imagine what career a scientist against the narrative would have, science without debate is propaganda. If 99% of funding went into why the earth is the centre of the solar system vs the skeptical sun is the centre crowd, whats the bet that the scientists tired to do ptolemy justice and come up with as much geocentric modelling as possible. Common sense aint that common
its amazing after all the history of human action that people still have a healthy trust in big govt.. i put it down to ignorance or being a shill
Given the sluggish way in which governments are responding to threats to climate change (see responses to the Kyoto protocol, Copenhagen, etc) I think it's a fairly misguided statement that belief in climate change stems from a trust in government. I trust science, not governments who refuse to act on what scientists tell them. As I said above (or meant to say above) if anyone comes up with real science which shows that climate change is not human induced, and/or that increased CO2 levels by man will not affect the climate, I will be ecstatic. Fantastic news, because it means there will not be the dangers to ecosystems and biodiversity that I far are inevitable. Given the lack of such data, I assume the worst - and it baffles me that people conclude otherwise with a complete lack of scientific basis, and based purely on their own conclusions.
Unlike religion or dogma, scientists are always happy (or at least should always be happy) to be impartial and respond to what their data and findings put out. This is in contrast to the biased, oil-funded groups who have tried (and failed) to refute climate science findings. Yes, it hasn't been pinned down accurately - please name a single area of science which, from the outset, has been completely accurate? - and the inaccuracies of weather forecasts are enough to show that this is a particularly difficult area to model accurately. That does not, however, mean that the entire premise is false.
I humbly suggest that your denial of climate science is derived from significantly greater ignorance of the area than the scientists that publish and research this area.
Scientists go 'against the narrative' all the time. There are no repercussions for this, assuming the findings are based on good and accurate research. Science is continually changing, and scientists accept this. There are many more recent examples than Ptolemy (which incidentally was a time when there were many more scientific misconceptions - by today's understanding of science - than merely the centre of the solar system).
Can someone from team gullable give us all a ballpark figure of how much would the world's temperature change should Australia reduce human CO2 "killer" emissions by 5%. Citations pls, 4th rate blogs not accepted, official IPCC methodology - shouldn't be too hard, the science is "clear and settled".
Please use as many 0's after the decimal point as needed. hint:I think another gullable extremist called flannery said it would take 1000yrs before we'd see any change.
Perhaps this
link can help team gullable, seems there are IPCC references for calculations too.
Behold, we are about to be enlighten by the self admitted blind and gullable. Please send the answer Tim Flannery as well.
No, I can't. I'm not a climate scientist. Even climate scientists can't accurately (and shouldn't try to). Neither can Lord Mockton, who is definitely NOT a climate scientist (what a joke). Why is it that people are willing to listen to Lord Mockton because their opinion is in line with his, and ignore and discredit people who actually know about this area?
+1. As we fork out for massive increases in electricity and everything we consume where it's a component, it would warm our hearts to know we are saving the planet. Please?
Julia and OzWaveGuy you assume that a reduction by 5% is intended to save the world. It is not. Australians are the biggest per capita producers of CO2 in the world. Assuming for a moment that CO2 produced by man will change the climate, if Australia wants to operate on a global stage, and negotiate and convince other countries to be taken seriously, and convince other countries to reduce their CO2 emissions, how can they do that without first doing something themselves. Yes, our CO2 contributions are minuscule on a global scale, and when compared with China, India, America, etc - but (at least for me) that's not the point. Australia is the first country to have come out and done something proactive, and can now put political pressure on others to do the same. It breaks the deadlock between developed and non-developed countries refusing to change before the other does. We should be proud. Will a 5% reduction by Australia make a difference? No. Will the implementation of the policy make a difference to global politics? Maybe.
And Julia, the electricity prices increases are totally unrelated to the carbon tax. Please avoid spreading misinformation.
Surely there must be someone from team gullable who can easily provide an accurate assessment? I keep hearing temperature rises of 5C will be upon us in less than 100yrs from the basilio drivel. So how much will the temperature change by reducing human co2 by 5%? Citations pls and any disclaimers from the referenced sites and calculations to also be provided. Basilio asserts there's a 1000 peer reviewed papers on Global Warming all proving increased temps from man's 3% contribution to natures 97% of co2. The proof and calculations should be located after page 1 in the first report, right?
Also, could someone reference from the IPCC where CO2 is pollution? Or is this just government spin (as usual) that has team gullable comparing it with mercury and carbon monoxide etc. Knobby, if you're trying to grow veggies it's no good keeping the Co2 away, perhaps this is why your watermelons are failing?
Not sure if this is what you are after, but I think you are confusing the issue. CO2 is a radiatively active gas, which in short means that it traps heat into the atmosphere. Whether this property alone is sufficient for you to consider it a pollutant I can't answer. Mercury and CO were examples of elements being 'bad' in small amounts. Also look at CFCs, and many other things. This was to counter the rubbish argument that 3% of atmospheric CO2 is man made. This argument is rubbish, because it doesn't matter - if a 3% increase is enough to upset the balance, this is significant. If a 300% would be required to upset the balance, then 3% would probably be of less interest.
Anyway, in brief this is what the IPCC says on CO2 in one of their glossaries.
"Carbon dioxide (CO2): A naturally occurring gas, also a by-product of burning fossil fuels from fossil carbon deposits, such as oil, gas and coal, of burning biomass and of land use changes and other industrial processes. It is the principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas that affects the Earth’s radiative balance. It is the reference gas against which other greenhouse gases are measured and therefore has a Global Warming Potential of 1."
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg1.pdf