Get Carbon Policy Truth

http://www.getcarbonpolicytruth.com.au

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Carbon
• Price
• Solar
• Coal
• energy
• climate
• change
• global
• power
• gas
• tony
• abbott
• julia
• gillard
• green
• labor
• liberal
• coalition
• independents

[beamla]

@smithy11742 No, you're making up facts. The overwhelming amount of Australian's are not employed by these companies. These companies will still "succeed" but succeed while having a clear incentive to reduce their emissions intensity. Economists disagree with you about your predictions.

[tr0llerguy]

@LiAmBodYbOaRdS1 I wouldn't expect you to understand kid. This is adult stuff.

[twytify]

@999newaccount

The peer-review process is unforgivable to researchers.

There are only facts to be found in these papers, however it is the sad truth that you need a degree in statistics, biometry or science to be able to find it. It is much more difficult than your 'simple search' and a quote from the abstract and conclusion. Journalists that are not qualified in science communication rarely get the 'facts' right to the public particularly those from networks with their own political agenda.

[twytify]

@999newaccount

By the way this is how you interpret a journal article:

Make sure the article is an original research paper (not a review).

Verify if the paper has been peer reviewed (not still in the press or still in edit).

Make sure it is a recent paper (<5 years is not acceptable to most university standards)

Look at the reputation of the journal and the authors of the article (journals receive a score for their impact factor).

Look at the number of citations the article has received.

[twytify]

@999newaccount

If you know how to interpret Harvard-Flinders referencing (as standard to Australian universities) this is one of the many papers I can cite:

Hertwich, EG & Peters, GP 2009, 'Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis', Environmental Science and Technology, vol 43., no. 16, pp. 6414-6420.

Thankfully for you this is a free paper open for all to view and find the truth.

[twytify]

@999newaccount

No if you look at the data correctly (and which I doubt you could if your stuck on Wikipedia and have very little understanding of what "significant" actually means in a scientific paper) you would find that with any nation with a high proportion of middle class citizens has an unreasonable, unsustainable and with current technological advances unjustifiably higher carbon emissions.

[twytify]

@999newaccount

For your sake learn about interpreting an evidence base. Wikipedia references are just other internet sites (not credible original research papers). At any of the leading university's in Australia you would not be allowed to cite Wikipedia as a student let alone as a researcher.

[twytify]

@999newaccount

You have a complete misunderstanding of the interpretation of science by the media.

Science is all about disproving a null hypothesis to link causal factors to an effect.

Wikipedia posts are made by the general public not scientists. It is NOT a database of peer reviewed journals. If an individual so wanted to quote just the null hypothesis of an article and post it on Wikipedia it would be reported as facts to those with no access to the journal which requires a subscription.

[scrfce123]

So pollution emanating from Australia only stays centric to Australia? It only affects our climate? If our total annual emissions account for <1% of global pollution, what are we really fixing?

Incidentally, the tax has nothing to do with polluters... It has to do with the end consumer. Companies are greedy. They won't undercut their profits to maintain fair prices and Australian citizens will flip the bill for carbon tax regardless. This tax will make Australia less competitive.

[999newaccount]

@twytify My god you are dense. You pick and choose what you want to be true. Facts can definitely be misinterpreted by those with little knowledge, your posts in reply to mine are the perfect example of that.

Funnily enough, Wikipedia is backed up by you know, the actual research. Please cite your references that back up your claims and state otherwise, or I will be forced to assume that you misinterpreted your info like everything else you (and I) have said.

[999newaccount]

@twytify So you admit America is the worst? As in 20 times worse than Australia? Great.

I will not argue that the countries you listed aren't doing it better, but Australia is to Sweden as the US is to Australia. How can you not understand this?