You fail to understand that climate and weather are different. Weather is an immediate occurrence, while climate is a long term trend.
Once you finally understand what you are talking about, you will no longer deny climate change, the moon landing, nor claim the CIA invented the AIDS virus.
Knowledge is power. Try to acquire some knowledge.
No, hot things are climate and cold things are weather.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
s an immediate occurrence, while climate is a long term trend.
Only in the Murdoch-owned media, who are willing to mislead their customers to keep their advertisers happy.
For the record - climate is the long-term average of weather. Weather is ch aotic and thus day-by-day unpredictable, but climate has been susceptible t o prediction, as the popularity of agriculture attests. We are engaged in m aking climate less predictable,and this may make agriculture less viable.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Unless the cold things are caused by it getting hot. It gets *SO* confusing.
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what it's doing. It must be taxed.
is an immediate occurrence, while climate is a long term trend.
ing.
xed.
Krw is almost right - for once. Renewable energy is more expensive at the m oment, and it makes sense to tax non-renewable energy to cover the cost of fixing the damage that more CO2 in the air is already doing, not to mention the much more substantial damage that a lot more of it is likely to do in the future. The minimum tax level ought to be one that makes energy derived from burning fossil carbon more expensive than renewable energy, but polit icians aren't that brave.
The fossil carbon extraction industry hates the whole idea, and is spending a lot of money persuading gullible idiots like John Larkin that more CO2 i n the atmosphere actually isn't causing global warming, and that it wouldn' t be a problem even if it did happen. The average IQ is only 100 so there a re a lot gullible idiots for them to work on, and if you can dress up the i dea as some kind of left-wing conspiracy theory, you can suck in quite inte lligent right-wingers as well.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
As i said, it's all about money, more taxes eh. So how do you envision these added taxes will be used to " cover the costs of the damage"?
And Bill, insulting people who disagree with you really does not support your position. Mark
Actually, it's all about avoiding climate change. Taxes are a means to chan ge people's behaviour in the most cost-effective way - using the power of t he free market to do the job as cheaply as possible.
s of the damage"?
They won't. Most of the damage hasn't happened yet. The sensible way of usi ng the money raised is to subsidise the manufacture of renewable energy sou rces, and cutting the price to the consumer of power generated from renewab le sources.That minimises CO2 emissions and the eventual damage that the ex tra CO2 seems very likely to inflict.
your position.
Pointing out that people who are being suckered by denialist propaganda are acting like gullible idiots is precisely my position. The people who are b eing suckered may feel insulted when this is pointed out, but the original insult comes from the denialist propaganda lobby who publish twaddle design ed to entrap people who can't - or won't - do any kind of critical analysis of what they read and republish.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Carbon taxes reflect the true cost of the fuel.
If I had a product that did X but caused Y as a side effect, and Y caused injury or death, there would be demand to regulate X. Climate change is a gradual process, so it is hard to get the masses to grab their pitch forks and torches and demand legislation.
Riots, demanding to be taxed more?
Since the presumed damage is worldwide, should the tax revenue be divided among the world's population? Seems fair.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
d injury or death, there would be demand to regulate X. Climate change is a gradual process, so it is hard to get the masses to grab their pitch forks and torches and demand legislation.
among the world's population? Seems fair.
Most of the damage hasn't happened yet. The tax isn't there to raise revenu e, but to change behaviour, and it's frequently ear-marked to cross-subsidi se renewable energy supplies, in part to encourage the economies of scale w hcih are eventually going to make renewables cheaper than burning fossil ca rbon.
"Fairness" is a slightly slippery concept. It seems to have evolved to help collaboration and to help squeeze out free-loaders.
The fossil fuel extraction industry don't see themselves as free-loaders, b ut using the atmosphere as a giant garbage dump isn't nice.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Hi Bill, Sorry, been away for awhile, but see you still don't have a clue.
First off, carbon taxes have no relationship to climate change. They are purely a way for 'progressive' politicos to try and control the gullible (such as yourself) and get more money and power. The money they receive from any such endevour goes mainly to line their own and their supporters pockets, with a small, token amount provided back in 'rebates' and 'subsidies' to provide a little cover for their graft.
As for AGW, I was there when it began, and can tell you quite sincerely that the emperor has no clothes. It started wtih some bad computer modeling by some second rate scientists that caught the attention of members of certain politically motivated groups, who then used their influence and control of funding to make sure that the correctly polically 'pure' message was produced from the 'research.' By the time they had finished, anyone attempting to apply rational thought and true scientific methods to the subject of climate change found themselves asking 'You want fries with that?' in record time.
I won't argue with you about the validity of the models, the lack of any useful predicitions from those models, the accuracy of the base datasets, or any other substantial topic, because you won't believe the truth untill it is three feet deep on your driveway in summer. When the AGW 'scientists' are actually able to produce a useful, and correct prediction of climate change, then we will have something to discuss. Until then, it doesn't matter how loudly you and they shout "This was caused by AGW!" anytime anything happens. It will only matter when you say "This will happen over the next few years" and it actually does happen.
