Climate Change and the Emissions Trading Scheme

LMAO - the Lib supporters are out

Didnt they go to the election selling the ETS too?

Funny how things change, but oh, now they are bringing in something different

You have to laugh at the Power Play ; )

I will add that my thinking on global warming, climate change, ETS has been informed by the travel I've done to various places around the world. From this travel, I've come to appreciate that Planet Earth is a vast, vast body. Parts of India, with a population of more than 1 billion people, can be flown over for a period of several hours without any evidence of human occupation.

In short, I don't believe that humanity has even begun to plunder the resources available from the planet.

I'm at work right now, so more later.

welcome back tushy ltns............ who are the liberal supporters?me? maybe .....please add any more info to enlighten me.

Hi Annie and thanks : )

I dont really care if you are a Lib supporter or not, just makes me laugh the way politicians play their games.

Did you know Europe has had an ETS since 2004?

Why do you feel that Australia shouldnt participate?

Hi Tushy.................... nice to see the group active isnt it......... I dont feel they "shouldnt participate" as such...............I just feel there is a better way to do it for long term and sustainable benefit.


I am spinning at what just happenned........Nathan Rees............ there one minute gone the next. I live in NSW

Fair enough Annie

I also forgot to mention that Canada is up there as well playing their part.

THE head of the world's top climate research body has compared Tony Abbott to former US president and climate sceptic George W. Bush and conceded the failure of Australia's cap and trade carbon bill has given momentum to climate naysayers worldwide.

www.theaustralian.com.au/news/abbott-fue...frg6n6-1225807995911

I can see abit of a pattern happening here

As I wrote earlier , at the beginning of this discussion on climate change and the ETS, I said there were three intersecting issues. In view of the events that have unfolded in the past couple of weeks (the Copehagen conference, itself, notwithstanding), I believe that people have placed undue prominence on the politicisation of climate change instead of focusing on what climate change means and what needs to be done about it.

I understand that there are nearly as many climate change sceptics as there are people who are worried about the changes in our climate. It's quite difficult, when you're dealing with matters of faith, to persuade people to accept alternative ideas. For example, I could no more persuade someone, by use of scientific evidence, that God does not exist than anyone could do otherwise by the thumping them over the head with a Bible. The idea of God is not scientific. God (Allah, Vishnu, Jehovah or however people have invented the concept) is something accepted or rejected through philosophical reasoning. Some people don't even bother with a philospophical or logical basis for accepting God; some people choose to believe or not simply because they can. The idea of the existence of God is something that humankind has wrestled with and debated for thousands of years and many of these debates have resulted in the death and destruction of those whose ideas could not hold out against invasion by a greater belief.

So why are there so many climate change sceptics? Can't they see the stark reality of humankind's effects on this planet's environment? You might as well argue in the same vein as to why there are so many people who do not believe in God because all the available evidence - the Holy Bible - says otherwise. So, let's examine this issue in more detail.

I am not going to quote chapter and verse - the scientific or anecdotal evidence - for the existence of climate change and that human activity is directly responsible for it. I am also not going to debate what efforts, if any, are at our disposal for dealing with climate change, for rehabilitating our environment or for arresting the rate of change. These are matters for more intelligent people than me. These are matters for environmentalists and climatologists. I should like to hope, though, that if our climate conditions are worsening, that we can actually do something about it!

Returning to the question - why are there climate change sceptics - let me use another analogy. By the early seventeenth century (a mere 400 years ago), a lot of the ideas about how Nature worked were being re-evaluated. For example, it was not only an established "fact", it was an indisputable belief that the Sun and the planets revolved around the Earth. In fact, when "intellectuals" started questioning this basic axiom, they were denied the freedom to publish their conclusions. The matter was not one for debate. When, in 1632, Galileo attempted to publish his treatise on Copernican vs. Ptolemaic systems of the universe, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. In fact, his book was put on the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books and it was not removed until 1835. So, why did the Catholic Church want to silence Galileo? Did his ideas challenge the basis of Judeo-Christian monotheistic existentialism?

Similarly, when Charles Darwin published his thoughts in 1859 (On the Origin of Species) he was publicly howled down by religious zealouts masquerading as scientists. And yet, both Darwin and Galileo had something in common. By observing what they could, given the limitations of their powers of obervation, they reasoned about how Nature worked but they lacked the solid evidence to substantiate their conclusions. It took many years after their deaths for others to obtain the missing bits of the puzzle Even so, by that time their theories were generally accepted scientific truths. If I were to suggest to people today that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that Homo sapiens (like all other living creatures that inhabit our planet) did not evolve over many tens of thousands of years from earlier non-human species, people would tell me that I was an ignorant fool.

Again, let us return to the question: why are there so many climate change sceptics? It's not just that there isn't enough scientific evidence to sustain the premise that climate change is occurring at an unnatural rate or that humans are not directly responsible for contributing to the changes. It's not just that divisions exist within the so-called scientific community. It could be said (like Isaac Newton theorised in 1687, "a body persists in a state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force") there is not sufficient enough scientific momentum to change the philosophical inertia in people's minds. I'm sure this warms the hearts of climate change sceptics to know there isn't enough momentum to change their "majority view". Or is there enough evidence and is climate change scepticism to be viewed as a dangerous religious cult? I don't know the answer to that.

I also don't easily accept the conspiracy theories developed by climate change supporters. Consider the Galileo example I used earlier: we could say that the Catholic Church wanted to silence Galileo because his ideas were radical and were going to shake things up. Up until that time, the Church probably enjoyed a certain prestigious position in the world. The Church not only arbitrated matters of faith and morals, it was also responsible for confirming the political destinies of Europe, as an institution that governed the practice of science as much as it attempted to control the results of that science. In other words, the Church feared the loss of its power and influence over the very lives of "the Faithful". If the fear of excommunication wasn't enough to quell dissent in the ranks, a good old burning-at-the-stake would surely put things right. You have to remember that the Church was still going through a lot of internal strife brought about by the Reformation ... that is, attempts to reform the way that religion operated in order to make it more relevant to people's everyday needs. In a similar way, therefore, climate change supporters accuse climate change scepticism as a conspiracy among certain people in order to control the masses by keeping them ignorant about the truth.

However, I suspect parts of the conspiracy theory are plausible and partly the motivation behind climate change scepticism; i.e. sceptics have something else at stake than simply arguing climate change is unnecessary or unreasonable thing to worry about. I wonder if climate change sceptics, like Senators Joyce and Minchin (and others within the Liberals and Nationals), aren't playing to the electorate about climate change scepticism because they can better their power base that way? What would happen if people thought about such things for themselves. Heaven forbid!

For the purposes of argument let's consider that some people are responsible for contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. What would those people have to lose if governments and the people actively worked against them? If this is so, it makes sense, doesn't it, for such groups to lobby political forces that are sympathetic to their "cause" ... and, perhaps, in the Liberals and Nationals they've found a sympathetic ear. While it all sounds so "reasonable" to argue the case against a government's specific policies that are intended to address a problem, it's much more powerful to argue that there's even a pretext [for developing such policies] to begin with. In other words, while the Nationals and Liberals are appealing to the electorate that the Labor Party's ETS scheme is a tax grab, they continue to hide their own position on whether climate change is worth the effort. This is what I'm mostly upset about. I know that the Labor Party believes in climate change and wants to do something about it. I am, though, coming to the view - especially in view of last week's events - that the Liberal and National party's position will be that there is no climate change "issue" worth addressing.

This, therefore, is the significant difference between these opposing political forces. On the one hand we have a government, elected by the majority of Australians, that has given some commitment to addressing climate change; on the other side we have a coalition of political parties who seem sharply divided on whether climate change is even an issue that concerns us. I'm not saying who is right nor who is wrong but I'm definitely not comfortable that science should become a poltical football.

Sozz wrote:

"....I'm not saying who is right nor who is wrong but I'm definitely not comfortable that science should become a poltical football....."

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the situation Sozz describes is exactly what we have with the current climate change/global warming/ETS "debate". As I think I wrote earlier, in the absence of reliable external information, I'll go with my own observations and experience when forming my views about climate change, etc.

Thanks, George. I think one of the important things that we tend to overlook in such discussions as this is that the science has been terrorised - hijacked, if you prefer - by politicians for their own purposes and in doing so has carried along the groundswell of popular public opinion.

On the one hand we have those who are comfortable in their belief that the "science" of climate change is a hysterical over-reaction by charlatans, neo-luddites and ultra-radical activists who would campaign against gay rights for mosquitos if they were given the opportunity! On the other hand there are those who are uncomfortable about the complacency of our political leaders, and of the great "silent majority" who have elected them, to attend to the urgency of the situation and who are in a constant state of denial or are simply too "old" to understand the truth. The real truth lies somewhere between these two extremes.

This is why I have difficulty entering into some discussions when all I've read is scare-mongering, fear and hyperbole. For example, to describe the proposed Australian political response of climate change as an "excuse to squander ... to bleed money from the west, then pass it on to the polluters and to the leaders of dictatorships who will merely fill their swiss bank accounts" or otherwise describe those who oppose such schemes as "racist", intellectual or "full of words" where is the evidence for making such statements and what does this have to do with the discussion, anyway?

I hope people understand that I intend no disrespect to those who may use such catch-phrases. I want to point out that it's easy to justify one's position by using emotive language when you're unsure of the facts to support it. This is what, I believe, is the role of politics: to stir people's emotions and to galvanise support for one ideological position or another ... and selectively make use of certain "facts" to support their case. There is nothing sinister in this; it happens all the time. For example, let me quote from a famous speech:

Someone said: 'Since the Revolution the people have gained Rights. The people govern!' Strange! The people have now been ruling three years and no one has in practice once asked its opinion. Treaties were signed which will hold us down for centuries: and who has signed the treaties? The people? No! Governments which one fine day presented themselves as Governments. And at their election the people had nothing to do save to consider the question: they are there already, whether I elect them or not. If we elect them, then they are there through our election. But since we are a self-governing people, we must elect the folk in order that they may be elected to govern us.

Then it was said, 'Freedom has come to us through the Revolution.' Another of those things that one cannot see very easily! It is of course true that one can walk down the street, the individual can go into his workshop and he can go out again: here and there he can go to a meeting. In a word, the individual has liberties. But in general, if he is wise, he will keep his mouth shut. For if in former times extraordinary care was taken that no one should let slip anything which could be treated as lèse-majesté, now a man must take much greater care that he doesn't say anything which might represent an insult to the majesty of a member of Parliament.

And now, my dear fellow-countrymen, do you believe that these men, who with us are going the same way, will end the Revolution? They do not wish the end of the Revolution, for they do not need it. For them the Revolution is milk and honey.

And thus the Left is forced more and more to turn to Bolshevism. In Bolshevism they see today the sole, the last possibility of preserving the present state of affairs. They realise quite accurately that the people are beaten so long as Brain and Hand can be kept apart. For alone neither Brain nor Hand can really oppose them. So long therefore as the Socialist idea is coined only by men who see in it a means for disintegrating a nation, so long can they rest in peace.

So the Left neither can nor will help. On the contrary, their first lie compels them constantly to resort to new lies. There remains then the Right. And this party of the Right meant well, but it cannot do what it would because up to the present time it has failed to recognise a whole series of elementary principles.

In the first place the Right still fails to recognise the danger. They think that the decision of a people's destiny would mean at worst nothing more than some damage to their so-called bourgeois-economic existence. They have never grasped the fact that this decision threatens their heads. In consequence their whole action today is so petty, so limited, so hesitating and pusillanimous. They would like to - but they can never decide on any great deed, because they fail to realise the greatness of the whole period.

I don't doubt that you've probably not heard of this speech . It was given in Munich in 1922 by Adolf Hitler. Read it again, carefully, and you may hear echoes of that language today!