The carbon tax explained

and exactly what qualifications do you think one needs in order to have an informed opinion?

 

It depends on the topic. We're talking about science here, not what flavour ice cream is best (lemon gelati with chocolate btw).

I would say you're relatively well informed, however, like everyone else, you discard facts that don't suit your pre-conceived gut bias. This is called "Confirmation Bias". Everyone has/does it to varying degrees. Because i'm aware of it, i have attempted to put aside my bias to believe that climate change is both real and the rapid changes are a result of human activity. I am aware that my distrust of humans ability to work within the limits of nature pre-conditions me to believe in anthropogenic climate change.

Before i realised how my views were formed, i used to argue the facts (there's a lot in the original post that i can show have been debunked) but i've realised that i'm often no more informed than the next laymen (including yourself probably). Arguing like that is pointless if i'm to be true to the science - because i'm simply not qualified to do so.

So, in absence of suitable qualifications, resources, time, experience, peer review and immersion in the field - i have chosen to defer to the considerable majority view. If that majority view changes, or proves to be incorrect i will 'swap sides' because i must defer to knowledge over my 'gut feeling'. No doubt i will be suspicious as to the change in majority opinion, but suspicion is no more fact than my opinion. I must be aware of that.

Recently, through reading, i have come to much better understand my gut and how it dominates early decision making through principals such as "the rule of thumb" and "experience (e.g. i've seen it, so my gut says it must be more likely - even when it isn't)" and how these things shape my earliest opinions about things.

In summary: You're informed, but you're biased and you're not qualified. As i said much earlier, when you become qualified and study the field and work with others to test your theories then you will carry more weight - even when you contradict. Most of the qualified climate scientists who disagree are not treated as outcasts as the media will have you believe - they are simply told they are wrong through the peer review process. Scientists are people too, and share the same confirmation bias - but this is where the scientific process works better than anything you or i can come up with; this is why it's science.

So have your opinion, but respect the fact that most qualified people do not share it and that they, being qualified (and numerous) are far more likely than you, with your lack of qualifications and meagre resources, to be right.

 

i don't accept that, sorry

where humans and money are involved, i'm much more likely to believe this:

"Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science."

MARTIN KEELEY, BBC News, Dec. 6, 2004

 

You didn't read, properly, what i wrote - did you? Did you even try a little critical analysis of the source of your views?

Of course the interests of coal, oil, gas and mining companies doesn't factor into their religious denial of anything that might disrupt their (when it suits them) free-market protestations? These corporations are used to controlling the energy supply of the world and profiting WILDLY from it, and they have no vested interest?

This isn't recent news, but:
http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacque...tive_Think_Tanks_and_Environmental_Scepticism (2nd page)

Needless to say, "conservative thinktanks" tend to be pro corporation, pro free-market - which by definition means anti-regulation and pro exploitation.

Heh, I'd like to know if you don't respect qualified views in every facet of your life or just this.

 

i certainly did

i certainly did

i respect all 'qualified views', however, i don't always treat them as the unquestionable truth

where money is involved, i'm always skeptical

 

So you would be extremely skeptical of green energy.....given the money involved?

 

i don't remember using the word 'extremely'

 

Oh so sorry....not extremely....only ALWAYS!!

LOL

 

now you are correct

'extremely' and 'always' are two completely different things

try to get it right next time

 

Oh nice blind turn.

Typical.

Hedge hedge, don't answer.

White flag.

Fail.

LOL

 

that was a clear answer from me; you need to keep up

your inabilty to comprehend the written word is your problem, not the forum's

however, seeing as you are at a disadvantage, i will make it crystal clear for you:

Oxy: "So you would be extremely skeptical of green energy.....given the money involved?"

Storm: no, i would not be extremely skeptical

Storm: yes, i would be skeptical (where humans stand to make big money out of something, i'm always skeptical of the information passed around as 'facts')

if this hasn't cleared things up for you, let me know; i'm here to help

 

No this is all you said.

