The Daily Wire: Carbon tax and renewable energy - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 46 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »

Carbon tax and renewable energy

#61 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 14 July 2011 - 10:13 AM

View Posticey, on 13 July 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

I don't care if we emit more carbon dioxide than all of Antarctica and Siberia combined, let alone about what nuclear Fraance has achieved. The fact is Bam that 5% of 1.5% is diddly squat (and although it's been some time, I've not forgotten my intention to revisit the last maths excercise). I think we can agree at least that Gillard claims to have Australia on a path to reduce mankinds carbon dioxide output by 0.075%. Not that she will say that preferring instead to repeatedly throw around talk of "160 million tonnes" and "45 million cars". Oooooh!

This horse is dead, and you're still beating it. Are you trying to perpetuate the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam - beating a point until everyone is sick of it?

Do you drive a car? Do you obey the speed limit? Tell me, by obeying the speed limit, can you demonstrate a measurable reduction in the road toll?

Do you pay your taxes? Why pay your taxes, when doing so makes little difference to the amount of revenue raised?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#62 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 14 July 2011 - 10:16 AM

View Posticey, on 13 July 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

Behold Australia! Shining beacon of light radiating stupidity that we dream might rub off onto the leaders of USA, China and India. Which of these three will be the first to crack and fall for the temptation and follow our taxing lead?

Behold! The shining beacon the USA, shining right-wing fallacious denialist stupidity that denialists the world over can uphold as an argument for doing nothing!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#63 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 14 July 2011 - 10:47 AM

View Posticey, on 13 July 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

The difference with your innane analogy is the dead body in the morgue. Nice shock value though, yet well short of a full Godwin.

This is not a refutation of my argument. Calling it "inane" does not prove it so.

Obviously only dead humans matter to you, and only if they lived in a society sufficiently developed to have morgues. Whole species being wiped out and ecosystems damaged beyond repair has no less shock value. Wake up from your denialist dream world and see the real world beyond your comfortable white-bread suburban existence if you want to see real shocks. What happens when sea temperatures rise 1 degree Celsius? Coral bleaches and then dies. What happens when the Arctic is ice free in summer? Polar bears have a much harder time finding food and become threatened with extinction. Your unbounded optimism about the ecosystem needs a reality check.

You may not accept the connection and that is your right. However, you are living in a denialist fantasy world where costs of action are extreme and benefits nonexistent. Yet at the same time it is likely that you have multiple insurance policies, each of which has higher costs and less demonstrable benefits. Why then have insurance at all? Just in case. So why argue against taking out an insurance policy for the planet?

What are the consequences of the majority being wrong? We pay a little extra for an insurance policy we don't really need. What if you're wrong? We do nothing, increase our global emissions and we wipe out the Great Barrier Reef, polar bears and many other species; and at the same time we find ourselves paying a lot more for fuels because we didn't start developing sustainable sources of fuel until it was too late. A six-cent carbon tax on fuel is nothing when compared to the amount that the price of fuel will rise in the next thirty years as peak oil passes. Petrol will eventually reach $5 a litre. Whether that comes in 15 years or 50 years depends on whether we start developing sustainable sources of fuels now or whether we keep relying on a source of fuel that must be mined.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#64 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 14 July 2011 - 11:14 AM

View PostBam, on 14 July 2011 - 10:13 AM, said:

This horse is dead, and you're still beating it. Are you trying to perpetuate the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam - beating a point until everyone is sick of it?

Do you drive a car? Do you obey the speed limit? Tell me, by obeying the speed limit, can you demonstrate a measurable reduction in the road toll?

Do you pay your taxes? Why pay your taxes, when doing so makes little difference to the amount of revenue raised?


You are surely blinded by your own brand of ideological light Bam, but that's OK. Free speech and all that, yet I continue to be consistent and disagrree and care not if this is declared ad nauseam by the faithful.

If I alone speed recklessly, we may have bodies in the morgue. More so if all drivers did so.

If I alone pay taxes, the country would be a basket case, albeit with a few bucks in the bank. If we all pay taxes, the country runs.

Now, if we all do our 5% best (in Australia, or make it in the world if it helps your case), the temperature will not change.

Do you agree?

Quote

This is not a refutation of my argument. Calling it "inane" does not prove it so.


My opinion and comment passed was that your analogy was inane and and I'll maintain my right to do so, and I'll respect your right to do likewise (contrary or otherwise) nevertheless.

