that's ok AFL by your lack of response re Labor,we now know you are undisputedly an

ENVIRONMENTAL FRAUD

carry on business as usual, I expect after another week or of more comment from the common sense brigade you will chip in some hate on the LNP and make out you are an environmental lover....but of course you have no interest in the planets' welfare....just the wealth distribution...what a disgrace you are ......

if the USA & China emit some 16,000 units and Oz emit

Thebas - i said it was a disgrace they approved the mine, that's a pretty fair indication that I don't think they should've approved it imo

re the 100 year thing - too complicated for this time of the morning but my take if there is a 1% chance of something happening it shouldn't happen very often. 

Secong - hottest ever isn't a swing or roundabout, it's an extreme

wombleoz
re the 100 year thing - too complicated for this time of the morning but my take if there is a 1% chance of something happening it shouldn't happen very often. 


mate that's why you should read what our Govt dept the Bureau of Meteorolgy say

it's the fact that some thing appears complicated that the alarmist media can infiltrate your senses and defeat logic .. through comlpication  (and this complication factor is exactly the same as 'nymber people' must work with in PUNTING)

and i think the rank & file citizen thinks the same as you have stated

i think our weather channel reporters think the same as that also

but for example

... over a repeating 50 year cycle (ie each new year creates a new 50 year cycle) ..

what are the odds of a 1 in 100 year event happening

a.   100/1
b.    50/1
c.    10/1
d.     6/4


the BOM know ... they ain't fooled by the subject .. and i bet it ain't the BOM that are reporting the 1 in 100 year events

my guess is it would be the junk media ... (these are the =  murdoch press AND the one-eyed left wing rubbish rags with their junk-bond jouranlists)

total shambles Thebas

just heard that this could become the hottest year on record and that if it does 14 of the 15 hottest years on record will be in the 21st century- that's ok though, it's just the cycle

big difference between the past and now + the future Secong is that we and future generations need to live with it.  If we can do something that could help improve things why the hell shouldn't we???

Nuclear is a dud option for Australia - would take years to develop, we'd have to deal with the waste - it doesn't make any sense.  By the time it was built we'll most likely have base load power from renewable sources, a much better way to go imo

BUT to get there we need to pay for it - the best way to do that is via a price on carbon.  For two reasons

1 - it creates a revenue stream

2 - it helps clean up the planet

it would take me 100 years to work out the 100 year thing Thebas

wombleoz
it would take me 100 years to work out the 100 year thing Thebas

the answer is stated by the Bureau of Meteorology about mid-way through the short 5 min article

surely .. if you are going to quote statistics ... you should know their origin & background ... otherwise you are perpetuating disinformation and alarmism

for example

a dog has four legs and a tail .. a cat has four legs and a tail .. therefore a cat is a dog

but fancy ... news based climate alarmists using such an argument ... ridiculous right ?

a and b Secong - we do our bit and help out those that missed their turn at polluting skip that stage

what a stupid system Thebas

hoping it all gets cleaned up in Lima and Paris Thebas - should be interesting meetings, we can't afford another Copenhagen

secong the loony left are just head-in-the-ground ...

how the followers of 'pathetic' left wing party policies continue to support them forcing australia to suffer in energy requirements is beyond comprehension

... while at the same time as applauding deceivers like obama who congratulated the chinese for continuing to expand their 'cost effective' coal based energy needs ... for the next 16 years

that is blind party political nonsense and has no honest part in the global discussion


i mean just take these two opposing reports and draw your own conclusion about the mindless leftist belief system ... as far as a fake for the environment co2 tax and a fake for the environment ETS is concerned


firstly from Erwin Jackson Deputy CEO, The Climate Institute  .. a fake institution with clearly anti-australian & pro developing country sentiments

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/articles/opinion-pieces/energy-investment-needs-a-clear-de-carbonisation-path.html/section/431

i]A "2 degree goal" requires electricity production around the world to reach nearly zero emissions before 2050, as modelling by the International Energy Agency has shown.

For Australia, this means that the emissions intensity of electricity needs to fall by 97 per cent, from 773g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour to 27g CO2/kWh.


... and absolute dimwit it seems ... and i can find no opposition from this fake org decrying obama who applaused the chinese for doubling their emmissions

... yet he can write how australia needs to reduce by 97% (how anti-australians can you get)



while from the ABC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/1-in-8-australians-cant-pay-electricity-bill/5805886

A survey of Australian households has found one in eight people cannot afford to pay their electricity bills.

The Ernst & Young survey of households in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland showed more than one in 10 people have missed more than three bill payments in the past 12 months.



... yet that deceiver obama applauded the chinese saying they should be allowed to provide coal based energy requirements to their disadvantaged ... yet in the same breath condemned australia for having a 5% reduction plan and has no concern for disadvantaged australians


so the #1 emmitter in the whole planet is planning on doubling (with obama's applause)

the #2 emmitter usa is heading to natural gas (90% methane) when they can't now currently contain a methane leak that is affecting the global greenhouse situation by the equivalent of 80 australia's (according to the greenpeace org)

the #3 emmitter has made no plans at all according to mr putin while researching climate change in the antarctic (and providing an absolute 'slap in the face' to shorten and his party's riduclous and known failed ETS plans)

the #4 emmitter has said india will charge more for coal at a tax level and then plan to double their own emmissions of coal based co2 as "they have the inate right to advance their own nation & their citizens"

the #5 emmitter japan is currently using a loophole in the UN's Green Climate Fund Charter to ... have a guess lol ... build Coal based power plants


... yet some aboslutely one eyed blind myopic junk-bond left-wing journalists see fit fit to ... condemn australians for wanting exactly the same parity

BIGGEST RORT EVER 

climate fun lol better change that to fund/rort

LOOKS LIKE THE WORLD SHIRT-FRONTED Abbott into donating to a climate change cause.. weak ****..but why its a myth

silence from womble deafening as usual.....

no worries womble another non answer......

anyways some interesting quotes


"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."


Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)






"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."


former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations



Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...


former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)



"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."


Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)



"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)



"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)



"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"


"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada
quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999


BIGGEST RORT EVER

the science is settled Secong, climate change is real - the debate is now about what we do about it

What a dikhead SC is.

Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.


obviously this goes over your head....we account for 3% of co2....so lets spend untold to reduce to zero ...physically impossible! and whilst I'm all for less pollution...this is not about the planet its about the money money money ffs

AFL   
  01 Sep 11 23:48 
Joined:   21 Jul 08      | Topic/replies: 5,467  | Blogger: AFL's blog   

It is possible to disagree with people without abusing them.


not possible in your case it seems...

Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it.
................................................................................


Too much Carbon Dioxide kills people.

Too much Carbon Dioxide kills the Planet.

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

Is CO2 a pollutant?

Climate Myth...

CO2 is not a pollutant

'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)

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


What the science says...

   
While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.


We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment.

Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant?

A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem.

Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures.


Figure 1: CO2 levels (parts per million) over the past 10,000 years. Blue line from Taylor Dome ice cores (NOAA). Green line from Law Dome ice core (CDIAC). Red line from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA).

Rising CO2 levels causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. This leads to warmer temperatures which has many consequences. Some effects are beneficial such as improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions. Species are becoming extinct at the fastest rate in history.

How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of

carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are

severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity.




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



How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?


Climate Myth...

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

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


What the science says...
   

The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne


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


It is so pathetic of you to keep pushing your blatant lies.