OT GW

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:12:09 +1100, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

just because someone wears a white lab
coat and calls themselves a "scientist" that they are automatically a
person of the highest moral standard and couldn't *possibly* be acting
in their own self interest.

Having been a research assistant in my earlier days, I can certainly
attest to that. The things I saw happen...

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 8:41 AM, Clocky wrote:

Oh dear, another one.

Another one indeed.

Here's something to ponder Clocky. There is no question that the planet
is changing, and anyone who suggests that it isn't is away with the
fairies. However, the point of contention is whether that change is a
mane made one or a result of the planet's normal evolutionary process.

A portion of the scientific community thinks that man has something to
do with it, but they can't conclusively prove it. They have their
theories of course, but none of us (including the scientists themselves)
will ever live long enough to know if their guesses are right or wrong.

The funny part in all of that (for me at least) as that you're happy to
go along with them but probably don't believe in the existence of "God"
despite the amount of faith required to believe in either being about
the same



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Rheilly Phoull]

On 12/5/2011 6:19 AM, Jeßus wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:12:09 +1100, Noddy<me@home.com> wrote:

just because someone wears a white lab
coat and calls themselves a "scientist" that they are automatically a
person of the highest moral standard and couldn't *possibly* be acting
in their own self interest.

Having been a research assistant in my earlier days, I can certainly
attest to that. The things I saw happen...

Any way, despite the thread not being remotely connected to the groups
purpose it's coming along quite nicely. We have politics and religion
combined, I'm just waiting for some one to introduce sex and we'll have
the complete package.

Rheilly

 

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:32:43 +0800, Rheilly Phoull
<rheilly@bigslong.com> wrote:

On 12/5/2011 6:19 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:12:09 +1100, Noddy<me@home.com> wrote:

just because someone wears a white lab
coat and calls themselves a "scientist" that they are automatically a
person of the highest moral standard and couldn't *possibly* be acting
in their own self interest.

Having been a research assistant in my earlier days, I can certainly
attest to that. The things I saw happen...

Any way, despite the thread not being remotely connected to the groups
purpose it's coming along quite nicely. We have politics and religion
combined, I'm just waiting for some one to introduce sex and we'll have
the complete package.

Well, I did have sex once with a Ph.D student who was spending time
with us out in the field for a few days.

So there you go, one complete package sewn up for you.

Mind you, no sign of Godwin's law as yet...

 

[John_H]

<joe@nothome.com> wrote:

Post of 2012 Trev. Absolutely spot on in every respect mate.

Best arselick of the season as well!

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 9:19 AM, Jeßus wrote:

Having been a research assistant in my earlier days, I can certainly
attest to that. The things I saw happen...

Not that I've had any personal experience, but if you look at the famous
people throughout the scientific world it seems to be a bizarre one.

Take Werner Von Braun for example. Probably the world's most eminent
rocket scientist in his day, and a man who played a major role in the
American space program to put a man on the moon, but for a time he was a
passionate Nazi developing weapons that killed thousands of people and
was in charge of a production facility that employed slave labour that
brutally killed hundreds more.

The theme that seemed to run through his life as it did with so many
other famous scientists was Ego. He didn't seem to care terribly much
how his work impacted on others, as long as he was allowed to do it and
was prepared to deal with the devil to make that possible.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 9:39 AM, John_H wrote:

Best arselick of the season as well!

Lol


--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 8:48 AM, Noddy wrote:

On 5/12/2011 6:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?

Out of context? Jesus Trev....

**Yep. Out of context. Tell you what: YOU supply the allegedly daming
words, IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONTEXT to me and let's discuss what you
consider to be a problem. Fair enough?

The issue has become a *major* embarrassment for the IPCC, to the point
where it's now being called "Climategate".

**ONLY by the likes of Alan Jones. The SCIENTISTS are all still in
agreement. Again: Why do you persist in ignoring the science? Why do you
persist in listening solely to the likes of Alan Jones? What scientific
credentials does he have?

