OT GW

Having been a research assistant in my earlier days, I can certainly attest to that. The things I saw happen...

Reply to
Jeßus
Loading thread data ...

Another one indeed.

Here's something to ponder Clocky. There is no question that the planet is changing, and anyone who suggests that it isn't is away with the fairies. However, the point of contention is whether that change is a mane made one or a result of the planet's normal evolutionary process.

A portion of the scientific community thinks that man has something to do with it, but they can't conclusively prove it. They have their theories of course, but none of us (including the scientists themselves) will ever live long enough to know if their guesses are right or wrong.

The funny part in all of that (for me at least) as that you're happy to go along with them but probably don't believe in the existence of "God" despite the amount of faith required to believe in either being about the same :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.
Reply to
Noddy

Any way, despite the thread not being remotely connected to the groups purpose it's coming along quite nicely. We have politics and religion combined, I'm just waiting for some one to introduce sex and we'll have the complete package.

Rheilly

Reply to
Rheilly Phoull

Well, I did have sex once with a Ph.D student who was spending time with us out in the field for a few days.

So there you go, one complete package sewn up for you.

Mind you, no sign of Godwin's law as yet...

Reply to
Jeßus

Best arselick of the season as well!

Reply to
John_H

Not that I've had any personal experience, but if you look at the famous people throughout the scientific world it seems to be a bizarre one.

Take Werner Von Braun for example. Probably the world's most eminent rocket scientist in his day, and a man who played a major role in the American space program to put a man on the moon, but for a time he was a passionate Nazi developing weapons that killed thousands of people and was in charge of a production facility that employed slave labour that brutally killed hundreds more.

The theme that seemed to run through his life as it did with so many other famous scientists was Ego. He didn't seem to care terribly much how his work impacted on others, as long as he was allowed to do it and was prepared to deal with the devil to make that possible.

--
Regards,
Noddy.
Reply to
Noddy

Lol :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.
Reply to
Noddy

**Yep. Out of context. Tell you what: YOU supply the allegedly daming words, IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONTEXT to me and let's discuss what you consider to be a problem. Fair enough?
**ONLY by the likes of Alan Jones. The SCIENTISTS are all still in agreement. Again: Why do you persist in ignoring the science? Why do you persist in listening solely to the likes of Alan Jones? What scientific credentials does he have?
**Examining the data is not an act of blind faith. It's just science.
**Then YOU supply your alternate figures. Over to you...
**And again: Supply your alternate figures.
**The tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions. All the economists who have studied the tax, have stated that it probably will lower Australia's CO2 emissions. They have also provided data on the anticipated costs. OK, so far? These are the same economists who predicted what effects the GST would have on the economy. Are you now disputing what the economists have stated will likely occur? Do you have some data to back your claims?
**Again: The same economists that predicted (correctly) the effects of the GST are telling us what effects the government's carbon tax and Abbott's carbon tax will have.
**The same economists that (correctly) predicted the effects of the GST.
**OK. Why? Moreover, if you reject the government's plan, then you accept Abbott's plan. Abbott's plan has been universally condemned as wasteful and ineffective. I accept that you may not like a carbon tax (For the record: I HATE the idea of a carbon tax), but if your going to suffer a carbon tax (and you will, regardless of who is in government), then you may as well support the tax that has the best chance of working and costing the community as little as possible.

but all I've seen of Gillard's plan in

**You sure about that? Some of the largest mining corporations are in favour of it:

formatting link

, the

**Sure. Ignorant people will always prefer to listen to anyone, except those who actually know stuff. It's why religion is so popular. And let's not get side-tracked: NO ONE WANTS A CARBON TAX. Not me, not you, not the government. However, we do need to find a way to reduce CO2 emissions. The carbon tax would seem to be the most effective way of accomplishing that.

The general consensus seems to

**The "general consensus" is code for: A bunch of ignorant dickheads. I don't give a crap about what Fred Bloggs doen the road thinks about anything. If I want to know about what is wrong with my car, I'll ask my mechanic (or you). I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about the mysterious lump on my leg, I'll ask my doctor. I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about the economic effects of a carbon tax, I'll ask an economist. I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about climate change, I'll ask the CSIRO, BoM or NASA. I won't ask Alan Jones.

The real question here is this: Why do YOU place your faith in what Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and George Pell say, rather than the people who know what they're talking about?

**Incorrect. The companies that generate or use power with low CO2 emissions can sell their power, goods and/or services at a lower cost, because their costs of doing business are lower than their less efficient competition.

If that does indeed become the case, the net

**Maybe that will occur. Or maybe competitive factors will come into play.
**Your assumption is not necessarily correct. The power companies that generate their energy via the use of geo-thermal, Solar, wind or other low emission technologies will have a competitive advantage. They can sell at a lower cost and gain market share.
**And others got more expensive. TOTAL tax receipts increased dramatically. We paid far more total tax the day after GST was introduced.
**Wrong. The carbon tax will add to the cost of many things. Just like GST did.
**No. They are the words of the economists.
**And your economic credentials are?

