100% of the human population believe in CC...it happens every day FFS
now GLOBAL WARMING is another matter....funny as they changed the from GW concerns to CC.....why would they do that ?

pot kettle black lol

Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before....

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)


...........................................................................................................


WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS

Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans

are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s

past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate

became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and

sometimes caused mass extinctions.

Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive

climate changes in earth's past.


Abrupt vs slow change.


Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the

greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks.

Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same

way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like

humans are causing today.

Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions

such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events

(a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening

today with human-caused climate change.

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see

the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions

(just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

You'd have to be an idiot to dispute Global Warming AND/OR Climate Change.




Either that or you have an iron in the fire of CREATING DOUBT.

AFL is the champion of the left movement, they have NEVER made a mistake in history lol

Myself have voted both ways when it suits me (not one eyed)..presently as the left side favours the rort, they have lost me

you'd have to be an idiot not to see an ETS won't make a fly sh!t of difference to the planet


ENVIRONMENTAL
TRADING
SCAM

BIGGEST RORT EVER

Myself have voted both ways when it suits me (not one eyed)..


good call secong ... and me too

but to say labor have an environmental heart greater than any other party ... is discounted by ... their OWN ACTIONS ... whilst in govt

and gillard was the worst ... rudd had an idea .. but his own party wanted him out

(that old infernal internal conflict again )

direct action b1tches

Who likes irony?

In 1914, a radical labour union started a newspaper in Sydney to educate the working class and promote the cause of socialism in Australia.

The union was an offshoot of the US-based Industrial Workers of the World, which hated the wage-labour system, and it used its paper to try to convince Sydneysiders that they had "nothing in common" with their employers.

"Get wise, and organise for your own emancipation," its first edition instructed. "The few who make up the employing class have all the good things of life."
Advertisement

You know what the newspaper was called? Direct Action.

Whether the Abbott government knows it or not, it has been trumpeting an old socialist slogan to promote one of its main environmental policies.

I like that. It's like the decision by the German bank Sparkasse Chemnitz to put a picture of Karl Marx on its new credit card in 2012.

But I have a question for you, and it relates to irony: where do you think economic growth comes from?

With your answer, try to come up with a better response than just "job creation" or "export competitiveness" or "population growth".

Don't feel perturbed if you're unsure how to answer. It remains one of the main problems in economics despite hundreds of years of research.

I won't actually try to answer it now.

But if I did, I'd include in my answer something about the way in which modern economies must feed on a serious diet of energy to keep growing, and how that energy can come in various forms: coal power, nuclear power, renewable power.

I'd also say you can run a modern economy on various combinations of those power sources and your economy will look very different – and have unique benefits and consequences for the people living in it – depending on the way in which those energy sources are combined.

For example, an economy running purely on coal-fired power stations will not be as healthy to live in as one running on half-coal and half-nuclear.

I point this out because we're at a moment in history where Australians are having a major squabble over competing visions of what our future energy sources ought to look like.

The outcome of the argument will affect everyone.

But a new and interesting report jumped neck-deep into the fight this week.

It is called "Pathways to decarbonisation in 2050: How Australia can prosper in a low carbon world".

It was produced by the Australian National University and ClimateWorks Australia, and feeds into a project led by the globally renowned economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

The paper was delivered to world leaders at a special climate summit in New York this week.

It envisages a future Australian economy that is very different from that of today.

The paper is the result of a serious amount of work. Its authors relied on modelling undertaken by the CSIRO and the Centre of Policy Studies at Victoria University, and it relies on research that was not available at the time of the 2008 Garnaut Review and emissions reduction modelling done by the federal Treasury in 2011.

Its authors argue Australia can keep growing if it relies much more heavily on renewable energy sources.

More importantly, they also argue that we can end our reliance on coal while maintaining economic growth and lifestyles on par with today's standards.

One of the paper's key findings: we can end coal-fired power generation while maintaining average annual real GDP growth of 2.4 per cent, resulting in an economy in 2050 that is 150 per cent larger than today's.

Australians can achieve net zero emissions by 2050 without major structural change to our economy or lifestyle, they argue.

The biggest changes will be in the energy sector and carbon forestry.

If we encouraged it, our renewable energy sector could create more than double the number of jobs that would be lost from the winding-down of coal-fired electricity generation.

We could achieve the biggest reduction in emissions by ending coal-fired electricity generation, and we could actually create carbon-free electricity to replace petrol in cars and gas in buildings.

To come up with these conclusions, the authors have taken into account Australia's socio-economic conditions, development aspirations, infrastructure stocks and resource endowments to develop a unique "decarbonisation pathway" that fits the country's natural circumstances.

The point of the UN project, of which the paper forms a part, is to provide options for how the world's major carbon emitters can decarbonise their economies and to illustrate how the world can meet the internationally agreed target of limiting the increase in global mean surface temperature to 2 degrees.

The report offers three models (called "growth pathways") for Australia to consider adopting.

The first has Australia's electricity supplied entirely by renewable energy, particularly solar power backed up by thermal and battery storage.

The other two scenarios use a combination of renewable energy and carbon capture and storage or nuclear power.

The report finds that Australia will need, by 2030, at least 50 per cent of its electricity coming from renewable energy if it wants to contribute properly to international efforts to meet the 2 degrees target.

But it says this is possible.

It also says that with the cost of renewable technologies such as solar power declining, household incomes will increase faster than the price of electricity if renewable technologies are adopted enthusiastically.

