Where in the hell is Australia heading?

[wayneL]

Well that's the popular press for you, isn't it? They employ 'science reporters' who know sweet fa about science but can whip up scary headlines that sell newspapers.

Yes.

 

[Ruby]

FACT: AGW is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Oh really? You clearly haven't followed any of the myriad links in the threads I referred you to.

FACT : Joanne Nova majored in molecular biology, and has an honours for DNA research for muscular dystrophy. I ask what credible experience does she have in relation to AGW ? Other then an ability to talk about it ? Would you ask a neurologist why your having heart problems ?

Have you bothered to go to her site?

In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate
change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of
the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that
human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that
seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC.

2004???? That is hardly current. That was the era of Al Gore!! Predictions made then have since be proven to be wrong by empirical observation . Oh, and perhaps you don't know........... the IPCC as been discredited.

As I said before......... do some reading. Get up to date.

 

[bassmanpete]

2004???? That is hardly current. That was the era of Al Gore!! Predictions made then have since be proven to be wrong by empirical observation . Oh, and perhaps you don't know........... the IPCC as been discredited.

But it's ok for multiple others to go back to the 1974 forecasts of global cooling? Just to make it clear, 'multiple others' refers to the internet in general and not this particular forum.

By whom is the IPCC discredited? Besides those who want to see it discredited.

 

[trainspotter]

But it's ok for multiple others to go back to the 1974 forecasts of global cooling? Just to make it clear, 'multiple others' refers to the internet in general and not this particular forum.

By whom is the IPCC discredited? Besides those who want to see it discredited.

Ermmmmmmm the IPCC discredited themsleves old chap. They claimed by the year 2035 that all the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt. It was found out their "science" was blamed on a propagandist pamphlet from the WWF.

I shall repeat myself here just for comedy purposes only:-

Last week I reported on "Glaciergate", the scandal which has forced the IPCC's top officials, led by Dr Pachauri, to disown a claim originating from an Indian glaciologist, Dr Syed Husnain, that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035. What has made this reckless claim in the IPCC's 2007 report even more embarrassing was the fact that Dr Husnain, as we revealed, was then employed by Dr Pachauri's own Delhi-based Energy and Resources Institute (Teri). His baseless scaremongering about the Himalayas helped to win Teri a share in two lucrative research contracts, one funded by the EU.
The source the IPCC cited as its "scientific" authority for this claim, however (as Dr North first reported on his EU Referendum blog), was a propagandist pamphlet published in 2005 by the WWF, the environmentalist pressure group, citing a magazine interview with Dr Husnain six years earlier.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ngate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html

It is a well known fact old bean. We have covered this previoulsy in this thread.

And just because I can I will repeat myself once more:-

Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 ° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html#ixzz1SYAgkrOU

So you see that a Climatologist has proven it was cooling from 1940 til the middle 1970s.

An incovenient truth perhaps? The data is there for all to see.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

These "massive" profits are not really massive when viewed in the context of the scale of their operations. They are only really in line with any large industry experiencing temporary increase in demand.

How about we view them in the context of how much profit they make? Take BHP, 12.7Bn profit last year apparently - and this is after paying people ridiculous salaries for driving trucks.

I'll say again, these sorts of profits come at the cost of our national wealth. It boggles the mind that they are taxed so loosely.

1/ As a reward for risk. It should be pointed out that not all miners are successful, many fail spectacularly. Without such potential rewards, why would anyone take such huge risks.

If they don't want to take them, then don't take them - as if we should care. Once the rest of the world will run out of resources they will be paying us gold on par with iron and coal.

2/ The land (and therefore the minerals contained therein) belongs to "the crown" as distinct from the populace of Australia. Every single Australian is not The Crown. You'd better brush up on these concepts before indulging in purportedly erudite assertions.

I don't really care about any "crown" - as far as I'm concerned, they belong to every Australian citizen.

why should those not meritous of benefit to so off the back of the sweat of others.

These mysterious "others" you refer to....would they happen to be the same ones who's compatriots in other countries get paid orders of magnitude less for the same job?

