carbon tax bull

[radiobirdman]

Isnt co2 heavier than air, doesn't it fall to the ground to feed the plants .or doesn't gravity work on co2 ?

when you burn oxygen doesn't it release co2 that falls to the ground because its heavier air

so it must be a oxygen tax because its the only thing being consumed

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

Very simple question
HOW will paying tax/levy fix the so called climate problem .

The same way that fining people for dumping crap on the nature strip outside their house fixes the "dumping crap on the nature strip" problem.

If you fine people for doing something, they don't do it as much.

Your theory is all well and good, but its just a theory at the end of the day. I have given you the facts about why they are implementing a carbon tax. If you choose to ignore it and be a sheep then do it at your own perril, stop clogging up the thread with stupid analogies of dumping on the side of road etc.

This explains in a nutshell why the analogy is utter horsesh1t :lol:

SAVVIE???

 

[fishball]

Isnt co2 heavier than air, doesn't it fall to the ground to feed the plants .or doesn't gravity work on co2 ?

when you burn oxygen doesn't it release co2 that falls to the ground because its heavier air

so it must be a oxygen tax because its the only thing being consumed

CO2 is indeed heavier than 'normal' air.

N2 = 34, O2 = 32, CO2 = 44 (or 45). Therefore, CO2 is heavier than air when you look at the atomic masses.

Don't really know why it stays up there but if I had to guess it'd be because of

- Marginal weight difference
- Wind
- Diffusion
- Lower gravitational pull in the stratosphere or whatever that place up there is called

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

Reducing rate of consumption will have little or no effect on eventual outcome

Just think about that for a minute.

If increasing the rate of consumption causes the problem to begin with, what is likely to happen if you reduce the rate of consumption?

Can kicking goodness... that's all it is about, reduce emissions by 5% get to that same destination 5% slower. The oil WILL be burnt the CO2 WILL be released, when and where is the only question. If we reduce emissions by 5% - crippling our economy in the process and lowering our standard of living so much so that average people can no longer use their air conditioners in summer here in one of the hottest places on the planet - and china increases by 10% [they could increase by 0.1% and it would still dwarf the "savings" made by offering the australian public on the altar - who gives a flying rats arse. It is all a lie... and not a terribly well thought out one at that

sorry mate - just had to improve the accuracy of your statement slightly

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

If we emit carbon at a faster rate than the earth's plants can absorb it, the carbon builds up in the atmosphere and creates problems with the global climate.

We have in fact been emitting carbon at a faster rate than the earth's plants can absorb it and the resultant build up of carbon in the atmosphere has started to create problems with the global climate.

BULLsh1t!

higer CO2 levels are actually condusive to plant growth - acting almost like a plant fertiliser - easy to understand if you understand photosynthesis and that fact that CO2 is actually FOOD at the very base of the ecosystem.

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

Can kicking goodness... that's all it is about, reduce emissions by 5% get to that same destination 5% slower. The oil WILL be burnt the CO2 WILL be released, when and where is the only question.

Yeah, and the problem is the rate at which the CO2 is released.

The earth is able to constantly absorb a certain amount of carbon. This is the "plant food" people keep going on about, so obviously the amount of carbon that can be absorbed is related to the amount of plants on the earth.

If we emit carbon at a faster rate than the earth's plants can absorb it, the carbon builds up in the atmosphere and creates problems with the global climate.

We have in fact been emitting carbon at a faster rate than the earth's plants can absorb it and the resultant build up of carbon in the atmosphere has started to create problems with the global climate.

And we end up at the same place, we can never reduce the rate of world carbon doixide release to under that of world carbon dioxide sequestration. So reducing the rate of only kicks the can down the road. To solve the "Problem" (not that there is one that is not imaginary) we as a planet would need to reduce carbon emissions to BELOW sequestration and then the "problem" would not be "can kicked", but solved. So no this carbon tax is not a solution but a slight delay

CO2 never has been a problem and it never will be.

