"Because the science is settled, there is no need for more basic research, the government says."
Before enjoying your schedenfraude, realise that this has been organized by political forces who think 'climate change is crap' and have dismantled as many government agencies with responsibilities in this area as they can.
Justifying these cuts with 'the science is settled' is disingenuous to a comic extreme.
Your link to ATO only shows years in which the CPRS was in operation.
This page https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/I... shows that when the CPRS started on 1st July 2012, income tax was reduced (2012-2013 FY), note the increased tax free threshold.
Your other links also fail to make your point.
- The first link is refering to additional compensatory income tax cuts, not being implemented when it was clear that the planned link to the EU carbon trading scheme would reduce the price of carbon and not increase it as had been forecast.
- The second link shows that the government wants to remove the tax cuts associated with the carbon tax, precisely contradicting your point.
Not true ?
I am pretty sure I paid less tax and Wikipedia thinks I did too : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What is the source of your information ?
I agree it was not wise for me to assume such things.
I agree that if you are going to abolish the carbon tax it makes no sense to keep the income tax cuts.
I do not agree that it was obvious that the government planned to raise income taxes when it abolished the carbon tax.
I do not believe that voters, including those in favour of 'axeing the tax', understood that they were in effect voting to have personal income taxes raised by a similar amount to their gain from the removal of the carbon tax (for the average person who chooses to buy coal fired electricity).
No fallacy. The CPRS 'package of legislation' included income tax cuts mostly targeted at lower income earners - raising tax free threshold etc.
When Abbott stated that he would not be raising taxes, I had assumed that this meant he would still compensate people for the carbon tax after it was removed, and that this was part of his 'budget problem'. However the legislation passed by the senate included removal of the tax cuts associated with the CPRS, i.e raising income tax.
Yours is an entirely different example of the current government raising taxes, and is unrelated to the present discussion about the carbon tax.
As part of the carbon tax package, income tax was reduced, particularly for low income earners as a kind of compensation for the increase in cost of living caused by the carbon tax. The new government is raising those income taxes again, despite promising not to raise taxes.
If a goverment needs to have tax, It is better to tax things that you want to discourage. The carbon tax was discouraging the emission of greenhouse gasses, an unnecessary and dangerous activity, simultaneously providing necessary revenue. Income tax discourages the earning of income.
So by your logic : no one can use electricity and be non hypocrites if they are not coal supporters.
This means that you think all electricity does and must always come from coal burning.
In fact electricity also comes from generators not powered by coal now, and in the future, all electricity will come from generators not powered by coal.
While understanding US politics is always a struggle for me, I think this attitude is particularly noteworthy.
I think what you are suggesting is that to be a good Non Liberal you must invest blindly and only consider short term share value - even if you don't like the industry you must buy their stock if it is seen as a reasonable investment option on a profit basis only.
Does this imply that an authentic Non Liberal would need to invest in abortion pills, pornography, islamic religous organisations and prostitution where they are shown to be good investment options.
Security researchers would have an opportunity to detect the data coming out of a key logger etc. There is no opportunity to detect the nefarious things if they are all on nokias servers.
I disagree - all science that relies on evidence is by definition historical.
It's a theory - we can look for evidence that supports it or disproves it, it doesn't make sense to just discount it because it is in the past.
Another line of evidence that would support such a theory:
It appears that there is historical evidence of large agricultural civilizations living in the Amazon basin before contact with European diseases and them all disappearing a short time after.
This guy was the first European to sail down the Amazon river and described cities etc and then they could not be found later. So the humans die out and large quantities of fertile land return to rainforest from agriculture, sucking up huge amounts of carbon, reducing green house effect.
The soil improvements that they made remain and are called Terra Preta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta#Pre-Columbian_Amazonia
It has been claimed that Bradley Manning had access to all this stuff, at the time it was leaked allegedly by him, so others would also had this access too.
What they would not have had is the equivalent of the journalists, media and social networking able to make sense of a lot of boring documents to find the important parts and put them in context.
Do they want to have a situation where every politically aware, literate citizen of the USA (and the rest of the world) knows more about what the US government has been up to than employees of the US government ?
That would appear to be the end result of this policy, and seems a bit silly.
Others worked on more pressing problems, like preventing catastrophic global warming, trying to avoiding using the remaining oil by fighting over it and making sure we are all fed.
Since you have no feelings on the issue, and are interested in more evidence, why not stop waiting to be yelled at and research the issue in its details at whatever technical level you can manage.
I am fairly sure any level of honest investigation on this subject by anyone with reason and understanding of the difference between faith and science, will find themselves yelling in favour of prevention of this experiment during their or their descendants time on earth.
The arguments against action on climate change are so specious and contradictory that they can only be intended to fool those who want to be fooled.