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?

Your blind faith is absolutely staggering Trevor, and to the point where
it makes your criticism of religious fanatics look incredibly ironic.

**Examining the data is not an act of blind faith. It's just science.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week.

Absolute bullshit Trevor.

**Then YOU supply your alternate figures. Over to you...

There is no way *anyone* can accurately predict the effects of such a
tax on the average Joe, as it will be some time *after* the scheme is up
and running that the true cost will become known.

**And again: Supply your alternate figures.

Moreover, what largely remains *unknown* is what this new tax is going
to achieve. I mean, it's not just a case of introducing a tax just for
the sake of it, right? It's actually going towards *something* that will
make a difference to the environment, isn't it?

**The tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions. All the
economists who have studied the tax, have stated that it probably will
lower Australia's CO2 emissions. They have also provided data on the
anticipated costs. OK, so far? These are the same economists who
predicted what effects the GST would have on the economy. Are you now
disputing what the economists have stated will likely occur? Do you have
some data to back your claims?

His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

Uh-huh...

**Again: The same economists that predicted (correctly) the effects of
the GST are telling us what effects the government's carbon tax and
Abbott's carbon tax will have.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work.

Which economists would these people be?

**The same economists that (correctly) predicted the effects of the GST.

I don't support either plan Trev,

**OK. Why? Moreover, if you reject the government's plan, then you
accept Abbott's plan. Abbott's plan has been universally condemned as
wasteful and ineffective. I accept that you may not like a carbon tax
(For the record: I HATE the idea of a carbon tax), but if your going to
suffer a carbon tax (and you will, regardless of who is in government),
then you may as well support the tax that has the best chance of working
and costing the community as little as possible.


but all I've seen of Gillard's plan in

the mass media is universal condemnation from business groups

**You sure about that? Some of the largest mining corporations are in
favour of it:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/carbon-tax-is-necessary-says-bhp-chairman-jac-nasser/story-fn7j19iv-1226197858222




, the

financial sector and the public at large.

**Sure. Ignorant people will always prefer to listen to anyone, except
those who actually know stuff. It's why religion is so popular. And
let's not get side-tracked: NO ONE WANTS A CARBON TAX. Not me, not you,
not the government. However, we do need to find a way to reduce CO2
emissions. The carbon tax would seem to be the most effective way of
accomplishing that.


The general consensus seems to

be that the tax is *way* out of proportion to the environmental effects
that will be achieved (assuming for the sake of the argument that those
targets will actually be met).

**The "general consensus" is code for: A bunch of ignorant dickheads. I
don't give a crap about what Fred Bloggs doen the road thinks about
anything. If I want to know about what is wrong with my car, I'll ask my
mechanic (or you). I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about the
mysterious lump on my leg, I'll ask my doctor. I won't ask Alan Jones.
If I want to know about the economic effects of a carbon tax, I'll ask
an economist. I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about climate
change, I'll ask the CSIRO, BoM or NASA. I won't ask Alan Jones.

The real question here is this: Why do YOU place your faith in what Alan
Jones, Andrew Bolt and George Pell say, rather than the people who know
what they're talking about?

The other unappealing point of the Gillard plan is that with those
polluting businesses who will be subject to the tax being allowed to
pass their increased costs onto the consumer there is absolutely *no*
incentive whatsoever for them to lift a finger to do anything about
cleaning up their acts.

**Incorrect. The companies that generate or use power with low CO2
emissions can sell their power, goods and/or services at a lower cost,
because their costs of doing business are lower than their less
efficient competition.


If that does indeed become the case, the net

result will be increased costs all round with no impact on the
environment at all.

**Maybe that will occur. Or maybe competitive factors will come into play.

Maybe you could explain to me how you see this as a *good* thing?

**Your assumption is not necessarily correct. The power companies that
generate their energy via the use of geo-thermal, Solar, wind or other
low emission technologies will have a competitive advantage. They can
sell at a lower cost and gain market share.

