Say Yes to lane closures

shadow boxer said :

wtf, what evidence ?

I think pajs and I were in agreement on the facts, we were just debating the urgency.

– technology does not arise spontaneously: examples given, then JB got into the act and added more info, you’ve retorted with ‘Yes, technology does arise spontaneously’. I could direct you to numerous tomes regarding the necessary factors for technological development, but there’s not much point, as you’d just ignore it.
– ditto with ‘tax the middle-class’: there’s policy in place and a number of treasury modellings (and the Garnaut report) released that have scuppered this myth. Your response was “it’s just another green scheme that will cost me money”.

While I appreciate your opinion (and a decent comment without the overtones of a negative attitude which it all too common around here), I must disagree with you on this point:

Jim Jones said :

I disagree that we need another election. We have a government in the early stages of its term who are implementing policy. In a representative democracy you don’t go to an election each time there is a contentious or controversial issue – that’s what Parliament is for.

I would say that this issue alone is the catalyst for another election. Fair call about contentious issues not requiring an election (e.g. an election over current immigration debate is not needed), but as you said yourself it is a representative democracy. As far as I’m concerned, those people who voted for their representative based on the comments of Gillard leading up to the election have been misrepresented. I’m sure you’ve heard this argument many times before, so I won’t go into it further (also it’ll keep the page size down when the fanatics on here start flaming me with quotes).

Whether the swing from any election is +/- ALP, Greens or Coalition, I think it’ll advance the progress of the climate change debate (hopefully it would reduce the political aspect so scientific evidence gets a larger profile) and it will shut up the shock jocks who keep harping on about the point I made above (and hopefully then Media Watch will stop talking about this issue, they’ve done it to death!).

For the record – I am all for climate action but I don’t have faith in this government to run it effectively or efficiently. Out of a bad bunch, in my opinion these guys will do the worst job.

FD10 said :

Also, if you claim that a galaxy poll of 500 people is a “pushpoll”, then why don’t you scrutinise the demographics of the pro-tax rallies? Let’s compare the effort of answering a telephone to going out on a freezing cold day to march. Now let’s think about the political motivation behind each of those acts. Sort of throws your argument out of the window when you look at the other side of the coin.

Having said that, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying that trying to predict levels of support for this issue by using rally attendence numbers or telephone polls is inconclusive.

1) Godwin!

2) Of course basing levels of support from rally numbers and the like is stupid – I’m responding to A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster on this very point.

3) The 500 respondant pushpoll was a pushpoll because of the leading question asked and the backing of the IPA, the 500 number is relevant insomuch as it can’t be taken seriously as a poll of the population.

I disagree that we need another election. We have a government in the early stages of its term who are implementing policy. In a representative democracy you don’t go to an election each time there is a contentious or controversial issue – that’s what Parliament is for. If you take away that, then there’s no point in having representative democracy. If you don’t like it, vote differently at the next election.

While I’m no fan of the Labor government, at least they are trying to make a start on addressing climate change (albeit much too late and while having the agenda hijacked by rent-seekers), while the Coalition at times doesn’t even seem to want to acknowledge that there is an issue. When they do acknowledge that there is an issue – the policy to deal with it is so laughable that, not only will any economists or climate scientists defend it, the most knowledgeable members of the Liberal Party can’t bring themselves to support it.

If there’s one issue that should be getting bipartisan support, it’s addressing climate change. It’s a sad indictment of the Australian political system that this issue has been politicised to the point that people will reflexively argue that there is no problem (despite all the evidence) because of their political leanings.

Jim Jones said :

I think I’d rather place my faith in the 50,000 people that showed up at climate change rallies over the weekend, rather than the 500 people who were pushpolled, or the 3000 people bussed from Sydney.

Hmmmmm keeping with the theme of historical analogies, let’s try this one. The Nazi Party held rallies with many hundreds of thousands of people in attendance. It doesn’t mean they were right.
Their strongest result in an election before Hitler could manipulate his way to Chancellor was 37.3% of the vote, hardly a majority.

