do you propose we start charging people for breathing out carbon dioxide? We charge people to remove their personal waste via sewerage and water treatment, so what's crazy about charging for their CO2 out of their mouths?

Futile, but here goes> Your second point, like I said, it never ceases to amaze me, its so naive as to be plain ignorant, the most established powerful industries in the world are somehow cowtowed by a few scientists and bureaucrats?. You obviously know very little about politics.

Re your third point, your statement proves beyond doubt you know little about economics. Currently, the industries you allude to, putting aside the fact that many are subsidised, are 'productive', ie, making money, because the EXTERNALISE the cost of the pollution they produce. Its HSC economics. You obviously know very little about economics.

What is the diff between phased out and shutdown? Are you serious? You're not doing yourself any favours here. A 'phase out' is a planned, progressive shutdown of an industry over say 40 years based on measurable indicators such as shutting the most polluting ones first, as cleaner power comes online. As opposed to just 'shutting down' all coal power stations say, next week which would cause major economic and social disruption. Pretty basic.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I just don't think they have figured it out yet, and given how it is the fundamental piece of knowledge that underpins AGW, I'm not prepared to pay one dollar for it. I have seen papers that indicate negative feedbacks, so not all scientists agree on it.

Not all scientists agree on anything, hence the term consensus.

It isn't the individual papers that form the consensus, it is the body of work as a whole.

Your argument on this particular issue does boil down to personal incredulity.

 

[Giardiasis]

Futile, but here goes> Your second point, like I said, it never ceases to amaze me, its so naive as to be plain ignorant, the most established powerful industries in the world are somehow cowtowed by a few scientists and bureaucrats?. You obviously know very little about politics.

Re your third point, your statement proves beyond doubt you know little about economics. Currently, the industries you allude to, putting aside the fact that many are subsidised, are 'productive', ie, making money, because the EXTERNALISE the cost of the pollution they produce. Its HSC economics. You obviously know very little about economics.

What is the diff between phased out and shutdown? Are you serious? You're not doing yourself any favours here. A 'phase out' is a planned, progressive shutdown of an industry over say 40 years based on measurable indicators such as shutting the most polluting ones first, as cleaner power comes online. As opposed to just 'shutting down' all coal power stations say, next week which would cause major economic and social disruption. Pretty basic.

Thanks for seeing past futility.

No I obviously do know much about politics, more than you do.

No I know much about economics, more than you do.

LOL, 40 year plan for a shutdown, that is funny.

What a productive discussion we can have.

 

[Giardiasis]

Not all scientists agree on anything, hence the term consensus.

It isn't the individual papers that form the consensus, it is the body of work as a whole.

Your argument on this particular issue does boil down to personal incredulity.

My argument is based on the fact that the science is not good enough. If it was, we could accurately predict the weather tomorrow, but sometimes we can't even do that. It is all a question of speculation, and how much we are willing to bet that these speculators at the UN are right. Given how wrong they are on many things, their track record suggests it would be foolish to give them much merit. Not only that, the solutions that are given will cost billions of dollars, and all they can promise us in return is the hope that new industry will be created out of thin air. Then apparently we have to wait 1000 years before we reap the benefits.

 

[mld]

mld's three point plan to 'putting a price on carbon':

1) lambo linked to a report on subsidies for fossil fuel use. I take gia's point that much of the content wasn't actual subsidies - have the Productivity Commission review all subsidies and protectionism afforded to fossil fuel use, along with all taxes and excises.

Once the report is in, remove all identified subsidies and protection. It makes no sense whatsoever to slap a tax on something when it will continue to be in receipt of taxpayers' money.

2) Treasury and/or the PC assess the effective price on carbon as a result of the removal of subsidies and protection. If this is greater than or equal to the current proposed price on carbon, then we can stop. If it is less, then put in place a tax on fossil fuel use - not on emissions. Adjust fuel excise, levy similar excises on coal, gas etc.

3) Ensure that the tax is revenue neutral - use the Henry tax review to identify the business taxes that need scrapping, such as payroll tax, and scrap them. Taxation reform should more than compensate for any loss in competitive advantage from taxing carbon.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

My argument is based on the fact that the science is not good enough. If it was, we could accurately predict the weather tomorrow, but sometimes we can't even do that.

What is your basis for that claim? The weather? Climate trends are not the weather at any particular moment. The trends are clear.

It is all a question of speculation, and how much we are willing to bet that these speculators at the UN are right. Given how wrong they are on many things, their track record suggests it would be foolish to give them much merit. Not only that, the solutions that are given will cost billions of dollars, and all they can promise us in return is the hope that new industry will be created out of thin air.

No, it is not a matter of speculation. Scientist do speculate, but climate models are based on available data and have predicted error margins. Most of the models that have been adopted by the IPCC are on the conservative side.

It isn't the UN that are 'speculating' either. The IPCC makes its recommendations based on the data available in the scientific literature. It isn't a bunch of guys making stuff up or guessing. The 'look how many times they have got it wrong' canard is also hand waving. They have to make recommendations based on what we know at the present. Does that mean that things won't be refined in the future? Of course not, that is how science works. If we had to be 100% on everything before taking action, we would never do anything. We just have to make the best decisions given our data at the time.

Then apparently we have to wait 1000 years before we reap the benefits.

That is just a strange comment. You don't see how we might see short term benefits from using 'greener', less polluting technology?

 

[Giardiasis]

What is your basis for that claim? The weather? Climate trends are not the weather at any particular moment. The trends are clear.

Yes, how often have we seen a weather report predict something and get it wrong. If you can't predict weather, what chance in hell have you of predicting climate? Trends are not statistical regressions.

No, it is not a matter of speculation. Scientist do speculate, but climate models are based on available data and have predicted error margins. Most of the models that have been adopted by the IPCC are on the conservative side.

It isn't the UN that are 'speculating' either. The IPCC makes its recommendations based on the data available in the scientific literature. It isn't a bunch of guys making stuff up or guessing. The 'look how many times they have got it wrong' canard is also hand waving. They have to make recommendations based on what we know at the present. Does that mean that things won't be refined in the future? Of course not, that is how science works. If we had to be 100% on everything before taking action, we would never do anything. We just have to make the best decisions given our data at the time.

Predicted error margins are a matter of speculation. You yourself just conceded that scientists speculate. The problem is the given data is not good enough to make decisions on, because the speculators do not have the knowledge they need to predict what will happen. That is why they won't be able to tell us what the temperature of the planet will be this time next year. They haven't got a clue, the MET office is consistently wrong.

That is just a strange comment. You don't see how we might see short term benefits from using 'greener', less polluting technology?

Tim Flannery reckons if we stop emitting CO2 today, it won't affect the global temperatures for 1000 years.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yes, how often have we seen a weather report predict something and get it wrong. If you can't predict weather, what chance in hell have you of predicting climate? Trends are not statistical regressions.

Weather does not equal climate. You might not be able to predict the weather perfectly everyday (although they do a good job - confirmation bias of the misses notwithstanding), but the general trend can be (and has been) predicted with greater precision. You can't deny the warming trend that we are currently experiencing.

Predicted error margins are a matter of speculation. You yourself just conceded that scientists speculate.

This is where your lack of scientific literacy shows through. Error margins are explicitly not speculative, but based on the provided data and the reliability of that data. They are based on statistical models, that you can fault (if you like), but can't claim are mere speculation.

As for the second sentence you have taken that comment completely out of context....lets revisit what I actually said: Scientists do speculate, but climate models are based on available data and have predicted error margins. When scientists speculate it is made clear that they are doing so. The climate models are not speculation, they are the best predictions given our current knowledge. They are subject to change and modification, but not through the incredulity of deniers. They require better data or a clear identification of their inherent flaws.

The problem is the given data is not good enough to make decisions on, because the speculators do not have the knowledge they need to predict what will happen. That is why they won't be able to tell us what the temperature of the planet will be this time next year. They haven't got a clue, the MET office is consistently wrong.

Wrong. Again, weather is not climate. Have you noticed that we have been having the hottest years on record in recent years? As predicted by the models (in fact worse than the conservative IPCC models).

Tim Flannery reckons if we stop emitting CO2 today, it won't affect the global temperatures for 1000 years.

Even if that is true, I would prefer for my ancestors to be able to inhabit the Earth. The models certainly don't predict 1000 years before we see disruptive weather patterns if we do nothing. There are also plenty of other side benefits that moving to less polluting, more sustainable technologies would bring.

 

[Giardiasis]

Weather does not equal climate. You might not be able to predict the weather perfectly everyday (although they do a good job - confirmation bias of the misses notwithstanding), but the general trend can be (and has been) predicted with greater precision. You can't deny the warming trend that we are currently experiencing.

Climate is the summation of weather. The greater the error we have with measuring weather, the exponentially greater error we have with measuring climate.

Causation is the important thing here, and you can't deny that the global temperatures have come down over the past decade.

This is where your lack of scientific literacy shows through. Error margins are explicitly not speculative, but based on the provided data and the reliability of that data. They are based on statistical models, that you can fault (if you like), but can't claim are mere speculation.

