Climate change another name for Weather

[MrBurns]

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.

Very possible.

 

[Smurf1976]

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

OK, we'll put the tax on the end user.

Now work out how much carbon was emitted in the production of the computer you are using right now.

Now go and buy 20 newspapers in Australia. On average, 9 of them were produced using paper from Tasmania (low carbon due to hydro-electricity), 5 were produced using paper from Albury (higher carbon due to fossil fuel energy) and the other 6 were produced using imported paper (carbon in manufacture being unknown). Now work out how to apply the carbon tax to these newspapers.

Then work it out for 10 other randomly selected consumer items.

Spot the problem?

 

[Gamblor]

Whatever animals do is a natural process, we are no different.

I laughed at that - quite possibly one of the most stupid things i've read around here for a while :

 

[MrBurns]

I laughed at that - quite possibly one of the most stupid things i've read around here for a while :

You cant fool us we know you cant read:

 

[drsmith]

Very possible.

The answer is to be able to develop new energy sources to sustain a growing demand but the question is whether we will be able to do it fast enough bearing in mind shorter term economic interest from established energy sources holds back such development.

 

[beerwm]

OK, we'll put the tax on the end user.

Now work out how much carbon was emitted in the production of the computer you are using right now.

Now go and buy 20 newspapers in Australia. On average, 9 of them were produced using paper from Tasmania (low carbon due to hydro-electricity), 5 were produced using paper from Albury (higher carbon due to fossil fuel energy) and the other 6 were produced using imported paper (carbon in manufacture being unknown). Now work out how to apply the carbon tax to these newspapers.

Then work it out for 10 other randomly selected consumer items.

Spot the problem?

yeh... i agree pricing carbon by regulation wouldnt work. but taxing the supplier isnt going to change it.

-so your statement.... it will reduce C02 isnt really accurate.

I laughed at that - quite possibly one of the most stupid things i've read around here for a while :

:

 

[MrBurns]

The answer is to be able to develop new energy sources to sustain a growing demand but the question is whether we will be able to do it fast enough bearing in mind shorter term economic interest from established energy sources holds back such development.

Unfortunately I don't think we have any hope of doing that because of vested interests.

Money rules.

Change will have to be forced on us at which stage it wont be too late but there will be enormous damage done before we come up for air.

 

[Mr J]

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.

Have any of these computer models been shown to be credible?

 

[beerwm]

Have any of these computer models been shown to be credible?

i dont know how to answer this.... 90% is 90% on the facts given,

 

[Mr J]

I find it hard to believe that they could come up with a reasonable figure as there are far less complicated systems that we can't model. 90% is just a calculation, nothing more. At least it's nice to hear about probability rather than certainty.

 

[wayneL]

Have any of these computer models been shown to be credible?

Nope.

They have failed to predict anything... except in hindsite.

What you might call curve fitting in mechanical trading systems.

 

[Mr J]

Wayne, how could you say that about the top scientific minds on the planet? :

When I was a kid, I would take a scientist's word as fact. Then I discovered that there is nothing left untainted by politics and money.

 

[Knobby22]

Wayne, how could you say that about the top scientific minds on the planet? :

When I was a kid, I would take a scientist's word as fact. Then I discovered that there is nothing left untainted by politics and money.

Bit cynical. Many models have been too conservative.

Most scientists believe in the scientific principle and there are few denying that climate change is happening. It's just that over such a short time frame and with all the different elements that effect the weather such as carbon dioxide, pollution, cloud formation, ocean currents etc. are extremely complex and the effect of man has really occurred over a short time so it is extremely difficult to model and such a complex system.

You can see where sea levels, CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, and climate change is going. We just can't really quantify whether ot will slow down or speed up.

 

[Mr J]

It's not cynical, it's the world in which we live. I'm not suggesting it applies to all scientists, but it certainly applies to certain groups.

there are few denying that climate change is happening

Climate always changes. The issue is whether we are currently a significant influence.

 

[beerwm]

these models arent just based on cause and effect.

c02, greenhouse gases are all known to have a effect on atmospheric conditions, its science.... not curve fitting.

what is with this deep seeded denial, you all seem quite emotionally involved.

 

[Mr J]

The only emotion I see is from the side that are convinced we're destroying the world. There are some denying climate change etc, but most of the "skeptics" (which are emotionally called "deniers") are just asking for proper science and discussion.

 

[beerwm]

The only emotion I see is from the side that are convinced we're destroying the world.

???

all ive given you are facts

 

[spooly74]

c02, greenhouse gases are all known to have a effect on atmospheric conditions, its science....

The predicted effect does not match observations. That's science.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

all the different elements that effect the weather such as carbon dioxide, pollution, cloud formation, ocean currents etc. are extremely complex and the effect of man has really occurred over a short time so it is extremely difficult to model and such a complex system.

You can see where sea levels, CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, and climate change is going. We just can't really quantify whether it will slow down or speed up.

Complex it is which gives no credibility to the models as they are proved wrong. The cooling phase is happening. Cyclical nature.

I support a warm Earth instead of a cool one. Ice kills life. Greenhouses do not.

these models arent just based on cause and effect.

c02, greenhouse gases are all known to have a effect on atmospheric conditions, its science.... not curve fitting.

what is with this deep seeded denial, you all seem quite emotionally involved.

This is typical of the socialist hijacked green movement. Truth is conveniently distorted as coherence theory, unfortunately, allows. Any form of rational logical debate is avoided and the word of choice is "denier" in the hope it will intimidate people to fall into the socialist line. May the skeptics come out in droves and let truth reign.

 

[beerwm]

The predicted effect does not match observations. That's science.

you'll find, that the observations are of a small sample period... the 'effect' is science.
-just because there wasnt rain today, doesnt mean rain doesnt exist.

saying they dont match observations is wrong anyway [90% confidence]