carbon tax bull

[Big A.D.]

All of this manmade CO2 and yet no rise in global temperatures in 16 years according to global temperature records and verified by the head of the UEA Climate Research unit. Kind of makes alarmists look like they are basing their claims on ideological agendas rather than science.

And yet the largest open, transparent meta-study of the all the data analyzed by other climate change studies indicates that temperatures have been increasing steadily as the world has industrialized:

http://berkeleyearth.org/images/decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg
Source: berkeleyearth.org

Yes, due to a natural cycle which has now topped out. CO2 has never in the history of the planet been a climate temperature driver. Even the alarmists are not permitted to say "global warming" any more because the globe is not warming. Your graph is about to start falling. The global temperature bull market has met it's Global Credibility Crisis.

I don't see anything to indicate temperatures would start falling soon.

The ups and downs prior to 1860 appear to come in regular 10-15-20 year cycles. After that as more factories were built and started pumping soot into the air the temperature starts to trend upwards from about 1900 until 1940 where - to me as an untrained observer - it looks like there was another natural 20 year cold cycle that was suppressed by the greenhouse effect of rising CO2, resulting in much smaller than usual dip and then temperatures start rocketing up again from about 1970 until now.

So why would temperatures suddenly start to fall?

And if we are about to hit a natural cold cycle, why wouldn't it repeat the same pattern as the 1940-1970 period where it was likely to be artificially suppressed?

 

[systematic]

Global warming is not the problem. It is global stupidity thinking government is competent enough to save us. Why tax us when a little quantitive easing can ease our woes.....

 

[Prior]

Climate change is real, in Perth the temperature went from 6 - 21 in under 24 hours. We better tax it or else we might get wiped out.....

 

[togetherwe]

I am pretty much resigned to global environmental catastrophe in the coming decades due to inaction on global warming,

Didnt you hear, its not called Global Warming any more, Its Climate Change. Well to be more accurate it was first called global cooling in the 90's, global warming in the early 2000's and now its climate change. Because when the weather gets hot or cold its due to humans. There were never ever 4 seasons or natural disasters before humans got electricity and started driving cars.

Give me a break dude. You act like just becuase these super human god-like scientists have been studying the climate that they should not be questioned and we are all too dumb and incompetant to comprehend mathematical equations and scientifit theorys.

I can see inconsistencies when they are presented. Your god al-gore has made every prediction of climate wrong, USA and EUROPE expierenced their heaviest snow fall in the past years while your god said there would be no more snow by 2010; and his move 'the inconvinient truth' was banned in court from being shown to UK students due to it being so factually incorrect.

You fail togetherwe,

On another note welcome to the forum.

Look, if you think you're smarter than the large majority of the world's climate scientists based on whatever research into Al Gore you might have done and some other stuff about God, I don't see it as my place to argue with you.

Thank you for the welcome.

 

[hussman]

Climate change is real, in Perth the temperature went from 6 - 21 in under 24 hours. We better tax it or else we might get wiped out.....

That sudden change in temperature has absolutely nothing to do with the sun, it must be all the Co2 you relieved out. Reminder to self, dont eat no more baked beans. Thats another idea, maybe we should tax beans while were at it, since they make us 'release gas' more. More farts = more Co2. Tax on beans = less farts = less Co2. Bankrupt Heinz Baked Beans save the world is my new slogan.

 

[wrcmad]

Reminder to self, dont eat no more baked beans. Thats another idea, maybe we should tax beans while were at it, since they make us 'release gas' more. More farts = more Co2. Tax on beans = less farts = less Co2. Bankrupt Heinz Baked Beans save the world is my new slogan.

Actually, just to be a smart arse:

More farts = more CH4 (methane)

Methane, incidentally, is about 20 times more potent than CO2 in terms of alleged greenhouse effects.

Which reminds me, I have read that one of the biggest contributers to the "green house effect" is cattle flatulence due to increasing amounts of cattle farming - not CO2

(source: http://www.climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/CO2_equivalents.htm)

Gillard needs to tax cattle farts - cause it's all:

 

[silvertongue]

I'll admit I have a a problem with the berkeley chart simply because it doesn't come with an explanation that as you move from left to right, the number of sample site areas around the globe that data is taken from increases. Thus the chart is not correctly normalised.

Best paper I've read so far on the 150 year graph is: http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/Papers/JonesEtal99-SAT150.pdf ...if you read it all, not just the conclusions.

