Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[basilio]

I agree with Smurf and others that the carbon tax as proposed will not be sufficient to quickly and effectively reduce CO2 emissions. I suppose the trouble with thinking like a big business in the current paradigm is that the desire to maximise profits and reduce tax seems to be at the top of the tree.

Too bad of course if that results in unstoppable climate change that wrecks the environment and ends up destroying the trophy homes, yachts and toys that were bought with all that moolah...

Plan B

Lets imagine that somehow the penny dropped and a significant number of these big business leaders come to believe that the climate scientists may actually be right. That the IEA, the CIA, CSIRO etc are giving a legitimate heads up on a catastrophic situation unless we actually control and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. That the consequences for them, their families and their wealth will be just as devastating as a peasant in India.

Maybe they would focus their financial muscle and industrial capacity on making the mammoth changes required in pure self interest. Forget trying to game the carbon tax. With that change in mindset they/we might do everything in our power to somehow get out of this fix.

They wouldn't even have to be absolutely sure about the science. If they thought that there was say a 30-40% chance that doing nothing was going to result in this outcome would that be enough to change their minds ?

Maybe. Maybe not..

 

[Julia]

They are actually killing people.

And it is interesting that the mainstream press under report this aspect.

As sails has already observed, extreme weather events have always killed people and always will. This hardly makes any sort of point re so called climate change.

They wouldn't even have to be absolutely sure about the science. If they thought that there was say a 30-40% chance that doing nothing was going to result in this outcome would that be enough to change their minds ?

Maybe. Maybe not..

Well, dream on, basilio. Business is way too sensible to succumb to such romanticised notions as doing anything which has no predictable outcome, and thank god for that.

 

[Julia]

Quote Originally Posted by qldfrog View Post
I am the first to agree that this carbon tax is a scam, but even if Australia is too small to matter, I still would prefer the world to be given a chance, (however small Australia is, we will pay the same price and probably worse than the average)

frog, this makes no sense. How is the world being given a chance, as you put it, when you clearly state that Australia is too small to matter????

And once again, please read what I said, this is NOT a thread about the carbon tax.
I fully agree with you about the existing tax, to be effective, this should apply to all imports, and sorry but it has to hurt to be useful: no extra money for compensation whether you are a brown coal plant or a 4wd driving pensioner;

4wd pensioners? Get acquainted with the real world!

 

[basilio]

Quote Originally Posted by basilio View Post

They wouldn't even have to be absolutely sure about the science. If they thought that there was say a 30-40% chance that doing nothing was going to result in this outcome would that be enough to change their minds ?

Maybe. Maybe not..
Well, dream on, basilio. Business is way too sensible to succumb to such romanticised notions as doing anything which has no predictable outcome, and thank god for that. Julia

Not so sure about that Julia. For arguments sake which business would even consider developing a project that had a 30% chance of a catastrophic outcome ? In fact if there was even a 1% chance of a company breaking result simple risk management strategies would come into play.

There are almost no certainties in life. So business deals in risk management as a matter of course.

 

[Ruby]

Too bad of course if that results in unstoppable climate change that wrecks the environment ...............

Basilio, the trouble with all your arguments in this thread and the climate change hysteria thread (where you claimed we would "cook" with temp increases of 5 degrees etc) is that you make some rather large quantum leaps, where there is no basis in fact for doing so.

First, climate change IS unstoppable. No-one denies the climate is changing. The climate on this planet has always changed and always will. In fact, there are periods in the past when it has changed more than it is changing now. We can't stop it.

You make the wild assumption that human activity is causing massive climate change (in your case you believe it is increased global warming) but not once in all of your posts have you ever submitted one shred of observed evidence to support these claims. You constantly quote the Sceptical Science website (which presents only one side of the argument) but never seem to investigate other sites which present a different view.

You have on numerous occasions claimed that the "Scientific Community" supports your viewpoint, where in fact this is grossly untrue. Some scientists do, but there are thousands who don't.

Even the warmists have agreed that if Australia completely shut down tomorrow -that is turned the main switch OFF as it were - the difference it would make to our climate would be negligible.

You and the other climate change alarmists talk in the same breath of "climate change" "increased CO2 in the atmosphere" and "pollution". CO2 is NOT a pollutant. I find it very irritating that whenever there is a television report about the carbon tax or "carbon pollution" they show pictures of cooling towers belching steam! This is not just misleading the ignorant; it is a blatant deception. Although CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, there is no evidence that this is a cause for concern, or that is it currently driving global warming. (There is some evidence that it is the other way around - increased temp drives increased CO2 in the atmosphere.)

Yes- pollution of the environment is a serious problem - but this is a different subject.

For goodness sake do some reading and get a more balanced viewpoint of the situation, or present some observed evidence to support your claims.

(My bolds)

 

[qldfrog]

frog, this makes no sense. How is the world being given a chance, as you put it, when you clearly state that Australia is too small to matter????


4wd pensioners? Get acquainted with the real world!

Julia, ->15 to 20y old nissan patrols & cie burning 20l/100km
very common in qld and I believe you live there too...

pensioner does not mean poor for retirees, you are wise enough to know that pension and related benefits are a key component of retirements for many if not most.

But seeing such polarisation; being anti climate change is like a religion here as well;
look at the posts in that thread, reread what you wrote Julia
Especially disappointed as I have followed you for a while in other threads and was often in agreement. a
I will sadly be proven right if I live long enough .
at least I can hope being wrong!That is a positive spin!!


Anyway no point, we will agree to disagree buti would like to go back to this thread subject which IS NOT the carbon tax a la Gilliard
Have all a good night, another so cold night in Brisbane tonight, I might need a blanket

 

[lurker123]

Explod, are you admitting that deception is being used to mislead the people?

Definition of Propaganda:

"Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."​

The same can be said about your side of the arguement, the way I see it the anti-climate change propaganda started in the US through sources such as fox news, just as the climate change in your view propaganda started in the US with Al Gore.

However the scientific establishment with peer reviewed journals backs climate change.

I find it sad how many people in this forum don't believe in the human contribution to climate change and are following the lead of the US. I am just happy that Australia as a whole thinks much more like Europe than the US.

Being a Pompous Ass I think the US is basically a backward country now, filled with people who are digging their own grave.

All stemming from sources such as fox news which in my view is basically a tool the ultra rich use to control the population. Crap like "Intelligent Design/Creationism" to CFC's not being the cause of the ozone hole.

 

[sails]

Great post, Ruby...

In the other thread, there seemed to be some doubt that Flannery said there would be no more dam filling rains. Have a look at this video below around the 3.25 mark where Flannery can be seen and heard saying, "Even the rain that falls isn't going to actually fill our dams or our river systems". Obviously this was said some time before and in this article it gives dates of when predictions were made.

Professor Will Steffen is Flannery's fellow climate commissioner and he speaks with Andrew Bolt just after the Flannery statement. Some of this will make Basilio happy...lol:

 

[So_Cynical]

SC - This tax will hopefully exist for not much more than a year as the coalition are committed to repleal it. See the link to Greg Hunt's article below.

And I understood that Japan, Russia, Canada are not planning to renew their support for Kyoto. Link below.

Sails i should know better than to explain something to you ...but here goes.

The Kyoto treaty has all but run its course...reached its use by date, its is after all 15 years old and the first commitment period will be over come the end of 2012, the first commitment period has also proved to be a near total failure as far as targets go.

What ever treaty replaces Kyoto...and make no mistake because it is a 100% certainty that there will be a new treaty, this new treaty will be backwards compatible and honour all Kyoto commitments.

So don't get all carried away with the end of Kyoto...it was always meant to end, to be a beginning and thus has served it purpose, Kyoto established the rules and those rules will go forward..the targets are a goner.

 

[sails]

Lurker,

The difference is in the motive.

AGW is being used as an excuse to extract billions of dollars from our working people and money is clearly the motive.

Non-AGW has no motive because of the belief that climate change is a perfectly natural event and is not trying to extract billions of dollars from working people.

Why would sky news waste their money on something where there is no return?

 

[sails]

...What ever treaty replaces Kyoto...and make no mistake because it is a 100% certainty that there will be a new treaty, this new treaty will be backwards compatible and honour all Kyoto commitments.

So don't get all carried away with the end of Kyoto...it was always meant to end, to be a beginning and thus has served it purpose, Kyoto established the rules and those rules will go forward..the targets are a goner.

Do you mean like the certaintity that there would be no more dam filling rains?