In fact, the government's scheme will likely have less than
25% of the impact on the economy that GST did. Did the GST destroy the
Australian economy?

Not really an accurate comparison Trev, as the GST was a streamlining of
an existing tax system. Not an across the board increase per se'. Under
the GST, some things actually got cheaper.

**And others got more expensive. TOTAL tax receipts increased
dramatically. We paid far more total tax the day after GST was introduced.

The Carbon Tax will just add cost to everything.

**Wrong. The carbon tax will add to the cost of many things. Just like
GST did.

Why would you imagine that a scheme which has a far
smaller effect than the GST will cause the Australian economy any
serious effects?

"Serious effects" are your words, not mine.

**No. They are the words of the economists.

I don't expect the impact will be huge, but I expect it will be largely
ineffective with the impact on the environment being so small it'd be
impossible to measure even if the plan works exactly as designed.

In other words, I think it'll be *very* poor value for money.

**And your economic credentials are?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 8:49 AM, Jeßus wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:56:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy
of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the UK Met, The
Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science, the German Academy of
Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal
Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.


The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?


Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?


**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded
them.

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work.


Not that this will change you mind on any of this, but something worth
viewing nonetheless:
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/the-trouble-with-experts.html

Torrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6862823/CBC_Doc_Zone_The_Trouble_With_Experts_2011_HDTV_x264_AAC
http://www.demonoid.me/files/details/2777785/005760348140/

**I haven't watched the video, but I did read the posted article. OK, so
you tell me:

* Do I ignore my mechanic, when he tells me that my car engine needs an
oil change? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore my doctor, when he tells me that I should have a Sunspot
excised from my face? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore Microsoft, when they tell me I need another 2GB RAm to run
Windows 7, 64bit correctly? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I listen to the climatologists, when they tell us that there is too
much CO2 in the atmosphere? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?

It's one thing to weigh up the opinions of people. It's quite another to
be presented with a very large amount of highly compelling data.

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with?
Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 9:20 AM, Noddy wrote:

On 5/12/2011 8:41 AM, Clocky wrote:

Oh dear, another one.

Another one indeed.

Here's something to ponder Clocky. There is no question that the planet
is changing, and anyone who suggests that it isn't is away with the
fairies. However, the point of contention is whether that change is a
mane made one or a result of the planet's normal evolutionary process.

A portion of the scientific community thinks that man has something to
do with it, but they can't conclusively prove it. They have their
theories of course, but none of us (including the scientists themselves)
will ever live long enough to know if their guesses are right or wrong.

**Their "guesses" (as you quaintly put it) are based on very extensive
research. Their "guesses" are now put at around 95% certainty.

Let's say one of your family members gives you their car to look at. You
hear a 'clunk' 'clunk' noise when turning corners under load. You say
that there is a 95% probability that the CVs are shot. You cannot be
100% certain without stripping the front end down and looking at them.
Do you call your educated assumption a "guess"? What do you tell your
relative, when they state that you are a crackpot and should be
completely ignored, because you cannot provide a 100% ironclad guarantee
that your claim is correct?

The funny part in all of that (for me at least) as that you're happy to
go along with them but probably don't believe in the existence of "God"
despite the amount of faith required to believe in either being about
the same

**I saw the smiley, but it doesn't count. There is zero evidence to
support the notion of a God. There is considerable scientific data to
support the notion of AGW.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 10:50 AM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 4, 3:57 pm, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/4/2011 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:

The scam is unraveling!

**What "scam" would that be?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock


laughing stock by your standard, but not by anyone else's

**OK. I accpet that you reject science in preference to religious opinion.

Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint

skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded them.



I don't know about that, this Labor dictatorship would without a
doubt be the worst and most incompetent
government in living memory - thats even before the carbon tax was
brought in.

