Making the necessary carbon cuts “can’t be done”.
This comment by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is a clear and simple example of why the views of the major parties and most environment groups are so far apart on how best to respond to the threat of climate change.
Commenting on the National Climate Emergency Rallies held around Australia over the weekend, Senator Wong said
“What many of these people are calling for simply can’t be done. It can’t be done while supporting jobs.”
That’s a very clear indication that the government is not intending to make the sort of cuts in emissions that the majority of scientific opinion says is necessary, because they don’t believe it can be done with costing jobs.
It’s true some jobs will be affected if an effective carbon reduction scheme is introduced. But other jobs will be generated. The task of government should be to facilitate a transition to a low carbon economy that is as non-disruptive as possible, not only go half way there to minimise impacts.
The problem with responding to climate change is that, unlike most other issues, there is not much room for compromising or trading off against other priorities. If you seriously believe the majority science view that major climate change is inevitable without rapid and major cuts in emissions, then your bottom line starting point has to be what the majority science view says is needed.
If you weaken that bottom line in an effort to soften economic or employment impacts, you may as well not do anything at all. Once the climate change tipping points kick in, it will be too late. Senator Wong’s comment suggests the government thinks it can have two bob each way on this issue – that might be doable in most other areas, but not on this one.
Back in February I wondered about the wisdom of the Climate Action Summit deciding to lock in a strategy of opposing the government emissions trading legislation so far in advance of the legislation being examined and debated.
Now that we are just days away from the start of Senate debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill, I believe we would definitely be better off with nothing than a half-adequate emissions trading scheme. I can’t see the logic in saying it would be beneficial for Australia to have legislation in place ahead of the Copenhagen Summit, if that legislation is inadequate. All that would do is tie our negotiating hands in a weak position.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
You can’t take one sentence, especially a very unspecific one, from a Minister and determine the whole of the government’s agenda from it – you know that.
To call Wong’s statement a very clear indication of anything is overicing the cake.
Wong refers to what ‘many’ of ‘these people’ want – we don’t know who she is referring to or what they want and you haven’t filled the gaps.
At any climate change rally, I would assume there’d be a wide range of views, and would speculate that, at the extreme end, there are positions which governments of any persuasion would find difficult to support.
There are numerous occasions where the government has indicated that they believe a well designed CPRS will create jobs.
As I’ve said on previous posts, what do you want the government to do, given that any legislation on tackling cc must go through the Senate and it appears that, whatever the government proposes the Senate will oppose?
Or are you advocating that we can wait and see, which also conflicts with the scientific advice that we need to take some action NOW, and that some action now is better than lots of action later?
The line from the US climate envoy Stern (forget his first name) about what is politically achievable comes to mind. In the US a strong ETS costs which-ever party implements it a lot of states for the next 20 years (Virginia, West-Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc..)
Bluntly Labour in not going to put in a 40% reduction ETS, have polluting industry shut down and have thousands of people out of work, big drop in GDP, etc….
That would happen fairly quickly with a strong target (because a strong future target sets high market prices today due to bankable permits) on their watch.
Government changes, the green jobs appear and the new Liberal government claims the credit. You then have 10+ years of repeats of “17% interest rates under labour” style attacks and “You can’t trust labour to run the economy”.
The vain hope is that a gradual process will avoid a price shock and rapid change (which is socially and electorally disruptive). Remember that the coal seats are mostly Labour (La Trobe Valley, Hunter Valley) and could well switch parties out of spite for years.
‘You can’t take one sentence, especially a very unspecific one, from a Minister and determine the whole of the government’s agenda from it – you know that.’
When its the central sound bite for the day, repeated 3 or 4 times in an interview I think you can be pretty sure she wasn’t speaking off the cuff. She was trying to discredit the protesters as dreamers who weren’t living in the real world and she was trying to reassure the ‘working families’ that she would look after their jobs. I don’t think drawing these conclusions is a big stretch.
There are any number of ways the govt can implement a strong 40% target now and stretch the effect out over the next election cycle or two. The $40 price cap is one that’s already in there.
As Andrew’s quite rightly pointed out, you either believe the science and aim for a target that will allow you to meet its dire demands or you don’t. Rudd understands the science but won’t risk political skin to go out and really sell it to the public. If he did, the dynamics would be completely different. A genuine 25-40% target would lock in the Greens (even an unconditional 25%, with say 30% with int’l agreement would possibly work there). Xenophon would probably also come in behind and immense pressure would then be on Fielding to grow up and join in.
If you think getting the crossbenches on board is silly, try doing what Rudd is currently doing which is getting a unified position out of the coalition.