Time will tell about Kyoto and what is to follow. It is possible that the paradigm has peaked. When the majority of Australians don't want this tax, it would also seem quite plausible to think that there is a fair majority world wide who also do not want carbon to be priced. Governments going for this are likely to be voted out when their elections come.

 

[Julia]

Julia, ->15 to 20y old nissan patrols & cie burning 20l/100km
very common in qld and I believe you live there too...

I know quite a lot of 'pensioners' and they all drive quite old, small cars. Don't know even one and have never even seen anyone in that age group driving the sort of vehicle you describe. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course.

pensioner does not mean poor for retirees, you are wise enough to know that pension and related benefits are a key component of retirements for many if not most.

The term "pensioner' usually denotes someone dependent on the government age pension for all or most of their income. Such people are usually - when compared to the average wage e.g. - considered poor. I certainly wouldn't like to be living on a government pension in my dotage.

Anyway no point, we will agree to disagree buti would like to go back to this thread subject which IS NOT the carbon tax a la Gilliard
Have all a good night, another so cold night in Brisbane tonight, I might need a blanket

Good lord, cold in Brisbane? It's around 25 degrees here at present only a few hours north.

 

[lurker123]

Lurker,

The difference is in the motive.

AGW is being used as an excuse to extract billions of dollars from our working people and money is clearly the motive.

Non-AGW has no motive because of the belief that climate change is a perfectly natural event and is not trying to extract billions of dollars from working people.

Why would sky news waste their money on something where there is no return?

There is motive on both sides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

"individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, among others—formed lobbying groups to enlist greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research"

"Written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute and then leaked to The New York Times, the memo described, in the article's words, a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." Cushman quoted the document as proposing a US$ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom."

"the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration."

"The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[4][37] In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."[38]"

"ExxonMobil has denied the accusations that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming. A spokesman, Gantt Walton, said that ExxonMobil's funding of research does not mean that it acts to influence the research, and that ExxonMobil supports taking action to curb the output of greenhouse gasses."

"In 2005, the New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, former lobbyist and "climate team leader" at the American Petroleum Institute and President George W. Bush's chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality, had "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."[41] Sharon Begley reported in Newsweek that Cooney "edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as 'lack of understanding' and 'considerable uncertainty.'" Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job."[8] Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke,[42] but a few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil."

 

[So_Cynical]

Do you mean like the certaintity that there would be no more dam filling rains?

HUH?

While im 100% certain dams will be full from time to time...others wont be full, some far from it.

One of Perth's main dams is Serpentine dam...currently at 27.46% capacity...and hasn't been full in over a decade.

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/D/dams_storagedetail.cfm?id=11453

Warragamba dam in Sydney at 79% capacity and hasn't been full in more than a decade.

http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/dams-and-water/weekly-storage-and-supply-reports/2012/10-november-2011

Both Perth and Sydney have desal plants yet the dams still cant fill.

 

[macca]

In some areas the population has increased by 200% or more since the last dam was built. Demand has doubled (or more, if industries have been opened) but no new dams built ............... Highly likely that the water is being used quicker than previously IMO

HUH?

While im 100% certain dams will be full from time to time...others wont be full, some far from it.

One of Perth's main dams is Serpentine dam...currently at 27.46% capacity...and hasn't been full in over a decade.

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/D/dams_storagedetail.cfm?id=11453

Warragamba dam in Sydney at 79% capacity and hasn't been full in more than a decade.

http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/dams-and-water/weekly-storage-and-supply-reports/2012/10-november-2011

Both Perth and Sydney have desal plants yet the dams still cant fill.

 

[wayneL]

In some areas the population has increased by 200% or more since the last dam was built. Demand has doubled (or more, if industries have been opened) but no new dams built ............... Highly likely that the water is being used quicker than previously IMO

Yep. When I first moved to Perth the population was about 600,000... now about 1.4 or thereabouts?

Same dams as then.

 

[noirua]

Yep. When I first moved to Perth the population was about 600,000... now about 1.4 or thereabouts?

Same dams as then.

Looks like trouble ahead if the mining boom really takes off and ends up there to stay.

 

[wayneL]

There is a s##tload of underground water however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarragadee_Aquifer

 

[Calliope]

Good lord, cold in Brisbane? It's around 25 degrees here at present only a few hours north.

Frog was being sarcastic.

 

[bellenuit]

There is a s##tload of underground water however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarragadee_Aquifer

..... and 2 desal plants