And still no comment for or against Richard Lindzen's interview where he answered the question:

"What effect would a carbon dioxide tax in Australia—the aim is to cut emissions by 5% by 2020—what effect would that have on the world’s temperature?"

Richard Lindzen said:

I don’t think anyone could possibly detect it even with future technology. It would be nothing, for all practical purposes, and it would be nothing if the whole world did the same.


Now that's what happens if we do something.

Bam said:

We do nothing, increase our global emissions and we wipe out the Great Barrier Reef, polar bears and many other species


Up for a bit of ad nauseam yourself Bam. How's the Barrier Reef going with all the years of apparently dangerous climate change.

You're in a state of excitement though and I commend your passion and enthusiasm if nothing else.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#65 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 14 July 2011 - 11:46 AM

View Posticey, on 14 July 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:

And still no comment for or against Richard Lindzen's interview

Considering there's no comment from you about several of the points I raised, I see no reason to respond to any particular point of yours.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#66 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 14 July 2011 - 02:04 PM

View Posticey, on 14 July 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:

Now, if we all do our 5% best (in Australia, or make it in the world if it helps your case), the temperature will not change.

Do you agree?

No because it is missing the point. 5% is just the start. One goal is an 80% reduction by 2050, why not look at that too? Why focus on the short-term goals when not much has happened yet?

Even if it does not reduce temperature, there are other reasons why we must wean ourselves off an economy that is based on mining for our energy needs. Finding sustainable replacements for our diminishing oil reserves before they run out is a good idea, don't you agree? And doing so before the economy is crippled by stagflation is a good idea, don't you agree?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#67 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 14 July 2011 - 02:13 PM

View PostBam, on 14 July 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:

Considering there's no comment from you about several of the points I raised, I see no reason to respond to any particular point of yours.


ROFL: :emot-waycool:

Come on now Bam (who has said "calling it 'inane' does not prove it so", and "non sequitur"). Was your last post the best you could muster?

I've named my own easy hurdle. Now what's your own top selective point for which you lament my lack of response? "Right-wing fallacious denialist stupidity", insurance, polar bears, $5/litre fuel?

Quid pro quo?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#68 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 14 July 2011 - 06:47 PM

The carbon tax issue is not as Abbott is trying to portray an isolated issue over whether the government has a mandate to impose it.....it is part of a climate change policy...a policy which has become an international issue.If we start holding elections over government policy which is alleged to have not been mandated...we will finish up having elections every other week. For example..Workchoices was not mandated at an election but it was brought in anyway. And this was done by a government in which Abbott was minister.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#69 User is offline   Amber Dekstris 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: 26-January 11

Posted 14 July 2011 - 08:21 PM

View Posticey, on 14 July 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:

Now, if we all do our 5% best (in Australia, or make it in the world if it helps your case), the temperature will not change.

Do you agree?


Icey, every ton of greenhouse gas that is emitted into the atmosphere enhances the Greenhouse Effect by the corresponding amount, and global temperature by the corresponding amount. So every ton that is prevented from being emitted is a reduction in temperature compared to what it would've been otherwise.

The greenhouse gas emitted today takes decades for the temperature rise to manifest therefore the prevention today takes decades for the relative temperature fall to manifest.

These facts are science not politics or ideology. You allow your own ideology (or wishful thinking, is the impression I gain) to interfere and you dismiss some science as mere ideology. I know there is some politics going on out there but I deal only in the science. This line of yours that "the temperature will not change" is false, demonstrably so. Please improve your power of reasoning.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#70 User is offline   Julian Taylor 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 07-July 11
  • LocationClare, South Australia

Posted 14 July 2011 - 10:52 PM

I have roughly zero faith in a wholesale economic transformation when its architects are the ALP. I firmly believe in human induced climate change, but I don't think it makes much sense to act before our major trading partners. Australia alone makes absolutely no difference to global carbon pollution, especially if we drive our highest polluters offshore, into less regulated environments.

I think an eventual ETS has to be our overall priority, but I'm more than happy with 'direct action' until the rest of the world is further along in the process.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#71 User is offline   JJ 

  • Administrator
  • View blog
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 12-January 11

Posted 14 July 2011 - 11:12 PM

View PostJulian Taylor, on 14 July 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

I have roughly zero faith in a wholesale economic transformation when its architects are the ALP. I firmly believe in human induced climate change, but I don't think it makes much sense to act before our major trading partners. Australia alone makes absolutely no difference to global carbon pollution, especially if we drive our highest polluters offshore, into less regulated environments.