BTW, climate change DOES HAPPEN! Whether we have anything to do about it, or can do anything about it other than adapt, is a whole other question!
change people's behaviour in the most cost-effective way - using the power of the free market to do the job as cheaply as possible.
costs of the damage"?
using the money raised is to subsidise the manufacture of renewable energy sources, and cutting the price to the consumer of power generated from ren ewable sources.That minimises CO2 emissions and the eventual damage that th e extra CO2 seems very likely to inflict.
ort your position.
are acting like gullible idiots is precisely my position. The people who a re being suckered may feel insulted when this is pointed out, but the origi nal insult comes from the denialist propaganda lobby who publish twaddle de signed to entrap people who can't - or won't - do any kind of critical anal ysis of what they read and republish.
That I don't share your attitude to climate change is probably good evidenc e that I do have a clue or two, but right-wing nitwits do seem to think tha t anybody who doesn't agree with them is suffering from some kind of cognit ive deficit.
Not directly. They are aimed at using the free market to discourage people from burning fossil carbon as an energy source, so it's an indirect relatio nship, and if your grasp of the logic that links the mechanism to the long term aim has been disrupted by overly gullible consumption of denialist pro paganda you may not be able to follow it.
gullible (such as yourself) and get more money and power.
Another moronic conspiracy theory ...
own and their supporters pockets, with a small, token amount provided back in 'rebates' and 'subsidies' to provide a little cover for their graft.
Right-wing nitwits do expect all politicians to act like the examples they hang around with. The US has a particularly vile and antiquated constitutio n, designed by the founding tax evaders to enable the people who owned the country to run the country for their own benefit, and pork-barrelling has been part of the US political game since 1789. Better constitutions and sli ghtly less venal political traditions can offer better outcomes - not that the inhabitants of God's Only Country are likely to believe this.
that the emperor has no clothes. It started with some bad computer modelin g by some second rate scientists that caught the attention of members of c ertain politically motivated groups, who then used their influence and con trol of funding to make sure that the correctly politically 'pure' message was produced from the 'research.' By the time they had finished, anyone at tempting to apply rational thought and true scientific methods to the subje ct of climate change found themselves asking 'You want fries with that?' in record time.
You weren't there when it started
and you clearly haven't a clue about the science involved. The process of s orting out what has been going during the last few inter-glacials and ice a ges makes it blindingly obvious that jacking up atmospheric CO2 levels to 4
00ppm is a bad idea.Atmospheric CO2 levels have sat at about 180ppm for the last few ice ages, and popped up to 270ppm during the last few inter-glacials - we've now jack ed up the CO2 level by the same proportion again, and while we haven't crea ted quite the degree of global warming you see between an interglacial and an ice age, we've also yet failed to melt quite as much ice and snow cover as was hanging around at the end of the last ice age. Greenland and Antarct ica are now losing ice quite fast, but the ice sheets haven't yet started s liding off in chunks as they did at the end of the last ice age.
The ice cover on the Arctic Ocean is thinning out fairly rapidly, and the A rctic is consequently warming up a lot faster than the rest of the planet.
useful predictions from those models, the accuracy of the base datasets, or any other substantial topic, because you won't believe the truth until it is three feet deep on your driveway in summer.
You also clearly haven't a clue about any of these subjects, which does exp lain why you might shy off arguing about them. Claiming that "As for AGW, I was there when it began" does make it very clear that you don't know much about the area.
rect prediction of climate change,
Since the predictions couldn't be shown to be "correct" until after the cli mate change has happened, this is merely an excuse for doing nothing until it's too late to do anything.
Essentially, after a human population crash. By then, we'll be too busy get ting something to eat in a world where our agriculture doesn't work any mor e to waste time on after-the-fact discussions.
caused by AGW!" anytime anything happens. It will only matter when you say "This will happen over the next few years" and it actually does happen.
The problem is that the scale is decades, rather than a few years.
Anthropogenic global warming didn't start looking statistically significant until around 1990, when atmospheric CO2 levels had hit 350ppm - 35ppm high er than when we'd started measuring them accurately in 1958. The Atlantic m ultidecadal oscillation puts enough noise on the average global temperature that it took that long for the effect to creep out of what then looked lik e noise. We've now got the Argo buoys to tell us something about what is go ing on in the oceans, but nowhere near enough, yet.
, or can do anything about it other than adapt, is a whole other question!
The ice age/interglacial alternation is the obvious example of climate chan ge in action. We now know enough to know how that works. Milankovitch expla ined the timing, but the effect he found was much too small to explain the magnitude of the temperature swings - we now know enough about the positive feedbacks involved to have a quantitative idea of how it works, and how th e Younger Dryas fitted into the end of the last ice age.
I'm afraid that your claim of inside knowledge is depressingly obviously ho llow.
Try to fool some other audience - this one is a little too well-informed to be suckered by obviously deceitful claims about being in on the early mode lling - you'd need to have a stock of personal anecdotes about John van Neu mann to make that one vaguely plausible.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
I've had just about enough of this shit. In the last 12 years Australia has recorded it's 10 hottest years on record plus the coldest winter days recorded.
Global warming predicts that due to the more turbulent atmospheric flows the *range* of temperatures experienced can *increase* even while the average is heading upwards ====> exactly like is being experienced in Australia. There is nothing between the Antarctic and Australia to stop polar winds except a few penguins and Japanese whaling ships. So when the stronger winds blow, we get it.
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.