Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Carbon Tax Imperitive - Oh Really?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by [FLUX], Jul 29, 2011.

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

  2. My 2c. I've researched ancient history CO2 vs world temperature trends, and CO2 levels historically have been more than 5x higher than they are today, and at a time when life was thriving on the planet.

    If we burned every single bit of the last fossil fuel reserves that we had left on the planet overnight, planetary CO2 levels would roughly double, before naturally starting to fall away simply because we would have nothing left to burn that produces carbon. This naturally puts an upper cap on where mankind as a whole can take the planet to.

    Satellite data is showing that the planet won't get as hot as they're predicting.

    In summary, yes, mankind is adding to the planetary CO2 levels, yes, the planet is warming up a little bit as a result, but no, we're not going to kill the planet. We're going to run out of stuff to burn in about 100 years before the planet gets a whole lot warmer than today, after which time we'll be forced to renewable energy sources anyway.
  3. I used to be open minded about global warming but wanted to see more real and reliable data on how significant the warming was compared to reliable historic records, and how much our activity actually contributed.

    But that data really has not been presented, so for some time now I have been a Global Warming sceptic.

    The Carbon Tax is a mistake, and a big one. After all, how much effect can 0.4% of the global population have is reducing emissions when about 50% of the population (China and India) have said that they will continue to increase emissions at a rate of about 15% into the future?

    The Carbon Tax will, however, have a significant effect on our economy, and not in a good way.
  4. Cool, 10 uses of the phrase "alarmist computer models", in a 10 paragraph article. Plus one "alarmist climate models" for good measure.

    those damn alarmists with their compouter models... : )
  5. Yeah, I agree on that respect, Rip. It's difficult to view the article in an objective light when the author's about as effective at controlling their personal bias as I am at controlling wheelies. :p
  6. Look up Heartland Institute and Environment & Climate News and it might all make a bit more sense.
  7. Yeah, zackly what I was thinking, so I looked up Heartland Institute...
    neutral and non-aligned research organisation ... not.

    I'm quite happy to be convinced that we are all gonna be just fine. I'd like someone like NASA , CSIRO etc. to be saying that for themselves, though. Not filtered through a right-wing propaganda machine.
  8. haha, really FLUX?? You post some really good stuff about bikes, but maybe you should stay on that topic...

    The Heartland Institute is hardly a reputable source of information when it comes to scientific study. A few basic google searches and its easy to see they have about as much credibility as a harley rider talking about riding fast...
  9. My apologies. I was not aware of the source. Wonder why it was posted to Yahoo news then. We all make mistakes. I still stand by my opinion in my second post though.
  10. Really?? No reliable data?

    There are thousands of pages of scientific research on the subject. Much/Most of it I don't even pretend to understand.

    But if I take my bike to 100 mechanics and 99 of them tell me I have low compression in my motor and one tells me I'm dreaming and the compression is fine I'm probably gonna believe I have low compression.

    They are the kinda percentages of qualified, published scientists that believe human activity has an impact on the climate.

    The extent to which we are gonna change the climate can be argued as much as you want, but to say that 99% of scientists have this basic principle wrong, to me just sounds a bit loony.
  11. Your facts kind of contradict one another, if CO2 was ever 5X the current level, how can you conclude that burning every available source of fossil fuels will only lead to a doubling of CO2?

    Carbon doesn't leave the planet, so its either in the biosphere, atmosphere or stored as fossil fuels. So if you burn all the fossil fuels you would have to get the maximum levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that has historically occurred.

    As far as I'm aware the last time CO2 was at todays levels was over 20 million years ago (I've got the paper somewhere if you would like it). While the planet has experienced higher levels of CO2 the question is how fast can todays life adapt to it? There's certainly been no historic time that has experienced the current rate of change we are experiencing now.

    We certainly can't destroy the planet but we can probably change life as we know it quite significantly.
  12. Up to a point I think you're right. I don't think we are looking at annihilation of life on earth. But we may be looking at significant societal and economic upheaval, even if climate changes only a little bit.

    Or not. I don't think anyone knows. But plenty are trying to make a buck out of it on both sides of the debate.
  13. You are all missing the point.

    The carbon tax will do SWEET F*CK ALL to change:
    - carbon dioxide levels.
    - global temperatures.
    - climate change
    - destructive weather events.

    It is economic negligence where funds should be invested in scientific advancement, and technological efficiency.

    I weep for Australia, and would dearly love to engineer a virus that kills only the feeble minded.
  14. Agree with Bonk - maybe not on the virus part though, to much crap to clean up after. I'm a little... "confused" by the carbon tax info packs/pamphlets that are being sent to every household in the next few weeks - reduceing carbon by spaming rubbish to the entire country!

  15. Ignore this he doesn't know what he is talking about
  16. #17 smileedude, Jul 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2015
    Jeez if only there was a way to fund this technology. Nomially from companies that stand to benifit most from technological improvements.
  17. oh for fuks sake smilee...give over with your fkn deliberate berating of anyone who disagrees with you..
  18. #19 smileedude, Jul 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2015
    already gone from one decent prime minister to an absolute dud due to idiodicy and ignorence on this issue. i'd rather it not caused the election of a man incapable of running a chook raffle. So I am going to continue to point out glaringly obvious factual errors.
  19. Companies who are competing internationally with the ones who are helped by government-funded research. Remember the CSIRO?

    Meanwhile, a whole slew of big companies here are going to get a heftier tax bill while consumer spending and business confidence falters, cost of living and housing prices soar, not to mention the ongoing mining tax business. Inflation figures just in are higher than forecast, interest rates were tipped to rise again at some point even before these quarterly figures came in.

    Meanwhile, $400 million gets cut from medical research alone, and that's only one of many areas getting cuts to claw back the hole left by the rash spending spree to try to hastily win votes.

    And so on.

    Under the Howard/Costello tax reforms, the company tax rate dropped from 36% to 30%, IIRC.

    Some things that had 30-40% wholesales tax had it dropped and replaced with 10% GST, and that on the retail price, so discounting reduces the tax.

    And so on.

    The TV ads being shown for the Carbon Tax mention Germany's big push to Solar. Do a quick search for the scheme they put in place to to make that happen, then compare it to what they're trying to do here to "move for-waaarrrd".

    Here's one - http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-power-update-from-germany/

    Option A) Spend money after doing your homework to solve problems for the overall good of all.

    Option 8) Spend recklessly into a big hole so that you can't afford Option A, so come up instead with a penalty tax and tell the Public it's for their sake, while looking to chew up some of the proceeds with even more bureaucracies to administer it (but hey - that's creating jobs).

    And all at a time when the U.S still teeters on either defaulting or increasing it's previously set limit on borrowing, to say nothing of the state of the likes of Greece, Spain, Italy <insert other countries in big strife>.

    I'm getting another bicycle. It'll probably have been made in China.