As for the second sentence you have taken that comment completely out of context....lets revisit what I actually said: Scientists do speculate, but climate models are based on available data and have predicted error margins. When scientists speculate it is made clear that they are doing so. The climate models are not speculation, they are the best predictions given our current knowledge. They are subject to change and modification, but not through the incredulity of deniers. They require better data or a clear identification of their inherent flaws.

The error margins are correct for the data provided, yet the data is speculated to be complete, which is something I dispute. That is why the models are wrong. We are missing important information e.g. feedback mechanisms. Predictions and speculation are the same thing.

Wrong. Again, weather is not climate. Have you noticed that we have been having the hottest years on record in recent years? As predicted by the models (in fact worse than the conservative IPCC models).

The record is not a particularly long period of time, especially when we consider climate as something that takes hundreds of years to form. The models predicted that the world temperature would decline in the last 10 years?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Climate is the summation of weather. The greater the error we have with measuring weather, the exponentially greater error we have with measuring climate.

No. Weather looks at specific conditions at specific times in specific locations. Climate looks at long term trends over long periods. It may be difficult to predict the exact conditions at any given moment, but climate tends to average out over time for a region - the term exponential has no place in such a sentence.

Causation is the important thing here, and you can't deny that the global temperatures have come down over the past decade.

(sigh) - It isn't hard to look beyond the conservative media to find that this claim has been proven false. While temperatures have risen and fallen over the past decade it is the long term trend that is telling. Broad climate effects can cause yearly fluctuations (ie 2008 was relatively cooler partly due to the La Nina) however when you look at the trend over decades it is clear.

The error margins are correct for the data provided, yet the data is speculated to be complete, which is something I dispute. That is why the models are wrong. We are missing important information e.g. feedback mechanisms. Predictions and speculation are the same thing.

Predictions and speculation are the same thing? No. Predictions will have strong data to support them, the models used to make the predictions will be explicitly spelled out and the degree of error calculated. Speculation is more educated guesswork without that you can sometimes find at the end of a scientific paper. Conflating these two suggests that it may be in your interest to try to understand how scientists come up with these models instead of opposition in (at least) some ignorance.

Again you bring up feedback mechanisms as if these are some sort of surprise to climate scientists. If they are lacking, be specific and point out how they could be improved.

The record is not a particularly long period of time, especially when we consider climate as something that takes hundreds of years to form. The models predicted that the world temperature would decline in the last 10 years?

Sure. The models predict fluctuations caused by specific climate events (eg El Nino and La Nina) but an overall warming trend. That is exactly what we've seen. The geological record on climate stretches back over half a million years. That isn't particularly long?

 

[tigersnake]

Thanks for seeing past futility.

No I obviously do know much about politics, more than you do.

No I know much about economics, more than you do.

LOL, 40 year plan for a shutdown, that is funny.

What a productive discussion we can have.

This reply is ridiculous. I make a point based on logic and this is what you come up with. Its like arguing with a little kid. Particularly good reply to the externalities point I made.

Another thing I was goint to say on that, not directed at you G I've given up on that, re the charging people to pollute the air, its exactly the same leap as charging/ banning people from polluting waterways that occurred during the 50s and 60s. Chemical companies, any industry, used to pump waste into rivers and oceans. Those crazy radical greens campaigned against it. People listened, governments listened, things changed and it was phased out, over about 30 years, starting with the most deadly chemicals. At the time a lot of conservative people, just like G said, 'this is crazy, the oceans are huge, and besides, DDT puts hairs on your chest' or words to that effect. In 50 years time we'll be looking back on this and kids won't beleive there were people like G and Jones, Bolt.

 

[Freezer]

Does anyone know exactly what the Government are going to do with the revenue raised from the carbon tax?

In specific terms please, not *smile* like "Reduce carbon emissions". Is it to pay for new wind farms? Nuke plants? New petrol types? What else?

You lot are gonna be paying a shed load - I hope you know where it's going.

 

[mld]

Does anyone know exactly what the Government are going to do with the revenue raised from the carbon tax?

Vote buyin'.

 

[jb03]

Does anyone know exactly what the Government are going to do with the revenue raised from the carbon tax?

In specific terms please, not sh!t like "Reduce carbon emissions". Is it to pay for new wind farms? Nuke plants? New petrol types? What else?

You lot are gonna be paying a shed load - I hope you know where it's going.

Re-imburse low income earners

 

[Merveille]

Re-imburse low income earners

all of it? No. About 10-15% is going to the UN to be dispersed to countries seen as susceptible to Climate Change.

 

[Merveille]

Gladiarsis, check this fruit loop out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c&feature=player_embedded#at=270