**"Dictatorship"? What are you smoking? The government was
Democratically elected under the our rules of Constutional Law. As for
incompetence, I see a government that is nor more and no less
incompetent than most that have come before. I remind you that it was
not the Labor government that has deliberately wasted valuable
Australian lives and a not inconsiderable chunk of money, invading Iraq
and propping up a hopelessly corrupt government in Afghanistan. Those
little conflicts were enacted by the Howard/Abbott team.

Abbott has promised to get rid of the carbon tax, that is about the
only thing he has going for him. He could also be lying.

**Abbott has promised to enact his "direct action" form of carbon
reduction scheme. A scheme which has been roundly condemned by all the
economists.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 10:56 AM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 4, 5:06 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/4/2011 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
The scam is unraveling!

**What "scam" would that be?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint
skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded them.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

It appears that some of the predictions based on this peer reviewed
science may not be backed up by evidence and fact.


Thats because its not. It's mostly fabricated crap in order to get the
result they are paid
to get and it is laugable. The peers that review this garbage are
just as corrupt as the authors.

**I see. So, your contention is this:

ALL the major scientific organisations on the planet (including: CSIRO,
NASA, The Australian Academy of Science, the US National Academy of
Science, the UK Met, The Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science,
the German Academy of Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal
Society of Canada, Royal Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The
Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, et al.) tell us that AGW is the most likely
explanation for the warming that has been noted. You claim that these
guys are all wrong and that Tony Abbott, George Pell, Alan Jones and
Monckton are correct, despite the fact that not one of these clowns has
a scientific education. Is that your contention?

If what you say is correct, then it must be the most massive cover-up in
the entire history of the planet.

There is another possibilty:

That the scientists are right and the raving loonies and shock-jocks
don't know what they're talking about.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 11:03 AM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 5, 5:56 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy
of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the UK Met, The
Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science, the German Academy of
Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal
Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.



The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?



Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?



**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded
them.

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work. In fact, the government's scheme will likely have less than
25% of the impact on the economy that GST did. Did the GST destroy the
Australian economy? Why would you imagine that a scheme which has a far
smaller effect than the GST will cause the Australian economy any
serious effects?



We have no solid idea yet about the real effect of the GST as the
effects of it were masked by the housing boom
and the associated upturn in just about every business, as a flow on
effect from it.

**Bollocks. The results were felt almost instantly. And they were measured.

Now that that is over we shall see. The basics are is that it is a
tax, and therefore state theft of private property without consent,
and that governments are only good at turning things to shit means
inherently overall it has to have a BAD effect.

**Then, perhaps, it is time for you to move to the Ivory Coast. No
taxation there. Enjoy your life. Me? I'll tough it out here in
Australia, where I can enjoy things like:

* Free medical care.
* Security.
* A long, healthy life.
* Freedom from being shot to death.
* Freedom from being kidnapped.
* Garbage collection.
* Sewerage.
* Electricity.
* Reasonable roads.

All of which and much more has been paid for by taxation.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 9:45 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Yep. Out of context. Tell you what: YOU supply the allegedly daming
words, IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONTEXT to me and let's discuss what you
consider to be a problem. Fair enough?

See my reply to Clocky about an example of the "peer review" process.

**ONLY by the likes of Alan Jones.

I don't listen to Alan Jones, as I'm in Victoria, but if you put
"climategate" into Google you'll get about 3 and a half million hits.

A tad wider spread than just Alan Jones' audience methinks.

The SCIENTISTS are all still in agreement.

Oh, I'm sure that they are.

Again: Why do you persist in ignoring the science?

Because the "science", such as it is, has not proved a single, solitary
thing. I ignore religious nutbags for exactly the same reason.

Why do you persist in listening solely to the likes of Alan Jones? What scientific
credentials does he have?

I don't listen to Alan Jones, and I never have.

**Examining the data is not an act of blind faith. It's just science.

With respect Trevor, your "examining of the data" is bordering on
fanatical, and to the point were everyone who is opposed to your views
is a crank.

**Then YOU supply your alternate figures. Over to you...

I don't have any figures Trevor, and that's the point. *no one* does,
and I find it hard to understand how you can right off this new tax with
such a miniscule impact when no one else seems to be doing so.

