Resisting Climate Hysteria

[OzWaveGuy]

IFocus is clearly becomming more desperate by the day. Now it's the baby boomers fault.... .........

But what's the point. IFocus just keeps squawking out the same repetitive stuff, it seems in an effort to blame anything else but labor's failed policies...

Sails, you are spot on here. But it extends to all the alarmists here...

• blame everyone else,
• do nothing themselves,
• repetitiously squawk about what we must change about ourselves,
• provide no proof whatsoever,
• go back to start and repeat

Like the government, the postings by the alarmists are increasingly desperate, perhaps they should apply to the Dept of Climate change for a grant so they can better convince us of something fearful.

 

[sails]

Sails, you are spot on here. But it extends to all the alarmists here...

• blame everyone else,
• do nothing themselves,
• repetitiously squawk about what we must change about ourselves,
• provide no proof whatsoever,
• go back to start and repeat

Like the government, the postings by the alarmists are increasingly desperate, perhaps they should apply to the Dept of Climate change for a grant so they can better convince us of something fearful.

OWG - you missed one out:

• it's all Mr Rabbit's fault

As cleverly depectied by the cartoon - the other students (aka electorate) are not fooled...

Source: http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/07/01/1226085/867056-110702-leak.jpeg
Apologies for reposting, but this cartoon seemed very fitting here...

 

[sails]

Interesting video showing how plants take in co2 to thrive:

 

[Ruby]

Okay, explain it in your own words without quoting others or a heap of text.

Explod, the earth's climate is constantly changing - it always has. Ever since the 'Little Ice Age' a few hundred years ago it has been slowly warming, but within that period there have been smaller warming and cooling periods. After WWII the global temperature cooled for about 30 years, and then began to warm again in the 1970's - a warming which continued until roughly 2000. This increase was within normal variation. That means it has happened before and nothing we do will stop it. It is part of a global cycle. Observation has shown that for the last 10 years or so the global temperature has not been increasing. It is not happening. The "hockey stick" model has been proven incorrect by observation. The run-away increases in global temperature predicted by Al Gore and others are just not happening.

Now if you prefer to believe in predictions produced by models rather than in what is actually observed, look at it this way:- If the weather bureau predicts rain and chilly temps for next weekend (using all the sophisticated computer modelling at its disposal), and next Saturday and Sunday prove to be warm and sunny with not a cloud in sight, which do you believe? Did it rain or was it fine? Do you believe the computer models which said it would rain, or your own observation which told you it was sunny and warm?

I am not going to quote any references because this thread is littered with excellent links. You apparently don't read them. If you like, go back to my post in which I gave numerous links to Ghoti (one day last week). They are worth reading. At least inform yourself of the facts.

I have some other data I will put in another post which may interest you.

 

[Ruby]

At that time Smurf you were likely to be concerned about the future of the environment rightly so. Australia continues to lead the world in extinction of threaten and endangered wild life with absolutely no change in pace of that trend.

As for the Greens they seem more worried about gay rights that the environment these days.

Back to the future

The future for the generations to follow the selfish baby boomers isn't all that rosy as the ratio of workers supporting retirees changes quite dramatically. Nothing new here including lack of sufficient action by the BB's other than excuses.

I say selfish because BB's are, they failed to provide enough savings to provide for their retirement even though they have more than enough information as to what was going to happen.

They are selfish as they blow their money on rampant consumerism bigger cars, bigger houses, etc regardless of the fact that they have more than enough resources available to provide for their future, longer life spans, health care and retirement costs. But nope they expect some one else to pay...........

Similar to all the rally's now taking place of selfish gray hairs who polling has shown are not willing to pay one cent regardless of whether they believe in CG or not towards negating CG.

Nothing, zilch, Nada regardless of the method. The BB's will always be first in line with their hands out winging about the lack of government support.

Any change that could in any way effect the BB's wealth is meet with hysteria. Hysteria driven by the "Bugger everyone else its me that matters"

Abbott understands this selfish side of the BB's and feeds the manure accordingly which is lapped up by the faithful.

There is always a divide between the generations, the old claim wisdom as they send the young off to fight their wars. Sound familiar?

Vietnam, the young demonstrated about the wasted lives and cause and the old sent in the truncheons and tear gas. Who got that one right?
People who got sent off at the age of 19 like my Brother-in-law have payed for that one everyday since.

Make love not war that wasn't some old farts idea.

Oh and on the self righteous and indignant replies from forum BB's, they duly noted with a ironic smile lol

IF, when you are a grownup you might learn to use grammar properly, and you might read some history. At the moment you are just displaying your abysmal ignorance.

