- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Spoken like a true egoist.
No thanks. Not really interested. I never read your biased and verbose posts or links. I just cherry-pick for clangers.
Hoped you would spot that Calliope. Always makes sense to identify exactly what lies are being told by the various range of skeptics and outright deniers. I believe they take great pains to examine as many pseudo science "facts" as possible to enable students to understand scientific practice versus hokum.
And on the topic of changing reality check out how Spencer, Watts and Co dealt with the fact that Amercia had its warmest year on record in 2012.
S I just cherry-pick for clangers.
Why. What harm are they doing to anyone?Always makes sense to identify exactly what lies are being told by the various range of skeptics and outright deniers.
some dude said:My understanding is that climate models do reflect reality for previous data in a sufficiently demonstrable manner to the relevant scientific community, even though they are not perfect, and as such provide the best mechanism we currently have for predictions
We know a tax or a trading scheme won't remove CO2.smurf1976 said:If CO2 causes warming then we're going to have warming. The best we can do now is plan to cope with that as best we can.
As far as other schemes to remove CO2. They seem to be expensive and incapable of doing the job. And really wouldn't it be simpler to start by reducing the CO2 emissions in the first place ?
Basilio,
Wouldn't it be fantastic if nature had invented a way of removing carbon from the air and locking it up in some way, that may also provide a further cooling and moderating effect on the climate
cheers
Surly
. You know it all
Well Spooly some interesting observations.
You ask what harm are skeptics and deniers doing with their lies? I would give them very large credit for stalling almost all effective action against reducing CO2 levels and the effect on our climate.
Ask yourself where would we be if the fossil fuel industry agreed that excessive CO2 emissions were dangerous and that they would be moving heaven and earth to develop non polluting energy sources or minimise their own emissions. For example what would have happened if in the 70's the tobacco industry had acknowledged that cigarettes were addictive and caused cancer and offered to voluntarily close up shop?
You can't easily tackle a problem when some of the most powerful organizations on the planet have a vested interest in denying the issue.
When its a case of policies on emissions reductions vs economic growth. The latter will prevail every time.
It's the Iron Law of Climate Policy.
Skeptics aren't stalling action, you just wish they were.
It would appear from the link below that the Global Warming Alarmist have been exaggerating their claim for years.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...rmist_scientist_admits_whoops_we_exaggerated/
Phys.org said:Uncertainties about the overall results of feedback mechanisms make it very difficult to predict just how much of the rise in Earth's mean surface temperature is due to manmade emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels is probably between 2 °C and 4.5 °C, with the most probable being 3 °C of warming.
In the Norwegian project, however, researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9 °C as the most likely level of warming.
...
Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.
Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.
Agreed in principle but the tax we have today is anything but well constructed. That problem, rather than the tax itself, is I think the underlying objection many have to it.I believe you are being unfair about the effect a well constructed carbon tax would have on CO2 emissions. If one makes CO2 emitting energy more expensive than clean fuels the economic market place will move in that direction. It's business self interest at work.
Core of my heart, my country!
Land of the Rainbow Gold,
For flood and fire and famine,
She pays us back threefold-
Over the thirsty paddocks,
Watch, after many days,
The filmy veil of greenness
That thickens as we gaze.
My Country
by
Dorothea Mackellar
(1885 - 1968)
So whats new except for climate scientists milkng peoples fear for financial gain ?
Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change
Follow up from Nicolas Stern who produced the 2008 Stern review on Climate Change.
http://sustainablesecurity.blogspot...te.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"As the facts change so do thinking peoples views"
Chinese smog chokes Japan
Smog from China is now drifting over parts of Japan, triggering health warnings for the young and sick.
Japanese media has been saturated with coverage of the thick, choking smog blanketing Beijing and other Chinese cities in recent days.
News programs have also broadcast maps showing the pollution being pushed west by the winds towards southern Japan.
Japanese health experts are warning that people with respiratory problems and small children are susceptible to the smog, which is worst on the southern island of Kyushu.
The website of Japan's environment minister has been choked with users logging on to monitor the level of pollution heading their way.
... Are the warmists amongst us waiting for the next normal heatwave to hit ...
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?