Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
Nope... NOAA and NASA's data were updated to show that we've (US) been slightly cooling since the 1930s.
.
Notice the graph is headed 'Global'.
The Hockey Stick graph also hasn't been debunked. There were some initial statistical errors but they have since been corrected and there have been numerous large scale studies that have corroborated the conclusions made by Mann et al.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
The Hockey Stick graph also hasn't been debunked. There were some initial statistical errors but they have since been corrected and there have been numerous large scale studies that have corroborated the conclusions made by Mann et al.
Pali... it's been debunked... hard. Google-fu is your friend.
The correct answer, and always has been, is that nobody really knows.
A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.
“Scrapping the Carbon Tax will save the average family $550 a year. You’ll see the benefits in coming power bills,’ he said.
I have a bridge to sell anyone that believes this for even a second. The only people seeing savings from this will be power company executives, who will spend the money on extra money hats, hookers and blow.
And yet you buy into the idea that taxing emissions will solve the pollution problem.
These links were at the top of a google search. The key issue is that the original study by Mann et al used some incorrect statistics although these were subsequently amended and further studies using wider data sets have come to the same conclusion. The actual correct answer is that no one knows for certain but that the supporting evidence is starting to pile up.
Anthropogenic climate change is a strong possibility but even if it is a complete fabrication the key measures to combat it are things that we should be doing anyway; sustainable energy production and increased energy efficiency. If we run out of affordable fossil fuels before we have suitable alternatives in place we will be in a very bad place indeed so it makes sense to put genuine and sustained effort into alternatives now rather than later when it may well be too late.
And yet you buy into the idea that taxing emissions will solve the pollution problem.
It won't solve it but it will certainly help by giving polluting methods of energy production and manufacturing an economic disadvantage.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/07/18 21:51:01
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
These links were at the top of a google search. The key issue is that the original study by Mann et al used some incorrect statistics although these were subsequently amended and further studies using wider data sets have come to the same conclusion. The actual correct answer is that no one knows for certain but that the supporting evidence is starting to pile up.
Anthropogenic climate change is a strong possibility but even if it is a complete fabrication the key measures to combat it are things that we should be doing anyway; sustainable energy production and increased energy efficiency. If we run out of affordable fossil fuels before we have suitable alternatives in place we will be in a very bad place indeed so it makes sense to put genuine and sustained effort into alternatives now rather than later when it may well be too late.
And yet you buy into the idea that taxing emissions will solve the pollution problem.
It won't solve it but it will certainly help by giving polluting methods of energy production and manufacturing an economic disadvantage.
The way I would like carbon tax to work is that all the money is put into projects for developing clean and efficient energy. Sadly, most of the time it's just thrown at other issues.
And that model is still wrong for myriad of reasons, which has been discredited already by the IPCC.
These links were at the top of a google search. The key issue is that the original study by Mann et al used some incorrect statistics although these were subsequently amended and further studies using wider data sets have come to the same conclusion. The actual correct answer is that no one knows for certain but that the supporting evidence is starting to pile up.
We don't know what we don't know... it's hard to have a discussion when there's so much misinformation out there.
Anthropogenic climate change is a strong possibility but even if it is a complete fabrication the key measures to combat it are things that we should be doing anyway; sustainable energy production and increased energy efficiency. If we run out of affordable fossil fuels before we have suitable alternatives in place we will be in a very bad place indeed so it makes sense to put genuine and sustained effort into alternatives now rather than later when it may well be too late.
Absolutely... I'm in the whole "kitchen sink" mantra.
And yet you buy into the idea that taxing emissions will solve the pollution problem.
It won't solve it but it will certainly help by giving polluting methods of energy production and manufacturing an economic disadvantage.
If you're in a global market, it'll put you in a severe disadvantage. The only way something like this would work, is if, somehow EVERY nation is under some sort of "carbon tax" mechanism.
“Scrapping the Carbon Tax will save the average family $550 a year. You’ll see the benefits in coming power bills,’ he said.
I have a bridge to sell anyone that believes this for even a second. The only people seeing savings from this will be power company executives, who will spend the money on extra money hats, hookers and blow.
