It doesn't matter how much carbon an entity emits, it's a question of where it came from. If came from the carbon sinks of fossil fuels and mineral ores, then the net amount in the hydrosphere will increase. If the net amount in the hydrosphere remained the same, one could consume and emit all the carbon they liked without making any difference.
Quite true. Unfortunately, the vast majority is from the wrong places, (sinks). Our challenge is not only to stop using the captured carbon but to also recapture a hell of a lot what has already been released. Not easy with an ever increasing population of blogs wanting more and more of what the world can't provide...
"… In 2023, the infamous “year of perpetual summer” lived up to its name, taking 500,000 lives worldwide and costing nearly $500 billion in losses due to fires, crop failure, and the deaths of livestock and companion animals."
As Sinclair Davidson pointed out on the ABC news site two days ago,
"Then there is the lack of international direction on the issue of global warming. According to the International Energy Agency, only 8 per cent of global CO2 emissions face a "price" - after this week, that number will fall."
Plainly and unambiguously, with a carbon tax over three times greater than the next highest in the EU, we were the world leaders. And at the very same time, we were told that "we were being left behind" by everyone else in the world.
I cannot fathom the current breast beating, mea-culpas, guilt, shame and scaremongering about our Parliament's action in scrapping this rubbish tax, which unambiguously reflected the will and the mandate given by the electing public.
Regards,
Renato
If there were inadequacies in the carbon tax, could you suggest an improvement?
If there were inadequacies in the carbon tax, could you suggest an improvement?
We did, an election was held for all Australians to vote in. One party put forward the concept of scraping the tax. One party didn't. The majority of people voted for the party with their policy of removing it.
How many of you out there have had to deal with habitual liars? You know the Modus Operandi, lies to support lies to support lies. The excuses get ever more absurd. The liar will say whatever it takes to maintain the lie. They rely on the trust and reputation they have built for themselves. Eventually you pick an error and become suspicious. Then it dawns on you, the whole lot was a big crock based on a thin half truth and the rest was a load of BS and you fell for it. By then, you have been well and truly scammed.
Look at the catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming line. There is no evidence to support those fears. Come September, it will be 18 years since there has been any warming. This does not fit in at all with the models, yet the IPCC claims ever increasing certainty that man-made CO2 causes global warming. The correlation is getting weaker, yet a higher certainty claimed. Starting to smell a rat? The excuse to explain away where the heat has gone-to the deep oceans, but by an amount too small to measure. Since when does an assertion trump cold, hard observational science? This hypothesis is probably almost impossible to prove or disprove. Starting to smell a rat?
Since when is science ever settled? Especially something as complicated as climate. True science would welcome dissenting views and evidence, but no, dissenters are demonized and sacked. One university even burned their books! Bit of a good old witch-hunt. So much for purity of science.
There are some pretty drastic measures proposed to "fight" the "problem." Some groups call for the suspension of Democracy itself. Some call for the end of human technology. In an interview with the Guardian, January 13th, IPCC chief Christiana Figueres stated - Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Chinese Communism is the best model. The UN did not admonish her for this statement-they obviously condone it. So, after all this, the IPCC and UN condone the iron fist of totalitarianism to deal with a far from proven "problem." That rat is really starting to smell, isn't it?
The famous sound-bite 97% of climate scientists.... Do you know how this was derived? 10,000 odd questionnaires were sent out, just over 3,000 replies, but the sample was winnowed down to 79 who identified themselves as active climate researchers. 2 were identified as "deniers" and were discluded. 75 replied yes to these 2 questions- Do you believe it is warmer now than in 1850? (like hello, getting out of the mini ice age) and do you believe human activity plays a significant role in global warming? 5%, 95%-what classifies as significant? Rather leading question. Large sample size-not. All that effort to try to convince the public there is a consensus. Since when is science conducted by consensus?
The carbon tax is a big swindle- a tax on air. And the ETS- 10% was going to go straight to the UN-the very ones promulgating the chicken-little sky-is-falling line. Starting to smell a rat? And what about the UN eh? The founders were mainly Communists.The aim of the UN-world Socialism. A one world government with UNELECTED leaders. How coincidental, all the Secretaries-General of the UN have come from the ranks of Communists, Socialists and one Nazi(Kurt Waldheim)-oh, by the way, the Nazis were Socialists. Think this is a conspiracy theory?-look up the link of the Fabian Society and the UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations. Like all things, you cannot make firm judgement either way until you research it a bit for yourself.
Apparently some people think we are not. Unfortunately, when your head is stuck in the sand, vision becomes so limited that one cannot see what is happening around them....
Hummm, does anyone seriously think that we are not having and effect on the planet?
Sadly, there are quite a few. It never ceases to amaze me how some people can champion ignorance.
--------------
On a related note, as a way of reminding people of the seriousness of the issue, I suggest this:
We collectively note who are the climate change deniers, wherever we come across them. Record the evidence for posterity.
Some years down the track, when the political environment has changed - when the damage to our environment is so obvious the population at large can no longer be distracted by an advertising campaign and people are screaming that not enough has been done - we convene Nuremburg-like "crimes against humanity" trials to hold the deniers to account. Not just the the leaders, but also the lobbyists and executives of companies that benefitted, the media spruikers, the anti-scientists, the paid bloggers, everyone. Penalties could range from fines (in the way of additional tax levies - the damage is ongoing, and so should be the fine) up to life sentences in prison (and I don't think that's too harsh, because, given the enormous weight of evidence, these people served vested interests in full knowledge of the damage accruing).
As an aside, it is possible that the anti-climate change media campaign is partially a hedge against such a possible future event; to allow those in power to claim that the evidence wasn't clear. However, I think any future tribunal is going to see straight through that.
And if you think I can't say all this, then look again at the absolute rubbish posted by climate change deniers.
-----------
This thread has been political from the outset. I'm surprised it's not been deleted given some of the other milder ones that have been. So, come on mods: be consistent and don't let ambiguity and confusion reign.
Indeed this thread has been a little political
But not too bad
I salute the mods for letting it run for personally I gained a great deal
It has not become offensive which really the rules seek to control not freedom of expression
The matter thus received a good airing.
Closing the thread can be called for for it is a rule breaker but it has not caused the grief those rules seek to avoid.. We are all good
We are still friends and I think respect for opposing views or at least the people remains
All good
Wise moderation and to be complimented
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!
Taxing things doesn't solve problems, we have a global taxes on everything and what has it done? it just makes the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. Tax or no tax, carbon is still being emitted, cars are still using fossil fuels getting people to work. Industry is making goods for us that emit more carbon, people still want new telescopes and computers and this thing and that thing. It dosen't matter if global warmming is real or not the genie is out of the bottle and in nothing on earth will solve it, because we as a race will not change.
Pollution, all around,
Sometimes up, sometimes down,
But always around.
Pollution, are you coming to my town
Or am I coming to yours?
We're on different buses, pollution
But we're both using petrol.
Some years down the track, when the political environment has changed - when the damage to our environment is so obvious the population at large can no longer be distracted by an advertising campaign and people are screaming that not enough has been done
A few years down the track might prove anything at all other than rising temperatures which will be pronounced at the poles.
What obvious damage to the environment do you believe will be revealed? I've seen German works translated into English from a century ago which point out once atmospheric CO2 rises above 800 ppmv then man and his mammal relatives will be slowly snuffed out. This was a time when AGW was only popular in Germany and Scandinavia and ignored in the English speaking world.
But beyond this there may be no obvious effects. The final melting of the ice caps could take anything up to 40,000 years. Even 200 years hence we may only see a general rise in ocean levels of about a meter.
I rightly or wrongly use an open fire
It is one of my joys
I built it and there is maybe 3 to 4 ton of rock in it
Once hot it holds heat for ages
I can put logs in that hang over the bare cement floor
Often the logs have ant home within
They run around
I place sticks so they can escape and yet few ever leave their home
They run around and perish
I wonder why they can't realise their fait and do something
It seems we are like those ants
They can't change
They can't act to prevent their doom
Part of our home is in the fire yet we can't act
We are ant like
It is sad
A few years down the track might prove anything at all other than rising temperatures which will be pronounced at the poles.
What obvious damage to the environment do you believe will be revealed?
Unfortunately, on a local scale the damage is very evident. For example, check out what has happened at Kilimanjaro in the attached image. 85% gone and 26% of what was there in 2000 is now also gone. See more at: http://www.allinoneboat.org/2009/11/....Z9v8FJ9j.dpuf
Now I wonder what will happen when flow rates in the Ganges drop and can you even contemplate what will happen as the monsoon fails more regularly... 1 billion staving, thirsty boat people....
I live not far from Mount Wellington in Tassie. People still alive tell me it used to be impossible to get to the top during Winter because the snow was many metres thick. Open road 99% of the time now. The ocean currents around Tassie are warmer and northern species are invading. Evidence is absolutely everywhere.
Unfortunately, on a local scale the damage is very evident. For example, check out what has happened at Kilimanjaro in the attached image. 85% gone and 26% of what was there in 2000 is now also gone.
Now I wonder what will happen when flow rates in the Ganges drop and can you even contemplate what will happen as the monsoon fails more regularly... 1 billion staving, thirsty boat people....
I live not far from Mount Wellington in Tassie. People still alive tell me it used to be impossible to get to the top during Winter because the snow was many metres thick. Open road 99% of the time now. The ocean currents around Tassie are warmer and northern species are invading. Evidence is absolutely everywhere.
Global Warming is an effect where the average surface temperature is about 34 C warmer than it would be otherwise due to mainly the greenhouse effect of CO2. The CET which is a continuous record stretching back to the 17th century reveals that average temperatures are at least 1 C higher in the late 20th century than anything known prior. AGW is industrial mans contribution to global warming.
This is a very simple mechanism and only a fool doubts it.
But when you say the Kilimanjaro ice cap is giving up, ambient AGW could have only contributed a small amount to the decline. There could be numerous reasons why this is occurring. Not the least of which is the increasing population of Africa and changes in the landscape. It is exceedingly stupid to pin every effect on one cause "ambient AGW". Such hysteria does not help cause of science and is as foolish as the behavior of the deniers.
Science is not a soccer game where you pick sides and unreasonably worship your colours. Science is a search for the truth.
Quote:
I live not far from Mount Wellington in Tassie
Ditto, how much has man's alterations to the environment contributed to this rather than increasing CO2?
Unfortunately, on a local scale the damage is very evident. For example, check out what has happened at Kilimanjaro Evidence is absolutely everywhere.
My relatives in California are very worried about the disappearing snow pack on the Sierra mountain range. Most of the state's water supply comes from snow melt and they will be in dire straits if the snow pack is not replenished soon. The predicted El Nino doesn't help since it tends to result in warmer rain rather than snow.
My relatives fish for Salmon which also depend on good river flows and the state is a food bowl for the country, with a vast valley between the Sierra's and the coast dependent on irrigation from snow melt.
Maybe we're not responsible for climatic changes and maybe there's nothing to worry about, but only a fool would take the risk of ignoring warning signs given the potential dangers.
But when you say the Kilimanjaro ice cap is giving up, ambient AGW could have only contributed a small amount to the decline. There could be numerous reasons why this is occurring. Not the least of which is the increasing population of Africa and changes in the landscape. It is exceedingly stupid to pin every effect on one cause "ambient AGW".
Absolutely true and as I have previously said, the primary issue is not carbon in the atmosphere but over-population. The impacts of that are global and include CO2 increases in the atmosphere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wulfgar
Such hysteria does not help cause of science and is as foolish as the behavior of the deniers.
Science is not a soccer game where you pick sides and unreasonably worship your colours. Science is a search for the truth.
Ditto, how much has man's alterations to the environment contributed to this rather than increasing CO2?
Absolutely true again, the change/destruction of the environment on a local level can have significant effects on local ecology and the local micro-climate. If I remember correctly, I recently heard that the temperature in the average city is up to 7 deg Celsius higher than in an equivalent "natural" area. The over-riding problem is over-population and that is a global issue.
I cannot fathom the current breast beating, mea-culpas, guilt, shame and scaremongering about our Parliament's action in scrapping this rubbish tax, which unambiguously reflected the will and the mandate given by the electing public.
Regards,
Renato
OMG!!!! the LNP just had an 18% swing against it in QLD. They have apparently lost the unambiguous mandate given by the electing public
Of course, Newman reckons the public were annoyed because they had to do a bye-election 8 months out from a general election... Nothingf to do with policies... Nah
Geez, better not get on the wrong side of Queenslanders. TOUCHY!!!
If we can't change the climate back we had better start adapting to the predicted changes, there is plenty of time to start moving away from the coast, to build stonger houses and change agricultural practices.
If we can't change the climate back we had better start adapting to the predicted changes, there is plenty of time to start moving away from the coast, to build stonger houses and change agricultural practices.
I wouldn't bet on it. Rising sea levels are only one aspect of this problem. Significant change to climatic conditions, rainfall, drought/storm frequency and intensity, growing patterns etc etc etc.
The unfortunate thing is that the changes are not well understood and that makes adaption more difficult. Logic suggests we need to step up and do something about it rather than try to adapt.
