Why do you think they have cherry picked or omitted some data?
Climate Change
- Thread starter Bigblu
- Start date
Why do you think they have cherry picked or omitted some data?
As I suspected.
USA - no carbon tax, and absolutely no plan to introduce one.
Russia - no carbon tax, and absolutely no plan to introduce one.
China - no carbon tax, and absolutely no plan to introduce one.
Indonesia - no carbon tax, and absolutely no plan to introduce one.
Canada - had a carbon tax and wisely got rid of it. Population rejected it.
Australia - has a carbon tax and wisely is in the process of getting rid of it. Population rejected it at the first opportunity.
In terms of wealth and political influence around the world, that's a fair chunk.
I'd say the Carbon Tax, based on the utter rejection in Copenhagen 2009 and bugger all since, is pretty much a dead duck.....certainly in Australia.
I'll go through it again. I thought it would be pretty simple?
This site shows the towns used to show the global warming that is occurring in Australia.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=site-networks
Click on any of those red dots. Nearly all of them will show the place is heating up.
Yet there are 100's more data sets. Look at this page, also on BOM
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml
Most are no good as there is missing info everywhere. Probably 90% are no good. But there are still hundreds that are fine. I'd think on average a third show no change in temp, a third show warming, and a third show cooling. I was scratching my head trying to work out why the official info shows so much warming. The towns data sets have been cherry picked.
See ya's.
Esel said "Lots of countries and companies seem to be able to plan for climate change and grow"- NOT "lots of countries have carbon tax".
You pointed out, correctly, that not many countries have carbon tax- which is correct but is not addressing the statement.
I pointed out that countries are taking action on climate change. I didn't say that they were introducing a carbon tax. And Greg Hunt has pointed out that many countries are taking action on climate change. Neither Mr Hunt nor myself stated that a carbon tax should be continued.
IMO the ALP should let go of the Carbon Tax policy, and let the government proceed with its own action on climate change- the action they took to the electorate.
I did not say that countries are introducing a carbon tax, or that it's a good thing. I did say that many countries are taking action on climate change- as pointed out by Greg Hunt. You haven't answered that point, which was the main point I was making.
Dazz,
I think you heavily underestimate the left wing whingers in this country. The same people who got daylight savings blocked because it fades curtains will be back to say big bad corporations should pay a breathing tax lest the earth has a "best before" date tag attached.
Noise has greater influence than intelligence, 7 days a week.
I think you heavily underestimate the left wing whingers in this country. The same people who got daylight savings blocked because it fades curtains will be back to say big bad corporations should pay a breathing tax lest the earth has a "best before" date tag attached.
Noise has greater influence than intelligence, 7 days a week.
Yep I understand that you have found data that you think suggests cherry picking. I'm asking if you have a theory as to why scientists would deliberately misinterpret the data.
I'm wondering if you think they are incompetent or deceitful, and if you think they are deceitful what you think their motivations are.
They are everywhere.
The site used to show global warming is this one, Williamtown.
But right next door, is Newcastle's Nobby Station plus, with 140 years info, but not used.
This is all from the BOM site.
See ya's.
The site used to show global warming is this one, Williamtown.
But right next door, is Newcastle's Nobby Station plus, with 140 years info, but not used.
This is all from the BOM site.
See ya's.
They are everywhere.
The site used by BOM is this one, Williamtown.
But right next door, is Newcastle's Nobby Station plus, with 140 years info, but not used.
This is from on the BOM site.
See ya's.
Most of these blue graphs show a warming trend since the 50s that correlate with increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Here's the BOM explanation. Either you think they are wrong, lying or lazy. Which is it?
Crikey! This one is good.
This is an official rain site for the global warming info. Sandford. Southern Tasmania.
Yet just 15 ks away is Hobart. It's not used.
Why on earth would they use Sandford? It's even missing a few recent years?
I'd have thought they'd be a little bit discreet with the cherry picking.
Here,
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=site-networks
Change "maximum temperature" to "rainfall", and go to the bottom blue dot in Tasmania. Amazing!
See ya's.
This is an official rain site for the global warming info. Sandford. Southern Tasmania.
Yet just 15 ks away is Hobart. It's not used.
Why on earth would they use Sandford? It's even missing a few recent years?
I'd have thought they'd be a little bit discreet with the cherry picking.
Here,
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=site-networks
Change "maximum temperature" to "rainfall", and go to the bottom blue dot in Tasmania. Amazing!
See ya's.
Frankly Geoff, when it comes to this subject, what people say makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. It's all just huff and puff.
I'm interested in what entire countries do, not what individuals say.
