When did mothers start to think that they have some special licence on wisdom and knowledge. This is clearly the case when it comes to our Cate.
It’s what I’m passionate about as a mother. That’s where it gets me in the gut. I can’t look my children in the face if I’m not trying to do something in my small way and to urge other people.
Note to Cate: you are not the only mother in town.
But don’t worry, Cate, because our Ross doesn’t seem to think women count in any case. He is quoted as saying:
When you next hear someone say that he is worried (women are never worried, I guess) that Australia might get ahead of the rest of the world in reducing green house gass, take him by the hand and reassure him that he has no reason to fear.
(Ross might argue that he was taught to express such ideas this way at Perth Modern – believe me, the world has moved on on this one.)
Hey, maybe the person taking him by the hand is a mother? It all makes sense, now.
They are? Love to see those links.
I’ve provided them.
do you reckon about a thousand a year would be published substantiating climate science? Or would it be more than that?
I doubt there are even fifty papers published over the last thirty years that in some significant measure substantiate that the warming over the last century is principally the result of GHGs. That it has had some effect I do not dispute.
There is no ‘market’ for carbon dioxide.
Sorry. Try again.
haahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha
Breath
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhaahhahahaha
“Hi Alan.. I’m Metromick.. I have to say that as a conservative I have begun to support the Greens, as I think they are closer to my way of thinking.”
Yes this is how this site works:
D-d – there is no moral argument, I’ve never seen or heard of one!
Me – yes there is, look here, in Garnaut’s review.
D-d – you call that a moral argument!? That’s absurd!
Gab – prove to me with real honest to goodness facts that AGW is real
Me – why don’t you read this summary, and this one too, of some of the key findings that confirm the reality of AGW at Skeptical Science.
Gab – Facts!? Those aren’t facts that convince me.
Why do you bother inviting arguments and “facts” that we all know you have already rejected?
Poor deluded boy. There is a site devoted to publishing the abstracts of every peer-reviewed climate science related paper ever published. Here is the index for those papers. Just the index, which is a list of the headings under which the actual papers are grouped. Check it out, there are at least a hundred subject areas containing must be thousands of papers in total.
Now, you were saying, you had some peer-reviewed papers published by denialists in leading journals … do some them to us, please. Oh, and don’t follow the resident hippy’s example of linking to out of date magazine articles about “cooling”.
Well you know, Steve, if you don’t like the site as you appear not to, you could always go away and next time not come back.
You realize that’s an option to you, right?
Quite a good summary.
A wordpress blog is the ultimate authority on climate change?
Who compiled it?
So he’s excluding all academic material he doesn’t like.
A true warmenist, and his hobbies include “guitar & bass playing.”
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/about/
Poor deluded boy. There is a site devoted to publishing the abstracts of every peer-reviewed climate science related paper ever published. Here is the index for those papers.
And you imagine that each of those papers substantiates the claim that the warming over the last century is principally the result of GHGs?
Thanks for that site, BTW.
A link to the SS blog ahahahahaha
Am still waiting for your evidence-based facts, Steve.
You also have the option of not being an obnoxious, shouting, swearing bully boy who tries to chase away other opinions (and corrections of false claims) off this (allegedly) centre right blog, JC, but it’s not one you chose to take.
The site’s author lives in Espoo.
The Es is for ‘scientific.’
A
A substantial number at least. But what you seem to miss is the fact that climate science and the evidence for AGW is much broader than a mere focus on GHGs. The science is so sound, so complete, because it draws on so many disciplines.
Now, you were saying, you had some peer-reviewed papers published by denialists in leading journals – do show them to us, please. In fact, you even said you had the links, had already linked to them in fact. So, evidence please … talk is cheap, especially talk from anti-science cranks.
Steve
Yes of course I have that option, but the difference is that I don’t whine about this site like you do every day.
Oh Please I don’t chase lefties away. I do my best to make them cry as it’s fun.
Now as I said, if you find yourself always complaining about the site and the participants it would be a good idea if you went away.
I thought Chris Landsea, Dick Lindzen and Cristie were all part of the IPCC process, Metro. Were they not?
Was George Bush?
Looks like db has got exactly the same number of peer-reviewed denialist papers in leading journals as CL has science academies and the like supporting his weird belief (based on something he once read at the dentists) that there was a ’70 scientific “cooling consensus”.
Guess when you are an irrational, anti-science crank you have to resort to making stuff up. What else is there when fact, evidence, science and world opinion is against you. If only everyone could drink CLs bong water and follow his magic crytal, everyone could see the world in that special way that he does.