CO2 makes higher temps (obvious part of greenhouse effect)
Higher temps mean oceans dissolve less CO2, and more plants are stressed and release CO2, and permafrost and potentially methane clathrates make (OK not more CO2 but more CO2e).
Am I wrong ? - I am genuinely interested if I am wrong.
I read a lot of stuff.
1. Time lag disproves causality - true, but irrelevent, past changes driven by temperature caused co2 changes. This time we are driving with Co2 and causing temp changes. Coupled system - both effect each other. This is not good news as CO2 begets more temp which begets more CO2 and so on, also these changes happen much slower in past so who knows what happens this time when ocean thermal reservoir catches up.
2. H20 vs CO2. Yes lots more water - difference is that there arn't oceans of CO2 lying around H2o is in equilibrium with liquid water. We couldn't have any effect on H20 concentration directly if we tried. It would rain out if we added it or evaporate out of oceans if we took it out. CO2 on the otherhand is just the right powerful lever to pull and we are yanking it like it's never been yanked before in the history of earth - certainly since mammals were evolved anyway. CO2 also begets H2O which aggreed is most of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is a forcing H2O is a feedback.
3. Viking farm anecdotes. Climate changes - this was not a global phenomenon, and is interesting but doesn't disprove AGW.
4. So you are arguing the point about the temperature record on earth but you think that there is sufficient data on mars global temps to make that statement and use it to disprove AGW (one of the greatest scientific efforts ever) ? Thats just silly.
They have done due diligence but unfortunately - we have to watch the earth get stuffed seriously and rub your face in a post civil society - stuffed planet for you to get it. Plus we actually have to get it before major problems happen because of the decade time lags between action and response in the climate system and the political, engineering time lags, and tipping points.
Some of these points were probably worthy of discussion during the early 1990s.
Maybe this is one of the most important subjects out there and is worth more of your time investigating than just learning enough to parrot other ignoramuses.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because the science is settled, there is no need for more basic research, the government says." Before enjoying your schedenfraude, realise that this has been organized by political forces who think 'climate change is crap' and have dismantled as many government agencies with responsibilities in this area as they can. Justifying these cuts with 'the science is settled' is disingenuous to a comic extreme.
My home NAS records more cyberattacks than that every night, all you need is a computer and and IP adress.
There was a paper in the 80s about research done on Solar One - the first of these type of plants - I can't locate it right now.
From memory, it found most birds were killed by collision with the mirrors and only a few were killed by the concentrated radiation.
Glazed windows kill birds in the same way that mirrors do.
Your link to ATO only shows years in which the CPRS was in operation.
This page https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/I... shows that when the CPRS started on 1st July 2012, income tax was reduced (2012-2013 FY), note the increased tax free threshold.
Your other links also fail to make your point.
- The first link is refering to additional compensatory income tax cuts, not being implemented when it was clear that the planned link to the EU carbon trading scheme would reduce the price of carbon and not increase it as had been forecast.
- The second link shows that the government wants to remove the tax cuts associated with the carbon tax, precisely contradicting your point.
Not true ?
I am pretty sure I paid less tax and Wikipedia thinks I did too : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What is the source of your information ?
I agree it was not wise for me to assume such things.
I agree that if you are going to abolish the carbon tax it makes no sense to keep the income tax cuts.
I do not agree that it was obvious that the government planned to raise income taxes when it abolished the carbon tax.
I do not believe that voters, including those in favour of 'axeing the tax', understood that they were in effect voting to have personal income taxes raised by a similar amount to their gain from the removal of the carbon tax (for the average person who chooses to buy coal fired electricity).
No fallacy. The CPRS 'package of legislation' included income tax cuts mostly targeted at lower income earners - raising tax free threshold etc.
When Abbott stated that he would not be raising taxes, I had assumed that this meant he would still compensate people for the carbon tax after it was removed, and that this was part of his 'budget problem'. However the legislation passed by the senate included removal of the tax cuts associated with the CPRS, i.e raising income tax.
Yours is an entirely different example of the current government raising taxes, and is unrelated to the present discussion about the carbon tax.
As part of the carbon tax package, income tax was reduced, particularly for low income earners as a kind of compensation for the increase in cost of living caused by the carbon tax. The new government is raising those income taxes again, despite promising not to raise taxes.
If a goverment needs to have tax, It is better to tax things that you want to discourage. The carbon tax was discouraging the emission of greenhouse gasses, an unnecessary and dangerous activity, simultaneously providing necessary revenue. Income tax discourages the earning of income.
So by your logic : no one can use electricity and be non hypocrites if they are not coal supporters.
This means that you think all electricity does and must always come from coal burning.
In fact electricity also comes from generators not powered by coal now, and in the future, all electricity will come from generators not powered by coal.
While understanding US politics is always a struggle for me, I think this attitude is particularly noteworthy.
I think what you are suggesting is that to be a good Non Liberal you must invest blindly and only consider short term share value - even if you don't like the industry you must buy their stock if it is seen as a reasonable investment option on a profit basis only.
Does this imply that an authentic Non Liberal would need to invest in abortion pills, pornography, islamic religous organisations and prostitution where they are shown to be good investment options.
Here is a video of Assange addressing your point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBENlJfZ-f8 - start at 0:46 if you like
Isn't attacking the government with guns protected by the constitution ?
Or is it only the brandishing and talking about that is protected ?
Security researchers would have an opportunity to detect the data coming out of a key logger etc. There is no opportunity to detect the nefarious things if they are all on nokias servers.
Hmmm who to call - the police or the ACCC ? Not sure the ACCC would pop into my head in this situation.
Will it be compatible with my existing shelf infrastructure ?
I disagree - all science that relies on evidence is by definition historical.
It's a theory - we can look for evidence that supports it or disproves it, it doesn't make sense to just discount it because it is in the past.
Another line of evidence that would support such a theory:
It appears that there is historical evidence of large agricultural civilizations living in the Amazon basin before contact with European diseases and them all disappearing a short time after. This guy was the first European to sail down the Amazon river and described cities etc and then they could not be found later. So the humans die out and large quantities of fertile land return to rainforest from agriculture, sucking up huge amounts of carbon, reducing green house effect.
The soil improvements that they made remain and are called Terra Preta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta#Pre-Columbian_Amazonia
FYI In America - walking is seen as an advanced maneuver, and should be avoided by driving (the more natural state) if at all possible.
It has been claimed that Bradley Manning had access to all this stuff, at the time it was leaked allegedly by him, so others would also had this access too.
What they would not have had is the equivalent of the journalists, media and social networking able to make sense of a lot of boring documents to find the important parts and put them in context.
Do they want to have a situation where every politically aware, literate citizen of the USA (and the rest of the world) knows more about what the US government has been up to than employees of the US government ?
That would appear to be the end result of this policy, and seems a bit silly.
Others worked on more pressing problems, like preventing catastrophic global warming, trying to avoiding using the remaining oil by fighting over it and making sure we are all fed.
Since you have no feelings on the issue, and are interested in more evidence, why not stop waiting to be yelled at and research the issue in its details at whatever technical level you can manage.
I am fairly sure any level of honest investigation on this subject by anyone with reason and understanding of the difference between faith and science, will find themselves yelling in favour of prevention of this experiment during their or their descendants time on earth.
The arguments against action on climate change are so specious and contradictory that they can only be intended to fool those who want to be fooled.
Source of death threats is likely sock puppet army software by HBGary or similar, commissioned by USA federal government, discovered by anonymous hack.
Probably the source of lots of climate denial posts all over the web.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED:-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All?detail=hide
Link to government solicitation document not working, lucky the document is copied inline for our records.
Let it have its place in the discipline of Theology.
Then transfer the green ideas back to USA and the war itself may not be necessary.
Which bit doesn't work like that ?
CO2 makes higher temps (obvious part of greenhouse effect)
Higher temps mean oceans dissolve less CO2, and more plants are stressed and release CO2, and permafrost and potentially methane clathrates make (OK not more CO2 but more CO2e).
Am I wrong ? - I am genuinely interested if I am wrong.
I read a lot of stuff.
1. Time lag disproves causality - true, but irrelevent, past changes driven by temperature caused co2 changes. This time we are driving with Co2 and causing temp changes. Coupled system - both effect each other. This is not good news as CO2 begets more temp which begets more CO2 and so on, also these changes happen much slower in past so who knows what happens this time when ocean thermal reservoir catches up.
2. H20 vs CO2. Yes lots more water - difference is that there arn't oceans of CO2 lying around H2o is in equilibrium with liquid water. We couldn't have any effect on H20 concentration directly if we tried. It would rain out if we added it or evaporate out of oceans if we took it out. CO2 on the otherhand is just the right powerful lever to pull and we are yanking it like it's never been yanked before in the history of earth - certainly since mammals were evolved anyway. CO2 also begets H2O which aggreed is most of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is a forcing H2O is a feedback.
3. Viking farm anecdotes. Climate changes - this was not a global phenomenon, and is interesting but doesn't disprove AGW.
4. So you are arguing the point about the temperature record on earth but you think that there is sufficient data on mars global temps to make that statement and use it to disprove AGW (one of the greatest scientific efforts ever) ? Thats just silly.
They have done due diligence but unfortunately - we have to watch the earth get stuffed seriously and rub your face in a post civil society - stuffed planet for you to get it. Plus we actually have to get it before major problems happen because of the decade time lags between action and response in the climate system and the political, engineering time lags, and tipping points.
Some of these points were probably worthy of discussion during the early 1990s.
Maybe this is one of the most important subjects out there and is worth more of your time investigating than just learning enough to parrot other ignoramuses.