Also, in case you haven't noticed, there is a significant trickle down effect. Many Australians have indeed benefited to a greater or lesser extent.

Rubbish.

Not necessarily. It depends what is done with the proceeds.

Too bad the large majority of them goes overseas.

Can you please justify why you think miners don't pay enough tax, facts and figures will do rather than ideological and unsubstantiated assertions.

Ideology accounts for everything. If you want figures, just take a look at their profits. Again - what do these profits come from? The exploitation of our national wealth. You may as well be putting your money into an envelope and shipping it away to some other country.

From post 160


Was it that friken hard to scroll down from the post

So the study is basically one huge fallacy of ridiculously stupid assumptions that renewable energy will explicitly not be used in any part of the process nor for the electricity used to refuel the battery? Haha, good luck with that nonsense

As for the environmental impact, it's not zero but I live not far from the world's third largest electrolytic zinc smelter and I've had a few visits to an aluminium smeter at various times. Historically there were certainly pollution problems, but I wouldn't be too concerned about what they're doing now as it's pretty clean. Minimal discharge to atmosphere, the water is almost good enough to drink (not quite, but it's almost there) and the solid waste issues can be dealt with pretty easily if it's done properly. The days of ocean dumping are (thankfully) long gone... The main impact? Well the zinc smelter uses 131,000 kilowatts running 24/7/365 and aluminium smelters use a lot more than that...

This is the other thing though; do you think these environmental measures taken to ensure the plant runs relatively clean cost nothing or that they were done willingly?

The fact is, you do not need to deal with these sorts of environmental hassles in countries like China and India (at least for now...), and so it will always be somehow more expensive here.

Although I'm not saying other things can't make up for it to some extent like increased productivity initiatives, but then again these could be implemented elsewhere just as well?


Now, since people have linked to nuts talking about the carbon tax, I will link to someone who actually has some intelligence:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-15/paul-keating-attacks-abbott/2795514



I will additionally ask; Those who complain that 5% of our emissions are irrelevant - do you then support 100% of our emissions cut by 2020 and a total ban on coal exports to prevent others from burning coal? And before anyone points out they could get it from elsewhere in theory, it should be apparent this would cause significant supply disruptions for a prolonged period until production elsewhere in the world catches up, and even then it will be far more expensive persuading big polluters to look elsewhere for energy.

 

[Wysiwyg]

My turn.

How about we view them in the context of how much profit they make? Take BHP, 12.7Bn profit last year apparently - and this is after paying people ridiculous salaries for driving trucks.

Instead of being envious of people earning higher wages, why not get a job driving one of those big trucks?

If they don't want to take them, then don't take them - as if we should care. Once the rest of the world will run out of resources they will be paying us gold on par with iron and coal.

Paying gold to whom? The people living in caves and tents? Where does most of Australia source payment for work in the meantime, I.T. professional jobs? :

I don't really care about any "crown" - as far as I'm concerned, they belong to every Australian citizen.

Out with the pick and shovel then. Buy a lease and start digging.

Rubbish.

Don't forget to sort out the recyclables.

Too bad the large majority of them goes overseas.

That job driving one of them haul trucks must be getting inviting hey?

Ideology accounts for everything. If you want figures, just take a look at their profits. Again - what do these profits come from? The exploitation of our national wealth. You may as well be putting your money into an envelope and shipping it away to some other country.

It's where the demand is now. If there was no demand for your profession would you be in a job?

The fact is, you do not need to deal with these sorts of environmental hassles in countries like China and India (at least for now...), and so it will always be somehow more expensive here.

And hence the silliness of taxing our in comparison negligible output.

 

[Sdajii]

Julia's followers?

 

[wayneL]

.....

After that reply, sorry I just can't take you seriously anymore.

PM me your postal address and I'll send you one of these, free of charge.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Instead of being envious of people earning higher wages, why not get a job driving one of those big trucks?

Many reasons. I don't find it fun, I don't find it intellectually stimulating, I think it's a complete waste of productive effort (ie. you're not really adding anything to the economy in the long-term).

I also think it's a bad decision to work for any mining company, since when the mining boom busts, all mining related jobs will be at very high risk, and a lot are likely to be lost.

Paying gold to whom? The people living in caves and tents? Where does most of Australia source payment for work in the meantime, I.T. professional jobs? :

Sure? Call me crazy, but we should be more like Germany and Japan, and export something real to the world (be they goods or services), instead of stuff out of holes. We should export something which we can always produce, something which does not rely so much on natural resources. Industries which will be just as strong if not stronger generations into the future.

It's where the demand is now. If there was no demand for your profession would you be in a job?

What is your point?

And hence the silliness of taxing our in comparison negligible output.

Too narrow of a view.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Hi Starcraftmazter,

Welcome to the forum! It's great to see younger people around the boards.

I wanted to ask you a couple of things and have a chat if you don't mind. I'm a busy guy and unfortunately don't get to these boards as much as I would like, but I read some of your comments in the early part of this thread and felt that your discussion was not well addressed. There were a few people who seemed to try and attack the person rather than discuss the points that you were making.

Unfortunately I can't promise that I will be a regular responder in this thread, so if you are amenable I'm quite happy to take this into a different thread so we don't have to troll though various responses to find each other's discussion.

A little bit about me...I work in the Finance industry and have done so for much of my adult life. I have a bit of knowledge about things that therefore may be outside of your sphere of experience, which I think you might benefit from. (I hope that didn't sound condescending). I too worry about the future that we will leave to our children and grandchildren, so I suppose you could say that I have green leanings. IMO what the Green party lacks is economic credentials. (Not that any political party is a shining example of how to run an economy because of political expediency and point scoring).

There were a number of topics that I wanted to chat about, but lets start with this quote you made below, which I don't think was answered well by other responders.

One argument which I liked (this was before GFC to put in context), is that the worst depression which could potentially be brought on by serious action on global warming is much better than the worst depression and to some extent the extermination of a vast proportion of species that would be brought on by global warming in the event of inadequate action.

Personally, as bad as it may make things (though I to a large extent question just how bad it would be), I do not fear the idea of creating a better world, even if it will be found to have been unnecessary for the explicit purpose of addressing global warming, nobody can argue that it is pointless to create a better world, nor that sacrifice isn't justifiable in doing so.

Obviously you've considered the effect of a carbon price and made the determination that it's introduction, balanced against the possible outcome of doing nothing, is something that is desireable. Is this correct? I don't want to paraphrase and put words in your mouth.

I think the critical point I'd like to raise is the bit I've bolded and wondered how much consideration or analysis you'd given this?

Cheers

Sir O

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Welcome to the forum! It's great to see younger people around the boards.

You sound pretty reasonable, hello.

Obviously you've considered the effect of a carbon price and made the determination that it's introduction, balanced against the possible outcome of doing nothing, is something that is desireable. Is this correct? I don't want to paraphrase and put words in your mouth.

I think the critical point I'd like to raise is the bit I've bolded and wondered how much consideration or analysis you'd given this?

Not the ETS (carbon "tax") specifically, but action in general. And in general, you could make some sort of a scale like this:


Significant Action / Significant Economic Impact <===================> Little Action / Little Economic Impact

And I would place Gillard's plan somewhere on the further right side of such a scale. Although I am quite happy with it (it turned out far better than I imagined it would be), and the reality for me at least is that it will have more or less zero economic impact.

If you go much further towards significant action, it could have a big impact on economy, but I would imagine the economic impacts would not be significant if we put our minds to it. There is no reason that we cannot create as many green jobs as the dirty jobs we would lose for instance. We could educate tens of thousands of scientists to research thorium, various fusion, geothermal, and other forms of energy. Then sell it to the world to solve energy problems.

We could research how to take co2 out of the atmosphere in massive quantities (which is pretty much necessary at this stage if we want to prevent a partial mass extinction event), we could research how to take all the plastic and other crap out of the world's oceans. We could build massive ships to clean the oceans perhaps and have other countries pay us billions to do it.

We could create massive floating cities on the oceans in order to relocate people in low-lying regions of the world which are going under the sea level.