A substantial number at least.
Maybe you could point out at least fifty seeing as you’re so familiar with them.
But what you seem to miss is the fact that climate science and the evidence for AGW is much broader than a mere focus on GHGs.
Yes, obviously the science and the evidence is broader than the principal thesis of AGW. I understand that perfectly.
The science is so sound, so complete, because it draws on so many disciplines.
If it were so sound and so complete it wouldn’t be a continuing research program.
Metro
You’ve certainly moved up in the world. In he old days you would send us to the Guardian as a reference link. But you now seem to have graduated to pee reviewed articles.
I’m impressed. No kidding.
Between you and steve, who I consider the only legitimate conservatives here… having him link to site like realbeta.org and having you reference pee reviewed articles.. I reckon you have a lock in winning all the argument by force of intellect.
This is a very impressive learning “curb” you’ve traveled, Metro. ( the fridge please)
In fact, you even said you had the links, had already linked to them in fact. So, evidence please … talk is cheap, especially talk from anti-science cranks.
I’ve given them above. I’m not going to provide them a second time.
You cranks really do not get the scientific method at all, do you? It never rests, it never stops, it checks, re-checks, argues, disagrees, tosses out the old, adds the new, researchs and argues some more. That is the whole basis for life in the West as we know it. Science, facts, evidence and reason. The Enlightenment. And then a bunch of cranks claiming to be conservatives, like you and CL, try to blow the whole thing up. Nutters.
Now, you were saying, you had some peer-reviewed papers published by denialists in leading journals – do show them to us, please. In fact, you even said you had the links, had already linked to them in fact. So, evidence please … talk is cheap, especially talk from anti-science cranks.
DB
Careful now as metro only does pee reviewed science now.
Iggy, I won.
The End.
Then give us the link to where you linked to them. Either that or cop on the chin the charge that you are not just an anti-science crank, but a liar to boot.
Metro
CL says you lost. Do you concede finally?
Son of the Enlightenment.
CL also says there was a scientific cooling consensus in the ’70s based on something he read at the dentists. Why would anyone believe anything this anti-science, crystal wearing, bong water drinking loon has to say. Of course, you should feel free if that is what you are into.
Metro:
Do you still have that ear ring embedded in the left ear? Is is a diamond?
Has the bass player from Espoo got any pee reviewed science about Gaia becoming physically manifest?
heh. Anagram of Ignatius Reilly = Ritualise Lying.
Climate science 101.
I think you’re projecting, Metro. The example of someone wearing a crystal is you in your ear, you boofhead. A diamond no less.
I think you’ve lost the argument here, Metro and as a gentleman conservative you need to acknowledge this and move on. It’s the right thing to do.
So do you read journal articles IR?
But you didn’t answer the original question. Where’s the evidence?
Acronym of global warming: Gaga Brown Mill.
Also known as the Climate Change Commission.
Garble Lie is back. I mean, Gabrille.
Woops..Gabrielle
The brains trust is out in full today. Noticably talking about anything other than reality-based science. Just wondering, has anyone ever seen CL and JC in the same room? They both do a remarkably similar maddie shtick, waving their hands, yelling obscure phrases and names. But science .. umm, not so much. And db has no peer-reviewed denialist papers, CL has no cooling consensus papers … just weirdo conspiracies and wishful thinking. Conservatism and the centre-right is not what it used to be since the populists took over.
Of course he does, Dot. My Metro is a freaking wonderkid. Not a wonderkind but a wonderkid. Metro can read the most numerate filled pee reviewed articles going and he knows exactly what they are about. The diamond earring ring gives hims special learning powers.
Metro, the evidence please. Bu after to turn off the freaking fridge.
“reality-based science”
It’s how CL copes with losing…
Quite true, and I blame Tony Abbott.
Metro, stop being an idiot all the time please. For a start, CL like full figured gals and I prefer my off the bone.
Of course we’re different people.
He also makes far , far less typos than I do.
You’re such a moron. Nothing has changed over the past few years.
But of course. At least Metro is far more discerning, Steve. He blames George Bush.
What do Williams and Flannery have to do with the science of climate change … the actual, out in the field research of climate change. Nothing. And what do their views as expressed in the popular press have to do with climate science? Nothing. What do they have to do with CLs loopy claim about a 70s cooling consensus? Nothing. (As an aside, I thought CL had declared “The End” sometime back. Not only does he ignore reason, facts and science, seems he doesn’t even take any notice of himself. Which, as it happens, is arguably the most sensible decision he has ever taken. Pity he wouldn’t ignore himself on the subject of climate change. Like everyone else does.)
It would be interesting if the end times were about a real life Gaia and the returned Son of God having to have a Transformer’s like brawl for the souls on Earth.
Not much except The Flannery is the nation’s top gun glimate science commish now and Williams is the ABC’s science crack reporter, who suggested we could see 100 meter sea level rise.
The Flannery has been far more conservative though, as he at least predicted only an 8 storey building rise, but he ruined that by suggesting our cities were going to run out of water.
The Flannery has also a lot less hair and kind of pudgy, whereas Williams isn’t.
I find it hard therefore to figure out which of the two clowns is funnier.
A peacenik Bodhisattva could turn up and try to get them to stop, only to have them both punch her out.
Steve, honest question. Are you seeing anyone that helps with that sort of thing now.
Now I just have to work the 12th Imam into it somehow…
actual, out in the field research of climate change:
the Met’s principle research scientist John Mitchell told us:
“People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/13/downing_cambridge_climate_conference/
just weirdo conspiracies and wishful thinking.
Sounds just like Climate Science: Communications
Ah no, Myrddin, a link to a internet based site containing some hack’s somewhat dubious report on what one scientist may (or may not) have said in a debate is not actual, out in the field research of climate change. Can it really be that science is so poorly understood here? Can it be that a good few centuries after it got going the Enlightenment has had no impact on the likes of Myrddin, CL, db, JC? Or is Catallaxy the place where reason, science and (in this case) the free market have come to die a death every bit as grisly as anything seen in an Indonesian abbatoir?
You would think a centre-right site would champion science and the free market. Instead, most commenters here laud that man Abbott who has done more to destroy both in his political betrayal of them than anyone in the entire history of the Liberal Party. Weird. You have lost your ideological compass and are following the cranks into la-la land. Worst of all, you leave those post-Romantics, The Greens, holding the intellectual and political high ground. It will take conservatism a long time to recover from the train wreck that is coming IF Labor can safely land a carbon tax. That is why Abbott is so frantic. He either kills this thing. Or gets killed. No wonder he is begging the miners to help. Because every day he looks more and more like a politically desperate dead man walking.
Thanks MS
That was a great summary of the arguments presented by people on each side. In fact it was the most interesting short discourse I’ve read in a while.
As an aside the dude that organized it… I used to work in the same firm as he did and he’s a really smart guy.
It seems the scientist that the introduced the issue of clouding and the latest experiments at CERN was the most interesting of the lot…
Wow , I hadn’t read his theory before that the pacific oscillation may have something to do with the warming tread after all.
It would be really good to get a vid of the day.
“…following the cranks into la-la land…”
MS
CERN seems to be a really serious place where science is done. I’m getting the impression over time that it’s becoming the most inluential big science organization in the world.
JC
Not only serious science, but we didn’t all disappear into a black hole when they turned the thing on !
Good day at the office
Can CL be arrested for wasting pixels? Or maybe I just send Konsei-sama to wreck vengeance on him.
MS
I know, I gotta admit that at the back of mind I thought that if I wasn’t around the following day it was mostly CERN’s fault and that I’d dropped in a black hole they managed to create.
RE CERN
It seems to me that they are the least politicized of the lot when it comes to big science.
This dude seems really impressive. I hope he’s right
Anyone know if there is any counter to this dude’s theory. Not interested in what any teamster has to say though, so there would be no use linking to it.
Here’s an interesting historical footnote that mentions the cycles too and that has just popped back up:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/1979-before-the-hockey-team-destroyed-climate-science/
What a maroon.
Steve.
Fuck off.
There’s a good reason. The lot of them can be best described as reliably dishonest and poisonous to the entire debate.
If you don’t like my opinion then fuck off… (but I said that didn’t i)
Sometimes, JC, I wish you wouldn’t beat up on Steve.
Only because he enjoys it.
Honestly MS
I hope those scientists in that last link are very very wrong and out of the two (cooling and warming) we have warming because if any bit of their projection comes true we’re serious, seriously fucked.
Is Skeptical Science on your “banned” list, JC? Because if not, they have a recent summary of a paper that argues cosmic rays don’t contribute much to global warming.
JC
Yup
Cold cycle is dry = droughts in parts.
Cold means a retreat of northern hemisphere grain growing areas = food shortages
Cold means windmills generally don’t turn – lot of people going to be squeezed on ‘lectricity right when they need it most.
Cold will be a bitch.
This just in:
Who would have thought a ‘market’ in carbon dioxide would turn into an hilarious debacle?
That’s dreadful. Think of the poor carbon farmers.
How ever will we decarbonise the economy now?
Steve, your intellect is wasted here, you’re needed at the Lavatory
Yep steve, Sorry. That site isn’t worth bothering with as it’s just a mini-me of the realbeta propaganda site.
Now let me ask you a question. Your site suggests cosmic rays are much to worry about. Why is that correct and the other theory wrong? How do you know? Is there a rejoinder from Henrik Svensmark? If not why not?
That’s easy, Gab.
Renew balls. Base-load briquettes and emissions-free, they’re as yet uninvented but their adoption is common sense really.
Uninvented? Not true.
Here’s the prototype.
I think the dope has given CL a bad case of late on-set Touettes. It manifests in this strange vocal tic where he keeps yelling “Williams … Flannery”. Either that or his mind is totally owned by that pair. Which does nothing to prove his failed claim about a “cooling consensus”, nor elevate him out of crank status with his anti-science ravings on climate change. Tragic really.
Not nearly so tragic as that gross populist Abbott trashing his conservative and Enlightenment heritage and everything the Liberal Party has ever stood for with his statist approach to dealing with what he describes as “absolute crap”. Being a good Catholic I wonder if he has ever pondered the meaning of the saying: What would it profit a man if he won the whole world but lost his soul. Which is exactly what this walking political zombie has done. With the full support of this “centre-right” site.
CL
It’s actually not a bad thing to have those markets around as we can see just how much the government here is ripping us off by.
Carbon credits last time I looked were trading at 1.70 cents a ton.
These thieving dickheads want to hit us with A$26 bucks a ton.
I don’t know why journalists and the useless liberal party aren’t making any noise about this.
Barneby Joyce
If you’re reading this go here… It’s the US carbon credit market..
Various contracts are trading at 1.70 per ton and this government wants to hit us with almost $US 28 bucks per ton. 16.50 times more!
Why aren’t you attacking them about the rip off.
Politicians are there to do policy. Abbott opposes a carbon tax. So what? You’ve pointedly refused to defend the carbon tax, so why do you care about his position on it?
I think readers can make up their own minds about who has the tic, Iggster. Let me abridge your contributions so far:
Steve now has some serious competition in the CL stakes.
Do pay attention daddy. My complaint with Abbott is two-fold, neither to do with your carbon tax fixation. First, he is an anti-science ratbag on the issue of climate change. Second, in his political response to it, he trashes the role of free-markets and adopts a controlled economy approach. He therefore betrays everything that a genuine conservative leader ought to hold dear. He is the shallowist political leader in this country’s history (not including the likes of Hanson). And IF Labor can safely deliver a price on carbon, he is dead politically. In which case his defeat will be complete and ignominious. And deservedly so.
Metro
However you were singing the praises of the Greens only a few hours ago telling us they were you guiding light or your enlightenment, as you referred to Bob and Tubbsie’s party.
So how can you be upset if Abbott isn’t free market?
You
re confusing us here with your positions.
Perhaps you think the Greens are the free market party in Australia. Is that it?
Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar, Ig.
What have you got, a TAFE certificate in sewing?
“…free-markets…”
The “free market” came up with a carbon dioxide business, did it, Iggy?
Ahahahahahaha.
On the question of a response to the science of climate change, The Greens are the free market party. And the Liberals are the controlled economy interventionists. Strange days. Abbott at work. Australia’s shallowist and shonkiest ever national leader. A disgrace to everything he is meant to stand for. On this question, he betrays the leadership and direction offered by his “mother church”. He stands for nothing and betrays everything and anything that gets in the way of “my precious, my precious”. Sick bastard deserves what is coming.
Ah, the depth of the enquiring minds of Catallaxy on display again. And to think, you’re one of the “believers” here, JC!
Sweet fuckin’ Jesus.
Loopy stuff.
Betrays all that stand for as well. There is nothing this shallow, vacuous opportunist will not betray: science, reason, the free market, conservative orthodoxy, Liberal Party tradition, the leadership of his church … any and all are fair game. He is a political grub. If Labor can introduce a price on carbon, does anyone think any of the battlers he might have seduced with this fear campaign will vote for him knowing he will take their tax cuts away. Political dead man walking.
Do pay attention daddy. My complaint with Abbott is two-fold, neither to do with your carbon tax fixation. First, he is an anti-science ratbag on the issue of climate change. Second, in his political response to it, he trashes the role of free-markets and adopts a controlled economy approach. He therefore betrays everything that a genuine conservative leader ought to hold dear. He is the shallowist political leader in this country’s history (not including the likes of Hanson). And IF Labor can safely deliver a price on carbon, he is dead politically. In which case his defeat will be complete and ignominious. And deservedly so.
I think Abbott is playing a very dangerous game. Let’s say the Carbon Tax is dropped. Then people will start to look at the coalition plan. It is a crock. The choices we have is an effectual tax and a token coalition policy that has no legs. So when the public then looks to the coalition for a policy what they will find is something as dumb as the Carbon Tax.
Hey DOT and JC, would appreciate your opinion …
Fact is most current global initiatives are going to have a negligible impact on carbon emissions. What people don’t seem to understand is that irrespective of the ambiguity inherent in the models the idea that we can just keep pouring GHG’s into the environment doesn’t make sense. We can’t keep doing that.
Forget the initiatives, most of those are far too little far too late. Let’s just have a “carbon cost” on every consumer item. Not a tax but a numerical value for the average amount of GHGs required to produce each product. Then the people can decide whether or not to purchase this or that. If the people want to move to a low carbon economy they can reflect that desire not in votes but in purchasing. Now this will do little to address carbon emissions in the short term but as things unfold, and if those things increasingly indicate we have to deal with GHGs, then Joe and Jane Public can do something about it. It is the most democratic and market based approach I can think of. There will still need to be lots of research into various technologies to address the GHG challenge but many of those of research endeavours are already well underway and some are very promising. There are plenty of potential “get rich quick” opportunities lurking therein.
Lol
Metro has gone troppo.
Metro, have you suffered a fractured skull?
Bob and Tubbsie would literally kick you to death if they heard you calling them a free market party, you illiterate numskull.
(Go turn off the the fucking fridge like I asked you too earlier. Now go as you’re no use to us here)
The choices we have is an effectual tax
INeffectual!!!
Um, so are the rest. He’ll screw us with a Machiavellian plan and Pilbersek would screw us by her ineptness.
Excellent point. But I think it’s to convince worry warts and sceptics who need to convince the worry warts with a coded rejection of the tax/ETS.
That’s not a bad idea John H. The thing is carbon accounting is actually very tricky.
Thanks DOT. I appreciate the problem in accounting and that applies to every plan to address this. It doesn’t have to be dead accurate, just enough so consumers can discriminate carbon cost and make their choices.
I agree with you on that, John. However, compared to Labor’s solutions, it’s cheap. So it’s a cheap crock, which in Australian politics, seems to be the best you can hope for in a policy. Be thankful for small mercies.
John H – no, I think you’re totally wrong. I think that, for most people, carbon output and reducing carbon footprints is a complete non-issue. Tax, on the other hand, is a huge issue. Carbon is just a vector. Tax is the virus. The carbon tax is controversial and wildly unpopular because of the “big fat new tax on everything” aspect. Which is pretty much what it is.
Now, the coalition could have a completely shit “token” policy on carbon, but as long as it’s not threatening tens of thousands (or more, if the Greens have their way) of jobs, as well as industries that are the lifeblood of our economy and prosperous livelihoods (ditto), or looking like it’s going to rise the price of just about everything, the average punter won’t give a crap about the coalition’s carbon policy.
Repeat after me: CARBON IS NOT AN ISSUE for ordinary folk. New taxes are. Net tax increases are. Price rises are. That’s the carbon tax.
The end.
John H – everyone here agrees the coalition plan will do diddly squat to drop emissions.
It is, however, as daddy dave puts it, a cheap crock, and that alone puts it miles ahead of the ALP and Green plans.
I should add that the vast majority of the people who might fret about sooner ritually disembowel themselves with a blunt spoon than pull the lever for Tony Abbott and his mob. Abbott has absolutely nothing to lose by having a half-baked carbon policy. If his fiscal, immigration (like it or not, this is an issue) and (increasingly) IR policies are sound, he’ll be a shoo-in.
Shit! PIMF. That should say
I should add that the vast majority of the people who might fret about a party’s carbon policy would sooner
god I can’t even use push button formatting correctly
It’s actually not a cheap crock. Some of it is quite interesting such as bidding for offsets, buying offsets overseas if the opportunity arises and reforestation.