But the question is not whether or not the planet is warming or cooling, and I've certainly no objection to any honestly presented incentive that may move our energy usage into a culture of more efficiency and greater sustainability. But I do find it disturbing that socialogically we find we are either frightened or bullied into it, thus creating factions for and against. And then of course each camp considers the other to be the 'flat earth society'. I believe (as one of those Asperger's that togetherwe mentioned) that science is not divisive until it becomes political. Then it stops admitting that there's more information yet to come....

 

[spannermonkey]

Reminder to self, dont eat no more baked beans. Thats another idea, maybe we should tax beans while were at it, since they make us 'release gas' more. More farts = more Co2. Tax on beans = less farts = less Co2. Bankrupt Heinz Baked Beans save the world is my new slogan.

Actually, just to be a smart arse:

More farts = more CH4 (methane)

Methane, incidentally, is about 20 times more potent than CO2 in terms of alleged greenhouse effects.

Which reminds me, I have read that one of the biggest contributers to the "green house effect" is cattle flatulence due to increasing amounts of cattle farming - not CO2

(source: http://www.climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/CO2_equivalents.htm)

Gillard needs to tax cattle farts - cause it's all:

http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/4088_bs2.jpg

The Kiwi's have been taxing they're farmers for cows farting

 

[Shaddam IV]

All of this manmade CO2 and yet no rise in global temperatures in 16 years according to global temperature records and verified by the head of the UEA Climate Research unit. Kind of makes alarmists look like they are basing their claims on ideological agendas rather than science.

And yet the largest open, transparent meta-study of the all the data analyzed by other climate change studies indicates that temperatures have been increasing steadily as the world has industrialized:

http://berkeleyearth.org/images/decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg
Source: berkeleyearth.org

So that we aren't doing an Al Gore and cherry picking little slices of graphs to deceive people, let's put your chart in context, because context is everything.

 

[Shaddam IV]

Here's another. Let's see if a bit if human generated CO2 will be enough to change this little graph.... We had better hope we can generate lots of global warming because if we don't we are headed for extinction.

Source Schlumberger. Image based on data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

 

[Big A.D.]

So that we aren't doing an Al Gore and cherry picking little slices of graphs to deceive people, let's put your chart in context, because context is everything.

I agree.

Could you provide some background on the people who prepared that chart?

I got mine from a group working out of one of the most highly respected universities in the world and the entire data set is available for independent review.

 

[Shaddam IV]

So that we aren't doing an Al Gore and cherry picking little slices of graphs to deceive people, let's put your chart in context, because context is everything.

I agree.

Could you provide some background on the people who prepared that chart?

I got mine from a group working out of one of the most highly respected universities in the world and the entire data set is available for independent review.

The names of the climatologist and the meteorologist who prepared the chart are printed at the bottom of the image. In any case a search will show that the chart, while presented as a low resolution graph in order to give context to the text is basically accurate.

 

[Big A.D.]

So that we aren't doing an Al Gore and cherry picking little slices of graphs to deceive people, let's put your chart in context, because context is everything.

I agree.

Could you provide some background on the people who prepared that chart?

I got mine from a group working out of one of the most highly respected universities in the world and the entire data set is available for independent review.

The names of the climatologist and the meteorologist who prepared the chart are printed at the bottom of the image. In any case a search will show that the chart, while presented as a low resolution graph in order to give context to the text is basically accurate.

I don't really have a problem with the resolution of the image, but I'm a bit concerned about taking the word of a newspaper weather man (Mann) and an insurance lawyer with no formal qualifications in climate science (Harris) over the word of experienced teams practising proper, transparent data analysis like the one at Berkeley.

 

[Shaddam IV]

I agree.

Could you provide some background on the people who prepared that chart?

I got mine from a group working out of one of the most highly respected universities in the world and the entire data set is available for independent review.

The names of the climatologist and the meteorologist who prepared the chart are printed at the bottom of the image. In any case a search will show that the chart, while presented as a low resolution graph in order to give context to the text is basically accurate.

I don't really have a problem with the resolution of the image, but I'm a bit concerned about taking the word of a newspaper weather man (Mann) and an insurance lawyer with no formal qualifications in climate science (Harris) over the word of experienced teams practising proper, transparent data analysis like the one at Berkeley.

Try this one. Not a particularly alarming graph.

Fredrik Ljungqvist of Stockholm University's Department of History developed a 2000-year temperature history of the extra-tropical portion of the Northern Hemisphere (i.e., that part covering the latitudinal range 30-90N) based on 30 temperature-sensitive proxy records with annual to multi-decadal resolution, including two historical documentary records, three marine sediment records, five lake sediment records, three speleothem 18O records, two ice-core 18O records, four varved thickness sediment records, five tree-ring width records, five tree-ring maximum latewood density records, and one 13C tree-ring record, but not employing tree-ring width records from arid and semi-arid regions, since they may have been affected by drought stress, and they may not show a linear response to warming if higher summer temperatures also reduce the availability of water, as suggested by the work of D'Arrigo et al. (2006) and Loehle (2009).
The results of the Swedish scientist's stellar efforts are depicted in the following figure.

