+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 62 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 613
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    This is a fantastic piece on the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rth-defending/

    I especially like his last sentence: 'None of my wind will convince those who continue to deny, but reality always is worth defending.'

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (07-04-2013)

  3. #152
    Busy-Bee's Avatar
    Busy-Bee is offline Offending people since before Del :D
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,183
    Thanks
    3,664
    Thanked
    4,704
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    F,

    Which one (or more) of these do you subscribe?

    - You are able to read data more accurately than established scientists in their specialist field
    - You have access to better data than established scientists in their specialist fields
    - You believe there is a conspiracy to make people believe in climate change
    - You are an internet troll

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Busy-Bee For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (06-04-2013),beebs  (07-04-2013),BigRedV  (06-04-2013),DJ Nette  (06-04-2013),Kirst33  (06-04-2013),misskittyfantastico  (06-04-2013)

  5. #153
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,644
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked
    1,735
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Funchu View Post
    How is it economically damaging? Neither of you has answered the question regarding the harm of the carbon tax.

    As for not needing incentives to develop & commercialise technology... this is simply untrue. Government incentives are required to fund development that would otherwise not occur due to high risks and long payback periods that mean private investors are less likely to invest. Renewable energy technologies are highly capital intensive. Also, without a tax on non-renewable energy production there is less incentive for this type of technology to be developed.
    I never said that incentive isn't needed (although I think you were referring to Father's post but didn't quote it), what I said is I don't believe the tax is achieving that.

    As for economic damage. This is a wealth distribution tax. It is taking away money which would be better spent in other areas - eg. health, education or whatever. Surely a tax which does not achieve that which it is supposed to do (ie. decrease carbon emissions) but takes money away from other areas has to be economically damaging.

    It is taking money from other areas which could benefit- what's not damaging about that? It isn't doing what it purports to do - what's not damaging about that?

    It is taxing local councils which then have to in turn raise rates for it's constituents - what's not damaging about that? A council which is disposing of waste - not actually making it itself.

    In my book, any tax which raises costs of things without actually improving things as it's supposed to do is economically damaging, as it drives up prices changing how the economy is working. This tax is supposed to do that and isn't actually reportedly actually bringing back anything to the country - how is that not damaging?

    I get that it is supposed to make companies use more environmentally conscious methods of production - but until I see that it has actually achieved that (and it can be directly attributed to the carbon tax) I will continue to say that this tax does harm

  6. #154
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    What if I said I was a kayaking zoo volunteer. That should make me more than qualified to comment right? It's good enough for 'Skeptical Science'.
    I do not see how occupation has anything to do with being able to read and understand information.
    If you said you were a kayaking zoo volunteer I'd be surprised- you don't strike me as having a great deal of empathy towards animals for some reason. But it still wouldn't answer my actual question. Go on, Father. Humour me. What is your occupation, and what are your qualifications? It will help me to understand why you feel comfortable not only opposing the views of, what was it...95% (?) of scientists in this field, but also trying to sway others to this view. Are you a scientist? Are you in a research position of some kind? What sort of degree/s do you hold? What have you studied or do you do that makes you better qualified than all these learned scientists?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (07-04-2013)

  8. #155
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ~Bec~ View Post
    F,

    Which one (or more) of these do you subscribe?

    - You are able to read data more accurately than established scientists in their specialist field
    - You have access to better data than established scientists in their specialist fields
    - You believe there is a conspiracy to make people believe in climate change
    - You are an internet troll
    I'm going with that he believes the first two but it's really the last two.

  9. #156
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,710
    Thanks
    1,392
    Thanked
    7,295
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    Funchu  (07-04-2013)

  11. #157
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    I never said that incentive isn't needed (although I think you were referring to Father's post but didn't quote it), what I said is I don't believe the tax is achieving that.

    As for economic damage. This is a wealth distribution tax. It is taking away money which would be better spent in other areas - eg. health, education or whatever. Surely a tax which does not achieve that which it is supposed to do (ie. decrease carbon emissions) but takes money away from other areas has to be economically damaging.

    It is taking money from other areas which could benefit- what's not damaging about that? It isn't doing what it purports to do - what's not damaging about that?

    It is taxing local councils which then have to in turn raise rates for it's constituents - what's not damaging about that? A council which is disposing of waste - not actually making it itself.

    In my book, any tax which raises costs of things without actually improving things as it's supposed to do is economically damaging, as it drives up prices changing how the economy is working. This tax is supposed to do that and isn't actually reportedly actually bringing back anything to the country - how is that not damaging?

    I get that it is supposed to make companies use more environmentally conscious methods of production - but until I see that it has actually achieved that (and it can be directly attributed to the carbon tax) I will continue to say that this tax does harm
    According to this the carbon tax didn't begin until July 1, 2012. That's not even a year, so how can you know if it is working yet or not?

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1...ound-the-world

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    Funchu  (07-04-2013)

  13. #158
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    Again I ask you, what is the conspiracy that you believe in? What are all these agencies, scientists, governments, organizations, etc. all conspiring for? What do they all have to gain from convincing us all that the world is warming? And why are you right?
    I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. I would call it a religion. The science is no longer driving it. It is now driven by ideology and politics.
    There is a money-go-round element to it. Climate science is a new field. Would you study something at university that you thought was a crock? Who pays climate scientists? Just as Tony Abbott is going to kill off the Department of Climate Change, those people currently with jobs associated with climate change may well end up losing them. Is it not in their best interest to keep the theory alive? If there was no problem, there would be no requirement their position.

    Back to ideology. Can you explain why the environmental movement is so anti nuclear power? This could drastically reduce global emissions, but they still don't want it. They are anti-hydro too, despite it being our biggest source of renewable energy. It doesn't make sense if it is just about emissions. Wind turbines kill a heap of birds every year. But again, the environmentalists are silent. Don't they care about birds? The natural landscape? I do.

  14. #159
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    Your issue seems to be that you think that it's not warming at the extent experts say it is? That it's natural for it to warm so therefore is not a problem??
    I didn't say it was all natural. I have said that about 1.5C by 2100 would be man-caused. This is not a problem. Wasn't 2C the magic 'tipping point'.

  15. #160
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,644
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked
    1,735
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    I am aware that it only started 9months ago, and want more info regarding any changes that are measureable and directly attributable to the tax.

    Unfortunately I cannot read the article that brv linked (I don't subscribe to the Australian).

    I'm off to cook dinner - but will be back later to check any links or info (also to do some more research myself, as I had heard some murmurs of changes (which I didn't think could be measured yet), and equally I had heard that there were lots of contributing factors which meant that there was no way to know if any changes were actually attributed to the carbon tax.

    Happy to be educated on this one (maybe it might be better to take this into a new thread?)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Vanuatu - Great or not so great?
    By Clarabelle in forum Destination Suggestions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29-10-2012, 10:56
  2. Green poop
    By Alphabetsoup in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 24-05-2012, 20:02

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Babybee Prams
Save $50 in our pre-Christmas sale! All Comet's now only $500. Our bassinet & stroller set includes free shipping AUS wide, $75 free accessories, 18-months warranty & a 9 month free return policy. Check out our new designer range today!
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
Sudocrem / Infacol
Sudocrem® Healing Cream is a soothing emollient cream which aids and assists in the management of nappy rash, eczema, abrasions, wounds and minor skin irritations. Infacol Wind Drops are an effective method of treating wind in infants.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!