Some of it is just picking the low fruit. But that’s okay too as we get to find out if the rest of the world moves or not over the next decade.
It’s a holding pattern plan primarily to buy time and see what’s happening.
Barrie Cassidy, that popular commentator around here, has a new article out at the Drum, in which he notes:
I think this is right, and there may well be tensions within the Coalition during 2012 as to whether dismantling it is really practically viable. I think they may be forced to keep it, with some modifications, but not wind it back.
Oh well I guess it’s a bet steve.
ask old leather face to go and take a bet as the Libs are way ahead of the ALP in the betting market.
2.70 labor 37% chance
1.45 libs
Old leather face is a sporting man, so he should be laying out the mullah.
Ask him to prove his bet too.
http://centrebet.com/cust?action=GoSports&lang_choice=au
Nope. IT will be wound back. those who have been told are getting more than they paid in are ALP’s constituency. Others that receive compensation get money will be net zeroed. Other get nothing.
Those zeroed out compers see it as a churn. Those getting will be pissed.
there’s also the perceived damage it will do to the economy too and the possibility that some of the plants will end up broke.
And don’t forget the lie.
In any event it will take another poll before the ALP backbenchers start to call meet and conspire to get rid of her.
Most of the “compensation” for the tax will be in the form of spending, and concessions to companies. Given how inefficient they are with spending (eg, a few hundres dollars for a STB,) this will easy to stop, and concessions to companies won’t be needed either.
Removing handouts to people might be harder, but the problem for labor, is that it costs them more than $1 to give $1 away. So easily a net gain there in budget terms, which allows them to keep some of the tax cuts.
Repeat it as often as you like but that won’t make it true. Every poll taken on the issue for years now shows majority support for action on climate change … so, IF Labor can deliver on that, and put extra money into punters pockets with compensation (likely to err on the side of generosity. And when the economic sky does not fall in … in that climate Abbott the venal opportunistic back-slider says he will go to an election promising to do away with the compensation (if he is not lying, that means cutting taxes and pensions) and do away with the carbon price scheme which by then is delivering a painless feel-good way to “do something” about climate change.
Remember, this is all supposed to happen two years down the track, by which time there will be even greater evidence of climate change and increasing international action (to a greater or lesser extent). Abbott reckons he will win by ripping out a complicated scheme that people have just gotten used to, that business has adjusted to. He will look like a mad, crazed wrecker. Which he is, but that is another story. This political grub has had more positions on climate change than CL has had bucket bongs and crystal healings. Abbott is a hostage to destiny .. his only hope is to kill this thing before it gets off the ground. Exciting political times.
Naish sez:
But from the Spencer Street Soviet:
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/more-oppose-than-support-carbon-tax-poll-20110504-1e75u.html
Every poll taken on the issue for years now shows majority support for action on climate change …
It certainly is looking like an election winner. I hope Labour sticks with it to the end. They also need to keep reminding people there’s no point in having a tax that isn’t going to hurt. As Gaia says “pain will cleanse your enviro-sin”.
We all know the truth dot, where’s the fun in that? I say we stick with the illusion for more fun all round.
Not just scientifically illiterate, but illiterate full stop. I said “Every poll taken on the issue for years now shows majority support for action on climate change”, which they do. See any mention in there of a carbon tax? Nope. So why bang on about the carbon tax. Action on climate change
=a carbon tax for polling purposes. The facts are a majority have concerns about climate change and want action … it’s what form the action might take that worries them. But IF a scheme is successfully bedded down by the next election, that takes the worry away. Then the Mad Monk is going to come along promised the rip the whole scheme up, tax cuts and all, a replace it with state intervention and central control. Yeah right. Love to watch the slimy opportunist sell that lot.Should read: Action on climate change does not equal a carbon tax for polling purposes.
Okay Ignatius, I’m convinced. I believe, praise be to Gaia. I’m on the CC bandwagon from here on in. And why not? That’s where all the money is.
“They also need to keep reminding people there’s no point in having a tax that isn’t going to hurt”
This seems to be a common fundamental error, one propagated everywhere I look. It is entirely possible for every cent paid in CO2 tax to be returned in tax cuts elsewhere. That means if people don’t change their behaviour at all, they will end up no worse off. But how stupid would they have to be to do that, when they can make themselves better off by avoiding the CO2 tax by changing their behaviour?
It is a great pity that Labor, with the bad advice from the Greens and Independents, will insist on mostly “returning” the money via spending. That is a terrible mistake, but I can’t see any way it can be stopped.
