Carbon tax scrapped

[icytailmark]

Australia has given up on science and given up on this planet. Science is crap according to tony abbott. Im glad im never having kids.

This video clip is appropriate for today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9c1QYx9ris

[xelasnave]

thanks I didnt see that coming.
who would have guessed.
but it will be followed by something even better...trust me..and dont give up on having kids..just lets forget politics and talk kids..best wishes

[glend]

People will adapt, and one day the world will be like the planet in Blade Runner. It's all good incentive to get off this planet and colonise. A realist I be.

[icytailmark]

There is only so much you can adapt to. Mars or Venus that is where our planet is heading towards. I put my money on earth looking like mars in a thousand years. But the human race will be long gone before that happens we will run out of water and food. As for colonising other worlds i dont see it happening because we care too much about money. I bet we are the laughing stock of the milky way from aliens point of view.

[xelasnave]

you will make it happen ..things take time ..dont give up..see a good future leave no room for an unhappy outcome.. the battle has only started so dont pretend it is over

[icytailmark]

i can picture sydney looking like the simpson desert in a few hundred years time.

[Amaranthus]

They also cut the 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 target:
https://theconversation.com/carbon-tax-repealed-experts-respond-29154

[Amaranthus]

Always seeking more dark, cloudless nights and pinpoint seeing, eh? ;)

[multiweb]

Science is not crap. The carbon tax is. Nobody has given up on science. When the whole world agrees and cuts emissions instead of taxing people we'll get somewhere. If not we'll hit the wall. The latter being more likely.

[Retrograde]

Yeah the carbon price only saved between 11 & 17 million tonnes of carbon emissions during it's short life (the biggest fall in emissions in 24 years) and didn't wreck the economy, cause a lamb roast to reach $100 or even wipe Whyalla off the map.

The biggest crap is what Tony & co have said about it (& climate-science).
Don't worry if you don't see your promised $550 savings. Tony has sent it all to Gina Rinehart for safe-keeping ;)

[xelasnave]

The forum rules read the forum rules

[Peter Ward]

It was nothing more than a wealth re-distribution tax, high income earners were hit with increased power bills, lower income earners & welfare recipients etc. were given subsidies to carry on as usual.

Billions of $ were given to energy producers in the form of subsidies...which were overly generous and they are now bleating about....:rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong...I think climate change is real and burning fossil fuels is having a big impact.

The problem for Oz was we were acting like a bunch of vegetarians running an abattoir. Taxing local coal fired energy producers, while they very same coal was being shipped to places like, Pakistan, who claimed their "new" coal fired plants were "cleaner", then claiming a carbon credit to burn the same australian coal !! :shrug:

A stupid tax. Glad to see it gone.

[Camelopardalis]

I'm just shocked this country relies on burning coal for power generation when there's plentiful sunshine :confused2:

[Dooghan]

The price of power (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-04-27/5406022)

An interesting read/listen.

[icytailmark]

i think more and more people will start living off the grid with their own solar panels. Even without the carbon tax power prices will continue to go up neverending.

[wulfgar]

The future survival of humanity and the co existence of right wing knuckle scraping flat earthers are contradictory realities.

If Co2 rises above 800 ppmv then humanity and most advanced mammals face the risk of extinction with many times greater certainty than that risked by a major nuclear war.

[xelasnave]

So at a personal level what will you do..
Will you reduce your footprint by a responsible percentage..travel less..consumer less..switch off your lights early..drive your car less..take shorter showers..or will you just blame someone else..set example take personal responsibility is the best ace to start...would you not agree.. And how about a non political thread...how to personally reduce my carbon foot print and how I show others how they can do it as well..Or we could just name call and cop out ... Isn't carbon tax a out Australia setting an example we are the Australians not the government.. We can set the example can we..you can personally post here how much energy you save and that you don't desert e the names you reserve for others less intelligent and void of ethic in this matter.
Not trying to Inst. you but trying to make you understand we each have our part..leave it to others will not guarantee success.personal action and heroic action is called did.I call on you will you take up the challenge..
I will support you as will otters
Alex

[xelasnave]

Anyone step up give energy saving advice..ask where the energy goes..does your office have a hot water service that is unused and inefficient..is there300 fridges in your office block with100 liters of milk.. Light around that are not needed..see something can't you complain..Binning need to be brought to their knees and they are only one...just stop blaming the government they will follow but someone must lead
Alexa

[wulfgar]

Klaatu has given us the direction, exterminate them!

To survive, we have a choice on how to deal with them.

Elimination being uppermost in the hierarchy of controls.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Hierarchy_of_Controls.PNG/350px-Hierarchy_of_Controls.PNG

[casstony]

We've got solar panels, looking forward to battery prices falling over the next few years to add storage to the house and move to an electric car charged with our own power.
Germany has started subsidizing storage so battery prices are predicted to fall with increased production volumes, not to mention a variety of newly emerging technologies that could lead to cheaper battery prices.

[wulfgar]

What? With low voltage?

[doppler]

Its time for councils to install timers to turn of residential streetlights when "most" people are in bed. :D

[xelasnave]

Who is Klaatu?
And good on you Tony..
Set an example as a cool dude who is doing serging.
Batteries should be in the system..selling back to the grid missed teaching people hope saving energy works..it is a put in and use what you have not what you.need
I did a quick energy audit of the ward here..fridge ..couple of lies of milk..and some snacks 80 percent less very adequate..freezer not used..lights on 2 store rooms three light not needed.10 display screens showing adds for hand wash but display room patient calls from one central unit more efficient..give lights at tea machine one adequate..10 mobile phones charging 5 only ever in use..this is a short list one lap...
Do an energy audit where you go and hand it out..see my point..tax won't change any one of the waste I observed..only personal action..Why is it always up too me.Uk am going to have to do thread whole building it seems..
But that is the only way we can win..change action at our level

Alex

[xelasnave]

As if litres not tiff enough now this dam phone is on auto correct and writing even more crap..and I can't see it mongrel thing

Alex

[casstony]

I'm not sure what your question is, but the aim would be to stay connected to the grid but supply the vast majority of our own electricity needs. In my case a car would be in the garage for a large part of most days and I drive under 10,000 km per year so there's no need for fast charging.

[wulfgar]

Solar power of the low voltage type makes about as much difference as a bathroom sink full of water would to the reservoir system and mains distribution.

[Larryp]

I have a 1.5Kv solar system and natural gas for cooking, heating and hot water. I have aircon in summer.
My solar system has resulted in NO electricity bills in 4 years. In fact my electricity bills are ALWAYS in credit, which I then use to offset my gas bills

[casstony]

Wolf gar, do a quick search on the net - various companies produce 240 volt home charging stations for electric vehicles.

[xelasnave]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140716183128.htm

Even the ants will help it seems...
Blessed

[PCH]

That's interesting Larry. How much do you get per unit fed back to the grid?

[casstony]

Our 3.5kw (nominal) system Kwh production is similar to our consumption on average, but it's only cut our usage shown on the electricity bill in half since we rely on the grid when the Sun isn't shining. Battery storage would greatly increase our self generation consumption.

[glend]

""
Klaatu Nictoo Verada"" said Michael Rennie

The original 'Day the Earth Stood Still"

[PCH]

"Klaatu Barada Nikto" - actually ;)

[Renato1]

What a superb day. The Parliament of Australia returned to rationality.
It actually gave effect to Kevin Rudd's promise last election that "We have terminated the Carbon Tax".

In sharp contrast, we had Bill Shorten claiming Australia was now a pariah state, and Christine Milne effectively saying we've condemned 6 billion people to death. Sarah Hanson Young tweeted "Climate Skeptic Grubs" presumably referring to the majority of the electorate who voted for this to occur. Plainly, the politicians of the new religion are really, really upset, and that pleases me enormously.

Personally, I am delighted. I keep getting notes from our power company saying that my wife and I are using nearly twice as much power as the average household in our area, and would I like to try reduce our consumption. I turf those notes into the bin, as I have no desire to live like people in energy starved places like Italy. But I therefore expect to save twice as much from the tax abolition as most other people do.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

I congratulate your good fortune, and regret that circumstances prevented me from doing similar.

But you do realise that the reason you are in credit all the time is not because solar power is an efficient form of energy? Rather it is because of middle class welfare, where the poor - who can't carry solar units from rental house to rental house - are heavily subsidising the rich who jumped in and got those great solar tariffs, which have since been heavily cut back to avoid financial ruin.
Regards,
Renato

[Poita]

*sigh*, I imagine the tax threshold will now go back down as well.
The Carbon tax actually was very good for my family on a low income, we use very little power etc. but the tax threshold increase and other initiatives really helped pay the bills this year.

[Poita]

I like this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxq__3z9zGM

[xelasnave]

What seems hopeless is getting reasonable central ground. It's so emotionally charged and so many vested interests dirtying the water. Anyways I still encourage personal action and support such that positive direction present..Larry must be admired and hopefully others..as they will..follow his example.
In his way he is above the politics..Which is great and what I was hunting upon.gy saying ..read the forum rules...last night first time I had a sjIleeping pill..horror ..absolute horrifIc found myself.in half sleep in pain manifest that I was during over and over..It took fifteen minutes of this torment to grasp any reality
Y..finally I came straight here where this very thread brought me back as it were .. And the last threads reflected a lack of historian as seem with our politicians talking nonsense to rally the gullible behind them.And instantly reminded me what a wonderful site this place is..for today in my distorted reality got me out of the indictable horror of.net dream... Now what I don't understand fully is our science fiction thing ..I read up gaining knowledge but something has not clicked..I hope you are not suggesting I was the killer Robot firstly. Are we saying it's a way of turning unstoppable force...I still don't understand please give me a hint..so I c:eyepop:looan say...oh I understand...I ask because I think it.jpeg mushed my brain the sleeping pill only being the catalyst.

[xelasnave]

Sorry I have to give it in..this done is getting worse ..It just won't behave...you can only guess at my meaning . Leaving tomorrow anyways so when out I go back just to a unlogged in guest.
All the best keep it real..don't fight..don't give way to hate of opponents and use example to promote good.

Bye

Alex

[multiweb]

Very interesting. Another perspective which at the end of the day we all suspected somehow. Business is business. Similar thing happened with Sydney Water mid 2000s during the drought when aussies cut their water consumption dramatically. Very disciplined bunch when you think about it. :lol:

I know that when power bills were not an issue my 4 people household consumption in summer was 30Kwh and probably 20 in winter. We're talking around 2003. Power was so cheap that I used the ducted to heat in winter. We didn't even feel the bill. Maybe around $250/$300 a quarter.
We started to notice around 2009 when it was more like $900.00 a quarter.

Since then we've changed all lighting to LED, got two gaz heaters and only used ducted in summer on exceptionally hot days. Usage is now between 10 and 13kWh so nearly three times less. According to Origin/Energy Australia I'm well below what a typical 4 people household consumption is so they clearly think we should use more. Recently my rates jumped up between 8 to 10%.

Funny thing it is the first time the second rate for electricity kicking at 1750kW is actually cheaper than the first rate, which shows the reversal in thinking. Use more and you'll pay less. Gaz has always been this way. Second rate is always marginally cheaper.

Assuming the average joe in Oz did the same we did over the years that would be a serious loss of revenue for power companies. And I don't even have solar panels.

[Larryp]

I'd hardly call myself rich! I live on an aged pension supplemented by a very small superannuation pension.
And when I look around, I don't see too many houses owned by rich people with solar panels on the roof. The rich can afford their power bills. The suburbs with the most solar seem to be working/middle class.

[jenchris]

When you consider that a labrador has the same carbon footprint as a land cruiser, not replacing your pet after it passes is a sure way to improve things.
China's emissions increase by more than australias total emissions every year.
Stop buying Chinese gear and buy Aussie.
Walk or cycle if you can.
It's not hard to make a difference.

[N1]

Larry, you're not being helpful now :P
That's why I agree with you 100% :thumbsup:

[casstony]

Without any subsidies rooftop solar will still pay for itself in about 10 years so it is an efficient way to produce power.

While initial subsidies were too generous, government subsidies (especially in Germany) were necessary to ramp up production and bring prices down, getting the industry off the ground.

I think Alex has the right attitude - do what one can to reduce/mitigate energy consumption instead of grumbling and doing nothing.

[N1]

Sadly the German solar panel industry is in tatters due to cheap overseas competition, among other things. I think it was never going to produce large (or any) quantities efficiently in today's economic environment. Its job is to innovate and be rewarded for that, and that's where most effort should go. Also, Germany probably isn't the best place to generate solar power effeciently. Australia, on the other hand, could probably generate its entire power requirements from solar.

In any case, the basic approach of government help to get something started, offering a reward for doing something rather than punishing of the opposite is a good one. How it's done and what technologies it involves is another matter.

Also, I think the "doing what you can" bit can actually be a rewarding experience in itself. I find keeping personal dependencies to a minimum and doing something for the environment are often the same thing. Reduce dependence on power companies, petroleum companies, coal & gas companies, Television etc and both you and the environment will be better off.

Then, there are all the positive flow-on effects. If I don't heat my house excessively, my fridge will use a lot less power too. On a larger scale, if councils spent less energy on lighting up the airspace, amateur astronomers travel less because they can observe from home. This leads to less dust & fumes, improving transparency. :P:D

[Renato1]

Hi Larry,
Must be different up your way.

Down here, the people I've met who tell me they haven't paid an electricity bill for years are usually upper middle class.

The fact remains, the poorer people - those who can't afford a house - would have had a devil of a time getting access to the huge solar power subsidies.
Regards,
Renato

[multiweb]

That's because of all the money they've saved on their power bills. :lol:

[Renato1]

Hi Tony,
In assessing whether rooftop solar is an efficient form of power, one has to strip off the subsidies to see what the true payback period is.

And there are still two subsides at play that I know of. One is the straight subsidy on the feed in tariff, which while they have been lowered still exist.

The other is the comparison to the price of normal electricity from coal or gas fired power power stations. And the price consumers pay has been artificially ramped up because of the effective subsidies to the renewable energy power supplies, which are at about the effective rate of the defunct carbon tax, and growing.

I remember reading before the Carbon tax was introduced, that South Koreans were then paying 66% for the price of electricity that Australians were paying. And that for the most part, their power stations were being powered by Australian black coal.

Which is why I suspect the true cost, subsidy stripped, payback period would be at the very least 50% greater than 10 years.
Regards,
Renato

[glend]

Just be careful with that retailer buy back rate, it can change at any time (unless your one of the lucky few on the 60 cents or 20 cents regulated rates).. Energy Australia just decided to drop the buy back rate from 7.7 cents per KWHr to 5.2 cents. They sent out letters saying that this was due to the IPART report recently released which sets the recommended 'range' for buy back. The 'range' recommended was anywhere from 4.9 cents to 9.3 cents, so there was no reason for Energy Australia to change their rate, they just did it because they can improve their margins ahead of the carbon tax hand back - and blame IPART.

As a result of that I'm going off-grid, I have had enough of them buying my generated power for next to nothing and then billing the guy next door 30 cents KWHR in peak for my contribution (assuming he is their customer).

I just bought a new panel for my shed system, which is totally off grid now (1Kw of panels), with a 400 amp/hr battery storage bank and inverter. It feeds the house (via a separate cable) and at night I can run most everything off that system.

I am looking for a supplier now to integrate my rooftop return to grid system with the shed system and create a totally off grid system. I know it will cost money but it will be my system and I will be independent of the politics, money grabbing, and Grid Charges. Backup generator of course.

Anyone care to recommend a system integrator?

[N1]

Glen, that is serious progress. :thumbsup:

[casstony]

Good on you Glen. Depending on how the energy wars pan out many others may join you in going off grid in coming years.

It would be preferable by far to keep an integrated system with base load generators and home generators working together and making the most of the synergies, but big business and govt will not allow that at present.

We're switching from one of the worst (Simply Energy) to Momentum to get away from the price gouging. Simply Sucks keeps ramping up our daily supply charge even though we're on a contract - the supply charge is already 50% higher than Momentum and Simply is currently making noises about adding another 14 cents per day. They were a good company until they were taken over by GDF Suez in 2012.

Momentum has Australians on the phone too, while SE has someone speaking Greek in a far away place.

[multiweb]

In France about 20 yrs ago they worked around that. They sued this guy who was off the grid generating electricity with his own water turbine in his backyard which was adjacent to a river.

The gvt passed a law. The electricity was gvt owned at the time. You can generate power but you cannot use it. You have to sell it back to the grid.

I think eventually if solar picks up and every house in Oz generates power they will enforce a buy back rate for peanuts and still charge us service availability and other BS inflated rates for use. It will come.

[glend]

I had a chat with the NSW Energy Ombudsman's office this week about what I could and could not do, and they said there was no reason I could not go off grid (no regulations preventing it other than having to comply with the electrical code). The area I live in is semi-rural, and I have a big crown land area right at my back fence, so I am not anticipating any problems - well maybe a neighbor might ask a question if I had to run the generator too often.

I considered adding in a wind generator to my system, as there is always a good breeze off the lake, but they make noise, they have too many moving parts that wear out, are expensive for what they produce, etc. Also there are some pretty stringent regulations in NSW for wind generation already, mostly related to noise setback, pole mounts, separation from ajoining properties, etc.

So as more and more people move off grid that will make the grid more expensive for those remaining, as they try to spread the charges across fewer customers. So the Government's Direct Action program should play into my hands as I am taking direct action.

[xelasnave]

Now let's consider the small but wonderful thing happening here
Examples are being provided
Readers probably considering what they can do..politicians follow the crowd..
The revolution has begun
Offer help to others turn them to growing and helping other folk
Don't hate turn that energy to positive action
Whatever action Tony suggests support it
His conditioning is do anything and I get praise..then he will want to deliver more not less
Keep positive lead by doing not spewing

[icytailmark]

if more recharge stations were available all over australia im sure alot more people would buy electric cars. id rather pay $15 a week to run a car

[Larryp]

I think electric cars would need to drop in price dramatically before the average Joe would buy one.:)

[xelasnave]

Every thing starts expensive and drops..seem to recall paying 2200 approx for first canon 6 meg
And conversion does have to be everyone
All actions combine to average a better putcome

[xelasnave]

And this thread is now not a rule breaker
We are removing the politics
We can all be on one side
The winning side

[Steffen]

I disagree. Except for technical goods (that one buys once in a blue moon) prices go up and up and up. Groceries, utilities, insurance, housing – you name it.

That said, the new Tesla 3 is supposedly under $40k :thumbsup:

Cheers
Steffen.

[xelasnave]

As Adam Savage of Myth Busters says

I reject your reality and substitute my own

They will get cheaper and fly as well

[el_draco]

Here are a few things I do:

1/ avoid long distance travel,
2/ Reduce use of heating
3/ Eat locally grown, low km food, seasonally.
4/ Almost vegetarian
5/ Avoid unnecessary purchases where possible.
6/ Plant LOTS of trees
7/ Avoid buying new when I can
8/ Cut power use, lights off. No stand-by modes, efficient bulbs etc etc
9/ Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
10/ Support "GREEN" causes, businesses, programs
11/ Attack anything contrary to the above
etc etc etc.

Hell of a alot an individual can do; waste of time waiting for ABBOTT and his ilk.

[xelasnave]

Great..
You are a hero and be proud of it...

If everyone just did a little we are closer to the goal
Example will change the masses
It is early says
Travel is my down fall cause I have to go to Sydney for Dad...but 1200cc car thrift to accelerate etc.
Use camper stove at home and in Sydney..use one pot for cooking eating..one 85 watt solar panel at home 100 amp battery
In Sydney very frugal still use camper had stove and not luxury of flash kitchen dishwasher etc
Boat uses three sail

[xelasnave]

And I command 200 acre of large fallible trees .. I live what I peace and there others..

[xelasnave]

Don't waste energy on cutting hair
Water gravity fed wear clothes for warmth not fashion..7 inch tv acoustiIIc guitar mostly..

[Amaranthus]

Rom, does that include all the astronomy gear you claim to have in boxes? :D

[strongmanmike]

Hey what's all this baloney about doing things myself :shrug: :screwy:, I'm not doing anything at all mate, well not until I know the rest of the population of the world is doing the same as I am..fair enough isn't it?...otherwise it is wasting my time and making me less competitive, so get stuffed! Actually I throw all my rubbish out the window too when I drive and I also occasionally flush chemicals down the drain too, I mean fair suck, I am only one person and there are other people out there who throw heeeeaps more down the drain than I do, so what the bloody hell difference does my bit of Macas rappers, grease and paint make in the scheme of things...I mean really? I don't know of anyone who disposes of their waste responsibly or reduces there overall waste, so why should I :shrug: Actually I was at the bay the other day and had a can of sump oil, was going to cost me to dispose of it safely...so I dropped it over the side of the boat, what can 5ltrs of sump do in a big sea anyway?..I've seen others do it.

Crazy stuff

[multiweb]

Pissing in the ocean again? :rofl:

[strongmanmike]

Hey, you just keep pissing Marc..and don't stop until the other brainless drunks stop...much cheaper than buying a toilet, don't waste your money :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Perfectly valid
You do as you want
Why bother to be better when you can mingle in the mediocrity others have chosen.
But you Mike really are above that attitude.
You are a leader type.
I watch your adventures and have for years and I have no concerns that you would letI the undesirable tends contine.
I think your proposition may be to have others look at their behaviour not yours

[multiweb]

:violin::violin::violin:

[strongmanmike]

Nice..Nero?

[multiweb]

Nero? :question:

[andyc]

It was bad day for Australia, moving from leaders to running in the wrong direction. Global warming isn't going away, physics just doesn't work that way, and the rest of the world is moving (slowly) towards limiting carbon pollution.

Now Australia has stripped the income from the carbon price, while keeping the compensation - all the better to fool people that they'd be better off. If the coalition get their way, they'll impose a much more inefficient carbon tax, imposed on all ordinary Australians and paying big polluters, and named "direct action".

[xelasnave]

We are not talking politics it is against the rules
We have been talking about individually doing constructive things and not let our.displeasure with politicians curve our energy such that we lose focus upon it is us who need act..Don't blame Tony if you and I set the example it is important to us he will follow ..but while Mike throws macaw wrappers out his window we won't get Tony believing we ..Tony sees few people care our actions will change and he will respond

[wulfgar]

The Earth is flat, try and prove that it isn't, get used to it!:rolleyes:



Keanu Reeves eco warrior from outer space.

"If the Earth dies, You die! If You die the Earth lives!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still_%2820 08_film%29

[blink138]

watching while rome burned perhaps mark?
pat

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
I think you would be extremely hard pressed to back up that statement - even the "(slowly)" part.

Certainly, none of the politicians and greenies who continuously make it have ever backed it up with facts - and it should be so simple to do so.

I suspect that Tony Abbott's expensive Direct Action plan, coupled with John Howard's far more expensive Renewable Energy Target still puts us way out in the lead in this exercise of self immolation. Luckily, we're still rich enough to afford this self indulgence. Germany and Spain have had to pull back because it was too expensive, and the recent cabinet reshuffle in the UK results in the Government there looking decidedly less warmist than it had been.

Regards,
Renato

[xelasnave]

What is average carbon footprint of Mr Average any one have a figure

Ok what I an getting at you output so much co2 how many trees do you need to say you are carbon nuetral .
So we can say simply plant x number of trees or you die..
We go house to house. Occupants can comply or we grind them up for fertilizer
Seriously any one have an idea how many trees each person needs.
So we can see if a personal program could work.

[joe_smith]

Don't worry people the planet is fine. It was here long before us and will do fine long after we go. If a giant asteroid couldn't kill it, I doubt we can.

Look what we are doing to each other. This is millions of time worse than the global warming effect on us as a global race . How about we try and save humanity first, because if we don't, we wont need a planet.

