Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Julia]

Yes, our CO2 contributions are minuscule on a global scale, and when compared with China, India, America, etc - but (at least for me) that's not the point.

Maybe just try to remember that the important phrase here is (at least for me). We are not all obliged to see it similarly.

And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation.

Are you actually claiming the carbon tax will not be represented as an increase on electricity bills? Plus the additional GST?

 

[sails]

...And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation....

Unbelievable statement. If that is so, then why is Gillard handing out compensation specifically for electricity? Your statement would have to be absolute propaganda which means "Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." (Source: google search)

And more proof this carbon tax is hurting people: Businesses forced to dump carbon tax hike on customers

It is you who needs to stop misleading people, imo.

 

[wayneL]

Data Manipulation... interested in comments from the catastrophists

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/ushcn2-cheating-our-socks-off/

 

[Tannin]

Just the facts:

Red: distribution (poles, wires, switching equipment)
Blue: retailers share (includes marketing and various other items)
Green: power generation expense
Yellow: carbon tax

 

[cynic]

I trust science, not governments who refuse to act on what scientists tell them. As I said above (or meant to say above) if anyone comes up with real science which shows that climate change is not human induced, and/or that increased CO2 levels by man will not affect the climate, I will be ecstatic. Fantastic news, because it means there will not be the dangers to ecosystems and biodiversity that I far are inevitable. Given the lack of such data, I assume the worst - and it baffles me that people conclude otherwise with a complete lack of scientific basis, and based purely on their own conclusions.

Unlike religion or dogma, scientists are always happy (or at least should always be happy) to be impartial and respond to what their data and findings put out. This is in contrast to the biased, oil-funded groups who have tried (and failed) to refute climate science findings. Yes, it hasn't been pinned down accurately - please name a single area of science which, from the outset, has been completely accurate? - and the inaccuracies of weather forecasts are enough to show that this is a particularly difficult area to model accurately. That does not, however, mean that the entire premise is false.

The science of mathematics has proven itself to be a very dependable branch of science. Interestingly enough, logic is an essential component of mathematics, so I find it unsurprising that so many "pseudo" scientists are challenged in its (logic) application.

It could be considered unscientific (and foolish) to accept wildy inaccurate computer model projections as supportive of any view on anything other than the inefficacy of the computer models in question.
It would seem logical to consider a suitably large cross section of all available data prior to arriving at any conclusion and/or forming an opinion.

Sadly, many of the climate change protagonists appear to be approaching this process in reverse (i.e. actively seeking evidence to support a predetermined opinion/conclusion whilst at the same time dismissing as erroneous any contrary evidence - hardly the actions of a truly "impartial" scientist).

A quick glance at scientific discoveries throughout history (even as recently as the past century) should highlight the problem with basing unproven theories on a "consensus" of peers. On many occasions I've witnessed the voice of reason being drowned out by a chorus of fashionable opinion.

So how exactly is the acceptance of inaccuracies in computer projections impartial?

I humbly suggest that your denial of climate science is derived from significantly greater ignorance of the area than the scientists that publish and research this area.

"Humbly" suggest??? Really?

You're attributing "significantly greater ignorance" to a person for expressing an opposing viewpoint! How is that humble?
(I think you might have the words "humbly" and "arrogantly" confused.)

Scientists go 'against the narrative' all the time. There are no repercussions for this, assuming the findings are based on good and accurate research. Science is continually changing, and scientists accept this. There are many more recent examples than Ptolemy (which incidentally was a time when there were many more scientific misconceptions - by today's understanding of science - than merely the centre of the solar system).

I believe that there are some scientists going against the CC "narrative" as I type. Given the quality of the CC prophecies/computer projections that we've been hearing to date from our revered CC prophets/scientists, whom I dare not disagree with lest I be accused of heresy/denial and thereby condemned to:
(i) roast for all eternity,
(ii)starve to death in a famine/drought,
(iii)be struck down by a horrible disease (melanoma), and
(iv) be drowned in a flood covering the entire planet from melting icecaps.
(v) etcetera

Please remind me again, just who was it that said science wasn't a religion?

No, I can't. I'm not a climate scientist. Even climate scientists can't accurately (and shouldn't try to). Neither can Lord Mockton, who is definitely NOT a climate scientist (what a joke). Why is it that people are willing to listen to Lord Mockton because their opinion is in line with his, and ignore and discredit people who actually know about this area?

So you've actually noticed that some people unreservedly accept "expert" viewpoints, regardless of credentials, provided the expressed opinions align with their own.

How is this different to your acceptance of the authority of "experts" with, by your own admission, a proven history of inaccuracy?

If I were to give an alternative account for the phenomena that CC protagonists are raising alarms about, an explanation which accounts anthropgenic CO2 emissions as being an important part of this planet's natural evolutionary cycle and therefore not a matter for mankind to be unduly concerned with, would you accept my assertion simply because the climate scientists were unable to disprove it?

And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation.

Don't tell me! Let me guess! The dog ate your homework and the cheque's in the mail!