Just sayin’,,,,,

Also, if you claim that a galaxy poll of 500 people is a “pushpoll”, then why don’t you scrutinise the demographics of the pro-tax rallies? Let’s compare the effort of answering a telephone to going out on a freezing cold day to march. Now let’s think about the political motivation behind each of those acts. Sort of throws your argument out of the window when you look at the other side of the coin.

Having said that, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying that trying to predict levels of support for this issue by using rally attendence numbers or telephone polls is inconclusive.

What we need to settle this debate is an election, and nothing else will compare.

wtf, what evidence ?

I think pajs and I were in agreement on the facts, we were just debating the urgency.

shadow boxer said :

I don’t really care, it’s just another green scheme that will cost me money.

The taxing the middle class is not a furphy if my understanding is correct that the mechanism is tax cuts cutting out to zero for those earning more than 80k.

We seem to have developed a whole range of technologies over the past 100 years without needing a mechanism like this. People are always looking for new and better and I just can’t see the urgency.

So your response to the explanations put to you is: “I don’t care, I’m not listening”?

Well done. That’s precisely what Australian society needs, more people who will ignore evidence.

I don’t really care, it’s just another green scheme that will cost me money.

The taxing the middle class is not a furphy if my understanding is correct that the mechanism is tax cuts cutting out to zero for those earning more than 80k.

We seem to have developed a whole range of technologies over the past 100 years without needing a mechanism like this. People are always looking for new and better and I just can’t see the urgency.

Shadow boxer #34

In 2111 we will be 100 years older. Add the number 1 before your current age in years. Can you see yourself living that long?

What the hell is the point?? I can’t see medical science allowing us to live even a few years longer than how long we live now.

Chances are, you and I are not going to be around to see what the world will be like in 2111, let alone how we get our electricity or what fuels our cars then.

An interesting point about the “progress” of wars is that they almost never broke new scientific ground, but in the crucible of intense competition new technologies were put into production that had previously been neglected because they upset the status quo.

Makes one wonder if progress can be had without war if intense competition can be peacefully fostered.

(And there’s your space race)

shadow boxer said :

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

It’s not great, but not the end of the world, wouldn’t we be better off putting ur money into short term initiatives like saving the tassie devils and polar bears than lowering carbon rates that will lower naturally over time as new technologies develop ?

New technologies don’t develop spontaneously.

One of the major aims of pricing carbon is so that it motivates the business sector to invest in the development of new technology.

Yeh I see the point but new technologies do kind of just develop spontaneously, particulalrly over 100 years or so, we appear to have plenty of time.

I’m not sure the Tassie Devils do and there appear smarter ways to encourage R&D than just taxing the middle class.

Okay, first up: no technology ever arises spontaneously – there needs to be a concerted effort to make it functional. With regards to renewable energy, etc., the amount invested in R&D will increase if businesses see it as a way to maximise profit.

For an example of motivated technological advancement, look at the past 2 World Wars, in which military technology made massive leaps and bounds (due to heavy investment) and then the technology made it into public use (airplanes are a big one to note here). Or look at the technological advances made possible by the space race as part of the Cold War.

Secondly, whether you agree with a carbon tax or some other mechanism for pricing carbon – calling it ‘taxing the middle class’ is just a furphy. The tax is paid by polluting companies (apparently 1000 or so) who will probably pass on some of their extra costs to the consumer, who will be renumerated by the tax proceeds being funnelled to them in tax cuts. In some instances (pensioners, etc.) the people will be overrenumerated.

Regardless, the idea that we can all just sit on our arses, not take any action and think, well, some technology will spontaneously develop that will fix everything is a myth. Effort needs to be expended to assist with technological development.

You wouldn’t assume that space travel would be a technology that would arise ‘spontaneously’ without heavy investment and R&D, so why assume that alternative energies would be any different – particularly when vested interests are all too keen to prevent a shift towards alternative forms of energy?