I think an eventual ETS has to be our overall priority, but I'm more than happy with 'direct action' until the rest of the world is further along in the process.


What do you think of the Hawke/Keating years when it comes to economic transformation? Howard's record in that area is abysmal considering the number of opportunities he had. We will not be driving our highest polluters offshore, because our highest polluters are actually the power generators (take a look at the table below, from today's Crikey). Companies which are trade-exposed, like the steel industry, will be heavily compensated.

Attached Image: monthly_07_2011/post-1-0-22524600-1310652541.jpg

Abbott's direct action is a furphy and you know it. His plans will amount to not very much at all. The government's package won't cost the end users very much, as it shouldn't. It will simply change the cost equation of big companies when it comes to planning out their investment strategies. Furthermore, it gives industry something they've been wanting for a while - the ability to make long-term investments on the basis of a secure carbon price framework.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Please read the Forum Rules & Info thread if you haven't already.
0

#72 User is offline   Julian Taylor 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 07-July 11
  • LocationClare, South Australia

Posted 15 July 2011 - 12:41 AM

The way I see it is that Abbott's 'direct action' is a 5% at a maximum scheme, while the 'carbon tax' is 5% and beyond + a bunch of different agendas cobbled on to it. I believe in taking action on CO2, but I disapprove of cutting too deep, too quickly. This isn't a 'do something at any cost' issue for me, I am more than happy to have Abbott's 'direct action' place-holder for the time being, and then moving to something more substantial when the time is right. 'Direct action' is not a serious climate policy, but it will likely get us to our 5% commitment by 2020, and offers generous sums of money for practical measures such as reforestation and upgrading Australian industry to best practice efficiency standards.

I personally think that it was quite a pity that Malcolm Turnbull didn't lead the Libs to last election - and win it. Because I would trust his leadership on this issue far more than I would Gillard and Abbott.

Edit: Oh, and I think that there was much to like about the Hawke Keating era.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#73 Guest-fonzie

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:10 AM

View PostAmber Dekstris, on 14 July 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:

Icey, every ton of greenhouse gas that is emitted into the atmosphere enhances the Greenhouse Effect by the corresponding amount, and global temperature by the corresponding amount. So every ton that is prevented from being emitted is a reduction in temperature compared to what it would've been otherwise.

The greenhouse gas emitted today takes decades for the temperature rise to manifest therefore the prevention today takes decades for the relative temperature fall to manifest.

These facts are science not politics or ideology. You allow your own ideology (or wishful thinking, is the impression I gain) to interfere and you dismiss some science as mere ideology. I know there is some politics going on out there but I deal only in the science. This line of yours that "the temperature will not change" is false, demonstrably so. Please improve your power of reasoning.


Oh! come off it Amber the debate about the science and the science method (continually challenging theories) is apolitical.The governments decision to impose an ideological driven carbon tax as the answer to global warmiing (sic)is political. The government and its supporters have chosen to conflate the two. The government has decided to obfuscate with terms like carbon pollution instead of C02 "denier" instead of "sceptic" and they lie with statements like "there will be no carbon tax under the goverment I lead".

Amber your claim that the science of global warming or climate change or whatever the catch phrase of the day has established facts rather than increasingly disputed theories which you as a supposed practitioner of the science should sceptically challenge.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#74 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:34 AM

View Posticey, on 14 July 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

ROFL: :emot-waycool:

Come on now Bam (who has said "calling it 'inane' does not prove it so", and "non sequitur"). Was your last post the best you could muster?

I am not going to waste my time answering any particular point of yours because you jump up and down like a two-year-old demanding answers when at the same time you are very selective of the points I have raised that you care to discuss. Why the double standards and hypocrisy, icey? I have asked you direct questions many times that you have ignored. Furthermore, you have been doing this for months. So if I choose not to waste my time on a particular point, you can either take the time to answer every single direct question that I have posed to you, or simply accept that sometimes I do not care to take the time to answer all your points in exactly the same way that you are very selective of which points you choose to discuss.

In reference to the particular point, it raises the same logical fallacies as you have raised already and I would be repeating myself to discuss them again, therefore it is a waste of my time. I am not going to waste my time answerting the same questions again simply because you claim this person is an authority, and especially when you refuse to do me the same courtesy. Authority be damned, it is a fallacy to ask someone to accept a point of view simply because some dubious authority says so.

View Posticey, on 14 July 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

I've named my own easy hurdle. Now what's your own top selective point for which you lament my lack of response? "Right-wing fallacious denialist stupidity", insurance, polar bears, $5/litre fuel?

Quid pro quo?

That would be a start. And address every direct question that I have asked. And provide demonstrations rather than calling a point "inane". After all, I do not call some of your arguments fallacious without demonstrating why.

But it is clear to me that you are not going to do any of this. After all, you seem unable to admit that, in many cases, I and others raise good points that you are unable to refute, so you quietly ignore them and hope they go away. But if you insist on the madness of berating me for not answering one point, you will bring your own doom by having a dozen points that you have refused to answer listed here.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#75 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:49 AM

View Postfonzie, on 15 July 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

The government has decided to obfuscate with terms like carbon pollution instead of C02

Right here, fonzie, you demonstrate your ignorance. CO2 is not the only gaseous carbon compound emitted by industry that is a greenhouse gas. There are a couple of dozen carbon-containing greenhouse gases such as CH4 (methane), CO (carbon monoxide), various CFCs, various HCFCs and a few other carbon-containing gases. So it is not obfuscation to call it "carbon pollution", it is terminology born of necessity.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#76 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:59 AM

View Postfonzie, on 15 July 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

and they lie with statements like "there will be no carbon tax under the goverment I lead".

You must have hated Howard then. Never-ever-GST and a whole raft of broken promises - remember "core" and "non-core" promises?

The carbon tax was a Greens policy, adopted by Labor in exchange for the Greens' support in a minority Government. If Labor had won a majority at the election, we would have gone straight to an ETS.

It is only Abbott and his fawning toadies in the MSM that keep beating this dead horse. Maybe we can just call it a "non-core promise" and let it go at that, just like Howard did. Seriously, there's been more bleating about this single point than all of Howard's broken non-core promises put together.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#77 User is offline   JJ 

  • Administrator
  • View blog
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 12-January 11

Posted 15 July 2011 - 10:10 AM

To anyone disputing the scientific consensus on climate change, I suggest taking a look at the follwing:

Attached Image: monthly_07_2011/post-1-0-95983100-1310692160.gif
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Attached Image: monthly_07_2011/post-1-0-80834800-1310692165.gif
Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

From: http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Please read the Forum Rules & Info thread if you haven't already.
1

#78 Guest-fonzie

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 July 2011 - 12:05 PM

View PostBam, on 15 July 2011 - 09:49 AM, said:

Right here, fonzie, you demonstrate your ignorance. CO2 is not the only gaseous carbon compound emitted by industry that is a greenhouse gas. There are a couple of dozen carbon-containing greenhouse gases such as CH4 (methane), CO (carbon monoxide), various CFCs, various HCFCs and a few other carbon-containing gases. So it is not obfuscation to call it "carbon pollution", it is terminology born of necessity.


Ah I see, but C02 is the enemy and the only reason given for the tax.
How do you explain away the un-importance (other than government obfuscation)for the exclusion of methane(through farming practice and at least 100 billion mammal farts a day) and carbon monoxide(petrol burnt in cars).Hint: can't be that important whereas political necessity is!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#79 Guest-fonzie

  • Group: Guests

Posted 15 July 2011 - 12:23 PM

View PostBam, on 15 July 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

You must have hated Howard then. Never-ever-GST and a whole raft of broken promises - remember "core" and "non-core" promises?

The carbon tax was a Greens policy, adopted by Labor in exchange for the Greens' support in a minority Government. If Labor had won a majority at the election, we would have gone straight to an ETS.

It is only Abbott and his fawning toadies in the MSM that keep beating this dead horse. Maybe we can just call it a "non-core promise" and let it go at that, just like Howard did. Seriously, there's been more bleating about this single point than all of Howard's broken non-core promises put together.

Talk about flogging a dead horse and crystal ball gazing. What you are saying is Howard told some porkies(which he did) and that justifies Gillard telling the mother of all porkies.
I would be quite happy for Gillard (out of character) to do a Howard now that she has changed her mind as Howard did and take it to an election. Who knows the electorate may even forget what a bald faced liar she is!

Stop the presses! an admition that Gillards policy has been cobbled together to satisfy less than 12% of the population for political expediency. Knock me down with a feather!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#80 User is offline   Julian Taylor 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 07-July 11
  • LocationClare, South Australia

Posted 15 July 2011 - 01:32 PM

Any way you look at it Gillard's breach of her word was much more than the abandonment of a non-core promise. It would be much the same thing as Abbott turning around and bringing back Work Choices after saying 'dead, buried, and cremated'.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 46 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »


Fast Reply