Gillard's Carbon Tax a futile achievment

You might want to show us where I said that. Could you?

Or maybe just apologise for telling a lie.

Please don't make things up. Or as you put it:

 

We don't have a "carbon tax"? We have an ETS. It is different.

And do you really not know how it works after all this time? Really?

Emissions trading is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Reducing emissions will reduce the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and hence reduce the amount of warming. Reducing the amount of warming will, eventually contribute to reducing the amount of decrease of global glacial mass balance.

 

And what you're NOT failing to show us is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Are you trying to dump glacial mass balance, sea ice extent and continental snow cover all together? Why?

Let me try to explain things as simply as I can for you

Global glacial mass balance is decreasing. This is beyond doubt. Not every single glacier on the planet is retreating. Some are growing. But overall - globally - glacial mass balance is decreasing.

Arctic sea ice is decreasing. This again is beyond doubt. This is because the ocean surface is warming.

Antarctica is more complex because it is a continental land mass, but generally it can be seen that warming is causing snow cover and sea ice extent to INCREASE. Snow cover increases because warmer air results in more precipitation. More snow, more ice, more sea ice.


NB: You will excuse me if I don't bother providing sources at this time. It seems pointless because you won't read them anyway. However - if you doubt anything I have written - all you need do is ask and I will happily provide evidence for everything I have written above.

Sea levels have risen, mainly due to the thermal expansion of water.
You will need to be clear on what "melting" you are talking about if you want a more complete answer.

BTW:
You may like to take your own advice:

 

Could you explain why you think my answer is not sensible?

Let me repeat it for you:

Emissions trading is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.

Reducing emissions will reduce the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and hence reduce the amount of warming. Reducing the amount of warming will, eventually contribute to reducing the amount of decrease of global glacial mass balance.

We have an ETS. Not a tax. An ETS caps emissions. A tax doesn't.

We don't have a tax.

 

I have a confession to make. Having asked the question of wether a carbon tax will save the world from disaster, all I`ve received in reply, have been meaningless ramblings on semantics. Admittedly, it may look sadistic of me to purposefully leave the "tax" bait in the question, then to laugh at the feeble attempts at diversion, but it has demonstrated more of a willingness to engage in petty semantics, than to save the world, on the part of the dodgers.

This dodgy tactic speaks volumes on the agenda of the dodgers, it`s all about envy, and taking people`s money, not the environment.

 

You have asked how carbon pricing would impact upon global glacial mass balance.
You have been answered. Twice.

Her is the most recent response
http://www.politicalforum.com/1061058802-post30.html

What don't you understand about this answer?

 

lol, The whole dam point of carbon pricing is that carbon will have a... wait for it... carbon will have a... can you guess dumber? aussiefree2ride? Carbon will have a...? PRICE!

It won't go up "every year", it'll go up for 2 years, and then it'll be floated.

It's not like the 500 biggest polluters exist in a vacuum. As you pointed out, Gillard explained all this in a press release. Did you watch more than that 5 second sound byte? Read the policy? No... You simply choose to remain ignorant, and swallow the one liner BS from Tony Abbott.

So let me get this straight, Lib poster boy Johnnie Howard, PM for 11 years, takes an ETS with a fixed price period to the election. ALP takes up the same policy making it mostly a non-issue. Howard gets kicked out for work choices. Nelson and Turnbull keep Howards policy. Then the moron Tony Abbott takes over and throws it out for this "Direct Action" rubbish.

So... John Howard, Nelson and Turnbull are communists? Really? Wow. The govt who now has a more right wing policy than than the supposedly centre right party, are a bunch of communists? Wow.

Dumber wants to renationalise the power industry, renationalise the banking industry... Now... hang on a second... Who is left wing again?



Don't try and "educate me" on the legislation Dumber, I'm the one who's actually read it, not you.

 

Hey ziggy

Lets not stop there champ dont be silly.

We should also have a hydrogen tax as well, this will account for 95% of global warming which is called water vapour.

Now thats a tax that will fix all our AGW problems.

 

Sure thing man. You can pay it!

 

I dont get it your not willing to pay a hydrogen tax when water vapour causes 95% of global warming.

Yet you are willing to pay through the nose for a trace gas CO2 because it has risen from 270 ro 390ppm and is set to cause the temperature of the Earth to climb 0.6 degrees celcius by the end of the century.

And we have to pay one trillion dolars a year until 2100 on the markets so speculators and the money manipulaters can get filthy rich and what drop in temperature will all this effort have 0.06 degrees celsius.

Hey ziggy i'm starting an aeroplane game where at the end of it you can collect $8000 do you want to be my first pilot.

 

No bugs, epic fail.

 

lol, the water vapour argument, dear oh dear oh dear.

"Pay through the nose"? Yeah... right. ETS doesn't even come close to the GST in Revenue, about one fifth of it actually. Yet we seemed to all have survived that. One trillion dollars a year? WTF are you on about? lol.

 

You have been answered 3 times now. What don't you understand about the answer? Can you explain? Or are the smiley things the best you can manage?

Why do you ask questions if you do not want to hear answers?

 

Admit it bugs, the scam is all about money, not the environment.

 

You have been answered 3 times now. What don't you understand about the answer? Can you explain? Are you just trying to run away from your question now that you don't like the answer you were given? That is very childish isn't it?

Why do you ask questions if you do not want to hear answers?

 

You're relatively ignorant, as am i. We've been through this. Stop trying to bait me when you don't know what you're talking about.

You're a plant.

 

Bugs, all but the dullest intelects know that the carbon money grab will do nothing for the environment.

 

Not baiting just wanted to know what you dont exactly agree with in the video, because as far as i'm concerned ist the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If i'm a plant what does that make you?

 

And so say all of us (thas about 80% of Australians).

Thats why Gillard's labor government will be reduced to ashes at the next election.

 

You have been answered 3 times now. You still don't seem to be able to explain what you think is wrong with the answer.

Why do you ask questions if you do not want to hear answers?

 

They`re not answers bugs, they`re dreams.

 

You asked what impact the ETS would have on the observed decrease in global glacial mass balance.

You have been answered 3 times

Let me repeat it for you again:

Emissions trading is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.

Reducing emissions will reduce the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and hence reduce the amount of warming. Reducing the amount of warming will, eventually contribute to reducing the amount of decrease of global glacial mass balance.


What is "dreamlike" about this answer?
Why did you ask the question if you only run away from the answer?