[xelasnave]

Hi Joe
Thanks for being so positive.
That's the attitude we need.
So many folk have given in and their very dispair now becomes part of the problem because they throw in the towel.
Look at poor Mike and upstanding chap who once cared about the planet reduced to the status of a common litter bug.
What brought about his behaviour one can only guess but I suggest probably dispair that no one seemed to care.
We need your optimism support and encouragement that we will not kill the planet so hope can live.
I would ask a little favour however no to mention the asteroid thing and I presume you refer to the mass extinction taking out most of the reptiles who were.unhindeted for millions of years.. The prospect may cause some to think the human race will be sent extinct from another cause seemingly sent by nature but indeed sent by themselves.
Thanks again we must believe we won't kill the planet and never release hold of that belief.
Thank you again for your positive contribution to this non political thread.

[xelasnave]

I can solve the problem.
It is so dam simple.
I awoke approx 3 an and sat by my window which enjoys a wonderful view.
I I can see to the mountains in the Southmont many kilometres..If I lean a little I can sky the sky scrapers on the coast...
In my hour a.nd a half I have seen no one not one single sole
Not even a drunk list in the street
And yet there are so many lights I need not count them to assure you their numbers are great.
The question arises ...
Why do we need these lights
I doubt any arguememt could present to me the sole witness of what I must call hideous waste is in any way justified and indeed sustainable
If we are to embrace the prospect of beingenergy efficient why why why are these unnecessary lights on
And multiply my observation around the country indeed around the world
What is our problem
Realistically it is no more than we need to turn off some lights
NOTHING more than that...
NO MORE

[xelasnave]

Looking around at lights close by I noticepi their unnecessary abundance..there I aee sixlights when three more than ample..One could do it ...
There are more to cruise but I say a 30 to 40 percent reduction would be easy to
I should stay up to see if these lights stay on as the dawn appears..I suspect they may well run over time.
Still no body not a single sole had seem these lights but me
How much coal have I uses looking out my window
This situation must change
As astronomers we haven missed the problem
Our selfish approach had been annoyance at light pollution where as our annoyance should be this observable stupid unproductive and unnecessary waste

[xelasnave]

Honestly I feel conned by the scare they put upon us when we could simply turn off some lights..we may not need a tax
How could we have a trading of energy when it is like this
Now how will I sleep ... Still no one out there

[xelasnave]

Let's help Tony
Direct action
Legislate to turn off unnecessary lights
Target can be reached without pain or inconvenience
I know you will hear of this..I know THEY watch me closely
Do it and I won't day it was my idea
All cudos I say can be yours

[multiweb]

ha.. yeah. :lol: Well not much we can do now or feel miserable about it or keep pointing fingers. It's too late. But I like Trevor's approach. Enjoy life while it lasts. We'll get through. Only a few of us though. Well maybe not us. Still got a few good years left in me for imaging and travelling. :)

[el_draco]

Alas, my one downfall, but I balance that to a degree by buying a lot of second hand gear, bar the PME II. Even the observatory i am building will be primarily from second hand materials except for the dome ring and roller system.:P
I also recycle heaps of scrap I have dug up over the years. I do road side clean ups, cant imagine the number of tons of aluminum and glass I have recycled over the years. I also have 30+ acres of near pristine rainforest locked up and have planted many thousands of trees. Still, I acknowledge its a step backward.:rolleyes:

[wulfgar]

At best very temporary. The problem is carbon is being released via fossil fuels and the refinement of various types of ores for industrial uses. Cement making for example is a large contributor. This becomes part of an increased carbon cycle in the Hydrosphere. It takes nature hundreds of millions of years to lock away the carbon. To really make a difference plant material has to be sunk into swamps were it turns into peat and finally into coal after 100 million years or so.
Anthropomorphic global warming became broadly accepted around WW2 when high altitude research revealed Angstrom's error. There wasn't so much concern at the time because industrial activity was much lower than today. For example the release of carbon via industrial activity is six times higher pa today than it was in 1950.
Arrhenius atmospheric CO2 figure of 560 ppmv will now be reached before the century is out rather than the 3,000 years he thought it would take when he first proposed AGW.
The greatest risk is when levels of 800 ppmv are reached in as little as two centuries. This is the end of healthy atmosphere for Man and other advanced mammals and increasing levels beyond 800 ppmv will lead to their extinction.

[Octane]

Alex,

In case you didn't notice, Mike was being sarcastic.

H

[xelasnave]

No was he..?
Yes I knew h:thumbsup:
And he knew that I knew.
I therefore enlisted his sarcasm further to make a point
Thanks however for pointing it out I feel I know Mike I follow his adventures like I would a distant family member..as I do follow your adventures my:thumbsup:yI friend

[xelasnave]

To Wulfgah
You don't fill me with hope as I strangely suspect you really do know what you are talking about..
My positive attitude is somewhat stalled
Still we must go on.
But will more trees help
Output won't stop so what do we do

[wulfgar]

I'm more pessimistic about mankind collectively addressing the problem. Humanity is greedy, dishonest and will bury truth when it is inconvenient. Some things are silly though, SUV's for example can have up to double the carbon footprint of the old style sedans that service the requirements of a general use vehicle quite well. Then standard family car is now a 2.5 tonne SUV rather than the old style 1.5 tonne sedan which by compassion is a frugal vehicle. Best remembered the Ford model T weighed 700 kg. All this extra weight emits carbon needlessly in the majority of cases.
The could preserve our environment and our lifestyle simply by being less careless.

Eventually after a few hundred years the industrial age as we know will come to an end when advances in technology can no longer cope with dwindling resources.

But will Mankind and other species survive it?

Presently I drive a Ford BA Wagon so I can carry Astro stuff. The Falcon might be a tacky car but has amazing fuel efficiency for what used to be considered a large car and I have the dedicated LPG version a that. But these vehicles have been deleted and I'll be forced to replace it's capability with an idiot SUV. I drive about 66 km round trip to work but don't put my foot down either. I leave early for work so I drive easy, while watching idiot SUV's tear around at high acceleration.

[xelasnave]

You have my highest respect

[el_draco]

You would probably enjoy watching this lecture. I highly recommend it to everyone. Simple math with profound implications:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/arithmetic-population-and-energy-lecture/

Makes you wonder why the morons who profess to lead us insist on garbage statements like "sustainable growth"

Rom

[el_draco]

Its more a problem of to many people than to much carbon. The average blog dumps around 20 tonnes into the atmosphere every year but that's a pretty difficult figure to prove I suspect and, of course, it varies wildly depending on the culture and the attitude of the individual.

How many trees to plant? Well, that's only a small part of the solution at best. The carbon has to be buried in fossil deposits (coal etc) The oceans actually outstrip the forests in terms of direct absorption and photosynthesis but we're screwing the oceans as well. We would need simply thousands of billions of trees to really make a dent.

We really need a multi-pronged approach to have any hope of success, decrease population, (good luck with that), clean up and renew the environment, (not while capitalism is the driver), divert massive resources into non-polluting technologies, (NOT in Au by the look of it), and live a hell of a lot simpler; something i personally am aiming at. Sick to death of the rat-race.

However, population is the biggie. That WILL be resolved one way or another over the next couple of decades and I can say that with 100% confidence. We do it ourselves or the planet will do it to us. :(

Rom

[xelasnave]

I am getting a grasp
I am an extremist so I respond
Why isn't more being done
War against those who do fall into line I day
Still at the moment I am so very happy
On way home
Well the x has taken me in..how kind
Daughter 16 the birthday and I am not in a wheel chair
Thanks for the guidance
I do appreciate you taking the time

[Renato1]

As Sinclair Davidson pointed out on the ABC news site two days ago,

"Then there is the lack of international direction on the issue of global warming. According to the International Energy Agency (http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2013/energyclimatemap/RedrawingEnergyClimateMap.pdf), only 8 per cent of global CO2 emissions face a "price" - after this week, that number will fall."

Plainly and unambiguously, with a carbon tax over three times greater than the next highest in the EU, we were the world leaders. And at the very same time, we were told that "we were being left behind" by everyone else in the world.

I cannot fathom the current breast beating, mea-culpas, guilt, shame and scaremongering about our Parliament's action in scrapping this rubbish tax, which unambiguously reflected the will and the mandate given by the electing public.

Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

Utter clap trap. Anyone who claims a mandate at an election is deluded. There were a of multitude reasons why the election resulted in a change in government, not least of which was the divisive political backstabbing in the labor party.

Any claim of a mandate is pure tripe. By all accounts, this joke of a government will be turfed out by the same people who voted them in, (probably for being unmitigated liars), and the next load of short sighted buffoons will also claim a "mandate"

[Hans Tucker]

I think never a truer line was spoken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI

[xelasnave]

Come on gentelmen I turn my sore back and it's back politics
Let's keep going and avoid breaking the rules.
Let energy focus on the issue not politics
:DmoO

[wulfgar]

It doesn't matter how much carbon an entity emits, it's a question of where it came from. If came from the carbon sinks of fossil fuels and mineral ores, then the net amount in the hydrosphere will increase. If the net amount in the hydrosphere remained the same, one could consume and emit all the carbon they liked without making any difference.

[el_draco]

Quite true. Unfortunately, the vast majority is from the wrong places, (sinks). Our challenge is not only to stop using the captured carbon but to also recapture a hell of a lot what has already been released. Not easy with an ever increasing population of blogs wanting more and more of what the world can't provide...

[casstony]

"… In 2023, the infamous “year of perpetual summer” lived up to its name, taking 500,000 lives worldwide and costing nearly $500 billion in losses due to fires, crop failure, and the deaths of livestock and companion animals."

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/collapse-western-civilization-view-year-2393

[wulfgar]

If there were inadequacies in the carbon tax, could you suggest an improvement?

[tlgerdes]

We did, an election was held for all Australians to vote in. One party put forward the concept of scraping the tax. One party didn't. The majority of people voted for the party with their policy of removing it.

[space oddity]

How many of you out there have had to deal with habitual liars? You know the Modus Operandi, lies to support lies to support lies. The excuses get ever more absurd. The liar will say whatever it takes to maintain the lie. They rely on the trust and reputation they have built for themselves. Eventually you pick an error and become suspicious. Then it dawns on you, the whole lot was a big crock based on a thin half truth and the rest was a load of BS and you fell for it. By then, you have been well and truly scammed.

Look at the catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming line. There is no evidence to support those fears. Come September, it will be 18 years since there has been any warming. This does not fit in at all with the models, yet the IPCC claims ever increasing certainty that man-made CO2 causes global warming. The correlation is getting weaker, yet a higher certainty claimed. Starting to smell a rat? The excuse to explain away where the heat has gone-to the deep oceans, but by an amount too small to measure. Since when does an assertion trump cold, hard observational science? This hypothesis is probably almost impossible to prove or disprove. Starting to smell a rat?

Since when is science ever settled? Especially something as complicated as climate. True science would welcome dissenting views and evidence, but no, dissenters are demonized and sacked. One university even burned their books! Bit of a good old witch-hunt. So much for purity of science.

There are some pretty drastic measures proposed to "fight" the "problem." Some groups call for the suspension of Democracy itself. Some call for the end of human technology. In an interview with the Guardian, January 13th, IPCC chief Christiana Figueres stated - Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Chinese Communism is the best model. The UN did not admonish her for this statement-they obviously condone it. So, after all this, the IPCC and UN condone the iron fist of totalitarianism to deal with a far from proven "problem." That rat is really starting to smell, isn't it?

The famous sound-bite 97% of climate scientists.... Do you know how this was derived? 10,000 odd questionnaires were sent out, just over 3,000 replies, but the sample was winnowed down to 79 who identified themselves as active climate researchers. 2 were identified as "deniers" and were discluded. 75 replied yes to these 2 questions- Do you believe it is warmer now than in 1850? (like hello, getting out of the mini ice age) and do you believe human activity plays a significant role in global warming? 5%, 95%-what classifies as significant? Rather leading question. Large sample size-not. All that effort to try to convince the public there is a consensus. Since when is science conducted by consensus?

The carbon tax is a big swindle- a tax on air. And the ETS- 10% was going to go straight to the UN-the very ones promulgating the chicken-little sky-is-falling line. Starting to smell a rat? And what about the UN eh? The founders were mainly Communists.The aim of the UN-world Socialism. A one world government with UNELECTED leaders. How coincidental, all the Secretaries-General of the UN have come from the ranks of Communists, Socialists and one Nazi(Kurt Waldheim)-oh, by the way, the Nazis were Socialists. Think this is a conspiracy theory?-look up the link of the Fabian Society and the UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations. Like all things, you cannot make firm judgement either way until you research it a bit for yourself.

Carbon Tax-good riddance.

[casstony]

Global surface temperatures:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/planet-running-temp-state-climate-check-57402

[RD400C]

Hummm, does anyone seriously think that we are not having and effect on the planet?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8 427eplr4a47kgs

[el_draco]

Apparently some people think we are not. Unfortunately, when your head is stuck in the sand, vision becomes so limited that one cannot see what is happening around them.... :shrug:

[Astro_Bot]

Sadly, there are quite a few. It never ceases to amaze me how some people can champion ignorance.

--------------

On a related note, as a way of reminding people of the seriousness of the issue, I suggest this:

We collectively note who are the climate change deniers, wherever we come across them. Record the evidence for posterity.

Some years down the track, when the political environment has changed - when the damage to our environment is so obvious the population at large can no longer be distracted by an advertising campaign and people are screaming that not enough has been done - we convene Nuremburg-like "crimes against humanity" trials to hold the deniers to account. Not just the the leaders, but also the lobbyists and executives of companies that benefitted, the media spruikers, the anti-scientists, the paid bloggers, everyone. Penalties could range from fines (in the way of additional tax levies - the damage is ongoing, and so should be the fine) up to life sentences in prison (and I don't think that's too harsh, because, given the enormous weight of evidence, these people served vested interests in full knowledge of the damage accruing).

As an aside, it is possible that the anti-climate change media campaign is partially a hedge against such a possible future event; to allow those in power to claim that the evidence wasn't clear. However, I think any future tribunal is going to see straight through that.

And if you think I can't say all this, then look again at the absolute rubbish posted by climate change deniers.

-----------

This thread has been political from the outset. I'm surprised it's not been deleted given some of the other milder ones that have been. So, come on mods: be consistent and don't let ambiguity and confusion reign.

[xelasnave]

Indeed this thread has been a little political
But not too bad
I salute the mods for letting it run for personally I gained a great deal
It has not become offensive which really the rules seek to control not freedom of expression
The matter thus received a good airing.
Closing the thread can be called for for it is a rule breaker but it has not caused the grief those rules seek to avoid.. We are all good
We are still friends and I think respect for opposing views or at least the people remains
All good
Wise moderation and to be complimented

[joe_smith]

George Carlin (https://plus.google.com/+JenniferBailey/posts/BUGMui7surA) sums it up for me


Taxing things doesn't solve problems, we have a global taxes on everything and what has it done? it just makes the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. Tax or no tax, carbon is still being emitted, cars are still using fossil fuels getting people to work. Industry is making goods for us that emit more carbon, people still want new telescopes and computers and this thing and that thing. It dosen't matter if global warmming is real or not the genie is out of the bottle and in nothing on earth will solve it, because we as a race will not change.

Pollution, all around,
Sometimes up, sometimes down,
But always around.
Pollution, are you coming to my town
Or am I coming to yours?
We're on different buses, pollution
But we're both using petrol.

[wulfgar]

A few years down the track might prove anything at all other than rising temperatures which will be pronounced at the poles.

What obvious damage to the environment do you believe will be revealed? I've seen German works translated into English from a century ago which point out once atmospheric CO2 rises above 800 ppmv then man and his mammal relatives will be slowly snuffed out. This was a time when AGW was only popular in Germany and Scandinavia and ignored in the English speaking world.
But beyond this there may be no obvious effects. The final melting of the ice caps could take anything up to 40,000 years. Even 200 years hence we may only see a general rise in ocean levels of about a meter.

[xelasnave]

I rightly or wrongly use an open fire
It is one of my joys
I built it and there is maybe 3 to 4 ton of rock in it
Once hot it holds heat for ages
I can put logs in that hang over the bare cement floor
Often the logs have ant home within
They run around
I place sticks so they can escape and yet few ever leave their home
They run around and perish
I wonder why they can't realise their fait and do something
It seems we are like those ants
They can't change
They can't act to prevent their doom
Part of our home is in the fire yet we can't act
We are ant like
It is sad

[el_draco]

Unfortunately, on a local scale the damage is very evident. For example, check out what has happened at Kilimanjaro in the attached image. 85% gone and 26% of what was there in 2000 is now also gone. See more at: http://www.allinoneboat.org/2009/11/06/kilimanjaro-ice-cap-almost-gone/#sthash.Z9v8FJ9j.dpuf

Now I wonder what will happen when flow rates in the Ganges drop and can you even contemplate what will happen as the monsoon fails more regularly... 1 billion staving, thirsty boat people....

I live not far from Mount Wellington in Tassie. People still alive tell me it used to be impossible to get to the top during Winter because the snow was many metres thick. Open road 99% of the time now. The ocean currents around Tassie are warmer and northern species are invading. Evidence is absolutely everywhere. :eyepop:

[wulfgar]

Global Warming is an effect where the average surface temperature is about 34 C warmer than it would be otherwise due to mainly the greenhouse effect of CO2. The CET which is a continuous record stretching back to the 17th century reveals that average temperatures are at least 1 C higher in the late 20th century than anything known prior. AGW is industrial mans contribution to global warming.

This is a very simple mechanism and only a fool doubts it.

But when you say the Kilimanjaro ice cap is giving up, ambient AGW could have only contributed a small amount to the decline. There could be numerous reasons why this is occurring. Not the least of which is the increasing population of Africa and changes in the landscape. It is exceedingly stupid to pin every effect on one cause "ambient AGW". Such hysteria does not help cause of science and is as foolish as the behavior of the deniers.
Science is not a soccer game where you pick sides and unreasonably worship your colours. Science is a search for the truth.



Ditto, how much has man's alterations to the environment contributed to this rather than increasing CO2?

[casstony]

My relatives in California are very worried about the disappearing snow pack on the Sierra mountain range. Most of the state's water supply comes from snow melt and they will be in dire straits if the snow pack is not replenished soon. The predicted El Nino doesn't help since it tends to result in warmer rain rather than snow.

My relatives fish for Salmon which also depend on good river flows and the state is a food bowl for the country, with a vast valley between the Sierra's and the coast dependent on irrigation from snow melt.

Maybe we're not responsible for climatic changes and maybe there's nothing to worry about, but only a fool would take the risk of ignoring warning signs given the potential dangers.

[el_draco]

Absolutely true and as I have previously said, the primary issue is not carbon in the atmosphere but over-population. The impacts of that are global and include CO2 increases in the atmosphere.



Absolutely true again, the change/destruction of the environment on a local level can have significant effects on local ecology and the local micro-climate. If I remember correctly, I recently heard that the temperature in the average city is up to 7 deg Celsius higher than in an equivalent "natural" area. The over-riding problem is over-population and that is a global issue.

[el_draco]

OMG!!!! the LNP just had an 18% swing against it in QLD. They have apparently lost the unambiguous mandate given by the electing public :rofl::rofl:

Of course, Newman reckons the public were annoyed because they had to do a bye-election 8 months out from a general election... Nothingf to do with policies... Nah

Geez, better not get on the wrong side of Queenslanders. TOUCHY!!! :eyepop::lol:

Bring on a Federal by-election :D :D

[doppler]

If we can't change the climate back we had better start adapting to the predicted changes, there is plenty of time to start moving away from the coast, to build stonger houses and change agricultural practices.

[el_draco]

I wouldn't bet on it. Rising sea levels are only one aspect of this problem. Significant change to climatic conditions, rainfall, drought/storm frequency and intensity, growing patterns etc etc etc.

The unfortunate thing is that the changes are not well understood and that makes adaption more difficult. Logic suggests we need to step up and do something about it rather than try to adapt.

[tlgerdes]

Would it be wrong for me to say "potential water views" if I sell my house. I'm only 500m from a tidal creek, and about 20m above high tide mark. ;)

[el_draco]

Of course, there are always winners and losers :lol::lol:

[wulfgar]

It could take 200 years for the sea level to rise a meter. The ice caps don't melt over night, Antarctica could take 40,000 years to melt.

[doppler]

Humans have been migrating and adapting for 10's of thousands of years, it justs gets harder with more population. Population growth is the real problem.

[multiweb]

Spot on. That's really all it boils down to. Growth is the road to doom.

[wulfgar]

Well take one instance. I recall back in the 1970's Syria having a population of 6 to 7 million. Today it is around 22 million or more, all stuffed into an area about the size of the fertile corner of South Australia and has reduced itself to armed gangs fighting each other. If the world had the population of a century ago, I doubt we'd be seeing anything like the degree of conflict or a world that is steadily marching to a 3rd World War in a generation or two.

[PCH]

Er, - not wishing to point out the obvious, but pretty much spot on a century ago, weren't they marching towards the first world war?

Just a thought ;)

[el_draco]

Tried and true population control measure :question:
Almost as good as playing against LFC ;)

[Renato1]

If you believe Bill Shorten would go to an election promising a $25 a ton Carbon Tax, as your comment infers, I suspect you are living in a fantasy world.

The notion that a Government's mandate from the election which got it to power, should be judged on the basis of opinion polls about another government, makes very little sense to me.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

With the current shocking rate of land ice loss in Antarctica, there has been one calculation that 1% of that ice mass will disappear in 2200 years times.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Tony,
I think that guy wants to see heat and heat everywhere. The RSS and UAH satellite record is attached and doesn't show anything like his cause for concern, and the other global surface temperature data sets aren't that different.

I must admit to having fun reading sceptic sites like Jo Nova's where people have been having fun tearing strips off the BOM modified/homogenised Australian temperature record (where Daily Minimum temperatures can be found which are higher than the Daily Maximum temperatures). The latest finding is that the hottest place in Australia ever was next to the ocean in Albany WA, where the raw data of 44.8C was homogenised to become 51.2C on the 8th Feb 1933. The satellite measurements of Australia, don't show Australia being anywhere near as hot last year as the BOM's homogenised data said it was.
Regards,
Renato

P.S. Just found this interesting paper that disputes the notion that all the missing heat from the surface atmosphere is going into the oceans.
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/heatcontentchange_26dec2013_ph.pdf

[Renato1]

Well yes actually.

I'm a great believer in World's Best Practice, which plainly, in accord with that report I linked to, is to have a carbon tax of zero.

My like Clive Palmer's ETS proposal.
Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

The only fantasy world around here is the one in which some people try to convince others that there is NO problem. :screwy:

I suspect Shorten will go for an emissions trading scheme, which will be equally as ineffective as a carbon tax for the simple reason that the idiots in opposition will attack it on principle, a hallmark of our degenerate political system. :rolleyes:

If anything is going to happen it will be driven by individual actions and public opinion driving politicians to make decisions based on Science and planning that extends beyond a 3 year election cycle, and that wont happen until people start dying big time. :screwy:

[GTB_an_Owl]

what do you think the government of the day will do when the "boat people' start arriving on foot?

geoff

[wulfgar]

They didn't have the benefits of fully developed oil technology. That technology enabled the world to support a higher population more comfortably than hither-too. But of course because of that human numbers increased with the total passing the 2 billion mark in the 1930's. If it stayed at that we wouldn't have so many problems today. But now we've got 7 billion.

The cure for this will a 3rd World War which will be total and use nuclear weapons indiscriminately. That will be the final end product of the sort of rhetoric that has become common practice today.

[Astro_Bot]

Look on the bright side: the ensuing nuclear winter will correct for the global warming to date, while the sudden drop in industrial activity will bring GHG emissions under control. :)

[PCH]

Lol - it certainly was back in the 70s and 80s when you daren't even talk about supporting another team in certain areas for fear of getting beaten up good n proper. Glad those days have pretty much gone :)

[el_draco]

oh dear !!:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[wulfgar]

I thought you were complaining because the tax was higher than in Europe? But what is the point of such a comparison if you disavow the tax all together?

The government taxes many things. For you is CO2 emission from the carbonsinks is some sort of sacred cow that should not taxed?

[wulfgar]

The nuclear winter is overrated. And in any case in a few years following a nuclear war there will be an industrial recovery.

Industry will go on until the last drop of blood can be sucked out of the Earth.

[xelasnave]

I am a little more than confused
I perceive we are in danger but not sure how and when manifestation of problem will become catastrophic
I don't fear change ...major cities needing relocation above higher ocean level but I fear for example loss of food production regions if others don't appear..
Hopefully humans will adapt because I am not sure anything will change as to consumption and clearly population will increase
Easter Island tells me humans will witness their demise whilst supporting life styles that would have been best abandonded

[andyc]

Connie Hedegaard of the EU (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/18/australia-carbon-tax-abolition-international-criticism):
“The European Union regrets the repeal of Australia's carbon pricing mechanism just as new carbon pricing initiatives are emerging all around the world,”

The state of carbon pricing: Around the world in 46 carbon markets (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/05/the-state-of-carbon-pricing-around-the-world-in-46-carbon-markets/)

Former Conservative Environment Secretary John Gummer (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/abbott-climate-stance-reckless-shaming):
“Conservatives around the world are taking action on climate change, including Britain and Germany. It’s in the DNA of conservatives to hand on a better world to your children and I hate that Australia is letting down conservatives around the world.”

Heck, even the Australian Government's own webpages (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/international/actions/countries-acting-now/international-pledges) :eyepop::
"99 countries have pledged to limit their emissions. These account for over 80 per cent of global emissions and over 90 per cent of the global economy."

So really, no problem at all in supporting that statement. Although you might not read about that in the pages of The Australian!

The carbon price was working in that emissions, especially from the targeted electricity sector, had dropped over the period it was in effect, while Australia's growth was the 4th largest in the OECD. So there was no economic calamity. And it was revenue neutral to the vast majority of ordinary Australians thanks to the (still remaining) tax break.

And despite the ostriches in government and elsewhere, global heat content continues to rise, with the largest rise in the past 15 years. Surface temeperatures (the tiny purple bit of the energy balance in the attached graph) follow where overall heat content leads, whether or not the great El Nino of 1998 is used as a cherry-picked starting point to claim that global warming had suddenly stopped.

[strongmanmike]

Problem is Andy, you can argue till you're blue in the face, deniers are just that, deniers, pure and simple like fundamental creationists they will grab esoteric pieces of psudo-evidence and misrepresent them or their political allegiances are so rusted on it severely clouds their view of the strong evidence in front of them, to a point where they will find a flimsy "oh yeah? well" statement and bang on about one single tit bit because they think it must be the smoking gun, re: supposed Carbon14 dating anomalies that must disprove our geological dating methods :rolleyes:...maybe don't waste your time :shrug:.

Mike

[multiweb]

Mis-redirection again. Nobody denies the science facts. We're just saying that a stupid tax has been scrapped. That's all. If we are to limit emissions so maybe we should use smaller cars, stop coal exports that end up being burnt O/S anyway, stop breathing so hard, the 20 millions of us and that would still not make any difference.

[strongmanmike]

Well actually they do deny the science... and on the other tax thing, well, you are just..plain wrong, simple, t'was the best way forward, clear and simple and most non political experts agree 100%, sorry ;) :thumbsup:

[Astro_Bot]

Renato does, frequently. There are others from time to time. But, anyway ....

Some timely info from CSIRO: Climate models on the mark, Australian-led research finds (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-models-on-the-mark-australianled-research-finds-20140720-zuuoe.html)

[multiweb]

Well you sound very sure of yourself again. Time will tell.

[el_draco]

Read "Tragedy of the Commons" :rolleyes:

[clive milne]

A couple of nights ago on 720 ABC radio John McGlue was interviewing the state minister for mines.. He was hawking the idea of using nuclear power in Australia. He made two statements during the course of the interview which I think are worth sharing:

1. Nuclear energy does not have a carbon footprint at all. (Implicitly, the mines run on sunshine and fairy dust apparently)

2. Natural gas as an energy source has close to zero emissions... the only carbon dioxide released is that which is brought up from the well.

I do not believe for a second that someone could get to his position of office with that degree of ignorance, which begs the question of his (and his political party's) honesty and priorities. It also says something for the quality of commentary in the main stream media that these statements passed without comment or correction, let alone the intellectual flaying they deserved.

Incidentally, the same individual a couple of weeks earlier stated that there has never been a single incidence of groundwater contamination as a result of fracking...

I might be so bold as to posit that the 'mandate' the budgie smuggler cloaks his agenda in is nothing more than consent manufactured by an utterly corrupt collective of malefactors masquerading as the ghost of the fourth estate. However, even with the spin doctors beavering away like trojans, an increasing number Australians are beginning to sense the true nature (and magnitude) of the finely polished coprolith we were sold last year.

Clearly, our country was traded like sacks of wheat and buckets of rocks (both red and black) for temporary privileges accorded to the few local misanthropes who facilitated the negotiation.
I am trying not to invest emotionally in the outcome.

[Hagar]

Peter we actually agree on this one. Interestingly AGL just reported a reduction on their years profit due to the removal of the Carbon Tax. Apparently the Carbon Tax makes renewable energy more valuable. What a load of rubbish, we as the end user pay the tax and not the generators or the retailers so the tax is actually cost neutral to a company like AGL. Oh I have forgotten about the other Carbon/renewable energy/ tradable item. The REC system which does make Green energy more valuable but also more expensive to buy and use. I would have thought the idea was to make renewable energy a more widely used commodity not to price it higher than the coal based energy. Funny with the addition of a REC renewable energy is still dearer or more expensive to buy than the same unit of electricity from a coal fired generator even with the addition of a carbon tax..
I suppose it was just the Labor Party doing what it does best, Spend up big then tax the hell out of us and still leave a huge debt for the next Government to bail out. History seems to prove this.

It was just another tax we didn't need and now it's just a wait to see how much it is really going to cost us all.

[clive milne]

Renewable energy may be more more expensive to buy (from your fossil fuel energy distributor) but it is actually cheaper to produce than the energy they derive from fossil fuels... and has been for over a year. The trend has been diverging progressively in favour of renewables since then.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268

Your argument doesn't hold water Doug.

[Renato1]

Now that is one hilarious article and paper that you have linked to
"including by some members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - that models overestimated global warming."

"the team found that models actually generate good estimates of recent and past trends".

Out of all the major models, only 2 are still in contention in not having overestimated global surface temperature, given this 17 year pause. The other 95% have way overestimated in their predictions with the observed global surface temperatures below the models' predicted lower bounds (and obviously nowhere near their upper bounds, and well below the best estimates).

And out comes a paper, hidden behind a $199 paywall, saying that the models are good, and that even IPCC scientist are wrong in saying that the models are overestimating temperatures.

Well, I won't be wasting $199 to read the article to see how they turn black into white.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Funny, every financial newsletter I've read has said that wind is around three times dearer than coal, and solar is around six times dearer.

So, who's right Bloomberg New Energy Finance or other financial analysts?

Well, we can look at real world examples to see how it has worked out.

South Australia has the highest percentage of renewable energy in Australia, and it has the highest power prices in Australia, and close to the highest in the world.

UK has heaps of wind farms and last year was saved from a total breakdown in the grid only because a coal fired power station that was due to have been closed by EU directive, came to the rescue. So now they are managing this problem by putting back-up diesel generators in sensitive places like hospitals and the like all over the country, which cost ten times the amount of coal fired energy. And they're paying industries to shut down when needed.

Spain should be going great guns with all it's enthusiastic investment in renewables, but instead those seem to have been duds, and they aren't spending much on them anymore given they are close to bankruptcy.

And how dumb are the Germans and the Japanese? They've gotten scared about nuclear, and are building these supposedly very expensive coal fired power plants in huge quantities, instead of the cheap renewable ones that Bloomberg are telling us about, and which Germany had previously been a champion of.

Dumber still - by a longshot - must be the Chinese. They build most of the solar and wind generation which is exported to the rest of the world. But instead of using this fabulously cheap form of energy they foolishly, for unfathomable reasons, every three months put up new coal fired power station capacity that equals Australia's total generation capacity. They could be saving a mega-fortune if they only followed Bloomberg's advice and used the equipment that they manufacture locally.

Pardon my scepticism, but if non-hydro renewable electricity generation were cheaper than coal fired generation, one wouldn't need the legislated mass cross subsidies that currently exist through the renewable energy targets that the Coalition brought into law under John Howard, and the prices wouldn't be going through the roof.

But, this is all a scam anyway. All the billions of dollars invested in wind farms in Australia, haven't actually stopped any coal from being burned. The coal fired power stations can't be turned off when the wind farms dump a heap of energy into the system. The coal fired stations have to keep burning and shed their excess energy (though they can presumably be turned down to their night generation rate). Gas fired stations can be turned off and on more easily, but curiously, in Australia they haven't been turned off when the wind farms have a big output - presumably because the operators expect more problems turning them off and on than from just leaving them on.

So, when Bloomberg " found that new wind farms could supply electricity at a cost of $80/MWh –compared with $143/MWh for new build coal" ,
even if these figures were accurate, they leave out the part where in practice the cost that has to be paid for is more like $80+$143= $223/MWh.
Regards,
Renato

[xelasnave]

More segmented sleep production.:hi:

[wulfgar]

Nuclear power remains expensive is one of the reasons. If nuclear power was as good as people claimed, then France that generates higher percentage of its power from nuclear than any other nation wouldn't be broke.
Conventional nuclear power it seems will always remain expensive. Other than that there fast breeder technology which as of now has never been economically successful. There's several programs in the latest fast breeder around the world, but it will 15 or 20 years before it is known that these will produce anything of merit.
The idea that nuclear power produces endless cheap power has so far proven to be only the old propaganda of the Cold War.

[xelasnave]

I seem to average one sleep per post
I was of the belief years ago when I would rant here against the validity of global warming that it was the sinister nuclear lobby who introduced global warming to the world so it could promote neuclear power as a clean alternative to coal
Was I right I don't know but it seems to me many use the prospect of climate change promote a specific.adgehda
These says I am wise enough to question myself when I find I am moving to settle on either side of an argument
And now back to bed for sleep 4 or 5
I am so tired I could cry :eyepop:

[Hagar]

Here you go again Clive, moving your mouth without saying anything. I have read the documemnt you linked to and unfortunately it is wrong as an all encompassing statement. It does state NEW coal fired power station. It also fails to address all forms of renewable energy. I worked in the industry for 40+ years, I have priced and sold energy on the wholesale market for many years and I can assure you To build and operate a hydro power station and a wind power station without REC or the uplift the carbon tax implies on paper coal fired base load generators can produce energy at level which are half of that of hydro and without REC's which incidentally are valued and trading for around the $35 - $39 mark, still about double the cost of existing coal stations.
As has been said in the past it is easy to grab one snippet of information and manipulate it to suit yourself. Try powering your home after dark with solar or with wind when it is still outside. To effectively use renewable energy it is always a battle against the natural forces as well as a battle for the dollar due to the market. Go out and purchase guaranteed green electricity and see what it cost's you. The wholesale price of electricity does not even look like reflecting the cost of generation these days but is only part of the equation that makes up the final price. Energy is bought and sold several times before a final price is formulated.

The average wholesale price is below $40 a MW yet most of us pay something like 30 cents a KW, do the math.

I just read Renato's post above and I can tell you all that the day Australia turns the lights off is getting closer. I know a lot of the engineers working in AEMO and have worked with a lot of them over the years. I have been involved in system Black scenario simulations. Wind power is very unstable, enters the grid in some very unusual manners for a generator, actually implies a cost and the requirement for big base load stations to stay on line unloaded as a precaution.
Lets look at SA. Wind farms produce a huge percentage of the states energy but requires the 2 big generators to stay on line to cover any fault or failure. When storms move across the state the wind turbines are either shut down to manage system loading stability or they just shut down because the wind is to strong. On days of high temperature when wholesale electricity is at it's highest demand the wind usually stops blowing. I have managed and controlled many different power stations for a lot of years now and Clive you are just wrong. WRONG.

[Barrykgerdes]

Typically with controversial threads this one has also gone down paths that only create arguments from generally ill informed people.

Does anyone know what carbon dioxide is?
- a colourless ordourless gas that is the result of animals combining hydro carbons and hydrocarbonates with oxygen to create warmth and energy.

Luckily this process is fully reversible with the action of the energy from the sun along with water in the chemistry of vegetables in conjunction of a catalyst called chlorophyl that converts the carbon dioxide back into carbohydrates (and eventually hydrocarbons) and giving off oxygen in the process.

This in my day was called the carbon cycle that governs all life on earth.

A tax on carbon therefore was a tax on ones right to live and breath unmolested.

Maybe over simplification but never the less the basis of life.

Barry

[xelasnave]

Yes Barry folk fall into the trap of making things personal
And yet there in no need in my view
Present a conflicting argument with the introduction...There are those who suggest that ""such and such" is a defendable position.
Also no need to name call..
Give a compliment extend respect...Thank you for offering your view I am not sure I agree but it's great to know the alternate views in the world.
Because finally there is no point arguing against a held belief...In fact it is unwise and borders on stupid...A belief will never surrender to a hail of facts ...
Name calling hurts both sides and achieved nothing
Pointless social style

[Renato1]

The reason France is in diabolic troubles is that it has it's population out on the street whenever it tries to raise it's ultra generous retirement age with ultra generous benefits - most people are on a fantastic scheme which is even better than the old Australian Public Service CSS scheme (which I'm on) which the government closed back in 2000 because it was way too expensive for public servants alone. Imagine the whole country on that Public Service scheme? (But God bless Gough Whitlam for introducing it).

Same story in Italy, though there the Government had to act and raised the retirement age from 55 to 65, and it is unlikely to stop there.

The French nuclear generation industry is what makes all the renewable energy in surrounding countries viable. When they run out of power, they just get it from the reliable French plants.
Regards,
Renato

[multiweb]

That's pretty much on the money. France... the land of organised and cleverly timed public service strikes. :lol:

Regarding Nuclear Energy they sell Electricity to the whole of Europe. I think Germany is their biggest customer with all the electric trains. Their usage is massive.
They also collect nuclear waste from plants all over the world at la Hague which is very lucrative.

[el_draco]

I absolutely know what Carbon Dioxide is. I also understand the Carbon Cycle in considerable depth. What you have described are respiration and photosynthesis which are only part of the equation. You've left out combustion, decomposition and a range of other things that form important components of the carbon cycle, like Methane CH4 (for the ill informed). You have also not mentioned the carbon sinks, (fossilisation of organics and creation of carbonate rocks, for example), and how they have reduced the amount of carbon in the atmosphere over a few billion years to make the surface habitable, for us at least. :)

All aspects of the cycle can in deed be reversed but, of course, it takes millions of years to build up significant amounts of fossilised carbon and only a short period to dig it up and release the carbon again. That's the problem... :rolleyes: Get the overall balance stuffed up enough and well we become fossils. One should also understand a bit about the infrared implications of CO2 in the atm... Called Global Warming for the ill informed.

The carbon cycle is irrelevant to some forms of life, bad news to others, particularly some extremeophiles... but, (un)-fortunately, my species, along with most of the others on the earths surface, is not one of them.

I also agree that it is important to be well informed about a topic, though, compared to the real experts, like Abbott and his ilk... I know relatively little. ;)

[el_draco]

Well, you can read the first line of Renato's post and stop there. As per usual, the " $ cost" factor counts but he does not consider any of the non-tangible factors.... Like a habitable planet :screwy:

[Astro_Bot]

Referring to some posts above ...



See what we mean? :rolleyes:

-----------------------

And, again, Mods: Are you sure you want this kind of thread to taint the otherwise good reputation of IIS? I've seen it happen on other forums - this will only become more divisive for the IIS/astro community.

[andyc]

Good grief Barry, it's not the colour or odour that's the issue with CO2, neither is it the respiration mechanics of plants and animals! It's the fact that triatomic molecules (of which CO2 is the most relevant as it doesn't condense in Earth's atmosphere) are transparent to shortwave radiation, but rather good at scattering longwave infrared radiation. And we've just dug up and burned a huge amount of fossil carbon, injecting Jurassic carbon into the modern carbon cycle. Oceans sequester about half of it (acidifying in the process), the remainder goes to heating up the Earth. Nobody's taxing your breath.

Renato, the paper you're misunderstanding is merely further confirmation of what I was trying to communicate with you in an earlier thread. It's a rather neat demonstration that the illusory 'pause' in surface temperatures is an artefact of El Nino variations. The so-called 'pause' is nothing more than ENSO 'noise'. It's a result that confirms the work of Kosaka and Xie (2013) and Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). Climate models don't try and predict ENSO - the sloshing of Pacific water and strengthening/weakening of trade winds is an emergent property of the dynamics of the ocean/atmosphere and the effects average out to zero on timescales greater than about 20 years. This is why climate is defined as being measured over 30 years.

We had a very unusual ENSO pattern between 1998 and now , from predominantly El Nino to predominantly La Nina. This should show up as a reduction or slow-down in surface temperature rises, and an increase in ocean heat storage. Observations would be towards the lower bounds of model forecasts made the late 1990s or early 2000s, simply due to ENSO. When climate models run with the observed El Nino pattern (Kosaka and Xie) or something very like it (Risbey et al 2014), modelled temperatures look just like observed temperatures, demonstrating that there's no mystery to the surface temperature history of the past two decades.

But skeptics seem to want climate models to have forecast the full pattern of El Nino/La Nina events before they happened, something they were never meant to do, and something weather models are struggling with over the next few months, let alone decades!

If anyone (Renato included) wants to pm me with queries, I'll do my best to answer honest questions about these papers.

[Astro_Bot]

Andy, you are far more patient than I, and I appreciate your very informative posts even if the deniers don't.



He doesn't misunderstand. He is deliberately mis-quoting and distorting in order to further the anti-climate science agenda. You will never persuade him because he does not want to debate or learn, only to try and create as much doubt and confusion as he possibly can.

[Retrograde]

Hilarious - you completely disregard a peer-reviewed paper published in one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals despite admitting you haven't even read it!
On the other hand in the last GW thread you referenced an unscientific op-ed from the Heartland Institute (a right-wing think-tank funded by fossil-fuel interests) as if it represented real science.

The paper in Nature is not "hidden" in the sense as you imply.
A modest fee is standard practice in order to cover the not insignificant costs of peer-review and publishing.

Science is never perfect but deniers always leap on one small error or inaccurate prediction and instead of seeking to find the truth immediately claim it is in-fact proof that the whole field (in the case of climate-science over 150 years of discovery and analysis) should be thrown out in its entirety.

The people we generally trust regarding science and who have made it their life, such as Brian Cox, Dr Karl, Bill Nye (the Science Guy) and Neil deGrasse Tyson all accept the view of the majority of climate-scientists.
Anyone who is in doubt should believe them over random internet posters who trawl through denialist blogs looking for the next misleading talking point to disseminate.

[wulfgar]

I was very impressed by France when they started turning lights off in Paris to save money when if the propaganda is true then power should be no problem.

But the fact remains that conventional nuclear power is guaranteed to remain more expensive than fossil fuel and economical fast breeder remains a pie in the sky.

I'd say the Japanese and Germans have revealed their smarts. Or do you have a different angle?

[el_draco]

The thing I can't understand for the life of me, and I have repeatedly asked Renato to answer this questions is, "Even if there were only a 1% chance that the scientific community is RIGHT, what kind of num-num, dipstick idiot would RISK it?":screwy: Apart from Abbott of course....

ONE PLANET, ah Duh!!! :eyepop:

[Astro_Bot]

Indeed. :sadeyes:

And speaking of "duh", the forces of EVIL* continue to try and drag the "argument" towards something like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YClAMYTEuZ0). :)


* Environmental Villains International, Ltd.

[clive milne]

Doug, your 40 odd years working for the fossil fuel industry does not in fact make you an impartial source of information with respect to emerging energy technology, nor as an authority figure on the subject to whom we should defer judgement to, far from it. The last time we engaged in a discussion on this issue I spent the time to construct a mathematical model in the form of a spread sheet to prove that the value judgements you were making with respect to the viability of solar energy were not even supported by the figures you yourself tended as evidence to the contrary. I even posted it on line and left all the variables and equations open for you to manipulate to your hearts content to see if you could find a flaw in my reasoning.... Your response was something along the lines of: 'Your figures look good Clive, I'll give you that'.

I suspect the conflict in our view points lies in that you have become accustomed to looking at energy supply as a profit making enterprise where share holder return is the primary concern, where as I look at it from the perspective of the consumer and someone who has to (ultimately) absorb the deferred costs of pollution, diesel subsidies, climate change, ocean acidification, mercury in the ground water & ocean, maintenance of transmission lines that I no longer need etc, etc.

In point of fact, one of the reasons we chose our (rural) property was the that it had power lines crossing it... a valuable commodity or so we thought. I did the sums and found that the money it would cost to attach ourselves to the toxic umbilical cord was better spent on an off grid power system. We now have solar PV and 24kwh of battery back up for less than the cost of putting in the meter box. We didn't sponge off the system so it was done without REC's or subsidies. We have no power bills and have never run out of electricity....

By all means show me a fossil fuel energy supplier that can offer me a better deal if you can.
ie) I'll pay for the meter box and you supply all my energy for free on the understanding its production does not involve some activity that is environmentally damaging.

[blink138]

game set and match dear boy!
well articulated clive, thanks.
pat

[Barrykgerdes]

When I said "animals" combine oxygen I was also referring to man burning fossil fuels etc. which is to my simple thinking combining carbon with oxygen!

As I said originally the climate change advocates will never be convinced nor will the climate won't change advocates ever change their views

And anyone blaming Tony Abbott for his views is obviously just a left wing supporter

Barry

[xelasnave]

Most folk who have a go at Tony in my generalised view would blame him if the cat had kittens.
I detect a certain energy in their hatred that negates the message they seek to deliver
I find more credibility in any argument if the proponent is composed and unemotional
Tony in his defence is the leader of the party elected at the last election
Clearly abolition of the carbon tax could be called an election promise
Tony clearly delivered on his promise and for my money that is somewhat unique for a politician ...he never said..the carbon tax under my government will always remain in place...or is a promise never to impose a carbon tax is overridden when office is gained more satisfactory
I am socialist more than capitalist but I respect a man of his word over a person who makes a promise they could not keep
Again energy should go to doing what you can do at a personal level rather than give in to hate and name count
And to try and see just how such negative checkout is usless
One might ask what is lacking in y character that I can accept acting badly
I am not a.christian but the love your fellow man thing works to your advantage A.D. I would recommend that aspect of the philosophy wholeheartedly to everybody for the enrichment and benefit
And every time one gets a lite hateful in this thread you more than anyone show the highest level of disrespect to the moderators and placing what should be no pressure at all..under pressure to enforce the rules.they clearly support freedom of spreading so respect them don't take this thread over the edge

[casstony]

He is extremely deceitful and mean spirited and has taken politics to a new low, one of the worse examples of human nature. He leads an extremist ideological faction which has hijacked the party. He's as good as any place to be the suppository for people's hatred. (ask the moderate Malcom's what they think of him).