The potential for green technologies is damn well near infinite, yet there is has been no money being put into this until now (and we can thank the Greens for the 10Bn fund), and instead of looking forward to the future we have been digging **** out of holes and exporting it.

There is infinite potential here, we simply need to readjust our economy from houses and holes to scientific research and productive endeavors. Fortunately this is very easy to do - simply tax miners progressively more until most of them stop business, and gradually build up the green economy with the tax revenue. Then when commodity demand collapses, we will be no worse off (if we move quickly enough).

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

You sound pretty reasonable, hello.

Not the ETS (carbon "tax") specifically, but action in general. And in general, you could make some sort of a scale like this:

Significant Action / Significant Economic Impact <===================> Little Action / Little Economic Impact

And I would place Gillard's plan somewhere on the further right side of such a scale. Although I am quite happy with it (it turned out far better than I imagined it would be), and the reality for me at least is that it will have more or less zero economic impact.

Sorry to snip your post to just the above...don't get me wrong, those are topics worthy of discussion, but I think we need to take smaller steps.

Two things...

You've said that your assessment of the carbon tax is that it will be on the far right of that scale? As in little economic effect? Ok I can accept that this might be your viewpoint, although I disagree with your assessment. Below is a chart showing our Australia's current GDP or Gross Domestic Product. Note that the technical defination of a recession is two consecutive periods of negative GDP. So technically we are not in a recession...yet. This is before the introduction of the carbon tax, which will have negative impacts that will impact on all area's of our economy. The government is claiming that they anticipate that the budget will be back to surplus in 2013. In light of the below graph and the as yet unquantifiable impact of the ETS (or any other green initiative that will have economic impacts) can you please give me your opinion as to why now is the appropriate time in which to introduce such a scheme?



Second thing is that you said the reality for me at least. Just checking what you mean by this. Do you mean that you as an individual are unlikley to be impacted by economic rationalisation due to your current personal circumstances? Are you familiar with the phrase "let them eat cake?"

Cheers

Sir O

 

[Knobby22]

There is the argument Sir O, that the decrease in spending (and corresponding increase in savings) is caused by the scaremongering that is being out out regarding the carbon tax combined with the poor international problems increasing the gloom.

The negative GDP therfore is caused by people not spending, not loss of jobs etc. that normally portend a recession.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

In light of the below graph and the as yet unquantifiable impact of the ETS (or any other green initiative that will have economic impacts) can you please give me your opinion as to why now is the appropriate time in which to introduce such a scheme?

In my opinion the appropriate time was decades ago. But having failed for so long, I guess we will have to settle with now.

Global warming does not care about our economy nor will it wait. The longer we put off action, the worse the economic effects of global warming themselves will be. You think one quarter of slightly negative GDP growth is bad, what will our GDP be like when hundreds of million of refuges flog to our country? When our farming produce dives? And the commodities boom will be long over by then...

I don't think our economy is going to get any better in the coming years, so I don't really see why we should delay any environmental action.

Second thing is that you said the reality for me at least. Just checking what you mean by this. Do you mean that you as an individual are unlikley to be impacted by economic rationalisation due to your current personal circumstances? Are you familiar with the phrase "let them eat cake?"

I meant that I do not see it having any notable impact.

There is the argument Sir O, that the decrease in spending (and corresponding increase in savings) is caused by the scaremongering that is being out out regarding the carbon tax combined with the poor international problems increasing the gloom..

Or maybe the process of deleveraging, brought on by a ridiculous private debt to gdp ratio and now falling house prices?

 

[sptrawler]

You sound pretty reasonable, hello.



Not the ETS (carbon "tax") specifically, but action in general. And in general, you could make some sort of a scale like this:


Significant Action / Significant Economic Impact <===================> Little Action / Little Economic Impact

And I would place Gillard's plan somewhere on the further right side of such a scale. Although I am quite happy with it (it turned out far better than I imagined it would be), and the reality for me at least is that it will have more or less zero economic impact.

If you go much further towards significant action, it could have a big impact on economy, but I would imagine the economic impacts would not be significant if we put our minds to it. There is no reason that we cannot create as many green jobs as the dirty jobs we would lose for instance. We could educate tens of thousands of scientists to research thorium, various fusion, geothermal, and other forms of energy. Then sell it to the world to solve energy problems.