 

[Ruby]

For all those people who think we can reduce the 'dangerous' global warming by a few degrees:-

http://joannenova.com.au/

Professor Garnaut’s carbon trading scheme will cost $11.5 billion a year, rising at 4% above the annual rate of economic growth. He wants another $2.5 billion a year – again, rising at 4% above the growth rate – spent on “renewable” energy and “innovation”. And the Climate Change Department is already spending $1.6 billion a year. These are not the only costs, but let us assume they are.
Applying Professor Garnaut’s own discount rate of 2.65%, the cost of his policy over the next ten years will be close to $200 billion, with the aim of forestalling 25% of Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions, which in turn represent 1.2% of global emissions, which – if the policy worked at this cost – would accordingly fall by just 0.3%.
In the absence of any mitigation, CO2 concentration by 2020 would be 412 ppmv, but Australia’s near-$200 billion of spending would cut this to 411.934 ppmv, forestalling 1/2750 of a degree of warming by that year – less than 1% of the threshold below which modern methods and instruments cannot measure any global temperature change.If the whole world were to pursue Australia’s proposed policy, the cost of forestalling each degree of warming would be $545 trillion, or $18,500 from everyone on Earth. Preventing the 0.24 C º global warming predicted to occur by 2020 would cost $130 trillion, or 18.3% of global GDP over the period.
The cost of the climate damage from doing nothing, however, would be just 1-4.1% of global GDP. Doing something would cost more than four times as much as doing nothing.

And for all those who keep on ranting about there being no peer reviewed papers supporting the sceptical viewpoint - here is a list of 900:-


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

 

[explod]

When we are talking climate change in my view we really need to look at the whole deal. There are too many of us on the planet, our rescources are no longer enough and yes the big black clouds from the coal burning power stations are eating up our good clean air. Putting it all together and in line with why we are here at ASF ie. "economics" then the following is good for a Sunday reflection.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/grenade-glasshouse

And of course we cannot reduce global warming but our efforts and hope should be to at least try to minimise things for the generations to follow.

 

[Ruby]

................ and yes the big black clouds from the coal burning power stations are eating up our good clean air.

Which "big black clouds......... eating up our good clean air" are you talking about? The black clouds of CO2 perhaps? The ones belching out of the chimney stack behind Cate B. in the advert? Or the ones pictured behind Julia Gillard in any news item about the climate or the carbon (dioxide) tax?

Perhaps you don't know that CO2 is a colourless gas, so those "big black clouds" you refer to are not CO2, and in fact most of the clouds you see belching from industrial chimney stacks are steam.

And of course we cannot reduce global warming but our efforts and hope should be to at least try to minimise things for the generations to follow.

Minimise what things? I agree entirely (and I am sure everyone does) that we should try and minimise pollution and the destruction of our environment, but it really is not the same topic, which is climate change and whether we need to be alarmist about it.

 

[sails]

When we are talking climate change in my view we really need to look at the whole deal. There are too many of us on the planet, our rescources are no longer enough...

Can you then please explain why Gillard & Co are quite happy to risk our current power supply by taxing them and then on the other hand give out money willy nilly for unlimited baby bonuses?

If too many people are the problem, wouldn't it be a win:win if baby bonuses were only given for the first or maybe second child (after that most families have bought all the equipment they need). That way the government would save money on some who are known to breed like rabbits at tax payer expense and have less humans to be breathing out co2. Then the plants don't need as much co2 because there are not so many people for whom to grow food.

Oh, but perhaps cutting the baby bonus down might upset some voters...

But it's this sort of hypocrisy that leads me to believe this whole carbon tax thingy and AGW is nothing but a big con. If it were real, they would go the source of the problems. And they could stop jet setting around the world if they are really concerned about the future safety of humans.

What a joke this is - what about any of this is not political ?...

 

[sails]

Which "big black clouds......... eating up our good clean air" are you talking about? The black clouds of CO2 perhaps? The ones belching out of the chimney stack behind Cate B. in the advert? Or the ones pictured behind Julia Gillard in any news item about the climate or the carbon (dioxide) tax?

Perhaps you don't know that CO2 is a colourless gas, so those "big black clouds" you refer to are not CO2, and in fact most of the clouds you see belching from industrial chimney stacks are steam...

Agree Ruby - this is another big con to the public. Aussies are being treated as fools to pretend that co2 is a dirty or black gas. However, people are waking up to the truth and hopefully, any "no carbon tax ads" will point out the deceptions in the Cate and Caton ads.

Anything that has to be sold with this level of deception cannot have any substance, imo. The more deception I learn about in relation to co2 and the "must have now" carbon tax, the more I have to say the whole box and dice is complete and uttter rubbish.

 

[Smurf1976]

When we are talking climate change in my view we really need to look at the whole deal. There are too many of us on the planet, our rescources are no longer enough and yes the big black clouds from the coal burning power stations are eating up our good clean air. Putting it all together and in line with why we are here at ASF ie. "economics" then the following is good for a Sunday reflection.

Which coal burning power stations in Australia emit black smoke?

There's only one coal-fired power station in Australia that I'm aware of emitting black smoke, and I'm not certain if that was normal operation or not. Certainly for every other plant I've seen, and I've been to rather a lot of power stations, there's either virtually no visible smoke (most of them) or the smoke is grey in colour. It really depends on the composition of the coal being burnt, combustion efficiency and the efficiency of pariculate removal. But either way, CO2 certainly isn't coloured.

Oil-fired plants tend to belch quite a lot of smoke, but again that's dark grey not actually black. And we don't have any fuel oil burning plants (other than those which burn oil as backup to supply of some other fuel, usually gas) supplying main grids in Australia these days.

I've got an old photo (not digital) of Hazelwood with clear blue sky above the plant. I'll see if I can find it and scan it. Yes, the plant was in operation at the time...

 

[bandicoot76]

The carbon tax is about attitude. Many believe we have to start somewhere and this tax will impact on the biggest polluters who will have to clean up their act and approach.

what a complete load of bollocks!!! since when has ANY company/corporation/business EVER not passed on costs to the consumer to maintain their bottom line!!!

EVERY SINGLE TAX IS PASSED ON DOWN THE LINE TO EVENTUALLY BE PAID BY THE INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER! ALL TAX IS JUST A WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION PROCESS, TO THINK A TAX WILL EVER SOLVE A PROBLEM IS SO NAIVE ITS UNBELIEVEABLE!

time to wake up ppl

 

[IFocus]

*GOSH* IFocus you are on a tangent today.

MAIN EXPECTED SOURCE OF INCOME AT RETIREMENT



http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/36EDBADC29D261FECA25776100150592?OpenDocument

So quite the opposite in reality there IFocus. The BB's have actually prepared for their retirement and will be self funded. Less than a quarter will accept the Guvmint handouts.



The BB's are still working? Making uo 40% of the entire workforce??? NAhhhhhh that can't be right? They are all sucking on the Guvmint teat and welfare handouts !!! Selfish buggers, fancy having superannuation

Getting well off track here thread wise apologies every one but when you have a fan club like me one has to push through doing gods work

Excellent research TS as always, but given the worker to retiree ratio reducing where is the revenue going to come from to support the increase in services that will be required?

Abbott is promising tax cuts that means reduced services.

The BB's wont be paying a cent unless the government of the day ups the tax on super the current BB's running the show are making certain there will be no dividend from the mining boom.

 

[IFocus]

IF, when you are a grownup you might learn to use grammar properly, and you might read some history. At the moment you are just displaying your abysmal ignorance.

Sigh...... another finger pointer looking for a urinating contest while personalizing a debate.

Even Calliope contributes excellent insights these days in between insults.

But I happily respect all on ASF regardless.

 

[IFocus]

IFocus is clearly becomming more desperate by the day. Now it's the baby boomers fault....

I think it is labor policies on the run are causing most of our problems. Very likely a selfish PM who is greedy about power, selfish independents who thumbed their noses at their constituents are the thin threads holding this minority government together. It's not a good recipe for the best interests of the country.

Given Labors or Gillards performance I would think they have done every thing possible to lose power their only saving grace is that Abbott's not trusted by the independents.

Running out the carbon tax was hardly ever going to be a popular vote winner Combet's comments early on were along these lines.

 

[sails]

Given Labors or Gillards performance I would think they have done every thing possible to lose power their only saving grace is that Abbott's not trusted by the independents.

Running out the carbon tax was hardly ever going to be a popular vote winner Combet's comments early on were along these lines.

IFocus - I think most people would accept it better if there weren't so many deceptive things that have gone with it. There is now massive suspicion. Not only did Gillard categorically say "there will be carbon tax under a Government I lead" just prior to the election, the Cate and Caton ad shows a dirty sky and blackish steam from the old decommissoned power plant and yet we know that co2 is invisible. These things only serve to make the public nervous and distrustful.

If carbon tax was really as good for the country as Gillard says it is, then I believe the majority of the people would not be so opposed. But it is becomming abundantly clear that it's not going to do anything for co2 reduction.

And, as you admit yourself, Gillard and labor have had a dismal performance - why should she be trusted to mess with our main power supply with her history of breaking most things she touches? And it is very likely it won't help the environment one bit.

 

[trainspotter]

Excellent research TS as always, but given the worker to retiree ratio reducing where is the revenue going to come from to support the increase in services that will be required?

*sigh* .... obviously "self funded" escapes your hippocampus capabilities.

People are living longer and staying healthier. The "self funded" retirees living off interest, rental incomes, shares and superannation will not need a pension to survive. This will not be the burden of the BB's as they have planned for their retirement. (see previous post)

Prior to 1992, about 50 percent of Australians participated in occupational pension plans (both defined benefit and defined contribution schemes). That number is now up to 91 percent, due to the superannuation guarantee. The government hopes that this segment of the pension system will reduce retirees’ dependence on the means-tested segment of the pension, thus eliminating the some of the burden that an aging population will place on the system. In fact, projections of the overall burden of the public pension program as a percentage of GDP by 2050 is one of the lowest of the developed nations

http://www.watsonwyatt.com/news/featured/wef/australia.pdf

Hmmmmmmm ..... The SGC and super is paying for all this? *GOSH* who would have thunk it?

Oh you mean the "services" to support these BB's ........ Let's think about this then on a kindegarten level for a moment.

Wasn't the MRRT supposed to shore up the health debacle? It was Kevin Rudd that used the SUPER PROFIT MINING TAX to pay for it and Julia has watered it down with the MRRT.

The Federal Government will step up to permanently pay 50 per cent of the growth in hospital costs.
This will be done in two stages, increasing to 45 per cent in 2014-15 and to 50 per cent in 2017-18.
Once this kicks in, the States and the Commonwealth will share future funding growth in a 50/50 partnership.
The States and Territories will receive $16.4 billion in extra hospital funding between 2014-15 and 2019-20 under the new structural funding arrangements and $3.4 billion for extra emergency departments, elective surgery and 1300 sub acute hospital beds in the next four years.

http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/health-reform/

Oh you mean the "other services" that will be required and how are we going to fund this then?

THAT WOULD BE THE CARBON TAX



Now get back on topic you asinine apparatchik!

 

[Julia]

Anything that has to be sold with this level of deception cannot have any substance, imo.

Exactly. The government and their supporters keep on about how the carbon tax is 'hard to sell'. Haven't they considered the basic proposition that if something makes sense, you do not have to 'sell it'.!

Getting well off track here thread wise apologies every one but when you have a fan club like me one has to push through doing gods work

I guess we all have our hysterical moments when irrationality takes over.
Probably you still don't quite realise how offensive your comments were.

The BB's wont be paying a cent unless the government of the day ups the tax on super the current BB's running the show are making certain there will be no dividend from the mining boom.

The utter illogic in this statement renders it unworthy of a response.
For heaven's sake, IF, you're actually capable of being more or less sensible and even applying some objectivity at times. Try to concentrate on that and give a miss to the sort of nonsense you're spouting here.

 

[noco]

?

Abbott is promising tax cuts that means reduced services.

.

Tax cuts could be paid fo by reducing 11,000 dead wood federal public servants, plus the extra public servants that would be needed to administer the carbon tax.

 

[IFocus]

*sigh* .... obviously "self funded" escapes your hippocampus capabilities.

People are living longer and staying healthier. The "self funded" retirees living off interest, rental incomes, shares and superannation will not need a pension to survive. This will not be the burden of the BB's as they have planned for their retirement. (see previous post)



http://www.watsonwyatt.com/news/featured/wef/australia.pdf



Hmmmmmmm ..... The SGC and super is paying for all this? *GOSH* who would have thunk it?

Oh you mean the "services" to support these BB's ........ Let's think about this then on a kindegarten level for a moment.

Wasn't the MRRT supposed to shore up the health debacle? It was Kevin Rudd that used the SUPER PROFIT MINING TAX to pay for it and Julia has watered it down with the MRRT.



http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/health-reform/

Oh you mean the "other services" that will be required and how are we going to fund this then?

THAT WOULD BE THE CARBON TAX



Now get back on topic you asinine apparatchik!

Nice to see such fine manners on display from everyone

Your quoted document shows the coming change in ratios but still no hint as to where the revue short fall comes from when you remove such a large amount of taxable income from the system?