And yet you buy into the idea that taxing emissions will solve the pollution problem.
Sounds like you just bought a bridge yourself.
I do? Surely you can find a single place where I said as much? Wait, no, you can't because I never did. All I said is that I don't believe in the kindness of corporations. Just like I don't look for gas prices to drop when the price of a barrel of oil goes down.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
well worth the cost, especially as more nations are beginning to implement pricing schemes. This is the worst time to scrap the carbon tax.
not to mention, Abbott's horrendous budget will take back any savings from this, if any materialize (and I do hope there are some). People were compensated anyway with lower taxes, which are still in place.
and really, after all the lies Abbott has told, you can't claim that Julia's carbon tax lie was worse.
And that model is still wrong for myriad of reasons, which has been discredited already by the IPCC.
It hasn't. As I have said there were statistical issues with the original model and some of the data sets were not very reliable but the conclusion reached by Mann has been corroborated by numerous other studies using expanded, and sometimes completely different, data sets. Not only that there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. Climate change skeptics are becoming increasingly isolated.
The only way something like this would work is if, somehow EVERY nation is under some sort of "carbon tax" mechanism.
No, it will work by driving innovation into alternative and cleaner methods which will then start to become cheaper and begin to spread to across the world. Of course the effect of a carbon tax on CO2 emissions will be limited but it will (or at least should) gather revenues to promote and develop sustainable energy production which is the most important thing.
Luckily the temperature went down over the course of the next 10 years. I guess nothing requiring major industry happened during the 40's.
I wonder if that would have made much of a difference. Obviously military production was massively increased and armies use lots and lots of fuel but at the same time domestic production would have decreased and, in Europe at least, fuel was only available in very limited quantities to civilians.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/07/19 05:37:42
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
“In keeping with our election policy, the Government’s consumer watchdog, the ACCC, has been given the funding and power to ensure that savings are passed on to consumers.
The question, indeed, is how effective ACCC in Oz?
I have to be honest I did a combined snort/spit out of cup of tea upon reading this. If you believe any significant proportion of the saving made from this move will be passed on to customers, you are wrong. And that's from someone who works in the energy industry.
Like so many things of this nature, this will make some extremely wealthy and powerful people slightly more so.
Generally though the complete lack of responsibility for the welfare of future generations is just saddening beyond measure, although completely unsurprising. Australia is a developed country and doesn't have the excuses thrown out by countries like China and India, it should be at least attempting to set an example.
It's worth noting that before our carbon tax was put in place there were all sorts of serious warning from the political right and various business interests that the carbon tax would kill jobs and destroy our economy. It didn't do anything of the sort.
One of the major reasons Abbott has had to push so hard, so fast to get rid of the carbon tax is because with every day it sits on the books not actually doing any harm, it makes it harder for him to mount the case to get rid of it. The big claims about jobs destruction and economic collapse just never happened. The policy was passed in a political mess and on the back of a straight up lie from the Prime Minister of the day and so it was directly linked to the fall of that government, but in terms of the actual policy itself - there was little cost felt by people.
That's the great big farce of limiting carbon emissions - it isn't even that hard to the economy as a whole. But we all freak out because, well, people are fething stupid, petty idiots, who'll panic and worry about slightly higher energy bills, but think nothing of spending 10 times as much on take away coffee.
LordofHats wrote: I never got the point of carbon taxes. As in I get what they're supposed to do, but I've never seen any reason to believe they'd actually work. Feels like one of those things that people do to pretend their making a difference when really they're not doing anything at all.
When something is made more expensive, the natural response is to look to alternatives that become relatively cheaper. By attaching a price to carbon emitting energy sources like coal, other non-emitting alternatives like solar become relatively more price effective.
A straight up tax is a fairly blunt means of achieving that end, and won't move in line with economic activity, and so what's preferred is to issue a fixed number of emissions permits and let the market determine what those permits are worth.
And once again, China is beating us!
One of the major reasons for establishing a carbon pricing mechanism is to ensure China's growth is built around sustainable energy sources.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The question, indeed, is how effective ACCC in Oz?
