wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,972
- Reactions
- 13,287
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.
FACT: AGW is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
why should those not meritous of benefit to so off the back of the sweat of others.
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.
Not necessarily. It depends what is done with the proceeds.
Can you please justify why you think miners don't pay enough tax, facts and figures will do rather than ideological and unsubstantiated assertions.
From post 160
Was it that friken hard to scroll down from the post
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...
Instead of being envious of people earning higher wages, why not get a job driving one of those big trucks?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.
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?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.
Out with the pick and shovel then. Buy a lease and start digging.I don't really care about any "crown" - as far as I'm concerned, they belong to every Australian citizen.
Don't forget to sort out the recyclables.Rubbish.
That job driving one of them haul trucks must be getting inviting hey?Too bad the large majority of them goes overseas.
It's where the demand is now. If there was no demand for your profession would you be in a job?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.
And hence the silliness of taxing our in comparison negligible output.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.
Instead of being envious of people earning higher wages, why not get a job driving one of those big trucks?
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?:
It's where the demand is now. If there was no demand for your profession would you be in a job?
And hence the silliness of taxing our in comparison negligible output.
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.
Welcome to the forum! It's great to see younger people around the boards.
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?
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.
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?"
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..
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?