I couldn't give a rats what Esel said, or how they said it, or what exact words they used, or didn't use. I also couldn't give a tinkers cuss what you said, or specifically what you didn't say. None of that amounts to a hill of beans.
I also am under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to answer any or all of your posed questions. I also don't have to address any statement. Go look it up if you don't know something. I'm not your research assistant.
What I am interested in, is what entire countries actually do as dictated and legislated by their controlling politicians.....and it is clear, that the vast majority of all of the important countries in this subject reckon that placing a price on carbon is a really really bad idea.
What entire countries are doing is taking action on climate change.
Agreed, a price on carbon is a bad idea. The Coalition was elected, on a platform which included direct action on climate change. Excluding carbon tax. I get that.
The Coalition says that climate change is happening, and is taking action consistent with what they say and consistent with what other countries are doing. Greg Hunt released a green paper today outlining its proposed direct action policy, for further discussion. This is what they said they would do, and it is a part of the platform on which they were elected.
Agreed, a price on carbon is a bad idea. The Coalition was elected, on a platform which included direct action on climate change. Excluding carbon tax. I get that.
The Coalition says that climate change is happening, and is taking action consistent with what they say and consistent with what other countries are doing. Greg Hunt released a green paper today outlining its proposed direct action policy, for further discussion. This is what they said they would do, and it is a part of the platform on which they were elected.
When it comes to being "down to earth", in touch with the environment, free of bull shoit and spin...you can't go past the group of humans who call themselves..... farmers.
They have no agenda on winning votes, scoring Gubb grants of play money, feathering their Academic hat, tv ego or fame, etc. There is no bull shid with farmers.
No; they just go out everyday and earn their living; looking up cows @rses, horses @rses, pigs @rses, digging dirt, growing crops....watching the weather...trying to make ends meet.
I grew up around farmers, and farms, and folk of the dirt, so I know the above to be pretty true.
That is why when TC talks on this subject of the earth and the dirt, and the rain, and the weather....we should listen.
How many farmers do we know who have pulled up stumps from the paddocks, thrown on the stethoscope/microscope and/or the hand knitted green cardy, and started sprouting from the rooftops how the planet is about to self combust, to disappear into the ocean?
TC constantly pulls out charts which for some reason the "experts" conveniently omit to use in reporting on CC/GW/rainfall stats.
Why are these folks doing it?
My cynical mind says...agenda - but what?
I think I'll stick to listening to the real experts on this matter....the farmers - no agendas, just fair dinkum.
They have no agenda on winning votes, scoring Gubb grants of play money, feathering their Academic hat, tv ego or fame, etc. There is no bull shid with farmers.
No; they just go out everyday and earn their living; looking up cows @rses, horses @rses, pigs @rses, digging dirt, growing crops....watching the weather...trying to make ends meet.
I grew up around farmers, and farms, and folk of the dirt, so I know the above to be pretty true.
That is why when TC talks on this subject of the earth and the dirt, and the rain, and the weather....we should listen.
How many farmers do we know who have pulled up stumps from the paddocks, thrown on the stethoscope/microscope and/or the hand knitted green cardy, and started sprouting from the rooftops how the planet is about to self combust, to disappear into the ocean?
TC constantly pulls out charts which for some reason the "experts" conveniently omit to use in reporting on CC/GW/rainfall stats.
Why are these folks doing it?
My cynical mind says...agenda - but what?
I think I'll stick to listening to the real experts on this matter....the farmers - no agendas, just fair dinkum.
Last edited:
I couldn't give two hoots that the Coalition says CC is happening - and I vote for them.
Just because a group of academics who left school and started running the Country with no formal business experience says something doesn't mean they are correct.
Greg Hunt has always been a green cardy wearer.
This same group will tell folks to tighten belts, yet will happily accept free transport, free overseas travel disguised as education trips, other BS, live out their twilight years on disgustingly extravagant pensions we pay for, abuse expense accounts, and so forth.
As a group there is lot of falsehood amongst them, so why should anything said by them about CC or GW be real, or accurate, or something we would listen to at all?
From my understanding, no polly has ever conducted any study of their own on CC/GW - they just receive data sets and then act accordingly, and as we've seen already in this thread, the folks who provide those data sets have interestingly cherry picked them.
I'm waiting for the day when just one pollie - any pollie - comes out on camera and does what TC has done in this thread.....none of them ever will.
Why is that?
Last edited:
You are not comparing apples with apples.
A human body has a pretty constant temp, with only a small allowance for temp variations before strong symptoms of heat stress and/ hypothermia occur.
The planet Earth, on the other hand, has a varying degree range of over 100 degrees in many locations, all over it's surface, on any given minute of every single day...and this is the normal function of the planet.