Where money is involved you are ALWAYS skeptical.

 

yes!

at last, you've got it right

 

Thanks.

Good to hear you are rightly skeptical about the claims of climate change and green power, due to the amount of money involved.

 

does that mean we agree, or was that sarcasm?

 

Who knows?

Me, i struggle to listen to people that cry "big oil" whilst they ignore the money to be made by "big green".

 

cool, sounds like we do agree

there are greedy greenies too

 

His scepticism doesn't apply in reverse, or at least much less so.

Put simply he's a relative ignoramus, as are you and i on matter of climate change.

People who oppose the vast majority view, without a proper understanding of the science are people who have other reasons to be sceptical. His stated reason is the perception that money is the key driver of the pro camp of climate science. So that perception colours his view, without the apparent effort to apply any reason to the argument floating around his/her mind.

The non-renewable ("dirty") industry gets a much, much greater slice of government and private citizen's funds (purchasing dirty power and products made with dirty power) than does the 'green industries'. Regulation charging the dirty industry for the waste product will be met by resistance by all those people making big dollars. Their resistance, in part, funds sceptics (most of whom are not climate scientists) who are somehow less influenced by such funds than their pro counterparts whose funding mostly comes from world governments who (according to the sceptics) are resistant to implementing pollution taxes or markets (an often trotted out argument from the sceptic camp is that we shouldn't "lead the world" in this). Which means they believe that most countries are not wanting to implement a tax or trade system, in clear self-contradiction to their view that the pro scientists are part of a global government conspiracy to "force" regulation onto polluters.

So lets re-hash. MUCH More money is involved in dirty fuel than clean, and the corporations responsible fund much of the sceptic argument. Governments the world over are resistant to regulating the industry. And Stormy distrusts the pro camp more-so than the sceptic camp.

It is an utterly illogical frame of mind, yet that's where Stormy is and he/she is unable to see that they ARE ignorant views and much better reasons to disbelieve the bulk of people who are NOT ignorant is required. Right now, Stormy is merely delusional assuming that he/she has a justifiable and logical reason to deny the science it's due. If a justifiable and logical reason forStormy to be a sceptic exists, it has not been demonstrated.

 

Don't forget earth hour tonight...

Help save the world from man-bear-pig...

 

nice assumption, however, you are completely wrong (that's becoming a trend)

i have a very good understanding of the science and i have studied it extensively

my knowledge, together with my view on greed, has formed my overall opinion

my opinion may change in the future, as i am completely open minded

however, at the moment there is no conclusive proof that humans affect climate change. none whatsoever

don't make assumptions about how other people think - it just makes you look silly

thank you

 

i'm sure many people were sucked in to the 'hollow, feel-good action'

gullible fools

 

So what do you say to those who don't deny climate change, but feel that the actions being taken by governments to combat it are:

Authoritarian, Socialist, and utterly reprehensible to the idea that consumers should have the choice and freedom to purchase whatever they wish, no matter how a certain ideology feels about it?

Are you saying that the possibility of Global Warming is so dire, and it's effects so pernicious, that society has no choice but to sacrifice and suffer in order to prevent it? I don't believe that it's as bad as they say it is.

 

I'm not saying anything, the climate science is. If global warming is "so dire, and it's effects so pernicious" then i think some degree of "sacrifice and suffer[ing]" is rather a small impost - and logical and rational. Perhaps a few fat, lazy Aussies will have to settle for a small block V8 instead of a big one. Or perhaps a few selfish Aussies will have to put a jumper on instead of firing up the heater. Perhaps my neighbour will have to walk the 1km to the shop to buy his smokes instead of driving his gas-guzzler. Or maybe people will have to think before buying that useless iPad. Perhaps people will have to spend less money on alcohol or cigarettes.. *shrug* but i doubt it. They'll mostly just whinge.