[multiweb]

That is physically impossible. After what labor's been up to for years you can't dig any lower. That's the bottom of the pit. :lol:

[xelasnave]

Hi Tony.. how do you really feel about him.
As to the moderators view of Tony that is irrelevant to the position they are placed in when things get nasty and making things uncomplicated for them is considerate and respectful
And if you see it differently I will try and embrace a view different to my own out of respect as well
I am tempted in the interest of exploring your position to enquire about your position as already it appears you have your reasons for such a strong stand however it probably is inappropriate and to encourage expansion of your statement may well see things degenerate
I take on board your view and thank you for your frankness in it's expression

[casstony]

Hi Alex, I'd have an entirely different view of the party if it was lead by Malcom Turnbull or John Hewson or another moderate. Extreme left or right is never good. The carbon tax is a minor issue really, it's the overall philosophy of the leaders that counts.

[Shiraz]

all I know is that the carbon tax did exactly what it was supposed to do for me. Power went up so much that it forced me to get off my butt and do something. We worked out that it was cost effective to fork out for a new more efficient fridge, replaced a lot of gas guzzling lights with LEDs and chose energy efficient appliances for a couple of other replacements. Also put a small amount of solar on the roof to help with aircon in summer. Nett effect was a large reduction in power bills for an overall reduction in living costs and reduced carbon footprint - and all for absolutely no reduction in living standards - yahoo. Beats me why so many people seemed to buy the line that it was bad/evil/catastrophic or whatever.

[Deeno]

Typical....
The very first post was politically inflaming and now there are nine pages, with some foul language thrown in for good measure. What a wonderful site this has become for children.

Whatever happened to the TOS.

Oh well, last time I logged on a moderator had posted a religious video....says it all really...........

[el_draco]

Not even slightly. Cant stand any politicians as a rule for the simple fact that, with very few exceptions, they cant think beyond the election cycle and "popularist" policies. Abbott is just an extreme version of the above. Both major parties and most of the others are just the same.

Take Jacqui Lambie for example. Really!!!, did someone actually vote for her??? I owe no allegiances to any of them and if I bothered wasting my time voting, I'd only vote for someone prepared to minimise damage to the environment.

[Astro_Bot]

You're not alone. I've made that comment several times, including directly to mods. For whatever reason, they're letting it go. IMHO, it's damaging the reputation of IIS.

[RB]

I was the first to alert Mike about this and other threads that go against the TOS.
If it was up to me they'd be gone from the onset.

It's Mike's forum and it's his decision what gets scraped.
As moderators we have no say in what gets deleted, we only discuss, suggest and alert Mike of the thread topics.
He decides what goes and what stays.

As for the religious video, it was in response to a thread that I felt was belittling what I believe in.
You can't have it both ways, to allow anti-religious material but not allow responses to it.

As I said we're doing only what Mike wants/allows.

:)

[LewisM]

Yes, apparently men with money and "packages" voted for her. Thankfully, I only have one of the 2 :D, so don't meet her pre-requisites. :face:

Seriously, she seems the sort you'd see in a pub wearing a ridiculously small mini-skirt drinking like a fish, chain smoking and swearing at everyone. Pub Trash.

But I digress.

[xelasnave]

Mike is to be supported for his outstanding leadership
Folk who overstep the mark condemn themselves by exhibiting bad behaviour
I do think this thread has been most useful and interesting...indeed information..Those who make personal attack part of their delivery may notice now bad it looks should they reread their posts

[icytailmark]

i so think the carbon tax was a good thing. It made people think about how much electricity they used on a daily basis.

[Larryp]

Electricity prices had already gone through the roof before the carbon tax was introduced.
I certainly did not need a carbon tax to make me think about my electricity usage!

[el_draco]

So....., you're loaded then? :lol:
I could be her next best friend... I'm broke :rolleyes:
...second thoughts... I lied; I sometimes hate being "visual" :rofl:

[tlgerdes]

I would not exactly say that was true, I would say the price of electricity made people think of how much electricity they used. The carbon tax was just a component of that price. We have had quite a few contributing factors to the electricity price in the last few years.

[el_draco]

There are various ways to look at this situation:

1/ Someone comes out with a statement that is patently wrong and you can ignore it. In that case, many others see the unchallenged statement as acceptable and before you know it, it's government policy.

2/ Someone comes out with a statement and its patently wrong and you challenge it, That forms the basis of a robust and occasionally "warm" to heated conversation. Regardless, its a conversation that usually delves into facts and fallacy... That, in my opinion is healthy debate and a good way to contribute to discussion. I might also put it out there that Science has been a hot bed of heated debate for a VERY long time.

3/ Someone comes out with a statement and its patently wrong and you call in mods to quash what can at times be lively, humorous and heated debate. You end up with a Nanny state, or worse, a Police state.

4/ Someone comes out with a statement that is patently wrong and you ignore the thread. That's called freedom of choice.

5/ In a similarly robust thread, a very wise person put it out there that "what is said in the thread, remains in the thread" That was a reality check that reminded us of how pathetically insignificant everything we have ever done, ever will do and every "debate" we have, really is.

Personally, I'd prefer a robust and occasionally heated debate to any other option, provided what is said in the thread stays in the thread. I have found that, contrary to damaging the reputation of IIS, I have been challenged and enlightened, at times educated, at times vindicated and at all times intellectually stimulated. Gotta be good. :)

... and Renato is SO MUCH FUN ! :rofl:

[tlgerdes]

So by that statement, are you implying you did not vote in the last federal election?

[multiweb]

+1 . I hate party poopers and mods pets.

[el_draco]

Mate, I haven't voted since the 1980's I got a "please explain" from the electoral office for not voting in a state election when I had been living overseas for a year. When I got back I wrote back and said, "The lot I would have voted for had proven themselves to be incompetent fools, and I was of the opinion that the alternative would be no better" and I left that state the same day.

History proved me right and I have seen state and federal elections come and go with monotony and NOT ONE of the buffoons has even voiced concerns about the fundamental issue that will drive this country into the dust, that being over-population Why waste my time voting? We live in a dis-functional political system and I for one have no intention of encouraging the morons..

Correction: Kelvin Thomson MP regularly raises this issue, and is totally ignored by govt.

[tlgerdes]

Do you want the 5min argument or the full half hour!

[el_draco]

Knock your socks off.... I love a good debate. I am no genius but always enjoy hearing a broad range of opinions, whether I agree with them or not.

I am also more than delighted to acknowledge when I am wrong and thank the one who enlightens me. Ask my wife :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[AndrewJ]

PayPal or Western Union????

Andrew

[Astro_Bot]

Well, thank you for calling me "wise", though I think you may be mistaken! ;)

My perspective in making those remarks is that:

This is one of several recent, divisive threads that have nothing to do with astronomy in any of its forms.
There's no shortage of other outlets where people can have their say.
Despite wishes to the contrary, some people hold on to grudges and I've seen other forums suffer greatly when off-topic arguments got out of hand and good members decided to leave or new ones joined for the wrong reasons (e.g. for the barney, not for astronomy) - the tone of the whole forum can change for the worse.


It's not that I'm trying to claim that I'm a model IIS member (waaaaay too late for that, unfortunately) but IIS is supposed to be a welcome place to share a love of astronomy, and if people are being turned off by off-topic arguments (as apparently they are), then I think that's a shame ... and there's no need, not here.

Anyway, just another 2c worth. :)

[el_draco]

... all good points and I heartily agree.

The differentiating point in this case is that the issue will impact on you and I, our children and theirs, not to mention the rest of the planet and the species that have the right to exist.

Once raised, I'll stand up to those who attempt to deny the Science or attempt to defend the indefensible.

Likewise, I would hate it if these discussions spilled out into other forums. The astronomy should be paramount in this group but this is a "General" Chat forum and many other unrelated topics are also discussed.

[wulfgar]

In principle I'm in agreement with a carbon tax. But it doesn't mean the one we had was a good one or well thought out.

I'm even more suspicious of the international carbon ETS, which to me seems to be an international money grab by investment banks. An ETS was virtually selling permission to pollute, with the twist that those who don't pollute end up paying for polluters.

[doppler]

Maybe the "global warming" is a good thing. If the sun is going through a cool phase?
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2014/January/Cover-Up-Mounting-Evidence-Belies-Global-Warming/

[wulfgar]

Do you mean GW or AGW?

[doppler]

I meant that the sun plays a bigger role in keeping the planet warm than man ever will be able to change.

[casstony]

The Earth is very small Rick, it's diameter is only about three times Australia's width and it's atmosphere is very thin - climb a tall mountain and you'll have difficulty breathing. Is it that hard to believe billions of Industrial Age humans can have an influence on the climate?

[doppler]

So has anyone worked out the perfect temp that the earth should be at, so all countries are happy with their climate and environment?

[Astro_Bot]

<Facepalm>

[wulfgar]

If you mean variability in the Sun's output then the answer is no.

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
Well, if climate is measured over 30 years - earth cooled till around 1975, then started heating up.

So, some 14 years later, Margaret Thatcher jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon and the ball really starts rolling - "climate" had been determined on just over 10 years.

Warming continued till 1998 - all those IPCC Assessment Reports, where "climate" related to 23 years or less of warming.

Now, we're at nearly 18 years of no warming by some datasets, and "climate" mysteriously can only be measured over 30 years!

Shame no one applied that 30 year criterion from 1975, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Regardless, the super computer models are supposed to predict. All of them can be tweaked to give an excellent reproduction of the past. But as I stated, 95% have fallen apart predicting the future. It is all very nice to predict after the event that "ENSO "Noise"" is the cause of the pause that nobody predicted before it happened. Was there any mention in AR1 through to AR4 that this was likely?

And was there any mention in AR1 through to AR4 that all the model's predictions - on which the whole planet's economy was recommended to to be turned on its head at huge cost - could be inaccurate because of Pacific Oscillation?

Perversly, poor old sceptic Dr. Roy Spencer his been hitting his head against the wall for the last 30 years saying the Pacific Oscillation was the main cause of the warming, and was studiously ignored by Warmists, but out of the blue and after the event, the Oscillation now becomes a big factor after all.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on one thing. The bits I read in AR5 from 2013 didn't offer the 2011 and 2013 papers you cite as definitive proof to explain the Hiatus, in the manner that you have. Did I miss something or are you disagreeing with the uncertainty regarding the cause of the Hiatus expressed by the IPCC in AR5? or is it the case that they don't want to be pinned down and shown to be wrong in four or five years?

And when you refer to the 'so-called "pause"', are you in disagreement with the IPCC's acknowledged "Hiatus"?
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

She is a bit crass (or maybe a lot) - but she now has a track record.

She has voted rationally on one decision (The Carbon Tax), and I'm having a hard time thinking of anything significant and rational that Milne and Hanson-Young have voted on.

So, I'd rate Lambi as one of Tasmania's better choices for the Senate.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Lately I've been seeing references to variable output from the sun associated with lack of sunspots, often referred too as cooling. My understanding was that any change in heat output from the sun was quite minuscule at best.

The Scandinavian theory about the sun's variable solar wind affecting cosmic rays hitting the earth, and hence affecting cloud formation on earth is another matter - but I've heard zilch about that lately.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Compared to other sites, in general we seem to be very respectful and polite to each other, regardless of "heat".

Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

I don't recollect citing anything from the Heartland Institute, but am happy to be corrected.

What I did cite was a paper from the Global Policy Warming Foundation "A Sensitive Matter" N.Lewis & M, Crok 2014 which gave an explanation as to why the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report changed the range of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) range from the 4th Assessment Report's 2C-4.5C to 1.5C- 4.5C, and why it chose for the first time not to give a best estimate of ECS, which in the previous four reports had been 3C (that is, if atmospheric CO2 doubled, the best estimate was that temperature would increase by 3C).

That paper wasn't evidence of anything - as the evidence was in the 5th Assessment Report itself, where they expanded the Range of ECS and for the first time chose not to give a best estimate of ECS, citing only that there exists a greater range of ECS results from more recent research papers.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the content of the Lewis and Crok paper is largely irrelevant. The IPCC states in 5th Assessment report that recent studies give lower figures for ECS, and they accordingly increase their range for ECS to incorporate the lower 1.5C figure, and for the first time decline to give the best estimate ECS, where the 3C figure had been a mainstay of the previous reports. The likelihood must have increased that things aren't as bad as stated in prior reports, regardless of what they then wrote in their Executive Summary.

As for my completely disregarding a peer-reviewed paper published in one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals which effectively says that the models are excellent at reproducing past and current events, except that 95% give the wrong predictions because they don't take account of a major factor, the Pacific Oscillation which they can't predict, - well - yes, I'll happily disregard it.

Pacific Oscillation is a known event. When one programs a simulation, one gets a random number generator, to throw the event and its effects in at random at the expected frequency. How can one knowingly leave such a significant factor out?

What has me far more interested, rather than why all the dud models are supposedly really fine, are the two models that are still on track - which haven't been shown to be incorrect, because they didn't predict the high warming that the other ones did. They do predict that warming will take off in another four or five years. Unfortunately, it'll be another 10 years before I'll either be having another chuckle or eating my words.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

The doubt and confusion arises from other things like the Arctic ice still being there, when Al Gore said it would all be gone by last year. Or reports a decade ago saying the skiing industry in Australia was doomed, while we get the best snow falls in 25 years. Or statements that the last drought may well be a permanent event, only to be followed by the rains and floods we were never meant to get again, and which were never going to fill our dams again (there's $9 billion worth of mothballed desalination plants backing that claim).

You are most welcome to be very pro-climate science and unconfuse me and to allay my doubts about the latter examples.

I would also be delighted if you could provide one single example where I have "misquoted" a single thing. Should be a very simple task for you to do, as you infer I do it all the time.

I'll be very interested to see what you come up with, including what I have supposedly been "distorting", since when I quote, I copy and paste, and give references so that you can go to the original source and make sure I've highlighted and copied correctly.

Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

Apparently so, and Renato STILL HAS NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION! !

[Retrograde]

This is just a misrepresentation of global climate models. No one has been able to successfully predict ENSO phases well in advance and that is not what GCMs are designed to do.
ENSO is a response to a range of factors and not a forcing on the climate itself - it would be the same as writing off climate models for not predicting the cooling effect of a large volcanic eruption even though GCMs are not designed to predict volcanic eruptions.



Dr Spencer is also a creationist. Do you not accept evolution as well on his say so?
If you correct for ENSO then you still see strong warming trend. Spencer is completely wrong on that as shown here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/

Of course Roy Spencer tried to produce his own climate model. When hindcast 1000 years (a basic check) it was out by 6 TRILLION degrees :rofl:


So you did. One denialist 'think-tank' that refuses to disclose its funding sources and lists the usual suspects amongst its list of 'academic advisers' (Plimer, Carter, Lindzen etc) is quite hard to distinguish from another.

What they all have in common is that they don't do real scientific research or produce peer-reviewed, scientific papers. They instead spread misinformation for their undisclosed financial backers and (in the case of the GWPF & our own IPA) even leech off the taxpayer by declaring "charitable status".

[casstony]

It's a matter of not disrupting the status quo; the Earth seems to have figured out a pleasant climate for us and it's in our interest not to interfere.

[el_draco]

Ah yep, and how thick is it compared to 20 years ago, and how extensive is it compared to 20 years ago. Hmmm :rolleyes:

[wulfgar]

So Renato, since you are so terribly fond of the second hiatus, what do you have to say about the first one?

This isn't the first hiatus!

Arrhenius proposed his theory around 1900 as he claimed increasing industrialization with attendant release of the carbonsink would cause a general temperature rise. It did indeed rise from the time of Arrhenius until 1940. Then there was hiatus until the late 1970's. The pre 1940 general temperature rise was nothing out of the ordinary in the CET record. However the post 1970's rise in temperature was without parallel in the CET record dating back to the mid 17th century.

Hansen claims the hiatus is the result of particulate matter from a sudden rush to polluting industry during WW2 and post war, a then again with the rapid Chinese industrialization from the 90's onwards. However particulate levels in the atmosphere would require worldwide constant daily measurement at varying attitudes, an expensive procedure.

And then again it could be anything else as well. The CET record reveals general rises and falls that can last a generation. However since 1900 we've no periods of fall, but merely leveling out.

When we no longer see generational falls in temperature, then we know the Earth is heating up.;)

But as I said to you few years ago, it wouldn't make any difference to me if the hiatus went for 30 years. Basic GW theory is sound, and eventually Anthropomorphic Global Warming will over ride anything else. AGW is in the young adults book on Earth Science I was reading in the 1960's. I was reading German speculations (trans into English) that were from 1920's in my late teens.

The world spends huge sums on consumer junk, science research gets a pittance, as satirized by the Micheal and Webb look.

That Mitchell and Webb Look - Garnier Laboritoire (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_63IJryJhFs)

[Octane]

I love David Mitchell and Robert Webb. That is all.

H

[graham.hobart]

You should watch Mitchell and Webb do "Homeopathic A&E" - that's a cracker !
Or is the mention of homeopathy asking for trouble? !!
;)
Graz

[xelasnave]

I do find the use of the expression...climate change denier..extremely offensive
Denier should be exclusive to the reference to those disgusting people who argue that the holocost never happened
Shame upon whoever introduced the word denier to demonise their opponent.t in the climate change debate.
You could call your opponent a drunken wife beating dog kicking mongrel but denier is much worse
This word should be reserved exclusively for those who contemptuously reject such a horrific persecution and mass extinction
To use the term climate change denier however makes one lower than I can and lessens it to a common word which can be uses to demonise an opponentpOlo

[wulfgar]

Yeah, that's just silly. I use purple quatz myself.

[xelasnave]

Can we not find a less offensive word
Are we so devoid of creativity
Anti climate change lobby
Anti global warmer
Can't be that hard

[Astro_Bot]

"Denier, denier, pants on fire" is so easy to remember. ;)

[wulfgar]

You're saying they are against all concept of climate change?

And is that GW or AGW?

Denialist pretty much sums it up. This is question of the truth and responsibility.
None of this requires support of the carbon tax lobby. Indeed, knowing the facts it's one free choice to destroy the Earth. But denying the fact is a different matter.
Denying responsibility is the hallmark of insanity!

[xelasnave]

:thumbsup:°cMy point is the word denier has special significance
You either get it or you don't
It has nothing to do with any finer point
I thought my point was clear if I have at least tried.to do something about a wrong that I perceive to exist
I think it's use shows a lack of respect for those who perished by diluting the word uses to classify those who denied that such an event occurred
I rest my case

[Retrograde]

Denier is a commonly used english word that descibes someone who denies, or is in denial about, something.
The people who think it automatically conflates climate-change deniers with holocaust deniers are largely climate-change deniers themsleves.

Me - I'm offended by people who spout lies about science or arrogantly think they somehow know more about the subject than the acknowledged experts in the field.
I'm even more offended by those who accuse eminent scientists of professional dishonesty (without a shred of real evidence) or those who send climate-scientists death threats or hate-mail for simply doing their job.

[xelasnave]

Well automatically associating me with those against climate chafe etc w
Would be a mistake
Because if you read my personal actions you will may detect a position different to those who write off the science
If you read my thread in the science section that also may hint at my position re science
Thank you for sharing your views I diy t we disagree on anything re climate change
I was unaware others had a similar view
Thank you for your considered reply

[Retrograde]

I didn't - apologies if the wording and context of my reply may have unwittingly implied otherwise. :thumbsup:

Climate-change deniers wish to be known as "sceptics" but rarely exhibit the traits of genuine scepticism. See this Australian Skeptics Statement:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/australian-skeptics-position-on-climate-change-sceptics/

[xelasnave]

Pete thanks in truth I was not sure but certainly I took no offence
All good

[el_draco]

Get some sleep mate... Those girls...

:rofl:

[tlgerdes]

I thought "denier" was how your wife/girlfriend measured her tights and stockings thickness? :shrug: :screwy: :lol:

[Astro_Bot]

We interrupt this broadcast of the Jerry Springer Global Warming Special to bring you a community service announcement ...

---------------------


A quick check of a dictionary would have helped you there.


Actually ....

The Macquarie Australian Dictionary lists as its first meaning:

denier(1) noun one who denies [ME; from DENY + -ER(1)]

The source is apparently Middle English. The thickness of stockings relationship is the second listed meaning.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary lists as its first meaning:

Denier(1). ME. [f. as prec* + -ER(1).] One who denies.
* The preceding entry is Denial.

Again, the source is identified as Middle English.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary lists as its second meaning:

Denier(2). 1532. [subst. use of Fr. denier inf., to DENY; see -ER(4).] Law. The act of denying or refusing- 1642.

The SOED goes on with several alternative meanings, and lists the "unit of weight ... by which silk yarn is measured and its fineness estimated" as established in 1832, so that post-dates the plainer meaning of being someone who denies something.

---------------------

We now return you to normal programming.

[el_draco]

No, that's "dethyer" :ashamed:

[tlgerdes]

:P I actually did check the dictionary before I posted

Seems as though the only dictionary to list your version first is the Macquarie Australian dictionary.

Oxford dictionary, Google and Wikipedia all list first a measurement of cloth, second an old French currency, third a noun derivative of denial.

[tlgerdes]

Your climbing a dangerous ladder with that one.:lol:

[Astro_Bot]

No, the Oxford (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) lists it first and second.

[tlgerdes]

Yes, also please distinguish between AGW Deniers and Climate Change Deniers.

[tlgerdes]

You must use a different Internet to me. :lol:

[tlgerdes]

Also, why would it list the same meaning twice? :question:

Sounds like a dictionary has something against deniers to keep harping on about them

[Astro_Bot]

The third listed (although obsolete) meaning in SOED is also a Middle English source, and originally from Old French denier, being the coin as you mentioned.

Here's where an international keyboard woud be handy, because:

dénier - from Middle English/from French someone who denies, etc. (Note the acute)

denier - from Middle English/from Old French coin, etc. (Note the absence of the acute)

You know, I actually thought I should have paused and found a way to put that acute over the first e of denier, but I figured no-one could possibly have a problem with that .... ;)

[Astro_Bot]

I have the hardback edition. ;) You have to pay to get better info.

[xelasnave]

:P

My problem was the use of denier for anyone other than a holocost denier

[Astro_Bot]

As should be obvious to anyone by now (although, given Renato is participating in this thread, that may not hold true ;) ) "denier" means "one who denies" and is not/has never been restricted to the topic of Holocaust (with a capital 'H') denial. Note that the word "holocaust" also has a meaning separate from the WWII atrocity.

[tlgerdes]

Yeah, see, that doesn't fit in my travel suitcase, and it so easily becomes out of date in this age of wordsmithing :lol:

[Astro_Bot]

You mean in this age of spin. :lol:

I blame the politicians. It's worse than the effect of cartoon violence on kids. :eyepop:

[LewisM]

I have the ridgeback edition. It bites :P

[tlgerdes]

We are all deniers in this topic, we either deny that AGW does exist or deny that AGW doesn't exist :lol:

[clive milne]

Ray, the carbon tax component of your electricity bill amounts to something like 2c per kwh iirc. (basically nothing) After reading through your post, it is redundant to say that you have made some intelligent and informed decisions with respect to the changes you made to your energy usage profile. Your example is quite typical of those that apply some initiative. I used to work as an energy auditor and the cases where I couldn't point out to clients how to significantly reduce the costs associated with their energy consumption with simple behavioural changes were extremely rare (I could count them on both thumbs, one of them being spare). A 30% reduction straight off the bat without any major investment was probably the mean.

It may surprise you however, to learn that I am somewhat less than ambivalent to the idea of taxing carbon as a means to solve the issues associated with burning it. People generally do not take the time to make a fully informed and rational decision on the fundamentals that affect their long term welfare (you are somewhat of an exception). Pressuring them with market forces doesn't actually work to the extent required because their behaviour is more easily manipulated by suggestion (media advocacy) which is always going to be the domain of the highest bidder (multinational banks and corporations) Direct action is in my opinion, far more effective. This is not to be confused with the 'fossil fool' initiative being employed by our current crime minister (disingenuously) under the same name.

[el_draco]

Holy Hell.... Do you have bring in a THIRD point of view....
:jawdrop::D

[el_draco]

Proof positive that you haven't got a clue :screwy:
... and you STILL haven't answered the question!