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

It’s not great, but not the end of the world, wouldn’t we be better off putting ur money into short term initiatives like saving the tassie devils and polar bears than lowering carbon rates that will lower naturally over time as new technologies develop ?

New technologies don’t develop spontaneously.

One of the major aims of pricing carbon is so that it motivates the business sector to invest in the development of new technology.

Yeh I see the point but new technologies do kind of just develop spontaneously, particulalrly over 100 years or so, we appear to have plenty of time.

I’m not sure the Tassie Devils do and there appear smarter ways to encourage R&D than just taxing the middle class.

shadow boxer said :

It’s not great, but not the end of the world, wouldn’t we be better off putting ur money into short term initiatives like saving the tassie devils and polar bears than lowering carbon rates that will lower naturally over time as new technologies develop ?

New technologies don’t develop spontaneously.

One of the major aims of pricing carbon is so that it motivates the business sector to invest in the development of new technology.

@pajs

Thanks, That is a good article. I think I understand that multiplying and inundation scenario now and it is certainly a concern but is it really something we need to be panicking about.

This rise would be a gradual event over the next 100 years, when I look at the technology available in 1911 and compare it to 2011 I have no idea what 2111 will look like but I think we can say with some certainty that we wont be using coal for electricity or petrol for cars.

It is also probably reasonable to assume that all our infrastructure and housing will get torn down and replaced over the next 100 years with new stuff that caters for the new scenarios.

It’s not great, but not the end of the world, wouldn’t we be better off putting ur money into short term initiatives like saving the tassie devils and polar bears than lowering carbon rates that will lower naturally over time as new technologies develop ?

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

The latest Galaxy poll shows that 59% of Aussies DO NOT WANT a carbon tax. 72 percent want Gillard to take the tax to an election. No amount of “we know what’s best for you and stiff kack you’ll just have to pay up” greenie BS from the chattering classes and their fellow travellers will change that.

Are you talking about the poll that surveyed an entire 500 people? The one that was commissioned by the IPA (hard-right wing institute) and has been revealed and condemned as push-polling?

I think I’d rather place my faith in the 50,000 people that showed up at climate change rallies over the weekend, rather than the 500 people who were pushpolled, or the 3000 people bussed from Sydney.

You know how many people attended the counter-rally to the climate change rally?

2

say yes to what you morons. Who the hell will say yes to tax me more . Australians already pay too much tax. Labor burn money like a kid in a lolly shop. If it’s so good make the tax voluntary and you can pay mine.
call an Election Juliar. you commy bitch.

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

No, mate. Many more people turned up than were at the pro-carbon tax rally. Only one announcer on 2GB – whose program is only heard in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Bathurst – promoted the No Carbon Tax rally.

“Around 3,000 people, mostly bussed from Sydney at the urging of a commercial radio announcer” (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/23/3171486.htm)

colourful sydney racing identity said :

And how many turned up to the anti carbon tax rally at Parliament House a couple of months back? Don’t forget it was going to be ‘HUGE’.

It was heavily promoted on 2GB and other commercial radio stations and they had a couple of hundred turn up.

No, mate. Many more people turned up than were at the pro-carbon tax rally. Only one announcer on 2GB – whose program is only heard in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Bathurst – promoted the No Carbon Tax rally.

We didn’t have the ABC and Fairfax press pushing our cause non-stop for months. Nor did we fudge attendance figures like the leftists did. Your crowd didn’t have Press Gallery journalists demonising politicians who addressed the rallies and making sneering remarks about the attendees and their banners.

The latest Galaxy poll shows that 59% of Aussies DO NOT WANT a carbon tax. 72 percent want Gillard to take the tax to an election. No amount of “we know what’s best for you and stiff kack you’ll just have to pay up” greenie BS from the chattering classes and their fellow travellers will change that.

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

Solidarity said :

The front page of the Canberra Times has people holding up a poster saying “Canberra says Yes to action on Climate change” or something like that

If Canberra said yes, then why was there a protest?

Less than 3,000 people (out of a population of 360,000) turned out for the rally despite the full-on promotion of it by The Canberra Times and the ABC. The Canberra Times even published a full-colour supplement two days earlier, and their Saturday edition was virtually advertising pamphleteering for the rally including a front page beatup about climate “scientists” at the ANU receiving threatening emails (what do they expect?).

Good to see the vast majority ignoring this crap and seeing right through the cajoling and bullying of the leftist green fringe.

And how many turned up to the anti carbon tax rally at Parliament House a couple of months back? Don’t forget it was going to be ‘HUGE’.

It was heavily promoted on 2GB and other commercial radio stations and they had a couple of hundred turn up.

shadow boxer said :

A serious question for the smart scientists on here, why the panic about sea levels rising a metre or two over 100 years.

The world will be very different in 100 years and that seems ample time to plan, we are good at building sea walls (Dubai appears able to build whole islands) and whatever else we need to.

Is it just the polar caps and associated loss of wildlife or something else ?

With sea level rise, you might have an increase of ‘only’ a metre or two but you can also have big changes in extremes. Think of it like a bathtub. You can inch up the fill level in the tub and get closer and closer to spilling over the lip. But there’s also energy in the tub, other things happening like winds, tides, storm systems, surges etc (some of which having little or nothing to do with climate change). But combine that other stuff with the fact that the tub is more full and you can end up with both a greater change of spills (eg frequency of inundation) and more water spilling over when it does slosh past the lip (eg a greater intensity of inundation).

The more you inch up the levels, the bigger the increase at the extremes. And it is the extremes that bust levees, not the averages.

That busted stuff is expensive to fix, if you can fix it, and expensive to protect, if you can protect it. Each of those dollars is a dollar not able to go to something else, like dealing with the impacts on human health of higher temperature, or paying for schools, roads etc.

See the beginning of http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-critical-decade-part-2-climate-risks.html for a short outtake of some key points about Australian vulnerabilities to the consequences of sea level rise.

A serious question for the smart scientists on here, why the panic about sea levels rising a metre or two over 100 years.

The world will be very different in 100 years and that seems ample time to plan, we are good at building sea walls (Dubai appears able to build whole islands) and whatever else we need to.

Is it just the polar caps and associated loss of wildlife or something else ?

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

Solidarity said :

The front page of the Canberra Times has people holding up a poster saying “Canberra says Yes to action on Climate change” or something like that

If Canberra said yes, then why was there a protest?

Less than 3,000 people (out of a population of 360,000) turned out for the rally despite the full-on promotion of it by The Canberra Times and the ABC. The Canberra Times even published a full-colour supplement two days earlier, and their Saturday edition was virtually advertising pamphleteering for the rally including a front page beatup about climate “scientists” at the ANU receiving threatening emails (what do they expect?).

Good to see the vast majority ignoring this crap and seeing right through the cajoling and bullying of the leftist green fringe.

I don’t think anyone expects to get threatening emails for doing their job or for having a different opinion.
Did you see how badly spelled those emails were?

Diggety, I am aware of the difference between correlation and causation. I am not aware of what you think is incorrect about the basic physics and chemistry of the greenhouse effect and the enhanced greenhouse effect. Perhaps you could explain?

pajs said :

Diggety, a few responses.

There is scientific consensus on the basics of climate change. There is a greenhouse effect. Humans are adding more greenhouse gases to the system. More greenhouse gases trap more heat. The planet warms. Consequences follow. For more on the scientific consensus, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Does this mean that every part of the science on climate change is settled? No. There are lots of things with uncertainties attached to them, such as the regional-scale impacts on rainfall. But there is very little uncertainty on the basics.