For the poor (a very small percentage), I think you'll find that the inequities in society will have nothing to do with a carbon tax. There's inequity now, what we choose to do with other taxes (e.g. raise the threshold significantly) is entirely separate and possible. What's stopping it now? Not the carbon tax.

btw, I presume 'socialism' is an ideology while 'neo-classicial (so called) free-markets' (i.e. no or absolute minimal regulation) is not? There's regulation on all kinds of things. Our understanding of humanities is starting to trump the free-market ideology that people and markets behaving in "rational self-interest" is entirely rational.

 

Whatever. Believe whatever you like. You are not completely open minded, nor am i. You don't even understand that much. I'm not making assumptions about how other people think. I'm (again, and unlike you) deferring to science. The science tells me how people think.

Despite the challenge i put up, you haven't even tried to explain your illogical 'greed' perception, probably because you just got it from someone else and haven't actually interrogated the assumptions in it.

You can't communicate your own views without considerable contradictions, unless through this discussion you have in fact become slightly less convinced that humans are just by-standers.

As for conclusive proof, may i ask if there is conclusive proof that humans are not causing it? Or maybe you can point to a general agreement that it is "very likely" that humans are not causing it? You are not fence sitting on this matter - you are actively dismissive of the majority view. A view that says anthropogenic climate change is "very likey" - which in science jargon is VERY LIKELY indeed!

I think i'm done here. You don't actually challenge my comments except by saying asinine things like "nice assumption, however, you are completely wrong (that's becoming a trend)". I might come back if you or someone else provides a challenge.

 

Terrible article - let's start with the (lack of) qualifications of the author. This doesn't mean that you can't comment or have a valid opinion, just that if you don't live and breathe this science, it would be easy to miss important research and unlikely that they would attend key conferences or subscribe to relevant science journals. It just means that you are starting behind the eight ball and that you should be providing as many references as possible to support your claims!

Gregg D. Thompson of Brisbane, Australia is an amateur astronomer and the executive director of the Dreamtech Designs and Productions company.
(Awesome qualifications)

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2? (This one did have a reference!)

As indicated, if you didn't know this, then you can't be too 'up to date' on the research!

So it's a small percentage, so what - Carbon monoxide is a toxic gas and is Exposures at 100 parts per million (0.01%) or greater can be dangerous to human health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning

Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?

Well maybe you shouldn't be getting your info from the media! Hopefully people who claim to know about the topic will know this amount, because they read so much relevant science.

Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?

No reference for their figure - and not mention of the science that claims that all of the increase in the past few hundred years is manmade. From 290 parts per million to 380 parts per million! According to scientists we are responsible for 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere! This is the figure that matters!

In fact the figure should be higher, but the oceans and plants/trees have been soaking it up for us (although we keep cutting down trees and oceans get more acidic because of it!)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

This site has journal references, if you have access and are inclined!

Here are some other references (more quotes from experts) as used in the Mediawatch segment on this past Monday! It is regrettable only one gave a reference, but if you are really interested, you could email them!

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1107_englandco2.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1107_ashleyco2.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1107_sherwoodco2.pdf

The above figure may indeed be correct, but misleading, as Professor Ashley Points out!

> We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is! <

I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion - were people grossly misled on CO2 composition of the atmosphere - or were they just bad guesses and not knowledgable about the topic?

> Why has such important information been withheld from the public? <

People not being aware of the information isn't the same as it being withheld!

>If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories.<

I'll take you back to the start of your essay - "the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate."

> Governments and Green groups would not be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be getting large research grants. <

I'm not sure how conspiracy theories go to proving your point. Are you also asking if those companies that have the most to lose may also have an agenda?
Re scientists not getting large grants - one famous scientist - the late Stephen Schneider - said the bet eway for scientists to get big grants is to say they are not sure about global warming and need to do more research - not that their is a consensus!

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/302#webextra (this is an amazing resource - having lots of common questions answered if you have a spare hour to watch it - Climate Sceptics have their questions answered!)