I completely agree. But Labor and the Greens want to introduce a carbon tax. Not, (say) iron seeding or replacing all coal plants with nuke plants. That’s the policy on the table. Can you see why it’s the focus of discussion?
Then give us the link to where you linked to them. Either that or cop on the chin the charge that you are not just an anti-science crank, but a liar to boot.
There you go you lazy sod.
Sure, but I don’t understand why it makes them illiterate (scientifically, economically and politically, as well as literally), obsessive and turns them into science cranks. And do bear in mind, the carbon tax is (apparently since we don’t know anything for sure yet) part of the transition to an ETS. I only hope Abbott is still leading at the next election to cop the drubbing he deserves. Then I hope all the mad hatters and science cranks will be driven out of the Liberal Party and it can return to being a party based on reason, science and free markets. For the health of our polity, for the health of conservatism – Abbott must be destroyed.
Naish,
You are being a sucker. People’s stated and revealed preferences are different.
But how stupid would they have to be to do that, when they can make themselves better off by avoiding the CO2 tax by changing their behaviour?
Assuming something vaguely approaching full substitution can be achieved. It can’t even nearly come close without major upheaval such as physically restructuring how people live, not to mention restructuring their life expectations. Then even if you’ve endured the pain of this restructuring it can’t do it completely, probably not even nearly close.
You break the three golden rules of social engineering: the grass isn’t necessarily greener on the other side, if people wanted a different style of life they’d be doing it now, and there’s no free lunch.
Fuck me you’re an idiot.
Seems someone claims to be able to divine the collective unconscious of the great bulk of the Australian people. Tarot cards or ouija board You been sucking on CLs party bong too? What is it with the sknaky hippies around here. So even though over a long-term there is majority support for (theoretical action on climate change), even though The Greens vote keeps going up, even though local government is always doing more green stuff, even though solar sales are through the roof, even though businesses are forever putting a greenwash over their activities … some illiterate tosser comes along and claims to know that the majority of Australian people do not actually support action on climate change. Must to a complete mystery to the likes of you why a sceptic like Howard took an ETS policy to the 07 election. Go figure. You are a silly, silly boy.
Ignatius on Abbott:
Ignatius, do you have a relative by the name of Jared Lee Loughner? Just want to check…
People’s stated and revealed preferences are different. You ignore reality and then have the gall to call others economic cranks.
The ETS will do bugger all for the ecology of our planet and cost us dearly.
You pompous dickhead. It’s called the median voter.
It is firstly “so sound and so complete” then secondly it “never rests, it never stops, it checks, re-checks, argues, disagrees, tosses out the old, adds the new, researchs and argues some more”. Quite incredible.
Wanker. It’s called knowing which way the political wind is blowing. People want action on climate change. Seems they are going to get it. They will barely notice it, and many will be over-compensated. Voters pay on delivery and they also reward political courage. So, after the scheme has been in long enough for it to have settled in, been adjusted to … Abbott reckons he can win an election promising to rip that up and replace it with Soviet style economic interventionism. Abbott is a disgrace to conservatism. Abbott must be destroyed.
dover thinking aloud as he struggles to come to terms with the scientific method. I blame the education system for failing to pass on the towering achievments of the Enlightenment. Unless dover struggled to learn his lessons. Possible. Abbott must be destroyed.
You sound like you’re assuring yourself.
No they don’t. Not really. American surveys now show warmenism at the bottom of Americans’ concerns. In Australia, 60 percent of people oppose a religiously motivated tax on carbon dioxide.
Would that be politicians sitting around deciding the ‘price’ for the carbon ‘market’?
People more educated than you (who know what the median voter is and can explain how it influences elections) are wankers? Why are you so pro science then? Obviously you’re pro wanker. Do you vote in your own interests?
They don’t want the ETS.
Sure, and Kim Ill Carr’s industry policy is nothing like that…
No they don’t. They slaughtered Paul Keating in 1996.
naish – how do the CGM models backtest?
Abbott must be destroyed.
We finally get to the nub of this argument.
Fresh from his colonic irrigation and with his chakras perfectly balanced, the great (failed) cooling crank CL suddenly, and for no obvious reason, starts talking about polls in America and polls on a carbon tax. For no obvious reason. Fact is, the majority of Australians support action on climate change, as Howard well knew. IF they get it, they won’t vote to rip it up, give up the compo and the painless feel good factor and replace it with Soviet style interventionism, courtesy of Tony Abbott (now holding firm to his 10th policy position on pricing carbon). Abbott is a shallow opportunist, a disgrace to conservatism. Abbott must be destroyed.