Sure thing Herzy! - we all believe you! We ruullly, twuuulllly do!!

 

[sails]

Just the facts:

Red: distribution (poles, wires, switching equipment)
Blue: retailers share (includes marketing and various other items)
Green: power generation expense
Yellow: carbon tax

Herzy - you said "...And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation...." and yet even Tannin's pie chart shows that carbon tax DOES cause price increases. We all know it and yet you try to pretend it doesn't?????

 

[Tannin]

^ A misleading post.

100% of the price increases you have experienced so far have got nothing to do with the carbon tax.

Less than 20% of the price increases you will have experienced by the end of this year are to do with the carbon tax.

Around 80% of the price increases have to do with massive, long-term systematic under-investment in the infrastructure over the past couple of decades.

Most Australians (far more than half) will pay the same or pay less overall because of the substantial July income tax cuts (which have been paid for by the carbon tax, of course).

Any Australian wishing to dodge paying the carbon tax is free to do so. Indeed, you are officially encouraged to dodge the tax. The less harm you do to the planet and the more care you put into your children's future, the less tax you pay! If you don't want to pay the carbon tax, use more renewables and conserve more effectively and don't pay the tax!

 

[sptrawler]

^ A misleading post.

100% of the price increases you have experienced so far have got nothing to do with the carbon tax.

Less than 20% of the price increases you will have experienced by the end of this year are to do with the carbon tax.

Around 80% of the price increases have to do with massive, long-term systematic under-investment in the infrastructure over the past couple of decades.

Most Australians (far more than half) will pay the same or pay less overall because of the substantial July income tax cuts (which have been paid for by the carbon tax, of course).

Any Australian wishing to dodge paying the carbon tax is free to do so. Indeed, you are officially encouraged to dodge the tax. The less harm you do to the planet and the more care you put into your children's future, the less tax you pay! If you don't want to pay the carbon tax, use more renewables and conserve more effectively and don't pay the tax!

What about when it goes on diesel in 2014 and is incorperated in transport costs, don't eat?
If you are so concerned about harm to the planet, why aren't we shutting down coal mines instead of selling them to China and India?
Why has the only solar panel manufacturer in Australia moved offshore, this year? Surely this is the new technological green industry the government is meant to be supporting with grants from the tax.
In Perth a solar hot water system manufacturer is reported to be shutting down? due to shutting down of 'green'
government schemes.
Maybe one of you pro carbon tax posters could give me an example of one, just ONE productive industry that has
benefited since the carcon tax has been announced.
Like I said, give me a link to ONE manufacturing company that is doing well?
There must be heaps in this new Bob Brown, Julia Gillard clean energy and new technology future. Jeez the tax and incentives must be breeding new companies daily, hell all you have to do is dream. LOL
What a bunch of dicks.

 

[cynic]

Tannin , did the dog eat your homework too?!

Or is the dispensing of misinformation just one of your pastimes?


I recently received a letter from my electricity retailer which clearly states:

...writing to let you know that your electricity prices will increase from 1 July 2012....The increase is largely related to the introduction of the carbon price by the Australian Government on 1 July 2012...".

So in effect I have already been experiencing the impact of this carbon tax in the form of higher electricity prices that are being billed to my account.


Further to this, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that the increased energy prices will feed into the delivery and production costs associated with most consumables. As such I find it difficult to understand how anyone living in Australia could evade its impact (except for those whom are planning to emigrate or possibly expire).

 

[Tannin]

Cynic, it is very simple.

First, the very large electricity increases you have already experienced have got nothig to do with the carbon tax. Absolutely nothing. The letter you have, if you are quoting it accurately, is at best disingenuous, and certainly misleading. If that really is the text of it, you should send it to the ACCC so that the liar who wrote it can be prosecuted for misleading conduct under the fair trading laws.

Over the next year or so, you will see further price rises. Only about one third of these have anything to do with the carbon tax. The continuing push to upgrade distribution systems and sting customers for it - often beyond the bounds of sense or reason now - has already produced large rises, and will continue to produce more.

Second, unless your income is something like $100,000+ you just had a large tax cut. For the great majority of Australians, this very significant tax reform means that you can pay the 10% increase in electricity and the 0.9% increase in other items which contribute to the cost of living and still have money left over.

It makes no sense to complain about the carbon tax when you are either better off because of the income tax reforms (most Australians are) or else receiving much more than the average income.

Best of all, you don't have to pay the tax. If you don't like the carbon tax, simply improve your buying habits and don't pay it! Even very simple changes can significantly reduce your carbon footprint, and save you money. Don't talk, act!

 

[wayneL]

Best of all, you don't have to pay the tax. If you don't like the carbon tax, simply improve your buying habits and don't pay it! Even very simple changes can significantly reduce your carbon footprint, and save you money. Don't talk, act!

Perhaps you could detail how people can do this.

 

[moXJO]

Second, unless your income is something like $100,000+ you just had a large tax cut. For the great majority of Australians, this very significant tax reform means that you can pay the 10% increase in electricity and the 0.9% increase in other items which contribute to the cost of living and still have money left over.