They're actually reasonably effective when given a clear mandate, such as when we brought in a new sales tax framework of 10% - they were empowered to find and prosecute any company that used the new sales tax to justify any price increase above what the sales tax actually justified.
The problem is that last time all they had to do was monitor if companies were lying - it was pretty simple to look at ads and press material that tried to explain price increases and check if the new sales tax was responsible for as much of the tax as the company said. However, this time around the ACCC is actually required to monitor if the company has dropped prices adequately - and how in the feth do you make that case? The carbon tax has been in for a while now, during that time prices have fluctuated considerably anyway, so what does the ACCC do if a company says it won't return to pre-carbon tax prices because most of the increase in that time is due to other market factors? It's simply not practical to pick apart an company's entire pricing structure.
The legislation that gives the ACCC power to monitor this is a paper tiger. It really can't do anything. It's just there because the minor party that got this bill over the line - the Palmer United Party, are fething idiots, and the so the Liberal Party was happy to give them nice looking, do nothing amendments like this to get them on board. The only question is whether Clive Palmer knows this is a do-nothing amendment, and is happy to include it just to make it look like he's keeping the Libs honest.
That said, I think the prices will come back to pre-carbon tax prices, just because that's what competition makes happen. Ultimately, if you keep the price padding in your market, but other companies return to old prices, you will lose business rather quickly. Actual competition will likely achieve what that do-nothing amendment promised to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: Without cleaning the lot of them out, or at least everyone who was in a decent position of power, it is hard to trust them again. But then the other side isn't better...I honestly think we have a worse choice than the US does at the moment in terms of 2 party
The choices in Australian politics are rather grim right now. Not as grim as the US, because we don't have the Republican Party, but I think there's a better chance of the Republicans becoming sensible again than either of our major parties overcoming their major structural issues - both parties are set up to make it near impossible for talent to enter the system... you either have to commit to life in politics from university days, or you'll almost never end up a minister.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Makaleth wrote: 1) We can talk about something else for once!
At least its actual policy with a real meaning to the whole country. Unlike, say, refugees.
2) The impact of the Australian Scheme in the global scheme means nothing, unless China, India, USA and Europe do something... we don't get a special ribbon for going out in front (or a booby prize for joining late)
If we want to be an actual part of the international community then we need to take a leadership position on some issues.
3) The earth hasn't warmed in 16 years... what the! Why don't we hear more about this
Because it's junk non-science. You don't cherry pick the high point in the last cycle, compare to today and claim there's no warming trend. There are cyclical heating and cooling cycles, and observed underneath that is an overall warming trend directly linked to greenhouse gas emissions.
But more importantly - the science on this issue is not in dispute. Forget the global scientific consensus - just look at the findings of our own CSIRO - either you believe they are lying at part of a global conspiracy, or the warming is a real thing.
4) It was not an environmental issue, it was a trust issue... sadly... nothing is fixed here
Gillard undoubtedly broke her word when she brought in a carbon tax despite what she'd said earlier. But Abbott was just as dishonest when he claimed economic costs to the carbon tax with absolutely no underlying figures to support that, and when the carbon tax came it was clearly shown his claims were total lies. Repealing the carbon tax now is the final step of his own bs campaign.
5) We are a resource based, large land mass economy with high standard of living and costs of business... this hurts us more than most other countries.
It hurt us not at all. The fear mongering about lost jobs and economic collapse was shown to be total and utter bs.
Nope... NOAA and NASA's data were updated to show that we've (US) been slightly cooling since the 1930s.
So, first the hockey stick MANN graph was debunked...
Secondly... NOAA was found to have falsified the data...
Thirdly... NASA was just as complicit because they were sourcing flawed data...
It's no wonder we have a hard time having this debate. No one really knows the feth is going on.
Then, there's the whole debate of consistent instrument readings throughout the decades...
Here's the updated chart:
TL;DR: It gets hot... and it gets cold... ya know... climate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: If you subscribe to more emitted carbon = more heat trapped.
Yeah... okay.
I'm just going to stick to trying to explain the Australian politics of this issue to anyone who's interested.