The IPCC reports are science summaries. If you think the top-level summaries for policy makers are too close to politics and stray from science (which I do not agree with), then there are the underlying reports. These are summaries of the science. Not political documents. You can find out more about the IPCC reports and the reporting process via http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

Consensus does not mean proof!
Correlation does not mean causation!
These are two things drilled into one’s supervisor when completing a PhD in science. They are both principles used in science for a very long time, just because the ACC debate has stepped into the political arena, does not excuse their omission from scientific process!

Remember that, pajs

The IPCC report is a collation of scientific reports, true. However, it was not intended as further evidence or contributing to the scientific process. It is for politicians primarily.

Scientists do not submit their findings to a panel made up of scientists, engineers, policy advisers, economists and activists to validate their results.

The basics of the ACC theory is in contention. It will continue to be, until such time as it is proved. That is how the scientific process works. That is not to say policy planning, scientific studies of consequential effect and related solutions (I.e. energy research) should not be undertaken, quite the opposite, these pursuits are a matter of urgency, and rightly so.

Two things:

1. Climate science: at no time in history has a scientific theory thrust the debate and research this far into the political sphere (yes, I am including evolution). The behaviour, methods and review process has brought science into disrepute, from BOTH sides of the debate. I cannot think of a time where, the validity of a theory or its rejection has been so tainted by political malevolence.

2. The carbon tax: The insistence of some to propose that the carbon tax is the most effective, efficient, transparent and cheapest way to reduce the effects of ACC either domestically or internationally, could not be farther from the truth. Here is why:
– The effect of the carbon tax on climate change will be negligible. The carbon tax is a symbolic gesture, and a costly one. Particularly if the tax (or other action) does not target coal exports, reducing the economical integrity for coal in other countries.
– A fundamental error is assumed: the reduced demand on an electricity grid is proportional to the CO2 saved at the energy source. There is an obvious lack of industry consultation in addressing energy alternatives, and as such, both reduction of CO2 emitting sources and replacement of renewable energy alternatives is overestimated. This is what happens when you get economists to do an engineers’ work.
– The carbon tax solution does not lay within the scope of the intended problem. The indirect nature of the carbon tax (e.g. tax CO2–> cost passed on to consumer –> consumer (partial) compensation–> Tax receipts redistributed for renewable energy research and sources). This is very inefficient and outside the scope of the problem.
– There are no transparency guarantees for tax revenue.
– This is not the cheapest way to price carbon. The Government redistribution inefficiency alone contributes to this (what is it, 30c in the dollar lost to Gov inefficiency?
– The planned timing of an attempt to replace coal emitting sources attached to the carbon tax, will ensure we miss out on far better renewable energies due to become available in the future. We will spend a lot more on inefficient and unreliable alternatives if we do not do the right thing and wait.

Often those on the pro-carbon tax will accuse those on the anti-carbon tax side of not wanting to do anything about climate change.

If those pro would consider that the carbon tax is NOT the cheapest and most effective way to reduce our effects on ACC, do you think they would still be proponents? I’d say mostly, simply due to cognitive dissonance associated with heated political issues.

Well whatever the scientific conclusions of exhaustive research, it will make no difference to the world’s temperature no matter how much we have to pay as a carbon tax.

I really worry about the number of flat earthers on Riot Act sometimes.

Diggety, a few responses.

There is scientific consensus on the basics of climate change. There is a greenhouse effect. Humans are adding more greenhouse gases to the system. More greenhouse gases trap more heat. The planet warms. Consequences follow. For more on the scientific consensus, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Does this mean that every part of the science on climate change is settled? No. There are lots of things with uncertainties attached to them, such as the regional-scale impacts on rainfall. But there is very little uncertainty on the basics.

The IPCC reports are science summaries. If you think the top-level summaries for policy makers are too close to politics and stray from science (which I do not agree with), then there are the underlying reports. These are summaries of the science. Not political documents. You can find out more about the IPCC reports and the reporting process via http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

Solidarity said :

The front page of the Canberra Times has people holding up a poster saying “Canberra says Yes to action on Climate change” or something like that

If Canberra said yes, then why was there a protest?

Less than 3,000 people (out of a population of 360,000) turned out for the rally despite the full-on promotion of it by The Canberra Times and the ABC. The Canberra Times even published a full-colour supplement two days earlier, and their Saturday edition was virtually advertising pamphleteering for the rally including a front page beatup about climate “scientists” at the ANU receiving threatening emails (what do they expect?).

Good to see the vast majority ignoring this crap and seeing right through the cajoling and bullying of the leftist green fringe.

gasman said :

gasman said :

There is NO debate about its existence amongst people who have actually read the evidence.

You’ve got to be kidding me, right? No debate whatsoever at all by anyone, anywhere, who has read scientific findings related to a proposed correlation between CO2 emissions and the planet’s average temperatures rising?

Gasman,

To understand what scientific fact is, you need to understand scientific evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

There are a LOT more than 4 reputable scientists who are not convinced on the theory of ACC. There are mot more than 4 reputable scientists in my faculty alone who reject the theory. And 100% of scientists can (legitimately) say, that the theory is not yet fact.

I am a scientist, and my work has led me to study ACC for the last 11 years. Although the theory is very plausible, there are still large holes in it. And the debate has been continuing, and will continue into the foreseeable future.

You would be alarmed to find just how much we DON’T know about the following:
1. Past climate trends
2. Earth’s climate
3. Physical factors affecting Earth’s climate system
4. The carbon cycle
5. Accuracy of temperature measurement techniques, and
6. Predictive climate modelling

Often, the general population has confused a political position on ACC as a scientific one (e.g. IPCC, which is a political report, nothing to do with the scientific process, we do not use this technique). So again I ask, who told you that?

The front page of the Canberra Times has people holding up a poster saying “Canberra says Yes to action on Climate change” or something like that

If Canberra said yes, then why was there a protest?

Yes – we should have introduced a carbon tax years ago. I am sure my money would have extinguished the huge fires in Mexico that are pumping Co2 into the atmosphere at an horrific rate. Every dollar I hand over to the Australian Government will be used to convince the Dieng volcano to stop erupting, plug up the Grimsvotn in Iceland and ease the pressure on the super volcano beneath Yellowstone National Park.

I know for sure that once I start paying this tax our lovely planet will probably change its mind about going through its natural cycles and I’ll be far better off.

gasman said :

There is NO debate about its existence amongst people who have actually read the evidence.

You’ve got to be kidding me, right? No debate whatsoever at all by anyone, anywhere, who has read scientific findings related to a proposed correlation between CO2 emissions and the planet’s average temperatures rising?

Re-read my post. There is no debate about climate change and its significant CO2 and human contribution in the scientific community. It is established as far as scientific fact as can be. Of course there is continuing debate about how fast it is happening, the relative contributions of different gasses, the speed at which consequences will play out etc. But the fact that it is happening is no longer debated. In fact, has not been debated for many years.

When 2000 climate change scientists say humans are contributing to climate change, and 4 dissenting scientists say the opposite, these views are not equally valid. It is almost certain that the 4 dissenters are wrong, or (as has been shown several times) have an agenda or are being paid by oil companies. Unfortunately, the media catches on to these dissenting views and give them equal weighting in their reporting.

The debate is only happening in the general public. Unfortunately, the opinion of the general public is not determined by scientific papers. It is determined by newspaper opinion pieces, talk-back radio, personal prejudices and desires, etc. Just yesterday, there was a report in the SMH saying over 50% of the public believe in climate change. While that may help sway some populist politicians’ vote, it does not change the facts. Its not a matter of belief. Its not religion. Its a matter of reading the evidence.

TP 3000 said :

If these protestors/rent a crowd are soo into reducing Australia’s carbon foot print, why did most of them drive their cars to the protest? Surely they could of taken public transport & in return helped to lower the emissions from several hundred cars. I am aware that about 1/4 of the protestors caught ACTION Buses/hired coaches, but everyone who attended should of done so if they really cared about global warming.

Public transport in Canberra is almost useless. Most other cities I’ve been to have far more extensive and accessible public transport systems than Canberra. It is very difficult to use public transport here when
a. it doesn’t exist from where you live
b. it doesn’t go where you want it to go
c. you need to wait an hour to catch it and then another half hour to transfer

I lived in Vancouver BC for 18 months. The public transport system (bus, light rail, ferry) came every 5 minutes in peak hour, 10 minutes at other times, you were never more than a block or 2 from it, and it costs $2 to go anywhere in Vancouver for 2 hours unlimited travel. Similar in San Fransisco.

Having said that, 25% of people using public transport is a good result for this rally, given the average public transport use is 4% in Canberra. Also, about another 10-15% (my estimate) came on bicycles, including myself.

Jim Jones said :

“I’m not going to do the right thing until everyone else does”.

You wouldn’t except this kind of self-serving crap from children, why in all hell would you seriously propose it as an actual argument for … you know … adults?

You seem to assume that what I said implies that I’m opposed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions – I didn’t say that. What I did say is that Australia’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is small, and so will be any contribution we may make to their reduction. The debate over any reduction in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and the mechanism for that reduction should take that into account.

A gesture may not be worthless, but it’s still only a gesture.

quote comment=”330513″]
Climate change and the human contribution to it is a well-established fact in the scientific community. There is NO debate about its existence amongst people who have actually read the evidence.

That statement is very wrong. Who told you that?

If these protestors/rent a crowd are soo into reducing Australia’s carbon foot print, why did most of them drive their cars to the protest? Surely they could of taken public transport & in return helped to lower the emissions from several hundred cars. I am aware that about 1/4 of the protestors caught ACTION Buses/hired coaches, but everyone who attended should of done so if they really cared about global warming.

I will admit that I object to a tax on carbon as I believe that no one will stop 50 degree winters in the distant future. That is as does anyone remember the ice age? What about when the earth was a mass of hot lava? Exactly, the earth is going through cycles & the world is up the heating stage. All we are currently doing is speeding up the process. In a few hundred thousand years, the earth will be a mass of lava. That is even if the world stopped polluting right now.

alaninoz said :

gasman said :

There is much research into why the general public (and the above posters) refuses to accept this fact and it potentially disastrous consequences. Seems to boil down to laziness, refusing to make a lifestyle change, and misinformation promoted by people and companies with a vested interest.

In Australia anything we do about reduction of greenhouse gasses is gesture politics. While we may (MAY) have the highest per capita greenhouse gas output in the world, our total output is small. Reducing our output of greenhouse gases may give a warm and fuzzy feeling and may set a good example for other countries, which they may or may not follow, the effect on climate change will be negligible.

“I’m not going to do the right thing until everyone else does”.

You wouldn’t except this kind of self-serving crap from children, why in all hell would you seriously propose it as an actual argument for … you know … adults?

creative_canberran said :

gasman said :

Actually, it is the right of all citizens in our society to demonstrate peacefully. It is up the the police and city authorities to make sure that such demonstrations are safe for all, hence the lane closures.

Climate change and the human contribution to it is a well-established fact in the scientific community. There is NO debate about its existence amongst people who have actually read the evidence.

There’s a jumping castle, an after part at Transit Bar and heaps of signs painted using poster paint that contains VOCs that harm the environment. All so some people can shout loudly and pat themselves on the back thinking they’re helping the environment.

These efforts would be more acceptable were it not so vain.

You’ve answered the repeated truths that (1) all citizens have a right to publically express their opinions, and (2) climate change is a well-established fact, with “it’s all in vain” and “these people are extremists”.

Why would you even bother posting this negative, insipid nonsense? Have you got anything to say, or are you here solely to complain about other people trying to make a positive impact?

gasman said :

Actually, it is the right of all citizens in our society to demonstrate peacefully.

Yes and to not disrupt the regular flow of traffic on a main arterial road would be a pretty good start.

gasman said :

There is NO debate about its existence amongst people who have actually read the evidence.

You’ve got to be kidding me, right? No debate whatsoever at all by anyone, anywhere, who has read scientific findings related to a proposed correlation between CO2 emissions and the planet’s average temperatures rising?

gasman said :

Actually, it is the right of all citizens in our society to demonstrate peacefully. It is up the the police and city authorities to make sure that such demonstrations are safe for all, hence the lane closures.

Climate change and the human contribution to it is a well-established fact in the scientific community. There is NO debate about its existence amongst people who have actually read the evidence.

There’s a jumping castle, an after part at Transit Bar and heaps of signs painted using poster paint that contains VOCs that harm the environment. All so some people can shout loudly and pat themselves on the back thinking they’re helping the environment.

These efforts would be more acceptable were it not so vain.

alaninoz said :

gasman said :

There is much research into why the general public (and the above posters) refuses to accept this fact and it potentially disastrous consequences. Seems to boil down to laziness, refusing to make a lifestyle change, and misinformation promoted by people and companies with a vested interest.

In Australia anything we do about reduction of greenhouse gasses is gesture politics. While we may (MAY) have the highest per capita greenhouse gas output in the world, our total output is small. Reducing our output of greenhouse gases may give a warm and fuzzy feeling and may set a good example for other countries, which they may or may not follow, the effect on climate change will be negligible.

Australia is not setting any sort of a lead in a carbon tax. There are many countries that have already done so. About a dozen European Union countries have already a carbon tax in place or are due to implement it this year. China has set a huge goal of CO2 reduction. Even India has a tax on carbon. Australia is risking being seen as a freeloader by not having a carbon tax.

The logic of “our contribution being small therefore we don’t need to do it” is faulty. If every individual thinks like this, nothing gets done. If you think your vote doesn’t amount to anything, why would you vote? Excess Carbon dioxide is a global problem. Every country and indeed every individual needs to do their own small thing to make a big difference.

gasman said :

There is much research into why the general public (and the above posters) refuses to accept this fact and it potentially disastrous consequences. Seems to boil down to laziness, refusing to make a lifestyle change, and misinformation promoted by people and companies with a vested interest.

In Australia anything we do about reduction of greenhouse gasses is gesture politics. While we may (MAY) have the highest per capita greenhouse gas output in the world, our total output is small. Reducing our output of greenhouse gases may give a warm and fuzzy feeling and may set a good example for other countries, which they may or may not follow, the effect on climate change will be negligible.

Actually, it is the right of all citizens in our society to demonstrate peacefully. It is up the the police and city authorities to make sure that such demonstrations are safe for all, hence the lane closures.

Climate change and the human contribution to it is a well-established fact in the scientific community. There is NO debate about its existence amongst people who have actually read the evidence.

There is much research into why the general public (and the above posters) refuses to accept this fact and it potentially disastrous consequences. Seems to boil down to laziness, refusing to make a lifestyle change, and misinformation promoted by people and companies with a vested interest.

Anything the rational thinking part of the population can do to get the message across to politicians and our fellow citizens is a good and necessary thing. I’ll be walking the bridge with my children, to support a tax that may help in a small way to make my childrens’ world a better place.

This kind of thing happens often when people organize large public demonstrations. Bit of democracy closes a car lane for a couple of hours, so what?

The group behind this are a bunch of nut-bags who given the climate change deniers a run for the money.
I especially love this comment from one of their supporters on Facebook:

“hunt the stupid ignorant idiots down and just execute them”

Ironic given the death threats made agains proponents of climate change this week. Seems there’s elements on both sides taking things too far.

This is bullcrap, closing an important public road in the name of some gesture, ridiculous.

We already have a means by which people can say yes to government proposals. It’s called an election. Before the last one, Gillard had every opportunity to say yes to a carbon tax. She said no.