One thing that is very undemocratic is the silence of the contents and the lack of debate in the public domain by leaders, and other politicians including the people of the nation on the nearly decided issue.amongst other positives, it will cost a heap more to get on board this ship later than if we get on board now.
One thing that is very undemocratic is the silence of the contents and the lack of debate in the public domain by leaders, and other politicians including the people of the nation on the nearly decided issue.
I still haven't heard or read anything by the leader, nor the opposition leader spelling out what the agreement will mean to the Australian public.
Duopoly.Proves once again: Democratically elected dictatorship!
Proves once again: Democratically elected dictatorship!
Proves once again: Democratically elected dictatorship!
Does anyone know if B.O is going?
No, he's not. He's going for his Nobel instead to Oslo. Its caused the Copenhagen talkfest to be downgraded.
gg
Note that I said "probably" in that sentence.
If you change the chemical composition of something to a significant extent then generally speaking you would expect it to have some effects. That's just what happens.
Now, I'm not saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change. But I do think it reasonable to assume that if we forever increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then there will be some effect on something, somehow. What I don't know, but it would be an unusual situation if there were not some form of feedback resulting from a change in composition of the atmosphere.
Proof? I don't have any and don't claim to have any. But if the change were large enough then I do think it reasonable to assume that there would be some impact on something - whether it's good or bad I really don't know.
My main point though is that no matter what your stance on CO2, Copenhagen doesn't deliver. It doesn't cut emissions and it doesn't maintain cheap energy. Fail on both sides of the fence.
gee smurfsmurf1976 said:1. Note that I said "probably" in that sentence.
2. If you change the chemical composition of something to a significant extent then generally speaking you would expect it to have some effects. That's just what happens.
3. Now, I'm not saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change. But I do think it reasonable to assume that if we forever increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then there will be some effect on something, somehow. What I don't know, but it would be an unusual situation if there were not some form of feedback resulting from a change in composition of the atmosphere.
4. Proof? I don't have any and don't claim to have any. But if the change were large enough then I do think it reasonable to assume that there would be some impact on something - whether it's good or bad I really don't know.
5. My main point though is that no matter what your stance on CO2, Copenhagen doesn't deliver. It doesn't cut emissions and it doesn't maintain cheap energy. Fail on both sides of the fence.
“Is the globe warming .. yes
Is the greenhouse effect real? yes
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and is it being increased by man? Y
would we expect this warming to have an effect? Y
would human beings in general affect the climate? Y
But none of that answers [what he sees to be] the core question of whether or not CO2 is the current driver for the warming we’re seeing.
…
But [his argument against GW being a crisis right ]
One third of the planet has no electricity
a billion have no clean water
half billion go to bed hungry every night… it seems we don’t care, .. not acceptable.. a disgrace.
Don’t use GW as an excuse to turn our backs on the sick and dying on our shared world.[ = change of topic, valid as it is]
gee smurf
1 & 2. -
3. well I am saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change. I agree with BOM and Hadley Centre for instance.
4. gee whiz smurf - there's a debate back there by "intelligence squared" - that Global Warming is or isn't a crisis - where everyone (all 6 speakers) agree that "more greenhouse gases will cause warming". Not only is the smart money on that one - all the money is on that one.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369727
In the words of Crichton ... ( and he's on the side saying it isn't a crisis)
5. bit early to say what Copenhagen does or doesn't deliver don't you think.Was Kyoto a step (tiny bludy step that it was) in the right direction? - or the wrong direction?
Or do we continue to argue - as Johnny Howard did - that "we refuse to sign Kyoto, but we exceed their targets anyway. " - I believe that would belong in the "square root of intelligence" camp.
I can't help you with your impressions gg2020 mate,
I was under the impression that all the CO2 and holes in the ozone layer horse**** had been shown to be a load of codswallop.
gg
It is now unequivocal that they are betting on the wrong horse (environmentally that is, politically is another question).Was Kyoto a step (tiny bludy step that it was) in the right direction? - or the wrong direction?
All of the information I have on the subject is to the effect that CO2 is a global problem. Adding a tonne of CO2 to the atmosphere has the same effect whether it comes out the stacks at Torrens Island (biggest power station in SA) or from a central heating system in a house in Alaska. It's all just CO2 going into the atmosphere and it ultimately has the same effect, it doesn't concentrate in one area and just cause warming in that location.5. bit early to say what Copenhagen does or doesn't deliver don't you think.Was Kyoto a step (tiny bludy step that it was) in the right direction? - or the wrong direction?
I think most Australians understand very little, presumably because we haven't been told to any extent, so here is your chance to be helpful.
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?