Because stuff like the above, jesus fething christ whembly that's just fething ridiculous.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/07/21 03:39:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
How much of a counter-argument do you need for the scientific concept that carbon traps heat? That is centuries old science.
Is the graph wrong? If so, explain how.
I didn't comment on any graph, just on whembly's assertion that the idea that carbon trapped heat was somehow something people could subscribe to.
I'm not commenting on the greater climate change 'debate'. I've spent a lot of time explaining the science of the issue to people, and it's never gotten anywhere.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/21 04:54:31
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that part of the reason Palmer wanted the amendments regarding passing savings on to customers is they're pretty narrow and apply primarily to businesses his companies buy from, like utility companies. Maybe he thinks it'll be easier to tell if they're cheating.
whembly wrote: Jesus fething christ Sebster... explain to me how fethed up Oz's politics is now.
You know what, feth it, I'll actually do that.
Australian politics is fethed up right now because the left wing basically failed to do their job, and is unlikely to do their job in the foreseeable future. There is a basic structural problem at the core of the Labor Party that comes back to one of your favourite things - unions. See, unions absolutely dominate the Labor Party - both in a defined sense (by Labor Party regulations unions get 51% of any vote) and in a more general sense - to move up in the ranks of the Labor Party you need to start in the student unions in university, and then you're pretty unlikely to move up through the ranks of the party unless you spend your time working in various labor unions.
This wasn't too much of a problem a couple of generations ago - while other left wing elements exist the left as a whole was represented by the union movement. But these days union membership is about 10% of the workforce, and most left wing causes exist almost entirely outside of the unions, and often oppose the unions (a large number of union powerbrokers are opposed to social issues like gay marriage, for instance).
There have been some efforts to overcome this, but only in a window dressing sense. They parachuted a famous musician and a journalist in to government, but the real working power of the government - the apparatchiks were still all drawn from that Labor pool of unionists.
This produced two problems for the government - the first is that this collection of former union staffers were utterly incompetent. They attempted a plan to subsidise roofing insulation and the whole thing was so poorly managed people actually fething died. It was incredible. It isn't because unionists are automatically incompetent - but because any narrow career specialty all drawn together is going to be good at nothing outside of their specialty. As a kid I saw my grandfather and his business partners - all very successful and intelligent men, completely fail to get a couch out of a house - because they all thought the same, and when the way they all thought it didn't work there was no alternative point of view.
The other problem was that the a government built of a very tiny portion of society is basically in an incoherent position. The elected members and their staffers all care about one set of things - worker pay and conditions in the small number of still unionised industries, but the rest of us don't care, or more likely resent excessive pay going to only some low skilled jobs (retail worker continue to get stuff all, while maritime workers get paid six figures for working a forklift). It produced a uniquely weak government - they attempted issues the overall left wanted, but when they faced any resistance they gave up on those issues because it wasn't what the politicians and their staffers were really committed to, and when they tried to deliver the real focus of their party they saw an Australia where 90% of people were opposed, and so they gave up there as well.
The result, basically, was a handful of do nothing pieces of law, a continuation of many policies of the previous Liberal government they'd previously claimed to oppose, and a couple of watered down pieces of law. The only piece of law that actually did something, the Carbon Tax, was only put in place because the Greens demanded it in order to support their government, and it was a political disaster because the Prime Minister had claimed she'd never bring in a Carbon Tax.
But that's just the old government - what's it got to do with the current government? Well the issue is that Tony Abbott knows he can put up his ridiculous, ideologically driven budget, get hated for a while and still be pretty much guaranteed a second term because the alternative is putting Labor back in charge. If Labor was a credible alternative then the Liberal government would be forced to come way back to the centre, and what's more, they'd be forced to actually try to sell us on their policies before they put them in place.