A rise or fall of 2 or 4 degrees over even a long term will not make much difference at all.
And of course; you won't get a uniform rise or fall of said 2 or 4 degrees anyway.
It will fluctuate like mad as we see in just a handful of the BOM graphs TC has posted here.
This is why I laugh my head off when folks wring their hands and cry "Climate Change!!", or "Global Warming!!"... Run for the bunker!
But what would I know - can't think critically; didn't spend half a dozen years in Uni.
One of my favourite CC moments is when Simon Reeves was doing a doco on the Tropic of Capricorn, as one of the BBC's favourite sons he is a rabid CC sermoniser and preaches to all the subsistence people about how bad it will be when the climate changes.
He was having dinner with a group of graziers up near Rockhampton and was pontificating that the then drought was permanent and they may never see green paddocks again in their lifetime. Firstly, I though it rather rude to lecturing people 30 years his senior on what was going to happen while enjoying their hospitality, but zealots seem to ignore manners when it suits them.
Anyway, the old bloke looks him in the eye and very gently says to SR that it is all a cycle, son. I have seen it all before and when it rains it will flood, this is Australia ! By the time the show was on TV in OZ, Lake Ayre was in flood
I respect the fact that we are all entitled to our opinions but I object to the religious fervour that the zealots adopt. A bit like people who knock on my door and wish to talk religion
France are proceeding with their plan to tax fossil fuels next year as Parliament adopts their 2014 budget.
Part of funds raised will be allocated to energy transition measures and Eur400 million allocated to widening of subsidised gas and power tariffs for the fuel-poor from 1 million households to 4 million.
Curiously they also intend reducing their reliance on nuclear power at a time when some in Australia are pushing for the opposite to occur.
Quote news:
President Francois Hollande announced in September a target of reducing fossil fuel consumption by 30% by 2030, in a bid to reduce final energy consumption by 50% by 2050.
The duty will be charged at a rate of Eur7/mt of carbon in 2014, rising to Eur14.50/mt in 2015 and Eur22/mt in 2016.
As well as gas, heating oil is used commonly in French homes, and the government expects the scheme to generate Eur340 million in 2014, jumping to Eur2.5 billion in 2015 and Eur4 billion in 2016.
Industrial companies which are part of the EU's carbon Emissions Trading Scheme, as well as transport and fishing sectors, are to be exempted from the carbon tax.
Budget documents show that the government intends to channel the full Eur340 million received from the tax in 2014 into its energy transition plans, hoping to boost employment in the green sector.
Some Eur2.2 billion of the carbon tax revenues in 2015 will go towards the energy transition, with a further Eur1.5 billion in 2016.
The budget also includes a gradual phasing out of certain tax exemptions for biofuels between 2014 and 2016, through which the government hopes to save Eur85 million in 2014.
The budget measures factor in pledges written into the constitution in June 2013, which stipulate that the impact on natural resources and pollution are included as a cornerstone of fiscal policy.
But in October the government postponed the introduction of an "eco-tax" on heavy goods vehicles using French roads, after violent protests against the measure in the north-west region of Brittany where food and agriculture industries rely heavily on road transport.
The eco-tax scheme was initially approved by Parliament in 2007 but last week, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayraut said it would only be implemented if there was a "consensus" in favour, implying input from a range of social and business organisations
A simple search of "government grants for australian farmers" will be illuminating.
And we all know how the farmers will scream if there is any move to remove the "Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme".
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope actually.
The experts recon we are in deep poo if global temps rise by an average of 4 degrees (but this is the upper end of predictions). One of the problems would be an increase in the frequency and severity of natural disasters like bush fires and tropical storms. Heat contributes to both of them. The more hot spells the more bush fires and cyclones.
Another big problem would be if land based ice melts because it will disrupt people's water supply (no snow melt = no rivers) and because if the land based ice in the arctic melts it will raise sea levels, flooding millions in coastal settlements.
These are lots of other examples out there but I think these two are particularly relevant for Australians.
As for a few degrees not having much of an impact, during the last Ice age overage global temperatures were only about 6 degrees cooler. In simple terms each year a little more snow fell than melted at the end of the winter so the ice caps expanded. The bigger they grew, the more heat they reflected back so there was less heat to be absorbed. One of the problems with the current temperature increases (by the way did you see today's news - 2013 is the hottest year on record) is that when the ice melts, there is less ice to reflect radiation out so the dark sea absorbs more of the heat, warms and then causes more ice to melt, which means less radiation is reflected out and more is absorbed...
What, why won't a pollie try and prove that climate change isn't happening?
Er, Because All the major parties know that climate change is happening. Which politicians dont understand climate change yet?
