by Bully » Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:52 am
by Psyber » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:33 pm
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:30 pm
by Psyber » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:32 pm
Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:Even when 97% of climate scientists are saying it is so? But wait, of course, they are conditioned to think that way aren't they!
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:45 am
Psyber wrote:However, history shows that majority scientific opinion has been wrong sometimes in the past, on several occasions in several sciences, and so it cannot be taken as a truth that the majority is always right..
I don't dispute that climate change is occurring - it has been obvious for years that it is - and I agree we should act to minimise the effects. I agree that current CO2 levels are higher than they have been for at least 500,000 years - the highest past peak was about 325,000 years ago - and that humanity is contributing to this. What I dispute is the assumption that humanity is the sole cause of this, rather than additive factor to long complex cycles.
by Psyber » Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:53 pm
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:25 pm
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Mon May 19, 2014 2:47 pm
by bennymacca » Wed May 21, 2014 12:33 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Wed May 21, 2014 2:07 pm
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Wed May 21, 2014 11:35 pm
by gossipgirl » Thu May 22, 2014 1:54 pm
Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:You snooze you loose Jimbo. This is just another dopey move from the Abbott Government that will see taxpayers worse off. I assume you pay tax so it will impact you negatively, unless of course you are one one the CO2 emitters that stands to benefit from the direct action policy.
by Psyber » Sat May 24, 2014 11:54 am
Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:You snooze you loose Jimbo. This is just another dopey move from the Abbott Government that will see taxpayers worse off. I assume you pay tax so it will impact you negatively, unless of course you are one one the CO2 emitters that stands to benefit from the direct action policy.
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Sat May 24, 2014 4:09 pm
Psyber wrote:Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:You snooze you loose Jimbo. This is just another dopey move from the Abbott Government that will see taxpayers worse off. I assume you pay tax so it will impact you negatively, unless of course you are one one the CO2 emitters that stands to benefit from the direct action policy.
I lean towards a genuine and effective direct action policy backed up by support to change technology.
My reasons? Both a Carbon Tax and a Emissions Trading Scheme simply give governments and those who generate pollution an easy out.
You pay money and go on doing things the same old way while passing on the extra cost to the public via increased charges for energy.
Or you get things made for you overseas and move the pollution output from your factory to theirs...
The only reduction of pollution then comes from the public using less energy due to cost, but using less energy is not that easy, especially if you don't live in the inner city and, therefore, can't avoid running a car, and can't use cheaper natural gas (available only in cities or close suburbs) for heating instead of electricity. The less well off thus suffer more than the rich from these approaches.
I'd have had more sympathy for both a tax or a trading scheme if the money raised had been isolated from general revenue and used to subsidise changing technology, as both the Greens and the Aussie Democrats had originally advocated, and the polluters had been motivated more by not being allowed to just pass the costs on to the end user.
The viable direct action alternative is to legislate a requirement to change to less polluting technology and to subsidise genuine effort to do so.
(We must avoid political efforts to help the statistics look good by subsidising token actions with little real effect, just to buy votes.)
by bennymacca » Sun May 25, 2014 1:26 am
by Psyber » Mon May 26, 2014 12:31 pm
Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:Psyber wrote:Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:You snooze you loose Jimbo. This is just another dopey move from the Abbott Government that will see taxpayers worse off. I assume you pay tax so it will impact you negatively, unless of course you are one one the CO2 emitters that stands to benefit from the direct action policy.
I lean towards a genuine and effective direct action policy backed up by support to change technology.
My reasons? Both a Carbon Tax and a Emissions Trading Scheme simply give governments and those who generate pollution an easy out.
You pay money and go on doing things the same old way while passing on the extra cost to the public via increased charges for energy.
Or you get things made for you overseas and move the pollution output from your factory to theirs...
The only reduction of pollution then comes from the public using less energy due to cost, but using less energy is not that easy, especially if you don't live in the inner city and, therefore, can't avoid running a car, and can't use cheaper natural gas (available only in cities or close suburbs) for heating instead of electricity. The less well off thus suffer more than the rich from these approaches.
I'd have had more sympathy for both a tax or a trading scheme if the money raised had been isolated from general revenue and used to subsidise changing technology, as both the Greens and the Aussie Democrats had originally advocated, and the polluters had been motivated more by not being allowed to just pass the costs on to the end user.
The viable direct action alternative is to legislate a requirement to change to less polluting technology and to subsidise genuine effort to do so.
(We must avoid political efforts to help the statistics look good by subsidising token actions with little real effect, just to buy votes.)
I agree, however I believe the money required 'to change to less polluting technology and to subsidise genuine effort to do so' should be generated by taxing those companies who are not undertaking genuine effort, rather than funding it out of general revenue.
by Booney » Mon May 26, 2014 4:12 pm
by bulldogproud2 » Mon May 26, 2014 8:44 pm
Booney wrote:Now we know why the Earth is warming :
Joe Barton ( Republican Texas )
In June 2010, Barton questioned the wisdom of deficit spending to fund an extensive national wind turbine energy generation grid. He said,
"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about."
by Roxy the Rat Girl » Tue May 27, 2014 8:49 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |