Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
beerwm said:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Click to expand...

That's where the credibility falls over. Research this, there are numerous problems with this organization and the truthfulness/accuracy of their reporting.
 
wayneL said:
That's where the credibility falls over. Research this, there are numerous problems with this organization and the truthfulness/accuracy of their reporting.
Click to expand...

I did check them out briefly, but found nothing more than a few rants on some blogs.
 
wayneL said:
Then by your own admission, you haven't researched this. Come back when you have.

Start here http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/main-conclusions-2/ (Not a "denier")
Click to expand...

ok right, so you're disputing 1000+ scientists/researchers/experts, from 100 + countries - based on some internet blogs you have read.

[which arent peddling their own agenda... right?]

you seem adamant that 'CC is a fraud' so i doubt you're going to change your view, but try and look at it rationally.
 
beerwm said:
ok right, so you're disputing 1000+ scientists/researchers/experts, from 100 + countries - based on some internet blogs you have read.

[which arent peddling their own agenda... right?]

you seem adamant that 'CC is a fraud' so i doubt you're going to change your view, but try and look at it rationally.
Click to expand...

beer

Please note the link I posted along with my other comments, then you you can take down the ludicrous straw man you just put up.

If you are unable to discern where I at with this, it is useless discussing it with you.

Please, don't become 2020Hindsight MkII.
 
From the article Wayne posted.

"Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide."

This is very true. I think the models are still in their infancy. They are trying to model a whole world. The other important factor is measurement. We have only really been good at it for 70 years.

I believe that anthromorphic climate change is happening. The question is the degree of change and the way the natural systems operate to mitigate or alternatively amplify the change.

In other words we know its occurring but we don't know how bad a problem it will be!

So what do we do about it? Wait for more data, in 10 years time I think the facts will be quite clear. Try to limit our damage to the environment? I think we should be taking steps. Set up a method of encouraging faster change though carbon taxes? Why not!

Is Australia, the USA and Europe got the plan right using their complex systems of taxation/carbon credits? I think not. Too many vested interests, too many rules, too much beauracracy and not enough clarity. We should have a simple carbon tax and leave it at that.

It is the government response that leaves me cold.
 
beerwm said:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007; with a 90% or greater probability, human actions are the cause of climate change.

- caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

1000+ researchers/scientists/experts... 100+ countries.
-all reviewed/peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

Apparently there's an internal agreement that there is up to a 10% chance that they're all wrong. I can only imagine the agenda and corruption flying around there, but even they admit they may not be correct.
 
Knobby22 said:
We should have a simple carbon tax and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Carbon tax should work fine as a means of reducing CO2 provided that there is no means to opt out other than by not emitting CO2.

If you take a look at the schemes that have been proposed, they all have some means of opting out, commonly by shifting operations to different countries. The whole thing fails miserably if the tax rate in, say, New Zealand is different to the tax rate in Brazil. Polluters will simply shift to the lowest tax country and continue polluting if that situation is allowed, precisely what they have done in the pursuit of cheap electricity for the past 100 or so years and are still doing today.
 
Mr J said:
Apparently there's an internal agreement that there is up to a 10% chance that they're all wrong. I can only imagine the agenda and corruption flying around there, but even they admit they may not be correct.
Click to expand...

not sure if this post is sarcastic, but there is computer modelling/bell curves, etc and 90% confidence interval sounds 'very likely' comapred to...

5% chance climate change is due only to natural causes.

18:1 odds, i know what side i'd be on.

Smurf1976 said:
Carbon tax should work fine as a means of reducing CO2 provided that there is no means to opt out other than by not emitting CO2.

If you take a look at the schemes that have been proposed, they all have some means of opting out, commonly by shifting operations to different countries. The whole thing fails miserably if the tax rate in, say, New Zealand is different to the tax rate in Brazil. Polluters will simply shift to the lowest tax country and continue polluting if that situation is allowed, precisely what they have done in the pursuit of cheap electricity for the past 100 or so years and are still doing today.
Click to expand...

not really, as the tax would be on the end user/

carbon tax wouldnt necessarily reduce emissions; as a cap and trade scheme looks to eliminate the cheapest emissions first, while a carbon tax is at a constant price and not directly tied to emissions just a 'set price'.
 
Dunno what all the fuss is about -

Humans arent alien to Earth, everything we do is natural so doesnt really hurt the environment.

Do people point at other animals and say they are hurting the planet ? No

This is all BS
 
MrBurns said:
Dunno what all the fuss is about -

Humans arent alien to Earth, everything we do is natural so doesnt really hurt the environment.

Do people point at other animals and say they are hurting the planet ? No

This is all BS
Click to expand...

so i guess if we dump some 'natural' toxic waste into our water supply we'll all be fine.
 
MrBurns said:
Don't talk rubbish, no animal drinks contaminated water.
Click to expand...

i dont even know what that means,

anyway the extraction from carbon -- underground --> to carbon in the air is not a natural process.

deforestation is not a natural process.
 
beerwm said:
i dont even know what that means,

anyway the extraction from carbon -- underground --> to carbon in the air is not a natural process.

deforestation is not a natural process.
Click to expand...

Whatever animals do is a natural process, we are no different.
 
MrBurns said:
Dunno what all the fuss is about -

Humans arent alien to Earth, everything we do is natural so doesnt really hurt the environment.

Do people point at other animals and say they are hurting the planet ? No

This is all BS
Click to expand...
It does little to address the core question of when the demands of our growing population will outstrip the Earth's capability to sustain it.

Should we reach that point then nature's solution is not overly pleasant.
 
drsmith said:
It does little to address the core question of when the demands of our growing population will outstrip the Earth's capability to sustain it.

Should we reach that point then nature's solution is not overly pleasant.
Click to expand...

Well we better restrict population growth, or people will die, in the natural order of things there wil be a war and that will fix that.
 
War is one way to restore an equilibrium between human population and the resources available to support it.

Perhaps this will be part of our natural evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top