I gotta agree with Julia here, I don't know why you started this thread when its pretty obvious that the majority of the forum don't believe in the human contribution to climate change.
It is pointless to try and convince people who made up their minds, its like trying to convince a indoctrined muslim/christian to become a atheist.
The other thread is titled "Resisting Climate Hysteria." Basilio is all about creating climate hysteria. By opening a new thread he hoped to attract more alarmists to his cause. He has failed to do this, but has retained a few of the usual suspects who are mainly rusted-on lefties.
CIA urged to be more open about climate change
US government agency says CIA should abandon its traditional culture of secrecy and begin sharing its intelligence on the issue
After a year of epic weather, drought, heatwaves, hurricanes and floods, America's intelligence establishment has come out with a bold new suggestion: maybe it's time the CIA stopped treating climate change as a secret.
A new report from the Defence Science Board – a US government agency – urges the CIA to step outside its traditional culture of secrecy and begin sharing the intelligence it has been gathering on climate change.
The report, Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security, goes as far as to recommend the establishment of a new agency devoted to the study of climate change – one that would operate in the open and transparent manner so alien to the CIA.
Let me introduce the latest group of climate alarmists who think we need to deal with what is known about current global warming trends. Definitely subversives.
(The Defence Science Board Report is quite good as well.)
...
Human hand fingered?
But when you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain.
Enhanced glacier melt could speed up sea level rise in the coming decades
There is "low confidence" that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, "limited-to-medium evidence available" to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and "low confidence" on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.
In terms of attribution of trends to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the uncertainties continue.
While it is "likely" that anthropogenic influences are behind the changes in cold days and warm days, there is only "medium confidence" that they are behind changes in extreme rainfall events, and "low confidence" in attributing any changes in tropical cyclone activity to greenhouse gas emissions or anything else humanity has done.
(These terms have specific meanings in IPCC-speak, with "very likely" meaning 90-100% and "likely" 66-100%, for example.)
And for the future, the draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring: "Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183
I find the last line interesting.
Why only 2-3 decades? Natural Climate Variability has the potential to span all timescales.
Looking at the title of this thread - Would I be correct in assuming that if man didn't produce any Co2 (eg the 3% of total CO2) then humans could stop global warming?
Was the global climate "stable" in centuries past before CO2 from man? Is this what the historic trends show? If so, can I request for 26 deg C everyday pls....
Re-read it, it makes sense.
So for the next 20 or 30 years, there should be no conclusive attribution of weather extreme events due to AGW?
Seems like a backflip.
Please explain to me how relocating emissions from one country to another is giving the world a chance? A chance at what, exactly?I am the first to agree that this carbon tax is a scam, but even if Australia is too small to matter, I still would prefer the world to be given a chance, (however small Australia is, we will pay the same price and probably worse than the average)
Price increases have no effect on consumption when there is a legal option to not pay the price increase and not reduce pollution.Then im afraid its official...you just don't get it.
In your world price increases have absolutely no affect on consumption....its not the price tag that stops people living in Double bay and driving ferraris.
But, extreme weather events frighten people, so I suppose if one wants to con people into parting with their money, making them afraid is one way of doing so.
Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
Bob Brown and the Greens are becoming unstoppable. Shudder.
Orly? please explain.Price increases have no effect on consumption when there is a legal option to not pay the price increase and not reduce pollution.
It's like income tax. Why would I pay income tax if there were legal means to avoid it? For most of the major polluters, the carbon tax is entirely optional - how many do you think will bother with it or reducing emissions?
Easy.Orly? please explain.
Easy.
Ship Australian coal and metal ores to a non-taxed country.
Produce metal in said country.
Tax avoided.
If this carbon tax was to work then it needs to apply to Australian consumption of goods rather than production. So there would be a carbon tax on a fully imported car, for example, since producing it caused the emission of CO2 overseas. Indeed there would be a tax on practically everything imported into Australia, with the same tax on domestic production and zero tax on production to export (administed in the form of a tax credit / rebate type arrangement).
Trouble is, that arrangement actually cuts emissions without screwing Australian industry. That's too good an outcome...
And once again, please read what I said, this is NOT a thread about the carbon tax.Please explain to me how relocating emissions from one country to another is giving the world a chance? A chance at what, exactly?
If the carbon tax actually reduced emissions then it may be of some benefit depending on your views on the issue. But simply relocating emissions from Australia to some other country is a dud no matter what you believe regarding the CO2 issue itself. We're all on the same planet - moving pollution around isn't going to help in the slightest.
They are actually killing people.
And it is interesting that the mainstream press under report this aspect.
Because maybe thier propaganda is better than the mainstream.
...Over time all businesses will take action to reduce there GHG footprint/Baseline...over time it will be just another cost input to be managed, most of the big businesses affected in this first round (top 500) will appoint a GHG manager and give him/her a small specialist team.
That team will establish a base line (under Kyoto rules) and develop policy and advise on GHG reduction initiatives and possibly's etc...pave the way forward.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?