Frank Jotzo, the director of ANU's Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, says the report shows Australia can sustain "rapid economic growth" in a decarbonising world and our resource industries can continue to prosper if we shift away from coal and other fossil fuels.

"While decarbonisation is a significant transition for Australia, it is achievable," Mr Jotzo says.

"Australia's abundance of renewable energy opportunities could even provide a competitive advantage in a world that goes low carbon."

Prime Minister Tony Abbott talked about the importance of economic growth at the United Nations in New York this week.

His description of economic growth came down to this: "Economic growth is really just economists' shorthand for more jobs, higher pay, new industries, and the better life that only greater wealth can provide.

"Growth makes every other social goal, even tackling climate change, easier to accomplish."

But he has that last sentence arse-about, because we do not have to wait for economic growth to tackle climate change.

If we worked on decarbonising our economy to confront climate change, as this report suggests, we would create more jobs and boost economic growth in the process.

It's a pity, and ironic, that Mr Abbott is avoiding the topic.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/a-tip-for-tony-abbott-decarbonising-the-economy-to-tackle-climate-change-will-create-more-jobs-20140926-10mlg2.html#ixzz3EgFZCOXP

That's a better article Ted

NOT ONE MENTION that an ETS should be part of the possible plan - thank goodness

the rubbish ending spolied a good read

-----

Its authors argue Australia can keep growing if it relies much more heavily on renewable energy sources.

More importantly, they also argue that we can end our reliance on coal while maintaining economic growth and lifestyles on par with today's standards.

One of the paper's key findings: we can end coal-fired power generation while maintaining average annual real GDP growth of 2.4 per cent, resulting in an economy in 2050 that is 150 per cent larger than today's.

Australians can achieve net zero emissions by 2050 without major structural change to our economy or lifestyle, they argue.

The biggest changes will be in the energy sector and carbon forestry.

Go outside and enjoy the burning, deadly sunshine I say. It's a beautiful day today.

has been a beautiful winter for sure Whoopi

but i'm tipping when summer comes along

and the sun comes out

it will be hotter

and we will have the alarmists and 'end-of-worlders' out in force again

has been a glorious winter for mine .. i didn't notice the cold either cept for a few nights when i resorted to the heater

funny isn't it ... sun out warm .. sun goes down heta escapes and its cold

(wish we had a thermal blanket covering the globe where it kept the warmth in at nights when the SUN goes down  )



however according to the BOM we did have a record

for the coldest temperature in 103 years 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbane-hits-coldest-temperature-in-103-years/story-fnihsrf2-1226986116278?nk=7b368d3509e20f3a2144345cd2adeada

----


Brisbane has hit its coldest temperatures in 103 years.

Not since July 28 1911 has Brisbane felt this cold, getting down to a brisk 2.6C at 6.41am.

At 7am, it inched up to 3.3C.

Matt Bass, meteorologist from BOM, said the region was well below our average temperatures.

“If it felt cold, that’s because it was, breaking that record is pretty phenomenal for Brisbane,” Bass said.

“The average for this time of year is 12C, so Brisbane was about 9C below average.

It is pretty impressive really, to have the coldest morning in 103 years is a big record.”

----

Other chilly areas were;

Warwick -5.9

Kingaroy -5.7

Applethorpe -5.4

Dalby -5.0

Clermont -4.5

Miles -4.3

Roma -4.3

Beaudesert -3.8

Ipswich/Amberley -2.5

Gympie -1.5

Charleville -1.5

Coolangatta 1.0 – coldest morning since July 2011

Sunshine Coast 2.0


Meanwhile, the cold snap is predicted to send vegetable prices soaring up to three times normal prices.

last thing the vegie eaters need is cold weather   

It was about 35 degrees where I was on July 12....maybe that's why I didn't feel it?

Sandgate  12th July 2014


Highest temp:

22.2°c   12th July 2014



Lowest temp:

2.6°c   12th July 2014


Average temp:


13.2°c


-----------------

http://www.willyweather.com.au/qld/brisbane/sandgate.html

key in your postcode or suburb and it willy waether will give you the local stats

here's Perth's temps on that day .. for Ted 


Highest temp:       17.8°c     12th July 2014

Lowest temp:         8.3°c     12th July 2014

Average temp:        11.9°c

thats the BOM...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBB4FtHDhzM&feature=youtu.be

hope u choke on your own farts

i try Whoopi 

i try Ted 

how could that be??? with Australia having the solve all carbon tax and emissions reducing
........maybe just maybe it was our massive contribution of 1.4% of world carbon emissions of which a miniscule amount actually makes a difference (400 ppm * 1.4%) and wow fireball !
who are these sick people? (so called scientists)
we're all doomed ....doomed I say...hang on...wrong thread

with only a flycrap worth of difference we make....what advantage does being a leader be? a medal?
wouldn't it be prudent given that changes will happen and some sort of rort to be in place...to watch listen,learn and THEN implement a strategy based on the successes and failures of the big polluters...I mean we can reduce our emissions to lets say save 50% which is 5/8th's of fk all in the grand scheme of things.

yes saw that post go missing for whatever reason I don't know

BETFAIR MODS : TAKE NOTE there is/was nothing in the Thebas post that is in any way out of line


btw Thebas why don't you replay the Algae HYPOTHETICAL trading phone call....you know the one..where they get to buy future credits FOR A PRICE