It makes no sense to complain about the carbon tax when you are either better off because of the income tax reforms (most Australians are) or else receiving much more than the average income.

Best of all, you don't have to pay the tax. If you don't like the carbon tax, simply improve your buying habits and don't pay it! Even very simple changes can significantly reduce your carbon footprint, and save you money. Don't talk, act!

What a load of shyte.

 

[Tannin]

Perhaps you could detail how people can do this.

Simply lower your carbon footprint. It is not hard. Switch to high-efficiency lighting. Select low-power, high-quality LED TV sets over high-power, high-cost plasma screens. Face your house to catch the winter sun instead of the street. Have decent-sized eaved to shade the glass in summer. Double glaze. Insulate your roof properly. Close doors. Turn off lights when you leave a room. Turn the AC down a bit. Throw away the patio heater. Heat the room you are in, not the whole house. When you build or buy a new house, pay attention to its energy efficiency. Switch to renewable energy - install a solar hot water service, put solar electricity cells on your roof, heat your house with a wood stove using plantation timber (possibly grown on your own property, if you have the space). There are endless ways to doge tax.

 

[Julia]

What a load of shyte.

+100.

Simply lower your carbon footprint. It is not hard. Switch to high-efficiency lighting. Select low-power, high-quality LED TV sets over high-power, high-cost plasma screens. Face your house to catch the winter sun instead of the street. Have decent-sized eaved to shade the glass in summer. Double glaze. Insulate your roof properly. Close doors. Turn off lights when you leave a room. Turn the AC down a bit. Throw away the patio heater. Heat the room you are in, not the whole house. When you build or buy a new house, pay attention to its energy efficiency. Switch to renewable energy - install a solar hot water service, put solar electricity cells on your roof, heat your house with a wood stove using plantation timber (possibly grown on your own property, if you have the space). There are endless ways to doge tax.

You seem to assume people are not already doing all the above. We are not idiots. Of course electricity is already being used very conservatively.
It is impossible, however, especially for renters, to have total control. Weeks of wet weather with several small children - young mothers have to use the drier. When it's cold, we need at least some heating.


MoXJO very appropriately summed up your posts above.

 

[Ijustnewit]

Simply lower your carbon footprint. It is not hard. Switch to high-efficiency lighting. Select low-power, high-quality LED TV sets over high-power, high-cost plasma screens. Face your house to catch the winter sun instead of the street. Have decent-sized eaved to shade the glass in summer. Double glaze. Insulate your roof properly. Close doors. Turn off lights when you leave a room. Turn the AC down a bit. Throw away the patio heater. Heat the room you are in, not the whole house. When you build or buy a new house, pay attention to its energy efficiency. Switch to renewable energy - install a solar hot water service, put solar electricity cells on your roof, heat your house with a wood stove using plantation timber (possibly grown on your own property, if you have the space). There are endless ways to doge tax.

Been pretty chilly down here in Tassie . I'm on my third pile of renewable forest logs already. Tried to move my house to face the sun but it was to heavy.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

It appears Team Gullible have conceded that:

Proof that reducing man's CO2 emissions by 5% will have zero measurable impact to temperatures. I wonder then if man reduced CO2 by 50% what the impact would actually be?​

However, what we know for sure is that alarmists from the team are quick to claim: "Roses could die from too much CO2, CO2 like anything should be in moderation, we should reduce our carbon footprint - it's not hard to do, there's no carbon tax in your electricity bill, i'm not a climate scientist so cannot provide any info"

All wonderful and lovely options on why team gullible cannot provide hard proof.

All we need now is the leader from team gullible to post copious urls from a 4th rate blog and to avoid disclosing the disclaimers - unlike the Dept of Climate Change who in their online disclaimer doesn't stand by anything they produce. Interesting why anyone then would take what's effectively a fairytale and weave a tax around it. Should make for some interesting legal questions.

I would also like to reassert that nobody from the team gullible is actually doing anything to reduce deadly CO2 gas themselves, but are happy to provide armchair opinion on what others must do.

 

[wayneL]

Data Manipulation... interested in comments from the catastrophists

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/ushcn2-cheating-our-socks-off/

Interesting this has been ignored.


Still interested in your comments ladies.

 

[Tannin]

You seem to assume people are not already doing all the above. We are not idiots. Of course electricity is already being used very conservatively. It is impossible, however, especially for renters, to have total control.

If you are renting, then you are typically on a low to middle income, and you are now substantially better off because of the recent income tax cuts.

 

[wayneL]

If you are renting, then you are typically on a low to middle income, and you are now substantially better off because of the recent income tax cuts.

What about those on very low, fixed incomes, such as retirees relying on interest.

Perhaps you can do a worked example of how someone would be better off under the 'send production to China tax'?

 

[Ferret]

Time's up. No response. The process of law now kicks in. Notices of Default will be sent to each respondent. This matter is res judicata and stare decisis and the Respondent's are in estoppel by Respondent’s failure to respond.

I have huge doubts that this went anywhere, but perhaps OWG can provide an update?