**The tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions. All the
economists who have studied the tax, have stated that it probably will
lower Australia's CO2 emissions.

Probably?

They have also provided data on the anticipated costs. OK, so far?

Who is "they", and what are these "costs" they speak of?

These are the same economists who predicted what effects the GST would have on the economy. Are you now
disputing what the economists have stated will likely occur? Do you have
some data to back your claims?

According to what I've read about the subject Australia's impact on the
global environment is around 1.5 percent, and if the carbon tax achieved
a reduction of 10 per cent (which would be optimistic at best in my
opinion) we'd make a difference to "climate change" in a global sense of
..15 of a percent at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

That might make some sense to you, but it sure as shit doesn't to me.

**Again: The same economists that predicted (correctly) the effects of
the GST are telling us what effects the government's carbon tax and
Abbott's carbon tax will have.

I'm sorry Trev, but who correctly predicted the effects of the GST?

Even the government's own modelling was wrong when they found they had
an extra billion & a half at the end of the first full year that * no
one* saw coming.

**The same economists that (correctly) predicted the effects of the GST.

As I said, who were these people?

**OK. Why? Moreover, if you reject the government's plan, then you
accept Abbott's plan.

What crap

Just because there are two plans doesn't mean I automatically accept the
second one if I don't like the first

Abbott's plan has been universally condemned as wasteful and ineffective.

Oddly enough, so has Gillard's carbon tax.

I accept that you may not like a carbon tax
(For the record: I HATE the idea of a carbon tax), but if your going to
suffer a carbon tax (and you will, regardless of who is in government),
then you may as well support the tax that has the best chance of working
and costing the community as little as possible.

That'd be great, but which one is capable of doing that? As far as I can
tell *neither* plan will give business *any* incentive to reduce their
emissions.

**You sure about that? Some of the largest mining corporations are in
favour of it:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/carbon-tax-is-necessary-says-bhp-chairman-jac-nasser/story-fn7j19iv-1226197858222

Oh I have no doubt that there are some out there who are rubbing their
hands together at the prospect of a carbon tax as a nifty way of
justifying a hefty increase in prices. We've already seen reports of
some more unscrupulous businesses introducing price rises as a result of
the "carbon tax" before it was even passed through parliament

**Sure. Ignorant people will always prefer to listen to anyone, except
those who actually know stuff.

God I love that argument. The people who agree with you are educated,
while the people who don't are ignorant

It's why religion is so popular.

Religion is a great tool for controlling the minds of people who's decks
are missing the 8's, 9's & 10's, but apart from that it doesn't have a
whole lot going for it.

And let's not get side-tracked: NO ONE WANTS A CARBON TAX. Not me, not you,
not the government. However, we do need to find a way to reduce CO2
emissions. The carbon tax would seem to be the most effective way of
accomplishing that.

For the record, I have no problems with the idea of a carbon tax that
actually caused a reduction in emissions, but the current plans offer no
scope for that that I can see and I have a *big* problem with the idea
of a tax simply on the basis of *hoping* that it does *something* which
essentially all this tax really is.

As far as the government is concerned, they give not the slightest shit
about the environment as they won't be in power long enough to see any
improvement, if any. The *only* reason we have a carbon tax today is
because it was necessary for Gillard to maintain support and keep
herself in the top job.

End of story.

**The "general consensus" is code for: A bunch of ignorant dickheads. I
don't give a crap about what Fred Bloggs doen the road thinks about
anything. If I want to know about what is wrong with my car, I'll ask my
mechanic (or you). I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about the
mysterious lump on my leg, I'll ask my doctor. I won't ask Alan Jones.
If I want to know about the economic effects of a carbon tax, I'll ask
an economist. I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about climate
change, I'll ask the CSIRO, BoM or NASA. I won't ask Alan Jones.

The real question here is this: Why do YOU place your faith in what Alan
Jones, Andrew Bolt and George Pell say, rather than the people who know
what they're talking about?

