Carbon tax scrapped

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by 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

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

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 (Rom)]

Originally Posted by 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

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... 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 (Rom)]

Originally Posted by 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.

Renato

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

[Astro_Bot]

Referring to some posts above ...

Originally Posted by multiweb

Nobody denies the science facts.

See what we mean?

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

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 (Andy)]

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.

Originally Posted by andyc

Renato, the paper you're misunderstanding ...

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 (Pete)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Rom)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?" Apart from Abbott of course....

ONE PLANET, ah Duh!!!

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by el_draco

ONE PLANET, ah Duh!!!

Indeed.

And speaking of "duh", the forces of EVIL* continue to try and drag the "argument" towards something like this.


* Environmental Villains International, Ltd.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Hagar

I have managed and controlled many different power stations for a lot of years now and Clive you are just wrong. WRONG.

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 (Pat)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by 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... 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Marc)]

Originally Posted by casstony

He is extremely deceitful and mean spirited and has taken politics to a new low

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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

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 (Ray)]

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...........