- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 6,749
- Reactions
- 12,995
WrongThis is Seans claim. The source of this claim appears to Professor Ian Plimer.
As usual with Professor Plimers work it is misleading and as honest as Donalds Trumps property valuations.
His argument is found here
Australia is already at Net Zero - Australian Climate Sceptics blog
Professor Ian Plimer, The Spectator 24th May 2022 Australia has a landmass of 7,692,024 square kilometres with a sparse inland population, greenhouse gas-emitting livestock, and heavy industry. Combined with the transport of livestock, food, and mined products over long distances to cities and...australianclimatesceptics.com
This analysis points out the deception behind Professor Plimers calculations. The simplest reason is just double counting. But there is much more than simply that.
Professor double counts with claim Australia is already at net zero
Ian Plimer suggests Australia is in the clear as the nation has already reached net zero emissions.www.aap.com.au
The same specious argument was used by other people to "prove"the worlds natural environment is already effective at absorbing all CO2.
That statement is manifestly wrong as evidenced by the rapidly rising CO2 levels.
The consequences are the rapid increase in global temperatures caused by these emissions.
We are part of the problem. We are facing the consequences rising temperatures.
Another piece of climate alarmism gone nuts.
Just a few points.
The population of Egypt is 109 million in 2021.
To get to 250 million by 2080 requires a 150% increase in 60 years.
Given that around 96% of Egypts landmass is desert, its hard to imagine the 4% thats left being able to accomodate an increase of that magnitude.
It states that "we must eliminate 350,000 people per day" to achive what it suggests is a stable population.
As usual , the people at the top expect the elimation to come from those lower down the rung.
But the biggest joke is the idea that we are going to suffocate because of an increase in carbon dioxide.
At 0.04%, or 400 parts per million, its going to take increases of such huge proportions to cause suffocation.
Hypoxia is caused by low levels of oxygen, not so much because of carbon dioxide levels.
Its absolute garbage , and to be coming from an org like UNESCO with the word scientific in it , makes it even worse.
View attachment 166191
u
So its ok for you pluck articles supporting your stance from the usual 'the world is coming to an end because of Climate change" ?Digging deep there Mick . You must have been poring relentlessly over millions of internet files to find a copy of the Nov 1991 UNESCO Courier with that particular story
Just kidding.I know you plucked it from one of the usual "deny, deflect delay" sites that want to keep you amused with such trivia and ignore the rapidly increasing global temperatures driven by equally rapidly increasing greenhouse gas levels .
A 32 year old interview with Jacques-Yves Cousteau making some silly slip ups. And they/you want to conflate it with climate alarmism.
Not smart.
So its ok for you pluck articles supporting your stance from the usual 'the world is coming to an end because of Climate change" ?
Because the thread is about climate alarmism, weird theories of catastrophic immediacy, and there have been plenty posted.Mick I don't "pluck articles" supporting my stance that the world is coming to an end because of Climate change.
I quote the facts around how rapidly the world is heating up. I reference the scientists who have pieced together the connection between human produced greenhouse gases and the accelerating temperature. I publish the graphs which highlight how rapidly our world is warming up.
What are the the consequences of these physical realities ? Rapid accelerated melting of ice caps. Record temperatures across the globe that accelerate fires to extremes not seen in human memory. Extreme weather conditions that have been turbo charged by warmer oceans and higher levels of moisture in the atmosphere. All of realities can be found with a tap. I highlight a few of them.
There are also thousands of reports and studies on how the rapidly warming environment is undermining current plant and animal ecosystems. They are a bit drier but the highlights are picked up and reported.
You appear to never acknowledge any of these realities. Instead you have to pick up 30 year old silly comments as a way of avoiding any discussion on what is happening in front of our eyes.
---------------------------
As far as another consensus argument that didn't hold up ? WTF . If the world wasn't heating up so much you could have a point. But it is so that piece of deflection is just dumb. But again. You have quoted it from a source that clearly can only use deflection to undermine acknowledging what is happening.
Really ?
Hear, hear me too.Because the thread is about climate alarmism, weird theories of catastrophic immediacy, and there have been plenty posted.
So many failed predictions, so many many failed warnings.