I don't Trev.

As far as this issue is concerned I try to be as objective as I can, and
I consider arguments from *both* sides. I don't flat out believe
everything the scientists say just because they're "scientists", and nor
do I believe everything the anti-climate change brigade say just because
they're sceptics.

As I've said before I don't doubt that the planet is changing, and it
has been for millions of years. What I'm *not* convinced is that it's a
man made problem, or if it is that there's anything we can do about it
that will prevent it.

**Incorrect. The companies that generate or use power with low CO2
emissions can sell their power, goods and/or services at a lower cost,
because their costs of doing business are lower than their less
efficient competition.

If you ran a company that made widgets that cost X amount to get to
market, why would you spend millions on reducing your carbon footprint
in the hope that you could reduce your costs and sell them *cheaper*?

As I said, where's the incentive?

I'd be more than a little surprised if there's been a single proposal
over the years that has worked out anything like the initial forecasts
in practice once they were implemented.

Look at electricity pricing for example.

The privatising the government owned utility companies was sold on the
idea of competition between private companies would create a very
competitive market with cheaper pricing. Yet power prices have
sky-rocketed in the last few years with predictions of ever increasing
costs as the "competing private companies" all get together and dictate
terms for the market.

The same thing happened when they deregulated the banking industry.

**Maybe that will occur. Or maybe competitive factors will come into play.

There's a hell of a lot of maybe's in there Trev, with the only
certainty that we'll all be paying more in the mean time.

**Your assumption is not necessarily correct. The power companies that
generate their energy via the use of geo-thermal, Solar, wind or other
low emission technologies will have a competitive advantage. They can
sell at a lower cost and gain market share.

And do you *really* think they will after investing the necessary
capital in order to do that? How much do you think it'd cost a power
company to set up a Geo-Thermal power grid capable of supplying a town
like Newcastle for example?

They're going to want that money back, and in pretty short order.

**And others got more expensive. TOTAL tax receipts increased
dramatically. We paid far more total tax the day after GST was introduced.

In terms of purchased goods it was pretty balanced as a lot of items had
existing taxes that were hidden in the retain price. Where they *really*
made their money was on the services component.

**Wrong. The carbon tax will add to the cost of many things. Just like
GST did.

Give me an example of a few items that well not be impacted by the
Carbon tax.

**And your economic credentials are?

Ah, right. I'm not a recognised expert, therefore I can't have a valid
opinion.

I'm not David Attenborough either, but I know enough about elephants to
know that I don't want one as a household pet.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 10:25 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Their "guesses" (as you quaintly put it) are based on very extensive
research. Their "guesses" are now put at around 95% certainty.

By whom? Themselves?

Let's say one of your family members gives you their car to look at. You
hear a 'clunk' 'clunk' noise when turning corners under load. You say
that there is a 95% probability that the CVs are shot. You cannot be
100% certain without stripping the front end down and looking at them.
Do you call your educated assumption a "guess"? What do you tell your
relative, when they state that you are a crackpot and should be
completely ignored, because you cannot provide a 100% ironclad guarantee
that your claim is correct?

That's not a very accurate analogy in my opinion Trevor, because unlike
the pro climate change argument it's something that could easily be
proved one way or the other.

However, to answer your question I'd tell them that that was my opinion
and they could do with that as they pleased.

**I saw the smiley, but it doesn't count. There is zero evidence to
support the notion of a God. There is considerable scientific data to
support the notion of AGW.

Actually I don't think that's true.

There'd be *far* more people in this world who believed in God than
those who believe in man made climate change, and those on either side
would argue that there's plenty of evidence to support their case.

Whether there actually was or not would be completely irrelevant though

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 8:40 am, Noddy <m...@home.com> wrote:

On 5/12/2011 9:19 AM, Jeßus wrote:

Having been a research assistant in my earlier days, I can certainly
attest to that. The things I saw happen...