To destroy Abbot, we must have a poorly designed and costly ETS which won’t actually reduce the raw carbon dioxide output of Australia…
Can you explain how this works?
I’m thinking Iggy is in the employ of Green Labor to spread disnformation about Abbott, in particular.
Ignatius, CL already has the franchise at this blog for using violence tinged, hyperbolic and intensely competitive terminology where ever possible in political debate (or any debate, really).
Worked on a lot of political campaigns. Never heard any of the hard heads talk about “the median voter”. They leave that to pseudo-intellectual wankers. They concentrate on finding out which way the political wind is blowing … talking to people, checking polls, sensing the mood. As Howard did when he supported an ETS. And people with a good political antenna know that Keating didn’t lose because of his political courage .. he lost because he was arrogant and out of touch. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you are always the smartest boy in the room dot … you then show want a wanker you are by showing off trying to prove it true.
It is with breath taking arrogance that you call other people economic cranks.
Ignatius:
me too.
That’s because they’re interested in getting the vote, not what the consequences are. Most likely you are uneducated as well.
Wrong. I’m an academic.
Previously you said voters reward leadership.
No I said Australian voters don’t reward courage.
Um yes I’m sure he was as humble as honest John Howard before he beat John Hewson.
But that’s what I said. A pseudo-intellectual wanker.
What a load of cobblers. Intellectuals are pseudo academics. Being an academic is a real job.
fool. It is one the the iron-clad rules of political life. That is not to say that it is enough on its own, or will get you through no matter what the circumstances. But there is a reward for it out there, as the political wise-heads know. And political history shows.
Know what a distinction without a difference is, dot? That’s what you are chasing. Wanker.
Um okay, then why did you say:
Gibberish. I’m an academic. Now you’re saying the logical corollary is that all acadmics are pseudo academics.
Get an education.
No, that is not what I said, that is not it at all. Go back and read through. Try real hard. Focus on the words. If all else fails, get a grown up to explain it to you.
My God. Hoist by own pretard.
It’s amazing that someone that takes pride in the lack of their education or its mediocrity at the same time boasts about their intellectual superiority.
The results are unsurprising, to say the least.
OMG
Another glimate change tragic. Iggie Pap (metro)
What is happening to this country. They’re everywhere.
It’s important to remember that hardly anybody cares. Carbon ‘trading’ is in ruins, Kyoto is finished, the American public couldn’t give a crap, the Chinese are building coal-fired power stations every other week and 60 percent of Australians oppose Green Labor’s carbon dioxide tax. Meanwhile, the Hockey Stick debacle and the ClimateGate scandal have torpedoed the scientistic pretentions of nutballs like Tim Flannery and James Hansen.
Sorry, warmies. It’s all over.
Iggie
You say you worked on a lot of political campaigns , which means you listened to what politicians say, right?
Did you ever bother to listen to what Howard actually said about an ETS, IG? Ummm
What Howard said was that he agreed with an ETS in principle, however he always had one big caveat and that was Copenhagen had to go through and be agreed to by all the big players. So under Howard’s terms there would be no ETS or carbin tax. If he decide there would be, it would be pwicing carbin at around .35 cents a ton.
I don’t believe you ever worked on any campaign and that you’re really Metro (Wayne) who in the first week he appeared, here attacking SL, spun the line that he was a Walkley Award winner. If I somehow find out that it’s you Metro, you realize that you’re heading straight to the carban slave jail which is 100 times worse than Abu Gharib.
You know how they dunked people in water there. Well in the carbon slave market you’ll be drinking all of it…. a bath tub full by the hour and there won;t be any herman right lawyer trying to get you out.
You boofhead metro.
Iggie says
Dude , you better be a little careful saying things like that. The fed policy don’t like people making those sorts of comments without them investigating who said it.
yes, my initial are now in blue as I have the pic of my runaway carbin slave up. Metro.
oops
Should proof read.
Fed police
I wish you’d keep your carbin slave under control, JC.
He’s made some very curious comments regarding Abbott. Almost bordering on threats..
yea I know Gab. I saw it. Not bordering, they really do appear to be outright threats.
Metro is out of control again. The boofhead.
You weren’t here for his SL and George Bush obsessions. It seems it’s now an Abbott obsession.
We used to whip and chain him when he got out of hand, but you can’t expect me to keep him under control since he’s escaped as that is unfair.