CO2 Levels / Carbon Tax

[Darren]

Just got this in an email and thought it was interesting enough to share.

I'm in 2 minds, I figure it as just another way to tax us.

CO2.pdf

Cheers

[ClairBear]

Very informative read Darren.

Last week I did a tour of BOM here in Adelaide and we were shown a graph that went back centuries that supported the following passage.

The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one. Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years - and there was no industrialization back then. The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today’s changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false.

[wraith]

Does any one seem to realise CO2 is one of the most abundant things in our atmosphere. Sick of it. No one seems to realise what it is there trying to fight. Carbon dioxide not carbon. Two completely different things. This carbon tax is just a knee jerk reaction to make it look like there doing something nothing more. That pdf supports what I'm saying. What next banning soft drinks for high levels of CO2?

[Calaber]

Very informative read Darren.

Last week I did a tour of BOM here in Adelaide and we were shown a graph that went back centuries that supported the following passage.

Just imagine what Torch would have made of that quotation. He would have started a whole thread to discredit it and push his beliefs down our throats.

[jules]

scientific truth is established not by mutually agreeing with like minded people's opinions or pre-conceptions, but by questioning beliefs and personal views. genuine climate scientists are doing this - the fact that there is continuing research is a good thing. unfortunately, documents like the one attached by the OP contribute very little to the debate. it simply serves to make people who already didn't believe in climate change feel better about themselves.

[ClairBear]

Just imagine what Torch would have made of that quotation. He would have started a whole thread to discredit it and push his beliefs down our throats.

LOL, I actually thought of him during the lecture and the hours we could spend debating the topic.

[Calaber]

Looks like Jules might step up to take his place.

[Bravotwozero]

Whether climate change is man made or not is one thing. But to suggest a carbon tax is going to make any difference whatsoever is another. Hopefully when Labor get their asses handed to them at the next election, liberal roll back any carbon tax in place.

Looks like Jules might step up to take his place.

Bit harsh. Jules' post seems pretty logical to me. Whilst I don't personally agree climate change is man made, I still think it is important to conduct research on the matter.

[Calaber]

scientific truth is established not by mutually agreeing with like minded people's opinions or pre-conceptions, but by questioning beliefs and personal views. genuine climate scientists are doing this - the fact that there is continuing research is a good thing. unfortunately, documents like the one attached by the OP contribute very little to the debate. it simply serves to make people who already didn't believe in climate change feel better about themselves.

I 'm not going to debate this topic past this post because the whole subject bores me to buggery, but you are entitled to your opinions. However, the information provided in that document is very credible and casts doubts on the arguments propounded by those who support Global Warming, simply because it is easy to understand and doesn't attempt to bullshit the reader with innumerable and incomprehensible facts and data sheets.

[VTmadS1]

scientific truth is established not by mutually agreeing with like minded people's opinions or pre-conceptions, but by questioning beliefs and personal views. genuine climate scientists are doing this - the fact that there is continuing research is a good thing. unfortunately, documents like the one attached by the OP contribute very little to the debate. it simply serves to make people who already didn't believe in climate change feel better about themselves.

yeah, since when did anyone need facts to have a debate

[Dr HaxZaw]

Does any one seem to realise CO2 is one of the most abundant things in our atmosphere.

lol if 0.04% is your idea of abundant i sure as hell hope your not running a spare parts store with a clearance sale

[jules]

However, the information provided in that document is very credible and casts doubts on the arguments propounded by those who support Global Warming, simply because it is easy to understand

climate models are amongst the most complex phenomenons man has ever attempted to study. you and i do not understand them and that is not going to change by reading a 2 page summary document from someone who obviously has no interest in presenting an objective, balanced viewpoint. even if he did, you still wouldn't understand it - it's beyond you and i. we rely on the assessments of proper climate scientists. unfortunately, most of them believe it is happening.

[Calaber]

climate models are amongst the most complex phenomenons man has ever attempted to study. you and i do not understand them and that is not going to change by reading a 2 page summary document from someone who obviously has no interest in presenting an objective, balanced viewpoint. even if he did, you still wouldn't understand it - it's beyond you and i. we rely on the assessments of proper climate scientists. unfortunately, most of them believe it is happening.

Which is precisely why I am sitting on the fence on this issue. As I said earlier, it's a subject about which I am really not interested as I know little about it and don't feel competent to sort the fact from the fiction. That 2 page document didn't alter my "opinion" one way or the other. I just said that it was more clearly expressed than documents prepared by the pro-warming side.

However, I have a point to raise. You seem quite content to denigrate the author of that document as "someone who obviously has no interest in presenting an objective, balanced viewpoint." That is the most annoying thing I feel about the pro-warmists - they always seem so damned convinced they are right and the doubters are wrong. Anybody who dares to express a contrary opinion to their own is immediately classed as ignorant or refusing to acknowledge the truth. I think that's a bit rich. You don't know a thing about the author of that document, so who are you to downplay their qualification to make those statements?

And as I said earlier - I have no wish to debate whether global warming is a fact or not and I think the topic was done to death on an earlier post. I don't care about the subject enough to argue over it. I just wonder why doubters are always "wrong" on this subject.

[jules]

I just wonder why doubters are always "wrong" on this subject.

doubting is fine. i have my doubts. you seem to assume i'm a 'pro-warmist'. i just know enough to know that i can't credibly judge the work of proper climate scientists - unlike what seems like the majority of the population who seem to think they're somehow qualified to stand in judgment of people probably 10 x as smart as them. my observation is simple - most climate scientists appear to believe there is a high likelihood that climate change is real. that's the best info we've got - it trumps pretty much everything else, including particularly the irrelevant rantings of shock jocks like alan jones, etc.

[Verynice]

so who wants to staple that document to gillard's head??

[Calaber]

doubting is fine. i have my doubts. you seem to assume i'm a 'pro-warmist'. i just know enough to know that i can't credibly judge the work of proper climate scientists - unlike what seems like the majority of the population who seem to think they're somehow qualified to stand in judgment of people probably 10 x as smart as them. my observation is simple - most climate scientists appear to believe there is a high likelihood that climate change is real. that's the best info we've got - it trumps pretty much everything else, including particularly the irrelevant rantings of shock jocks like alan jones, etc.

Careful - now you really ARE sounding like Torch.

Yes - I assumed you are a pro-warmist. though you seem more convinced to be able to take one side of the argument than me, as I'm a doubter who takes neither side. I prefer to see what incontrovertible evidence either side can produce before deciding which stance I'll adopt. There is too much contradictory evidence for me to do that yet.

[jules]

I prefer to see what incontrovertible evidence either side can produce before deciding which stance I'll adopt. There is too much contradictory evidence for me to do that yet.

it's a risk management issue, not one requiring proof. you don't wait for proof before taking action to mitigate risks. it depends on the size of the risk and what can be done to mitigate it.

[Calaber]

it's a risk management issue, not one requiring proof. you don't wait for proof before taking action to mitigate risks. it depends on the size of the risk and what can be done to mitigate it.

That's the point. I haven't seen sufficient evidence to prove the risk exists. I have seen plenty of evidence to suggest it does, and plenty to suggest it doesn't. I'm just not convinced.

[jules]

I haven't seen sufficient evidence to prove the risk exists.

the evidence is in the form of highly complex mathematical models, based on expert knowledge of meteorology. how many PhDs in meteorology did you say you had?

[Calaber]

the evidence is in the form of highly complex mathematical models, based on expert knowledge of meteorology. how many PhDs in meteorology did you say you had?

There's no need to get smart. I could ask the same of you but you've already stated that the science and mathematics or whatever is beyond both of us, so I'll assume the answer is "none".

You might have already decided to hop into bed with one side of the argument, despite your doubts. I'm a climate agnostic - I don't know enough about the subject to be able to determine who's right and who's wrong and I'm not embarassed to admit it. However, seeing as you have raised the subject of knowledge of meteorology, it is interesting to read in Sashyres' original post that she was at the BOM where she read another document, which she quoted. That quotation tends to add to the doubts over the validity of climate change.

I believe BOM is short for Bureau of Meteorology, isn't it? So I suppose they print material that is prepared by someone who has no interest in presenting a balanced viewpoint, nor is qualified to do so, either, hmm?

[jules]

I'm a climate agnostic - I don't know enough about the subject to be able to determine who's right and who's wrong and I'm not embarassed to admit it.

but you seem to be contradicting yourself. there are many, if not a vast majority of esteemed climate scientists who are convinced that the data points to a likelihood that climate change is occurring. a genuine agnostic would be concerned by that - but i don't detect that in your posts. claiming to be an agnostic costs nothing, but some people only do so to try to buy some cheap credibility.

i consider myself a climate change agnostic. i'm not saying it's a certainty - one way or the other - but neither am i determined to ignore the vast evidence that suggests it could be true. frankly, you can't do that and also be an agnostic

However, seeing as you have raised the subject of knowledge of meteorology, it is interesting to read in Sashyres' original post that she was at the BOM where she read another document, which she quoted. That quotation tends to add to the doubts over the validity of climate change.

forgive me, but this doesn't strike me as a scientific breakthrough.

[ucwepn]

I agree we should wait for more/better research and some conclusive answers and not theories, having a knee jerk reaction and commencing a "money-go-round" carbon tax is not something that i agree with at this stage. This tax appears to punish nobody as everyone will be compensated so therefore is a fake tax just for appearance sake. if they were serious about emmisions they would go nuclear like other modern economies, we are not a developing nation.

my $0.02

[vr94ss]

Here's a good response to that pdf:
Reply to Climate Change Denier Gregg D Thompson

[minux]

Here's a good response to that pdf:
Reply to Climate Change Denier Gregg D Thompson

Isn't the guy you linked an IT specialist who doesn't even use his own name?

I just remember this coming up once before.

I could be wrong though

[Dr HaxZaw]

anyone who reckons the carbon tax is a good idea obviously doenst work in industry... also what happens when it becomes a carbon trading scheme?? macquarie bank ftw!!!