Not that I've had any personal experience, but if you look at the famous
people throughout the scientific world it seems to be a bizarre one.

Take Werner Von Braun for example. Probably the world's most eminent
rocket scientist in his day, and a man who played a major role in the
American space program to put a man on the moon, but for a time he was a
passionate Nazi developing weapons that killed thousands of people and
was in charge of a production facility that employed slave labour that
brutally killed hundreds more.

The theme that seemed to run through his life as it did with so many
other famous scientists was Ego. He didn't seem to care terribly much
how his work impacted on others, as long as he was allowed to do it and
was prepared to deal with the devil to make that possible.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

IIRC from school history class, the one thing that made Nazi Era
scientific progress so incredibly rapid
was that scientists who showed promise in their theories/abilities
were allowed to do their research
and experiments on ANYTHING or anyone they wanted to without limits or
ethics being regarded, and with
virtually unlimited funding to go with it.

Of course, if they didn't show results, they probably got a train trip
to a camp.......

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 10:27 AM, kreed wrote:

IIRC from school history class, the one thing that made Nazi Era
scientific progress so incredibly rapid
was that scientists who showed promise in their theories/abilities
were allowed to do their research
and experiments on ANYTHING or anyone they wanted to without limits or
ethics being regarded, and with
virtually unlimited funding to go with it.

In a nutshell, yeah, and it created problems years later.

Thalidomide is a great example of that. It was used commonly in the
1950's as a drug to prevent the effects of morning sickness in pregnant
women until a startling number of birth defects were linked to it and it
was withdrawn. Yet the effects of Thalidomide were known prior to this
thanks to the Nazi's using the drug on human guinea pigs as part of
their horrendous "medical research" experiments during WWII.

The problem came about when deciding what to do with the results of the
Nazi experiments once the war was over.

The Germans, in their methodical way, kept very detailed records of
their research and it was clear to anyone who bothered to read it what
those results were. Yet the question became an ethical one, in that do
you profit from that research and use the information to your advantage
or do you write it off as a horrific part of history and respect the
victims by not making that information available?

The powers that be at the time chose the latter, with the result being
that a generation of post war people were left ignorant of the problems
resulting in thousands of victims that could have otherwise been avoided.

Of course, if they didn't show results, they probably got a train trip
to a camp.......

Probably, although I think near the end of the war when a state of
anarchic mayhem existed in Germany you only had to fart into the wrong
wind to be executed.

There was certainly a period where enough people who knew they were
doing the wrong thing had the opportunity to get out relatively safely
but chose not to.

Like Von Braun for example.



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 4, 3:57 pm, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/4/2011 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:

The scam is unraveling!

**What "scam" would that be?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

laughing stock by your standard, but not by anyone else's

  Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint

skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded them.

I don't know about that, this Labor dictatorship would without a
doubt be the worst and most incompetent
government in living memory - thats even before the carbon tax was
brought in.

Abbott has promised to get rid of the carbon tax, that is about the
only thing he has going for him. He could also be lying.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 11:20 AM, kreed wrote:

As we saw this time, Independents will sell out pretty easily and
arent' worth shit.

They never are.

All an independent can ever hope to do is hope to hold the balance of
power as it's the only chance they ever have of getting what they want.
If they don't then they're on a completely irrelevant junket for as long
as they hold their seat.

The insulation, school halls, and other stimulus packages have been
complete
disasters. I doubt that there is anything this lot have been able to
do competently.

They've certainly made a *huge* mess, and the illegal immigrant issue
has been a *major* catastrophe.

We had more boat arrivals in November alone than we did in the last 5
years of the Howard Government.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 4, 5:06 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/4/2011 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
The scam is unraveling!

**What "scam" would that be?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint
skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded them.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

   It appears that some of the predictions based on this peer reviewed
science may not be backed up by evidence and fact.

Thats because its not. It's mostly fabricated crap in order to get the
result they are paid
to get and it is laugable. The peers that review this garbage are
just as corrupt as the authors.