Farms and Carbon

[Pastafarian]

Its bullshit if not used in the right way.

So you admit that you think a carbon tax will reduce carbon emissions in some kind of meaningful way?

Again if used in the right way. If its just to tax people for producing carbon and then the money goes into the public coffers like everything other tax then no, it won't do much. People complain about taxes but they still pay them.

However if the money was used to pay for research in this country which is already well progressed in some areas (i.e the polymer solar film idea), again it will take time but then yes we will have an impact on our emissions. The other benefit of this is we can sell the technology to other countries.

[Outlaw Yogi]

I reckon if all the subsidy schemes for all the competing forms of electricity and fuel production were scraped, and let the various players loose to evolve naturally, we probably wouldn't even need a tax to discourage hydrocarbon induced emissions.
Nothing can compete with solar applications on cost and value for money, so would dominate the energy market without interference for vested interests.

[mellie]

I studied biomedical sciences for two years at uni, the same sciences that doctors, physiotherapists, pharmacists, all para-related health care professionals study, the only difference with nurses is we stop, and those completing higher degrees keep going. I did chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, physiology, microbiology,biochemistry) and have to say, why we had to learn grind our teeth through physics with the oldest teacher on earth, (Ok, he was about 75), with broken English just to understand simple traction (ie, levers and pulleys) will never cease to amaze me... and whilst much of the above is indeed quite far fetched, you will hate me when I tell you I had to go do a little research and there is something amongst this shit that rings true. I just wanted to see if anyone else pick it too, there is an element of truth re- the magma, I do recall having learned about this somewhere before.

All of the above is far fetched. And your ability to just take that site and believe the shit out of it, tells me you didn't go to uni. Either that, or you were too busy smoking, drinking and on your back.

Where did I say I believed it?

I posted it, went away for a while, then came back to see how yo guys would responded to it. I was curious to see how others who readily preach/believe one scientific theory would respond to another, ie 'abiotics' , ...and wondered if these same people who believed in a global warming theory would readily enquire, or even respect another's right to enquire about other own scientific theories or if they might become quite defensive, competitive , see other theories as a threat to their carbon tax, as though it were their church they were defending, not an assumed albeit dwindling scientific consensus.

So, could it be said they are scientific theory sceptics themselves, are deniers of others individual right to their theories, or practice their own religion too even?

I thought Greens were tolerant of others right to choice, beliefs, I guess they are, so long as others theories don't undermine or interfere with the delivery of their own globalist objective.

Now, if you were a Catholic, and I were Buddhist, would I have a right to impose some sort of temple tax on you, despite your not practising, or believing in Buddhism?

This is why Gillard needs to take her spongy carbon-tax to a referendum, despite Greens unwillingness to accept that 75% of the population are entitled to their opinions.

....



I think it's a little silly to stop scientific exploration, debate in all areas, simply based on the divine 'theory' that you have conquered scientific theory in another, one yet to be proven.

[Pastafarian]

So, could it be said they are scientific theory sceptics themselves, are deniers of others individual right to their theories, or practice their own religion too even?



I think it's a little silly to stop scientific exploration, debate in all areas, simply based on the divine 'theory' that you have conquered scientific theory in another, one yet to be proven.

I thought you did science. Your abiotic theory seems to have precisely zero evidence, which in fact makes it a hypothesis not a theory.

You seem to be using the layperson definition of theory, not the science definition.

[mellie]

So, could it be said they are scientific theory sceptics themselves, are deniers of others individual right to their theories, or practice their own religion too even?



I think it's a little silly to stop scientific exploration, debate in all areas, simply based on the divine 'theory' that you have conquered scientific theory in another, one yet to be proven.

I thought you did science. Your abiotic theory seems to have precisely zero evidence, which in fact makes it a hypothesis not a theory.

You seem to be using the layperson definition of theory, not the science definition.

That's your theory, and you are entitled to it, as I am mine.

[Pastafarian]

That's your theory, and you are entitled to it, as I am mine.

You mean hypothesis

[IQS.RLOW]

However if the money was used to pay for research in this country which is already well progressed in some areas (i.e the polymer solar film idea),

The efficiency will never be viable

again it will take time but then yes we will have an impact on our emissions.

Rubbish

The other benefit of this is we can sell the technology to other countries.

The dream of a carbon retard This will never happen despite retards repeating it.

Perhaps you need to do another couple of units of study? I suggest economics and patent law. At least then you will be full bottle on how naive you really are and you can add to your repertoire of totally useless degrees within Australia

[Pastafarian]

However if the money was used to pay for research in this country which is already well progressed in some areas (i.e the polymer solar film idea),

The efficiency will never be viable

again it will take time but then yes we will have an impact on our emissions.

Rubbish

The other benefit of this is we can sell the technology to other countries.

The dream of a carbon retard This will never happen despite retards repeating it.

Perhaps you need to do another couple of units of study? I suggest economics and patent law. At least then you will be full bottle on how naive you really are and you can add to your repertoire of totally useless degrees within Australia

What efficiency would be viable for you IQS?

[Pastafarian]

Also does saying rubbish form part of a coherent argument?

[mellie]

That's your theory, and you are entitled to it, as I am mine.

You mean hypothesis

Is Global warming a fact, hypothesis, scientific theory or a belief?

Scientifically speaking.