I don't demand that you address them, thats entirely your prerogative.
If you want to start a thread about which scientist you think is correct about global warming, go right ahead and start one.
But you would be wasting your time with a demand that I participate.
Mick
Firstly no one needs 100 metres of sea level rise to create a human disaster. We don't even need a 10 metre rise to wipe out most coastal cities.
Anything between 1-3 metres of sea level rise would be sufficient to make most coastal cities uninhabitable in their present forms. And that doesn't take into consideration the effects of storm surges which would force storm water far further inland.
Hey Bas, we talked about this years ago, you keep saying we have a problem that we can fix by going green.Mick I don't "pluck articles" supporting my stance that the world is coming to an end because of Climate change.
I quote the facts around how rapidly the world is heating up. I reference the scientists who have pieced together the connection between human produced greenhouse gases and the accelerating temperature. I publish the graphs which highlight how rapidly our world is warming up.
What are the the consequences of these physical realities ? Rapid accelerated melting of ice caps. Record temperatures across the globe that accelerate fires to extremes not seen in human memory. Extreme weather conditions that have been turbo charged by warmer oceans and higher levels of moisture in the atmosphere. All of realities can be found with a tap. I highlight a few of them.
There are also thousands of reports and studies on how the rapidly warming environment is undermining current plant and animal ecosystems. They are a bit drier but the highlights are picked up and reported.
You appear to never acknowledge any of these realities. Instead you have to pick up 30 year old silly comments as a way of avoiding any discussion on what is happening in front of our eyes.
---------------------------
As far as another consensus argument that didn't hold up ? WTF . If the world wasn't heating up so much you could have a point. But it is so that piece of deflection is just dumb. But again. You have quoted it from a source that clearly can only use deflection to undermine acknowledging what is happening.
Go back just one generation and it someone had a 26" TV then that was one way to know they were rich.We will end up having t cover the planet with solar panels, because where people years ago, had one TV , one fridge, now they have electric everything
With a risk of widespread overnight frosts and some snow across the country this week, it’s important to check in on the wellbeing of those most vulnerable to the cold.
Cold weather can have a serious impact on health, particularly older people, and those with pre-existing health conditions, as it increases the risks of heart attacks, strokes, and chest infections.
If you have a pre-existing medical condition or are over the age of 65, it is important to try and heat the rooms where you spend most of your time in, such as your living room or bedroom.
Twiggy does not suffer fools and idiots and calsl a spade a spade not a shovel.Twiggy is at COP28 telling all the other CEOs how crap they are at doing something about CO2 emissions.
View attachment 166542
But his message is no less blunt: “If you’re a leader and you try to hold the line for business as usual because you’re just too damn lazy and have such little character to make change, then you should get off the stage – whatever it is, corporate or political – and let someone with more talent and more character take the reins.”
He’s nevertheless going to COP, as he usually does, even though he thinks it has been captured by oil and gas interests.
“As long as its constitution is controlled by the oil and gas sector, COP will find it increasingly difficult to maintain global, and particularly youth, integrity,” he told AFR Weekend just before stepping onto a plane for Dubai on Friday.
BUT, I'm sure he flew there in his Bombardier.
Is it wind powered?
ANDREW “TWIGGY” FORREST TREATS HIMSELF TO PRIVATE JET WORTH $98 MILLION
View attachment 166541
Billionaire mining magnate and Fortescue Metals chairman – Dr Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest – has ditched his 25-year-old set of wings to take delivery on his long-awaited Bombardier Global Express 7500 private jet. And although the latter comes with a hefty $98 million price tag, given how the bloke casually added another $15 billion to his net worth last year – not to mention cashing in a $1.6 billion dividend check for the past six months alone – Twiggy won’t be flinching when he sees the incoming AMEX statement.
Arriving at his doorstep/tarmac on Good Friday, the Canadian-made Bombardier Global Express 7500 can apparently travel from one side of the world to the other without ever having to stop for a refuel. According to the AFR, Andrew Forrest “wasted no time” before testing out the “enviable reach capability” of his brand new private jet. The Fortescue Metals carrier logged a direct flight from Perth to Honolulu right off the bat – that’s 10,900 kilometres in a single run.
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?