 

[hawkeye]

It doesn't surprise me that so many defend it, after all who doesn't want to help the environment?

Unfortunately, the whole Global Warming thing has been blown completely out of all proportion. Not uncommon for things like this in the public sphere. Remember the War On Terror? Just like the War On Terror though, certain groups have used it as a way to funnel funds from taxpayer pockets into the govt and then into their own pockets via govt subsidies and the like. Unscrupulous govt scientists are happy to go along with it and the few who don't are pressured in no uncertain terms. It's a go along to get along system.

The biggest scammers in the modern age target the govt because that's where the biggest amount of money is concentrated in society. Most politicians are happy to go along in one way or another because it is in their own best interests and "everyone else does it".

 

[bordsilver]

Yippe. I'm a bit confused about where you stand regarding the underlying science. Can you please put it a bit more clearly?

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

Yeah, and the problem is the rate at which the CO2 is released.

The earth is able to constantly absorb a certain amount of carbon. This is the "plant food" people keep going on about, so obviously the amount of carbon that can be absorbed is related to the amount of plants on the earth.

If we emit carbon at a faster rate than the earth's plants can absorb it, the carbon builds up in the atmosphere and creates problems with the global climate.

We have in fact been emitting carbon at a faster rate than the earth's plants can absorb it and the resultant build up of carbon in the atmosphere has started to create problems with the global climate.

Well, sorta kinda, and sorta kinda not. Certainly plants use the CO2 in photosynthesis, and kindly provide oxygen as a result. But certainly rainfall, snowfall, and ocean surfaces absorb large amounts of CO2 also. The amount of carbon that can be absorbed by water is actually temperature related, so as the oceans rise in temperature, so their capacity for CO2 absorption increases. In fact human input is responsible for 3% to 5% (depending on who you get your result from) of the total weight of CO2. The rest (over 95%) occurs as a part of a natural geological cycle and would appear even if humanity was wiped from the face of the earth. So if Julia's going to tax the top 500 "polluters", she'd better send a bill to God.

mate - just remember - no amount of logic or facts will ever come between a good communist and the money he/she steals from every citizen through taxation in every shape, form and colour...

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

Yippe. I'm a bit confused about where you stand regarding the underlying science. Can you please put it a bit more clearly?

http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/6824_confused.jpg

To put it simply - CO2 - and specifically the CO2 emitted due to manmade activities is a zero on a contract when it comes to global warming.
The whole global warming scare caused by manmade CO2 was a phurphy invented by the Thatcher regime in the 1980's.

I did quite a bit of my own research on this topic and - having a scientific background myself - it wasn't too difficult to separate the sh1t from the shovel so to speak.

I will confess that initially - before i had gone into any depth on the subject - i also believed the "mainstream" (= government propogated) view that CO2 caused global warming ...

it's not that hard to believe since
1. man's activities produce a lot of CO2
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3. global warming appeared (at least in the 90's) to be a current trend

These individual facts - although individually true - have been hashed together and taken completely out of context in order to perport the absolute lie that manmade CO2 emissions is causing global warming.

Even a very small amount of your own research will uncover a few inconvenient truths about this lie/propaganda:
1. CO2 forms an impossibly small fraction of the atmosphere to be an important player in global warming
2. there would be too many other things to worry about LONG BEFORE CO2 such as water vapour - a much bigger contributor to greenhouse warming
3. high levels of CO2 TRAIL periods of higher temperatures by between 500 and 800 years NOT the other way around, i.e. higher CO2 levels are a RESULT of warming and NOT the CAUSE OF WARMING...
4. Previous periods of earth's history have seen CO2 levels MANY TIMES HIGHER than they are at present - and this DID NOT LEAD TO RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING. In fact - all it did lead to was a period of unparalleled abundance of plant and animal life, because - unlike what the lying commie scum will have you believe - higher CO2 levels are actually GOOD for the planet and are NOT a form of POLLUTION.
5. There's also the very inconvenient truth that the planet seems to be actually going into a cooling phase now - in fact it appears as if we are on our way to another Ice Age. [This is the reason the lying commie scum have renamed their scam from "global warming" to "climate change"...


SAVVIE??? :lol:

 

[thatguy]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thgtezzod7k[/youtube]
If it was so real why the need for fraud

 

[Lovey80]

Yippie, I think to be fair, that just as the Alarmists have not been able to prove that CO2 is causing warming or will so in the future..... To be fair, the other side of the argument has not proved that it does not. While I sit in the camp of " it doesn't cause global warming, if you want to provide irrefutable proof to turn a climate theory into a scientific law, then I'll change my mind", my issues on the carbo tax are such:

1. Fact: Australia going it alone introducing the most expensive carbon tax will not and can not change global temperature.

2. For every industry that this tax pushes to the wall will only open it up to foreign companies to take up the slack and profits because they won't have a tax.

3. If and only if, they were able to prove that CO2 is a problem, then carbon trading should be OFF the table. If and a big if, there was a world consensus to action then Carbon permits should be sold by govt to allow CO2 cash to be directed straight to renewable research. Screw Goldman Sachs, screw JP Morgan, screw citi bank and especially screw the corrupt IPCC. They ain't getting a cent!

4. This is the most important thing that Big A.D. And Peter and the rest of the hippies need to understand.

Taxing CO2 regardless of it's danger or not, WILL ensure that it takes LONGER to find effective renewables to replace fossil fuels. If 100% of the cash raised from this does not go directly into finding an alternative then it hurts every one. That means, not a cent to helping "the most in need", not a cent to the UN, not a cent to consolidated revenue. Unless every dollar went directly into an account to be divided out in research grants for renewable tech, then this will and can only have a damaging effect.

Putting a chain and ball around our ankles from now until a renewable alternate is found is plain stupidity.

 

[hawkeye]

I'm not a scientist, but my understanding from sceptics is that CO2 does cause global warming. All the major sceptics that I have read say this.

That's why money was spent to determine whether it was a problem or not. By the time it had been determined it wasn't a problem it was too late. Too many people had built their careers on it and stood to lose a lot if the scare was non-existent. After all, there would be no need for govt to spend all that money on them. It was like a runaway train where no-one wants to stop it. After all, the few people that have spoke up have been completely vilified.

 

[Ghost]

Thank God a political party has the guts to stand up to the polluters and try to get them to reduce their dangerous wastes .Even though the rich and powerful spend millions on advertising trying to prevent this.And the feeble minded can't see through this irresponsible and antisocial strategy.


...
Just thought you'd like another point of view on this matter.

OMFG!!!!!

 

[thatguy]

I'm not a scientist, but my understanding from sceptics is that CO2 does cause global warming. All the major sceptics that I have read say this.

That's why money was spent to determine whether it was a problem or not. By the time it had been determined it wasn't a problem it was too late. Too many people had built their careers on it and stood to lose a lot if the scare was non-existent. After all, there would be no need for govt to spend all that money on them. It was like a runaway train where no-one wants to stop it. After all, the few people that have spoke up have been completely vilified.

+1 and the End result is terrifying
Whatever You Think of Global Warming Fascism is Not Cool
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/whatever-you-think-of-global-warming-fascism-is-not-cool.html

Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now."

WTF?!

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

I'm not a scientist, but my understanding from sceptics is that CO2 does cause global warming. All the major sceptics that I have read say this.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so yes - it does add to global warming - but the point is that the part that it adds to global warming is so minute as to be completely insignificant.

The biggest known (yet not fully understood) factor in global warming is the SUN and it's complex cycles...
yes - fancy THAT being the cause of global warming huh? that big ball of hydrogen some 150 million kms awy that is busy at it 24/7 converting H2 to He via nuclear fusion ... fancy that hey!??
Can governments use that as an excuse to scare people into taxing them? NO ...

The next greatest contributor to global warming would be water ... yep - good old H2O vapour. Due to its abundance here on earth - H2O has the strongest greenhouse effect of all greenhouse gases here on earth.
Can governments use that as an excuse to scare people into taxing them? NO ...
They do already tax people for water shortages, but they cannot very well tax people because there is too much water around now can they? NO ...

Probably the SMALLEST CONTRIBUTOR to greenhouse warming on earth is CO2 [ZERO on a contract]... due to it's minute proportion of the atmosphere (and unlike H2O there is not limitless bounds of it in liquid and solid form).
Can governments use it as an excuse to scare people into taxing them for producing "excessive amounts of CO2"?
ONLY in Australia apparently....

:lol:

 

[thatguy]

The biggest known (yet not fully understood) factor in global warming is the SUN and it's complex cycles...

So you're trying to say the Sun causes temperature differences on earth, and increased solar activity equals increase warmth on our planet?! I'm still confused just how do you tax that?

I wonder if mars has warmed? I mean there are 2 cars on Mars and both are electric (so no emissions issues) so if mars has warmed I suppose you could blame the sun?

 

[Lovey80]

I think you'll find YKY that there is actually close enough to limitless amounts of CO2 available to be in the atmosphere. There has been far far higher concentrations of CO2 (10x) in our history.

The problem with the alarmist campaign is thier tripling effect hypothesis. Ie they maintain that over a certain ppm of CO2 for every ppm that we add in CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 causes 3ppm of H2O to increase in the atmosphere. It is the H2O forming insulating clouds that they claim will actually cause the warming.

This is the keystone of the whole AGW argument. Without this, they have absolutely nothing, nada, zilch.

The problem they have is two fold IMO.

Firstly, they haven't even come close to replicating their "tripling" effect outside of laboratory conditions. Ie they can prove that CO2 concentrations above a certain point add 3ppm of H2O in a closed lab environment but they can't prove that actually happens in the earths atmosphere.

Secondly, even if they could prove the tripling effect in the atmosphere, they can't even come close to being able to tell us what sort of clouds will form as a result of the extra H2O in the atmosphere.

As some clouds cause an insulating effect and some do not, they are relying as always on the "precautionary principle" to guilt us into action. Greenies like the AMCS and Pew group love doing this with fisheries restrictions when they can't prove that stocks are in danger or that green zones will actually work.

Weather scientists can't tell us accurately what sort of clouds will be formed to get the weather right three days in advance half the time, yet Goldman Sachs and their buddies are funding all the right people to tell us they can predict that "if" the tripling effect turns out to be true, that the type of clouds in our atmosphere will possibly be the right ones to cause warming in one hundred years time.

And they wonder why I am sitting in the skeptics camp until convinced otherwise? They call us flat earthers lol. If this is not faith based religious zealotry of the highest order I don't know what is.

Religious zealots use the precautionary principle so they don't go to hell, even though there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of god. I find it funny that so many of the AGW believers are atheists.

 

[wrcmad]

Religious zealots use the precautionary principle so they don't go to hell, even though there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of god. I find it funny that so many of the AGW believers are atheists.

 

[Yippe-Ki-Ya]

I think you'll find YKY that there is actually close enough to limitless amounts of CO2 available to be in the atmosphere. There has been far far higher concentrations of CO2 (10x) in our history.

yes there have been times in our past where CO2 levels have been far higher (10x) than present - i alluded to that in one of my previous posts - and like i said there - there was no runaway greenhouse effect or excessive temperatures - what there WAS however was a richness in plant and animal life unlike anything known on earth...

So FAR from being a pollutant - higher levels of CO2 act instead as a FERTILISER...

suck on THAT BigAD and all the other lamebrains on here :lol: