Australian Politics Forum - Is this a consensus statement?

IQSRLOW Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1618	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #60 - Dec 26^th, 2007 at 6:19pm This is a far too much of a stretch to be spending billion of dollars on for a solution that maybe non-existent Far better to spend those trillions of dollars on proper solutions if need be.
Back to top	Political Animal has little moderation. It is the forum for free speech and free thinkers to converse passionately without the threat of being banned. It is a forum for adults. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47362 At my desk.	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #61 - Dec 26^th, 2007 at 6:22pm You don't have to spend billions. For starters, you just need to change your taxation base.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

IQSRLOW Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1618	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #62 - Dec 26^th, 2007 at 9:12pm For starters, you just need to change your taxation base. An expense in itself and for what gain?
Back to top	Political Animal has little moderation. It is the forum for free speech and free thinkers to converse passionately without the threat of being banned. It is a forum for adults. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47362 At my desk.	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #63 - Dec 26^th, 2007 at 9:36pm Reduced GHG emissions.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

IQSRLOW Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1618	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #64 - Dec 26^th, 2007 at 10:00pm Which will achieve what when you consider global output?
Back to top	Political Animal has little moderation. It is the forum for free speech and free thinkers to converse passionately without the threat of being banned. It is a forum for adults. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47362 At my desk.	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #65 - Dec 28^th, 2007 at 11:46am a reduction in the rate of global warming
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

IQSRLOW Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1618	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #66 - Dec 28^th, 2007 at 12:19pm How much reduction?
Back to top	Political Animal has little moderation. It is the forum for free speech and free thinkers to converse passionately without the threat of being banned. It is a forum for adults. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47362 At my desk.	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #67 - Dec 28^th, 2007 at 12:32pm It depends on how much you reduce GHG emissions. The IPCC reports go through a number of potential scenarios.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

IQSRLOW

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1618

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #68 - Dec 28^th, 2007 at 9:48pm

Say 100% reduction...what will that achieve for global warming?

Does the IPCC talk about a tax shift and the outcomes that are involved and the differences or are you just talking out your ars*e?

We all know the benefits of a trading system are negligible within the next 100+ years at a minimum...

[Kevin Rudd questionnaire to himself] does your magical tax-shift improve this to any extent? Not really[/Kevin Rudd questionnaire]

Back to top

Political Animal has little moderation. It is the forum for free speech and free thinkers to converse passionately without the threat of being banned. It is a forum for adults.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47362
At my desk.

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #69 - Dec 29^th, 2007 at 9:09am

Say 100% reduction...what will that achieve for global warming?

I think it will keep the temperature increase under 2 degrees - probably a lot less. The temperature would return to 'normal' in about 100 years. But I can't remember all the details. You really should check out the IPCC reports.

Does the IPCC talk about a tax shift and the outcomes that are involved and the differences or are you just talking out your ars*e?

The IPCC reports are based on the science - how much the globe warms as a function of how much GHG we emit. The tax shift is an economic thing. That is how to minimise the economic impact of a given reduction in GHG emissions. I am not making it up. The majority of economists support the idea and it is reasonably easy to show how it is better.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168051896/45#46

We all know the benefits of a trading system are negligible within the next 100+ years at a minimum...

How much benefit they are depends entirely on what the emissions reduction 'schedule' is set at. While they have a facade of a market based system, they still require a political process every time you want to reduce emissions further. A tax shift has a number of benefits over a trading scheme:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html#taxes-vs-trading

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #70 - Dec 29^th, 2007 at 9:53am

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2007 at 8:28am:

There were lots of causes operating over different time scales, including Milankovic cycles, variations in the sun's output, natural integrators and positive feedback loops within the earth etc. They were still the drivers up until very recently, when their effects were swamped by anthropogenic influences. The difference now is that CO2 concentrations are unprecedented, as is the rate of warming.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170222422/72#72

So the cause of global warming before humans got involved were lots of things - but they no longer cause global warming? Only humans do now? Why? What happened to the other stuff which used to cause it?

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #71 - Dec 31^st, 2007 at 9:20am

deepthought wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 9:53am:

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2007 at 8:28am:

There were lots of causes operating over different time scales, including Milankovic cycles, variations in the sun's output, natural integrators and positive feedback loops within the earth etc. They were still the drivers up until very recently, when their effects were swamped by anthropogenic influences. The difference now is that CO2 concentrations are unprecedented, as is the rate of warming.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170222422/72#72

So the cause of global warming before humans got involved were lots of things - but they no longer cause global warming? Only humans do now? Why? What happened to the other stuff which used to cause it?

Bump

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #72 - Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:49pm

deepthought wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 9:20am:

deepthought wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 9:53am:

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2007 at 8:28am:

There were lots of causes operating over different time scales, including Milankovic cycles, variations in the sun's output, natural integrators and positive feedback loops within the earth etc. They were still the drivers up until very recently, when their effects were swamped by anthropogenic influences. The difference now is that CO2 concentrations are unprecedented, as is the rate of warming.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170222422/72#72

So the cause of global warming before humans got involved were lots of things - but they no longer cause global warming? Only humans do now? Why? What happened to the other stuff which used to cause it?

Bump

Bump Bump

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Is this a consensus statement?
Reply #73 - Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 7:38pm

deepthought wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:49pm:

deepthought wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 9:20am:

deepthought wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 9:53am:

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2007 at 8:28am:

There were lots of causes operating over different time scales, including Milankovic cycles, variations in the sun's output, natural integrators and positive feedback loops within the earth etc. They were still the drivers up until very recently, when their effects were swamped by anthropogenic influences. The difference now is that CO2 concentrations are unprecedented, as is the rate of warming.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170222422/72#72

So the cause of global warming before humans got involved were lots of things - but they no longer cause global warming? Only humans do now? Why? What happened to the other stuff which used to cause it?

Bump

Bump Bump

Bumpity Bump Bump, Bump Bump.

Back to top

IP Logged

RecFisher Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 347	Re: Is this a consensus statement? Reply #74 - Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 8:52pm Google must be down...
Back to top	IP Logged