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

formatting link

**I haven't watched the video, but I did read the posted article. OK, so you tell me:
  • Do I ignore my mechanic, when he tells me that my car engine needs an oil change? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
  • Do I ignore my doctor, when he tells me that I should have a Sunspot excised from my face? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
  • Do I ignore Microsoft, when they tell me I need another 2GB RAm to run Windows 7, 64bit correctly? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
  • Do I listen to the climatologists, when they tell us that there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?

It's one thing to weigh up the opinions of people. It's quite another to be presented with a very large amount of highly compelling data.

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with? Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

**Their "guesses" (as you quaintly put it) are based on very extensive research. Their "guesses" are now put at around 95% certainty.

Let's say one of your family members gives you their car to look at. You hear a 'clunk' 'clunk' noise when turning corners under load. You say that there is a 95% probability that the CVs are shot. You cannot be

100% certain without stripping the front end down and looking at them. Do you call your educated assumption a "guess"? What do you tell your relative, when they state that you are a crackpot and should be completely ignored, because you cannot provide a 100% ironclad guarantee that your claim is correct?
**I saw the smiley, but it doesn't count. There is zero evidence to support the notion of a God. There is considerable scientific data to support the notion of AGW.

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

IIRC from school history class, the one thing that made Nazi Era scientific progress so incredibly rapid was that scientists who showed promise in their theories/abilities were allowed to do their research and experiments on ANYTHING or anyone they wanted to without limits or ethics being regarded, and with virtually unlimited funding to go with it.

Of course, if they didn't show results, they probably got a train trip to a camp.......

Reply to
kreed

laughing stock by your standard, but not by anyone else's

m.

I don't know about that, this Labor dictatorship would without a doubt be the worst and most incompetent government in living memory - thats even before the carbon tax was brought in.

Abbott has promised to get rid of the carbon tax, that is about the only thing he has going for him. He could also be lying.

Reply to
kreed

y

hem.

d

Thats because its not. It's mostly fabricated crap in order to get the result they are paid to get and it is laugable. The peers that review this garbage are just as corrupt as the authors.

Reply to
kreed

**OK. I accpet that you reject science in preference to religious opinion.
**"Dictatorship"? What are you smoking? The government was Democratically elected under the our rules of Constutional Law. As for incompetence, I see a government that is nor more and no less incompetent than most that have come before. I remind you that it was not the Labor government that has deliberately wasted valuable Australian lives and a not inconsiderable chunk of money, invading Iraq and propping up a hopelessly corrupt government in Afghanistan. Those little conflicts were enacted by the Howard/Abbott team.
**Abbott has promised to enact his "direct action" form of carbon reduction scheme. A scheme which has been roundly condemned by all the economists.

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

r

We have no solid idea yet about the real effect of the GST as the effects of it were masked by the housing boom and the associated upturn in just about every business, as a flow on effect from it.

Now that that is over we shall see. The basics are is that it is a tax, and therefore state theft of private property without consent, and that governments are only good at turning things to shit means inherently overall it has to have a BAD effect.

Reply to
kreed

**I see. So, your contention is this:

ALL the major scientific organisations on the planet (including: CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the UK Met, The Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science, the German Academy of Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.) tell us that AGW is the most likely explanation for the warming that has been noted. You claim that these guys are all wrong and that Tony Abbott, George Pell, Alan Jones and Monckton are correct, despite the fact that not one of these clowns has a scientific education. Is that your contention?

If what you say is correct, then it must be the most massive cover-up in the entire history of the planet.

There is another possibilty:

That the scientists are right and the raving loonies and shock-jocks don't know what they're talking about.

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

hey

them.

iewed

If what you say is correct, then it must be the most massive cover-up in

When you look at the staggering amounts of money and power at stake here, buying off these organisations (note most are gov funded) would cost lunch money by comparison

There is one rule that always applies, -- IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY / POWER. This is how it always has been.

When you look at how things work in real life, and not in TV land or Government land, this is the only answer.

Reply to
kreed

**Bollocks. The results were felt almost instantly. And they were measured.
**Then, perhaps, it is time for you to move to the Ivory Coast. No taxation there. Enjoy your life. Me? I'll tough it out here in Australia, where I can enjoy things like:
  • Free medical care.
  • Security.
  • A long, healthy life.
  • Freedom from being shot to death.
  • Freedom from being kidnapped.
  • Garbage collection.
  • Sewerage.
  • Electricity.
  • Reasonable roads.

All of which and much more has been paid for by taxation.

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

See my reply to Clocky about an example of the "peer review" process.

I don't listen to Alan Jones, as I'm in Victoria, but if you put "climategate" into Google you'll get about 3 and a half million hits.

A tad wider spread than just Alan Jones' audience methinks.

Oh, I'm sure that they are.

Because the "science", such as it is, has not proved a single, solitary thing. I ignore religious nutbags for exactly the same reason.

scientific

I don't listen to Alan Jones, and I never have.

With respect Trevor, your "examining of the data" is bordering on fanatical, and to the point were everyone who is opposed to your views is a crank.

I don't have any figures Trevor, and that's the point. *no one* does, and I find it hard to understand how you can right off this new tax with such a miniscule impact when no one else seems to be doing so.

Probably?

Who is "they", and what are these "costs" they speak of?

the economy. Are you now

According to what I've read about the subject Australia's impact on the global environment is around 1.5 percent, and if the carbon tax achieved a reduction of 10 per cent (which would be optimistic at best in my opinion) we'd make a difference to "climate change" in a global sense of .15 of a percent at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

That might make some sense to you, but it sure as shit doesn't to me.

I'm sorry Trev, but who correctly predicted the effects of the GST?

Even the government's own modelling was wrong when they found they had an extra billion & a half at the end of the first full year that * no one* saw coming.

As I said, who were these people?

What crap :)

Just because there are two plans doesn't mean I automatically accept the second one if I don't like the first :)

Oddly enough, so has Gillard's carbon tax.

That'd be great, but which one is capable of doing that? As far as I can tell *neither* plan will give business *any* incentive to reduce their emissions.

formatting link

Oh I have no doubt that there are some out there who are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a carbon tax as a nifty way of justifying a hefty increase in prices. We've already seen reports of some more unscrupulous businesses introducing price rises as a result of the "carbon tax" before it was even passed through parliament :)

God I love that argument. The people who agree with you are educated, while the people who don't are ignorant :)

Religion is a great tool for controlling the minds of people who's decks are missing the 8's, 9's & 10's, but apart from that it doesn't have a whole lot going for it.

For the record, I have no problems with the idea of a carbon tax that actually caused a reduction in emissions, but the current plans offer no scope for that that I can see and I have a *big* problem with the idea of a tax simply on the basis of *hoping* that it does *something* which essentially all this tax really is.

As far as the government is concerned, they give not the slightest shit about the environment as they won't be in power long enough to see any improvement, if any. The *only* reason we have a carbon tax today is because it was necessary for Gillard to maintain support and keep herself in the top job.

End of story.

I don't Trev.

As far as this issue is concerned I try to be as objective as I can, and I consider arguments from *both* sides. I don't flat out believe everything the scientists say just because they're "scientists", and nor do I believe everything the anti-climate change brigade say just because they're sceptics.

As I've said before I don't doubt that the planet is changing, and it has been for millions of years. What I'm *not* convinced is that it's a man made problem, or if it is that there's anything we can do about it that will prevent it.

If you ran a company that made widgets that cost X amount to get to market, why would you spend millions on reducing your carbon footprint in the hope that you could reduce your costs and sell them *cheaper*?

As I said, where's the incentive? :)

I'd be more than a little surprised if there's been a single proposal over the years that has worked out anything like the initial forecasts in practice once they were implemented.

Look at electricity pricing for example.

The privatising the government owned utility companies was sold on the idea of competition between private companies would create a very competitive market with cheaper pricing. Yet power prices have sky-rocketed in the last few years with predictions of ever increasing costs as the "competing private companies" all get together and dictate terms for the market.

The same thing happened when they deregulated the banking industry.

There's a hell of a lot of maybe's in there Trev, with the only certainty that we'll all be paying more in the mean time.

And do you *really* think they will after investing the necessary capital in order to do that? How much do you think it'd cost a power company to set up a Geo-Thermal power grid capable of supplying a town like Newcastle for example?

They're going to want that money back, and in pretty short order.

In terms of purchased goods it was pretty balanced as a lot of items had existing taxes that were hidden in the retain price. Where they *really* made their money was on the services component.

Give me an example of a few items that well not be impacted by the Carbon tax.

Ah, right. I'm not a recognised expert, therefore I can't have a valid opinion.

I'm not David Attenborough either, but I know enough about elephants to know that I don't want one as a household pet.

--
Regards,
Noddy.
Reply to
Noddy

.

ey

them.

People didn't want a carbon tax, this was known, and was told loud and clear to this government. IT was rammed down people's throats. They are meant to represent the wishes of the people. They blatantly shit all over them, and lied about it at election time to boot. If I or anyone else did this as a director of a company (which the government more or less is) then there would be prosecutions and time spent in a cell.

Overall both parties are controlled from behind the scene by the same corporate/bank interests, so in reality a change of government here overall is really just the controlling hand slipping on another puppet and hanging it out in public, with a different "spin".

As we saw this time, Independents will sell out pretty easily and arent' worth shit.

The government was

The insulation, school halls, and other stimulus packages have been complete disasters. I doubt that there is anything this lot have been able to do competently.

And none were stopped by this regime either under Rudd or Gillard.

Labor also supported these adventures at the time, and if they had been in power, no doubt they would also have approved them. These things were done to ensure large corporations could control as much of the oil as possible, and therefore as monopolists force up the price, manufacture fake shortages to justify these price increases.

Reply to
kreed

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.