 

[CriticalSilver]

So I'm driving by this factory today that was pumping out a yellow coloured smoke and I was thinking to myself ... "Why don't they tax all pollutants if taxing polluters fixes the problem of pollution? Why are they so singularly focused on the carbon compound that we exhale?" ... hmmmm.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

The science is definitely not in on Human Induced Global Warming, yet the deceit of Gillard is confirmed. Why people continue to believe in anything she says is beyond me, let alone the things she is personally motivated to promote out of self-preservation.

Of course, that is not to say that Tony Abbott or more pollution is good either. :lol:

 

[Aureus]

Anyone who thinks humans are doing anywhere near enough to contribute to "global warming" are brainwashed and/or stupid.
Stackers aware of impending doom caused by governments and bankers and yet you're falling for one of their biggest cons ever... so sad.

 

[JulieW]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw[/youtube]

 

[errol43]

JulieW,,Interesting video^^^^^It could only happen in America...Do you ever see the video about the bloke that was trying to exchange a 1oz gold coin for $1 so that he could buy himself a cup of coffee.

Chemistry was one element that I know very little about but at least I know what h2o is even though I don't even know whether I should type it in capitals or not.

Ah the world must be getting dumber. Oh I mean the people.

Regards Errol 43

 

[JulieW]

Yes Errol 43 I did see that one. I think the point they make is that people are 'joiners' or not, and possibly that's why carbon tax gets such a grilling here on SS, since I think that most SSers are by nature questioning and cynical about the "we're from the government and we're here to help you" line.

As I said previously in this thread, if they attacked the polluters with a tax I'd be all for it, but CO2 tax is just stupid, or cynical exploitation of the 'joiners' by financial interests - either way it doesn't nail the real problems, it's just an incidental band-aid to some of the pollution issues in the same way that banning lead in petrol was supposed to help the children avoid brain damage but instead helped the petrol companies and a bunch of politicians get re-elected who had 'done something'.

when the oil companies removed lead from US gasoline in the 1980s, the increased aromatic content had two deleterious effects:

"Firstly, air pollution became worse because aromatic compounds are very photochemically active. Secondly, tailpipe emissions of the carcinogen benzene increased.

AND

Studies from Sweden have found unexpectedly high levels of leukemia in petrol-station workers.13

Dr Michael Dawson asks, "Why are oil companies allowed to substitute a carcinogen (or compounds which are converted to a carcinogen) for a neurotoxin?"6 The carcinogen is released into the air we breathe, while the neurotoxin it replaces comes out of the exhaust as lead oxide or lead chloride which is baked hard and falls to the ground near the road.1

Professor Roger Perry says, "I find it really difficult to understand how any government or any serious scientist could take the issues of low levels of lead seriously, and decide to ignore issues such as benzene where levels are already high enough for concern."9

Professor Bill McCarthy, head of the Sydney Melanoma Unit, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, says: "Benzene is a highly carcinogenic agent. It causes lung tumours, liver tumours, renal tumours, kidney tumours, leukaemia and skin tumours."

http://www.whale.to/b/simons.html#THE_BIG_CON_

And for all you guys doing petrol type things:

the potential hazards from the aromatic octane enhancers-like benzene-were greater than the perceived lead problem.
"In fact, this stuff appears to be so dangerous, potentially lethal, that I urge you not to use it in any car not fitted with a catalytic converter. Don't use it in your mower, chainsaw, whipper-snipper or outboard motor, and don't wash parts in it. If any gets on your skin, wash it off immediately. Avoid the fumes when refuelling and don't allow anyone near the exhaust, particularly when the exhaust system is cold. Remember that catalytic converters don't work until they reach some 400 degrees C."

p.s
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-03/pm-rules-out-carbon-tax-on-petrol/2780490

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the Government has decided the carbon tax will not apply to petrol for individual drivers so that families, tradesmen and small businesses will not be hit with price hikes at the pump.

and of course so that the government will not be hit by petrol tax shortfalls, and re-election fundraising shortfalls from car and fuel industry lobbyists.

 

[radiobirdman]

Chopped down 10 trees last week that I planted for firewood bloody council come around taking me to court for chopping down natives
there side of the fence
:lol: