Monday Message Board

It’s time again, at long last, for the Monday Message Board to resume. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language. Lengthy side discussions to the sandpit, please.

34 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. @Tony G

    OK for slow-learners,

    My argument only relates to the specific climate change, top of natural process, caused by man through adopting cheap (though environmentally destructive) production choices.

    Any other so-called “bad weather” cannot be controlled by any “new weather control tax”.

    Any other “out of control” weather – not caused by man – also cannot be controlled by a “new weather tax”.

    I never mentioned general ‘out of control’ weather or general ‘bad weather’. The fog is all Tony G’s. It was his deliberate misinterpretation.

  2. Sorry, I like a lot of other people get climate and weather confused. I get it now, to control the climate we need to introduce a climate control tax.

  3. @Tony G

    Great argument. As nature puts some CO2 in the atmosphere and (takes that amount, and more, out each year), its nature’s fault not humanity’s because nature isn’t cutting back putting CO2 in, or increasing its rate of removal. I am now a former Greenie. Nature doesn’t deserve our suppot. Clearly, nature has been letting us all down. Nature’s behaving like a socialist!

  4. Just curious Tony G; do you have a metric that you employ in deciding when a government is “excessive”, and if so, is it measurable, and if that is so, are there any Australian governments state, territory or federal, that have not been excessive using your “Excess-o-meter”?

    I’m rather suspecting that the answers are: maybe; maybe not; NO!

  5. @Freelander

    Maybe we should hack down that surly Nature once and for all; I’m sick of walking through the streets of Wangaratta and having to stay off the grass (ie lawn); plugging my ears to avoid those nasty twitters and birdsong communist collective songs; and, not breathing that horrible fresh air, enhanced though it is by us human creatures, from time to time. Hah! This is the real tragedy of the Commons – we didn’t butcher it completely; bits were missed and that’s the trouble with the yoof of today…

  6. Tony G – I am far from an expert on the area, but I believe that this is the correct way to do carbon accounting. Nature emits an enormous amount that dwarfs anthropogenic emissions. However we have been in equilibrium where the amount that is naturally emitted is equally to the amount that is naturally absorbed. While human emissions are comparatively tiny they accrue, shifting us from this equilibrium as the system is closed.

    A parallel could come from imagining an airtight room. One pipe feeds in 1 litre of some poisonous gas every min and another removes 1 litre at the same rate. If there was initially no poison in the room it would be perfectly same to be in there, as no build up of poison could occur. However if there is even the slightest increase in the rate at which the gas enters the room, if this is not offset by an increase in the rate that it leaves, the room will slowly fill with poison.

    The reason why relatively small human emissions are problematic is the same reason that the gas chamber will be eventually become unsafe.

  7. I’ve been having some fun over at catallaxy today.

    After some banter along the usual lines, I put the following question:

    Imagine that you are persuaded that anthropogenic augmentation of atmospheric inventories of GHGs really were causing quantifiable harm both to humans alive now and prospective harm to humans in the future over at least the next several hundred years. What, suite of measures, most compatible with the ethical standpoint of libertarians ought the responsible human communities take in response? How should the resources needed to support the various remedies be marshaled? On whose shoulders should the burdens of this effort fall most heavily?

    At this stage, not a single one of the team has come up with anything like a plausible answer, and one of them cried off on the basis that it just lead to arguments and anyway nothing anyone thought would make a difference. (Interesting position for an advocate of the power of individuals!). It seems that right of centre libertarianism really has nothing to say on the matter, with the consequence that they are utterly dependent on the delusionals’ view of climate change in arguing their politics.

    One of them (Dover_beach) tried to invent a new branch of physics:

    What is absorbed by the deep ocean is no longer a problem for anyone; since it will be dissipated over time and will not return in the quantity in which it was absorbed.

    He said dissipate but he really meant disappear I’m wondering whether Harry Potter‘s term, disapparate might not have served him best of all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s