And that second part is the big deal - you see, I'm a firm believer that the process of discussion isn't just about finding a middle ground, but finding an overall better solution. A classic example in this current budget is that there's now a $7 co-pay on visits on visits to the doctor. Previously, if you found the right doctor, you didn't have to pay a thing, now you pay $7 the first six visits. The idea is to have some kind of price discouragement to people to stop them just turning up to the doctor whenever they please - there's an idea that the health system is clogged up with bored old people who turn up with minor ailments just for something to do*. But it's only $7, and only for the first six visits - so a person who really does turn up every time they cough and makes 20 appointments in a year pays as much as if they're frugal and only goes every second month. Had the issue been properly discussed and debated, not just by politicians but by medical and population health experts then a much superior model would likely have been introduced (such as flipping the system, and having 6 free visits a year after which you have to start paying).
TLDR - Australian politics is stuffed because the right is free to do as it pleases because the left isn't a credible alternative, and a lot will have to change in order for the left to become a credible alternative.
*There's a whole other issue that from what doctors say and what numbers we have of the medical system that probably isn't even true, and there's a much bigger problem with people not going to the doctor soon enough and ending up with much more expensive issues that could have been prevented, but according to basic economics it must be true and therefore we must reform the system to solve.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Whembly, if you want to argue the interpretation of the data and all that, okay. You've got some wiggle room there.
But seriously "If you subscribe to the belief that carbon causes warming"
Well, first off, this is one of my pet peeves. Carbon dioxide causes global warming through a very well understood mechanism of action that has been understood for over a 100 years. It is provable in a lab in very simple experiments and observable in nature. Carbon, the atom, does not cause global warming. Carbon dioxide, the molecule, does. It's not actually the most significant global warming gas (that's water vapour) but it is the one we're increasing the amount of in the atmosphere the most. (Methane is another).
The idea of a positive feedback loop (a small increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to a small increase in temperature leading to a small increase in water vapour leading to a small increase in temperature and so on and so on) is not difficult to understand. Neither is it difficult to understand that the carbon cycle is delicately balanced (primarily by the oceans, but also through photosynthesis), and that we are seeing signs (coral bleaching, for example) that that balance is being upset.
The only "sensible" argument against this theory is that human caused warming is insignificant when compared to external factors beyond our control such as orbital fluctuations and fluctuations in the activity of the Sun. Saying that Carbon Dioxide does not cause global warming simply makes you look like an uninformed, partisan fool.
Da Boss wrote: Whembly, if you want to argue the interpretation of the data and all that, okay. You've got some wiggle room there.
But seriously "If you subscribe to the belief that carbon causes warming"
Well, first off, this is one of my pet peeves. Carbon dioxide causes global warming through a very well understood mechanism of action that has been understood for over a 100 years. It is provable in a lab in very simple experiments and observable in nature. Carbon, the atom, does not cause global warming. Carbon dioxide, the molecule, does. It's not actually the most significant global warming gas (that's water vapour) but it is the one we're increasing the amount of in the atmosphere the most. (Methane is another).
The idea of a positive feedback loop (a small increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to a small increase in temperature leading to a small increase in water vapour leading to a small increase in temperature and so on and so on) is not difficult to understand. Neither is it difficult to understand that the carbon cycle is delicately balanced (primarily by the oceans, but also through photosynthesis), and that we are seeing signs (coral bleaching, for example) that that balance is being upset.
The only "sensible" argument against this theory is that human caused warming is insignificant when compared to external factors beyond our control such as orbital fluctuations and fluctuations in the activity of the Sun. Saying that Carbon Dioxide does not cause global warming simply makes you look like an uninformed, partisan fool.
I understand the science behind it... it's just that the laymen (journalist, politician) don't understand the caveats.
It's like when you challenge the laymen, they sprout the CO2 is the leading component of global warming. Which is incorrect: It's water vapor.
Accuse me of being a partisan fool all you want. I believe that we don't understand the full picture. What's left of us as human beings, is to decide whether or not if we should act on this, even though we don't fully understand the issue at hand.
I can have a discuss on what's the prudent thing to do: ie, research for solar/wind/NUKE technologies...
But, when you have one side who keeps pushing the whole "The Science is Settled™" and "There's a Consensus™" and that "Hockey Stick Graph™" is all we reason we need... because shut up!
That's not having an adult conversation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/22 16:53:00
