THE economy looks set to suffer it biggest contraction in 20 years in the first quarter of 2011 after a string of natural disasters savaged exports in crucial industries such as coal
Wayne I think the contributors who wanted to ditch all scientific research on climate change (unless they agreed with it of course !) in preference to their own robust commonsense made more sense than you have.
FWIW I leave the discussion on the robustness of the current science behind climate change to a real expert.
And, please note, Professor Steffen was John Howards appointment as the government science advisor in 2004.
Ahhh but not all scientists agree with your version. Even though you may not agree with them doesn't mean they are wrong either...
And I don't think any pro carbon tax has actually refuted the wiki link that I have posted from time to time. Posted it again yesterday when IFocus listed all the countries that are doing something to reduce carbon. Apart from India, all eight other countries emit a combined total of 1.04% of world carbon dioxide.
Australia emits 1.35% (by memory). Even if we reduce our emissions by 5% - it seems futile to put the economy at such risk for this piddling amount.
I think there are two arguments - one is the one being mostly discussed here and this is how much responsible man is for CO2. An argument that will always have opposing view points.
The other more important thing IMO is - even IF we are responsible, unless the heavy polluting countries which emit a combined total of approx 70% such as China, US, Japan, Rusia do something, isn't it futile for the rest of the countries who emit such tiny amounts? Any thoughts from our climate "experts"????
Prof. Steffan has done no better than throw a tantrum.
Yes, and once apon a time the world was flat and the heretics who expresses another possiblity, based on some crazy science, were cast out and some burned at the stake.
Waynel, subjective gobbledygook is just that and science works and points to conclusions which are objective.
But of course we will only see what we want to look at. Our dreams and desires cannot be measured and quantified but they unfortunately get in the way of the objective.
We are starting to see who is throwing the tantrum. Lacking a bit of explanation in proportion to the bland statement I feel.
Science says we should put a tax on carbon.
OK then, can you please highlight where the professor has introduced any substantive scientific arguments in that article?
''You can have a very partisan approach to the policy and how you deal with it - that's fair game - but I think a wise society would respect the judgment of its experts, bearing in mind that that judgment is continually debated within [the scientific community],'' he said.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...st-infantile-20100524-w81e.html#ixzz1Numg4Ol9
At the end of the day we have to surely take some note of the experts.
Of course how we attain that may be the real burning question.
Actually science doesn't say that at all. Science, at least the consensus view, tells us that the earth is warming and that the warming trend is due to an increase in carbon dioxide due to human activity.
You didn't answer my question.
You need to explain first why you believe the professor was throwing a tantrum. It ws not clear to me.
This is what he was purported to have said directly. The other content is the version of what was said by the reporter.''It's a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals - and they have been disproved,'' Professor Steffen said after an address at the Australian Davos Connection's Future Summit.
''Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether 'is it real or isn't it real?', it's like saying, 'Is the Earth round or is it flat?' [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.''
I keep wondering about a couple of questions.
If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?
If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.
If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?
If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.
Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?
Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?
How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.
If we do some thing who will die?
Bleehhh
Are you the writer for the new carbon tax ad or something.
I keep wondering about a couple of questions.
If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?
If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.
If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?
If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.
Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?
Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?
How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.
If we do some thing who will die?
I keep wondering about a couple of questions.
If we do nothing what will a world population of 9 billion do for energy and who goes hungry?
If we do nothing what will drive us to discover other other energy sources.
If we do nothing what will the wars look like in the battle for energy?
If we do nothing what happens if the oceans acidify.
Is there anyone here who believes oil will not run out?
Is there anyone here who believes coal or nuclear power will plant crops?
How can what we do today i.e. world growth in resource use continue with a population of 9 bil.
If we do some thing who will die?
Ahhh but not all scientists agree with your version. Even though you may not agree with them doesn't mean they are wrong either...
And I don't think any pro carbon tax has actually refuted the wiki link that I have posted from time to time. Posted it again yesterday when IFocus listed all the countries that are doing something to reduce carbon. Apart from India, all eight other countries emit a combined total of 1.04% of world carbon dioxide.
Australia emits 1.35% (by memory). Even if we reduce our emissions by 5% - it seems futile to put the economy at such risk for this piddling amount.
I think there are two arguments - one is the one being mostly discussed here and this is how much responsible man is for CO2. An argument that will always have opposing view points.
The other more important thing IMO is - even IF we are responsible, unless the heavy polluting countries which emit a combined total of approx 70% such as China, US, Japan, Rusia do something, isn't it futile for the rest of the countries who emit such tiny amounts? Any thoughts from our climate "experts"????
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?