We could research how to take co2 out of the atmosphere in massive quantities (which is pretty much necessary at this stage if we want to prevent a partial mass extinction event), we could research how to take all the plastic and other crap out of the world's oceans. We could build massive ships to clean the oceans perhaps and have other countries pay us billions to do it.

We could create massive floating cities on the oceans in order to relocate people in low-lying regions of the world which are going under the sea level.

The potential for green technologies is damn well near infinite, yet there is has been no money being put into this until now (and we can thank the Greens for the 10Bn fund), and instead of looking forward to the future we have been digging **** out of holes and exporting it.

There is infinite potential here, we simply need to readjust our economy from houses and holes to scientific research and productive endeavors. Fortunately this is very easy to do - simply tax miners progressively more until most of them stop business, and gradually build up the green economy with the tax revenue. Then when commodity demand collapses, we will be no worse off (if we move quickly enough).

We could build massive ships and clean the oceans and have other countries pay us billions to do it.
What are you on, we don't have shipbuilding facilities and if we did we would be taxing them because they would be polluters. We couldn't compete with China, Korea and Japan building ships before the tax so why would we after.
So to build your ship to clean the oceans we dig $#!* out of holes in the ground and send it to Asia so they can build it, then we can pay them unlike your senario, where they pay us.
Also your water world floating metropolis. Where is all the $#!* going to come from to build that floating monster, again from our holes in the ground. Also if you think we will be building it your dreaming, the furnaces to make the steel for the floating metropolis won't be built here. So again we will have to pay to get a seat on your floating island.
Getting to your educating tens of thousands of scientists who is going to pay for it when you have decimated your taxpayer base.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

What are you on, we don't have shipbuilding facilities and if we did we would be taxing them because they would be polluters. We couldn't compete with China, Korea and Japan building ships before the tax so why would we after.

I don't really like your attitude, there should be no limits to what we can achieve if there is political will to do it. Indeed, the only thing which we lack is political will.

Also your water world floating metropolis. Where is all the $#!* going to come from to build that floating monster, again from our holes in the ground.

Precisely correct - which is why we shouldn't be shipping it off to other countries, but hogging it for ourselves.

Getting to your educating tens of thousands of scientists who is going to pay for it when you have decimated your taxpayer base.

It will be done with the tax revenues of mining.

 

[wayneL]

It will be done with the tax revenues of mining.

There won't be any mining.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

There is the argument Sir O, that the decrease in spending (and corresponding increase in savings) is caused by the scaremongering that is being out out regarding the carbon tax combined with the poor international problems increasing the gloom.

The negative GDP therfore is caused by people not spending, not loss of jobs etc. that normally portend a recession.

Knobby,

A few things...

1) GDP is an aggregate measure which is determined in three ways.. Production approach, Expenditure Approach and Income Approach. The three methodologies should all theoretically return the same or similar value and the figure produced by the ABS is a combination of all three approaches. Simply a lack of expediture internal to our economy would not account for the result we are seeing in the GDP figures.

2) What does a lack of spending (and consumption) lead to? If no one is buying my products I would have to undertake activities designed to reduce my fixed expenses, such as laying off staff, because to hold too much money in my stock piles will hurt the viability of my business. People not spending = loss of jobs.

3) I don't mean to be rude but I am trying to understand what Starcraftmazter determines is important in his decsion making...not you.

Cheers

Sir O

 

[Starcraftmazter]

3) I don't mean to be rude but I am trying to understand what Starcraftmazter determines is important in his decsion making...not you.

The very very long term. And then when you think of this, think longer

 

[pixel]

A simple lesson

I recently asked my neighbours little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be Prime Minister some day.

Both of her parents, Labor supporters, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do? '

She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed with pride.

'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where some homeless guys hang out, and you can give them the $50 to use toward food and a new house. '

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why don't the homeless guys come over and do the work, and you can just pay them the $50?'
I said, 'Welcome to the Liberal Party.'

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.