Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Jupiter warming?

Jump to new
For gawd sake don't let Kev07 or Penny Wong know.

We'll be up for more wasted money trying to convince the Jovians to decrease their greenhouse gases.

gg
 
Simple explanation for this one. It's all that brown coal they use there to generate electricity. That plus their big SUV's and they haven't switched to energy saving globes yet. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, there are still some people on Earth who fail to understand that the sun already keeps this planet about 288 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be. Now, you don't need to be the proverbial rocket scientist to work out that even a tiny change in the sun's output will cause measurable changes in the Earth's temperature and that of other planets as well.

Hence it's no surprise to find that the Earth's temperature rises and falls with solar activity, a point that many otherwise brilliant people seem to have trouble understanding in the context of studies into the effects of greenhouse gas emissions here on Earth.

And no, man does not have any known means of altering the sun's output so we're neither to blame nor able to do anything about it. :2twocents
 
Smurf, do you think you could write a letter to Penny Wong, c.c. her boss, and very politely explain this?

You would be doing the nation a considerable service.
 
Its trully interesting that if You study up what solar physicists have to say then you would be left in no doubt that the Sun is THE FACTOR in determining our environment and its changes. I t was certainly reasonable at face value to consdier that all the pollution we are putting int he air could be effecting the greenhouse story, but ultimatley science has won out so far and we are not involved.

it could be true that we do influence the atmostphere and just that science has not yet discovered a way to trully measure that impact, but then that would mean that we are not living in the land of science but in dreamland and apparently science is not a believer in having dream solutions.
 
Julia said:
Smurf, do you think you could write a letter to Penny Wong, c.c. her boss, and very politely explain this?

You would be doing the nation a considerable service.
Click to expand...

Penny Wong is completely unreceptive to any new ideas on this issue. She knows very well that if she took a rational approach (rather than the ideological approach) she would be out of a job.

As you saw in GG's thread "Jobs for Crusties..." she is willing to pay big bucks for advisers who think like her, not like Smurf.
 
Yep, I know that, Calliope. My post to Smurf was tongue in cheek, wishful thinking if you like.

Their zealotry on this will risk wrecking the economy and push people already living close to the poverty line all the way there.
 
Calliope said:
Penny Wong is completely unreceptive to any new ideas on this issue. She knows very well that if she took a rational approach (rather than the ideological approach) she would be out of a job.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine).

And that is precisely the problem with the entire issue.

If I am a government, corporation or anyone else paying someone to do research then my expectation is that the outcome of this research will support my political, management, corporate, marketing or other objectives.

I'm not going to pay you for the fun of it - you're being hired to get me re-elected, get some idea approved or boost profits. Any actual discoveries you make are a side issue - you already know what conclusion to reach before you start researching, all you have to do now is find something that supports it.

If I tell you to find proof of global warming then that's what you will find. If you don't then I'll (1) stop paying you and (2) find someone else who will produce a study that supports my objectives.

Harsh and corrupt it certainly is. But it's how things work these days - those paying the bills call the shots. Regardless of the actual conclusion of the research, which is almost always commercial in confidence, the public version WILL support the required political or corporate objectives. If it doesn't, it will be promptly buried.

Can you imagine the Liberals funding a study that concludes everyone should join a union?

Can you imagine Labor funding a study that concludes the GST was the best thing ever done?

Can you imagine the Greens funding a study that concludes the pulp and paper industry is of major benefit?

An airline funding a study which concludes the competition provides a better service?

A GM crop company funding a study which concludes that organic farming is better than their GM crops?

Very rarely does anyone do any truly independent research these days where the results become common knowledge. If you can't control the outcome then you don't ask the question. Sad but true...
 
such a true statement, when I worked for our national research team we often skewed or presented figures in a way that fitted with the house view of the market... even when we had some conflicting evidence...
 
This is a good example of what Smurf is talking about;



Suppressing the inconvenient facts about climate change

Declan McCullagh of CBS reveals that the US environmental agency quashed an inconveniently sceptical report

THE Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was sceptical of claims about global warming. Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA centre director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data". The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward ... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision." The email correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency. Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels." After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "Global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25703935-20261,00.html
 
I agree about the principle that whoever is paying determines what outcome the researchers will find.

What do the Rudd government have to gain from an ETS? Are they going to rake in more taxes that won't have to go straight back out on subsidising all the organisations and individuals to whom they've promised said subsidies?
Or will there be plenty left to stuff into General Revenue?

Is it to fuel Rudd's strutting on the world stage by saying Australia is leading the way?

Sorry if I've missed some basic point, but I wonder what the various world governments have to gain by such zealotry about something which seems to be at best inconclusive?
 
Sorry if I've missed some basic point, but I wonder what the various world governments have to gain by such zealotry about something which seems to be at best inconclusive?[/QUOTE]

Is this a reference to the domino theory for south east asian communism?
 
Julia said:
I agree about the principle that whoever is paying determines what outcome the researchers will find.

What do the Rudd government have to gain from an ETS? Are they going to rake in more taxes that won't have to go straight back out on subsidising all the organisations and individuals to whom they've promised said subsidies?
Or will there be plenty left to stuff into General Revenue?

Is it to fuel Rudd's strutting on the world stage by saying Australia is leading the way?

Sorry if I've missed some basic point, but I wonder what the various world governments have to gain by such zealotry about something which seems to be at best inconclusive?
Click to expand...
Other than a cryptic reference from Snake, no one has ventured an answer for me here. Anyone?
 
Julia said:
Other than a cryptic reference from Snake, no one has ventured an answer for me here. Anyone?
Click to expand...

In simple terms, the ETS makes energy more expensive and therefore we should all use less of it.

The problem may be that energy use is very inelastic and demand may not reduce that much - think of petrol when the price was heading to $2 a litre
 
Thanks gooner. But the price of electricity is already going to rise 30% in Qld this winter, without anything to do with the ETS.

How is the reduced use of electricity (if that in fact is what would happen) actually going to benefit the people who are so passionately promoting global warming?

Going back to the suggestion that researchers will produce a conclusion in line with what's expected by those who are paying them, I'd still like to know just what e.g. Rudd and Wong have to gain by costing businesses and individuals hugely more to run their enterprise or lives?
 
Julia said:
Thanks gooner. But the price of electricity is already going to rise 30% in Qld this winter, without anything to do with the ETS.

How is the reduced use of electricity (if that in fact is what would happen) actually going to benefit the people who are so passionately promoting global warming?

Going back to the suggestion that researchers will produce a conclusion in line with what's expected by those who are paying them, I'd still like to know just what e.g. Rudd and Wong have to gain by costing businesses and individuals hugely more to run their enterprise or lives?
Click to expand...

Not sure if I misunderstood your question or am stating the obvious, but less electricity means less greenhouse gases as electricity is produced by burning coal.

Arguably, given the ETS is just a tax, there may be reductions in tax in other areas to offset it. So, it is not necessarily a bad outcome for everyone financially. And we save the planet, to boot, assuming you believe in global warming of course
 
gooner said:
Not sure if I misunderstood your question or am stating the obvious, but less electricity means less greenhouse gases as electricity is produced by burning coal.

Arguably, given the ETS is just a tax, there may be reductions in tax in other areas to offset it. So, it is not necessarily a bad outcome for everyone financially. And we save the planet, to boot, assuming you believe in global warming of course
Click to expand...

Yes, but higher price of electricity if goes to producer will keep income level with lower production.
 

Similar threads

Glen48
How to make money on the w/end
Replies
0
Views
3K
Glen48
Glen48
Top