- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,048
- Reactions
- 12,614
Where did you get 78% from ?
But Shorten already said he would not reintroduce a "CARBON DIOXIDE TAX" under the government he leads.
So how is he going to get his 50% reduction target by 2030?
Ah yes an ETS of course which will jack up electricity prices by 78%.
Politics and the hip pocket nerve. People like Turnbull and Abbott know global warming is taking place but they just want to win elections so they run scare campaigns based on simplistic "great big tax on everything" slogans and ignore the advice from people on their own side in the business area and then spend billions anyway on "Direct Action" which would be unnecessary if CC was not happening.
Pretty disgusting really.
So that's where the head in the bag of CO2 came from!
Couldn't someone equally use this argument to make similarly menacing claims about H2O?
I think it's established facts that too much of anything is not good for you, including H2O.
That may well be the case. As it happens, both of these compounds are naturally occurring and also result from the burning of fossil fuels.
Telling anyone to stick their head in a bag of either, really only serves to make one point, namely a lack of circumspection on the part of the one issuing such an absurd directive.
That may well be the case. As it happens, both of these compounds are naturally occurring and also result from the burning of fossil fuels.
Telling anyone to stick their head in a bag of either, really only serves to make one point, namely a lack of circumspection on the part of the one issuing such an absurd directive.
Are you suggesting that humans inhaling too great a concentration of H2O will not also die?Don't take it too literally, the point is well made. If humans breathe in too great a concentration to co2 they die. That's a simple counter to the "co2 is a harmless gas" debating point put up by the chronically stupid CC deniers.
What is happe
ning before our eyes is not theory, its happening. The dinosaurs took many millions of years to be wiped out.
Go to your local library and have a read of "The Sixth Extinction" by Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin, 1996 and it sets out the scientific facts of the types and periods (as measured scientifically, rock samples etc) of the previous five extinctions and a very good scientific base of where we are going now.
"The asteroid almost certainly did it but it just so happened to hit at a bad time when dinosaur ecosystems had been weakened by a loss of diversity," Brusatte said. "If the asteroid had hit a few million years earlier, or a few million years later, then dinosaurs probably wouldn't have gone extinct."
Don't take it too literally, the point is well made. If humans breathe in too great a concentration to co2 they die. That's a simple counter to the "co2 is a harmless gas" debating point put up by the chronically stupid CC deniers.
What is happenning before our eyes is not theory, its happening. The dinosaurs took many millions of years to be wiped out.
Go to your local library and have a read of "The Sixth Extinction" by Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin, 1996 and it sets out the scientific facts of the types and periods (as measured scientifically, rock samples etc) of the previous five extinctions and a very good scientific base of where we are going now.
Politics and the hip pocket nerve. People like Turnbull and Abbott know global warming is taking place but they just want to win elections so they run scare campaigns based on simplistic "great big tax on everything" slogans and ignore the advice from people on their own side in the business area and then spend billions anyway on "Direct Action" which would be unnecessary if CC was not happening.
Pretty disgusting really.
First photographs emerge of new Pacific island off Tonga
Three men scale peak of new one-mile island off Tonga which is believed to have formed after a volcano exploded underwater and then expanded
A lot of things are "natural" results of doing something. That doesn't make it good, or safe.
Example, it is only natural that if poison is consumed, the consumer die. It is only natural that if you muck around with deadly snakes, it will probably bite you and you will probably die - so don't do it.
Same with burning of fossil fuel... it's only natural that burning it will produce energy, CO2 and other by-products... does it mean this natural stuff is good?
That's the question we're trying to answer right?
The bag example is crude but it gets to the point.
What if the entire planet is that bag? What if all life on it is the person whose head is in that bag?
A small amount of Co2 might not matter much; but if big enough amount of CO2 and other poisonous natural by--products fill up that bag, it'll matter a great deal.
----
Of our entire Solar System, this third rock from the Sun is the only one capable of sustaining life on it. As far as our technology can see and can detect, there's unlikely to be any other habitable planet around for literally light years away. And forget about our technology to get us to one if we do find it...
so maybe we ought to be a bit cautious on this one.
I guess we all could say what's the use, long before CC wipe us out the wars for water and resources with them couple trillion dollars' worth of nukes will do it anyway.
We seem to be on a different page here. The question of life on other planets and mankind's failure to recognise the likelihood of a much larger spectrum of lifeforms than is currently known, is an issue that speaks again to the arrogance of the human race and my theory that humanity is giving itself and its science far more credit than is truly warranted.
As for the question of dangers posed by natural products issuing from burning of fossil fuels, you can make a distinction if you wish. However, to single out one essential compound in isolation to others and declare it to be dangerous in sufficiently high concentrations, is pretty much stating the blindingly obvious and doesn't further anyone's cause. I maintain that mention of H2O is an adequate counter to ludicrous directives concerning placement of heads in bags of virtually any natural compound and consider those claiming otherwise to be doing themselves and their argument a great disservice.
Before deciding to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, surely it would be wise to first ascertain what levels earth ideally requires for sustenance of the current flora and fauna population, would it not? For all that is known, nature could already (and probably is) adjusting the concentration levels via natural processes. In such a scenario, efforts to reduce those levels, could potentially do needless harm to the ecosystems on this planet.
Where did you get 78% from ?
No I'm not. More to the point, scientists have done a great deal of work to find out how carbon circulates.Aren't you overlooking the fact that CO2 is being recycled by natural process and that the atmosphere is simply a conduit where CO2 travels from emission to reception?
Hence co2 levels may not necessarily be as cumulative as one supposes.
Did I just read you right? Reducing CO2 may actually do harm?
Yes you did read me correctly.
Until such time as these "scientists", to whom you refer, demonstrate that they have actually done their homework and duly accounted for the full spectrum natural and "artificial" processes in their findings, I shall maintain my current position that scepticism is warranted.
It is my belief that the burden of proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of those calling for action.
So instead of the usual cycle of overhyped statistics,media reports and assertions that it is okay to allow a select subset of "scientists" to do all of our thinking for us, how about some scientific proof for a change?
No I'm not. More to the point, scientists have done a great deal of work to find out how carbon circulates.
Here's a discussion of the carbon cycle that's pitched at high school students, which is about the level I'm most comfortable. An extract: "While carbon is exchanged in both directions between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere and between the ocean and the atmosphere, there is only a one-way movement of carbon from fossil fuels to the atmosphere." http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/
"subset" of so called "scientists"?
Bloody el
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?