Its worth also considering how this is playing internationally. Developing countries are currently laughing at our attempts to forget that action by developed countries was the starting point for these negotiations. Again, if you believe the science you will do all you can to assist an international agreement that can be ramped up in future to deal with the massive carbon reductions that will be required.
This fact is one that seems to elude many who think its 100% domestic politics. Andrew was a good example of a quiet belief I hold that many politicians actually do give a damn and will try to do the right thing if they can.
Thanks for the context (which Andrew didn’t provide) but it’s still a very unspecific sentence.
What ‘many of these people want’ may be a reference to nuclear power, immediate shut down of all coal fired power stations (desirable but not achievable), a return to horse and carts – I don’t know (and you don’t) what individuals at these rallies were demanding. I do know (having attended a few myself) that many of their demands would be completely unreasonable (though well intentioned).
My experience, straw polling, is that non extreme, well educated, well read, scientific literate people who passionately believe that climate change is the number one issue facing us in our lifetime, do not accept that tackling it requires ANY sacrifices on their part. (The attitude seems to be that, rather than reduce their lifestyles, they’ll plant a couple of trees or buy some credits).
If the deep end of the electoral pool won’t accept real changes are necessary, then you can’t sell them to the shallow end.
The Greens + Xenophon (as if Fielding is even a faint possibility! have you heard him recently?) do not a majority make. The Government’s only chance of getting anything through is the Coalition. Thus the last two cc packages have been designed to appeal to them.
Hasn’t worked, so we’ll go to Copenhagen with everyone knowing that whatever the government commits to is totally meaningless because they don’t have the political support to implement it.
which is an exact analogy for the government’s efforts at the moment – better something than nothing.
Zoomster
That whole question of whether something is better than nothing in this case is the key one I explored in the post I did back in February (which I referred to in this post).
On most issues I would generally agree. But climate change is not an ordinary issue. If legislation is passed which falls well short of the cuts needed, it would likely lock Australia in to inadequate action for a number of years – making it even harder (politically and physically) to make the subsequent necessary cuts. So doing “something” – even it goes a little way in the right direction – right now may well be worse in the medium and long term than doing “nothing”, at least in regards to emissions trading legislation, until after Copenhagen.
But I do agree that a lot more needs to be done to convince (and encourage) people that we all need to make significant changes to our individual lifestyles. It has long been a bug bear of mine that even many groups who campaign strongly on climate change do little to push people to make significant necessary changes in their own actions. It is too easy to just blame mining companies or the government, or expect the government to fix it all. Sure, coal mining plays a big part, but we’re all in this together,
aussie oskar, a $40 price cap and a 40% target are incompatible. A 40% cut by 2020 means prices well over $40 every year.
Or a 40% cut means we send billions of dollars overseas to buy permits. Those cuts won’t happen within Australia unless the coal/aluminium/steel industries almost completely shut-down. Those activities will then move to China/Indonesia/etc…
Zoomster I think your experience of people not wanting to change their lifestyle (or the middle/upper class attitude of paying for the problem to go away) is a major hurdle. Earlier in the year someone coined the phrase “Real Climate Deniers” to be people who believe its occuring, but won’t do anything significant about it. Polling suggests that could be as much as 70% of the population. I’m sure the government knows this.
I think that any real solution has to involve both the major parties. I would be reluctant to invest unless there is bi-partisan support because the legislative risk is too high. Labour should be able to separate the Liberals from the Nationals and drive a wedge in the middle of the coalition.
I think Andrew’s on the money. The structure of this package locks in business-as-pretty-much-usual pollution for the next decade, which is the very time developed countries like ours need to be starting a downward emissions trend.
Pedant’s point about bipartisanship being necessary for investment is a good one. In time the coalition are going to have to come around in some form or another – even if Barnaby takes his troop and heads off to the desert. In fact, its likely when the bill comes up for a second time later in the year, especially with Costello now off Turnbull’s back.
But in the short term, I don’t think Fielding is anything like the roadblock people think. He just got jealous after Xenophon held up the stimulus package for the Murray and is suffering a bit of relevance-deficiency. So he’s dressed himself up as the caped crusader/hero of the people taking on that elite bunch of scientists who are telling us what we should think. ‘No!’ says the climate-realist-man. ‘I will see through your lies!’ Crikey, give us a break. Once he’s gotten on enough front pages I think he’ll just suddenly recognise the government’s case and start looking for the next stunt opportunity. If there’s anyone in the Senate who doesn’t want a double dissolution, its Mr. 2.3% himself.
Yes, prices will get above $40, but as the govt has done in the existing legislation they can regulate a price ceiling for a limited time. It starts at $40 and increases with cpi each year, from memory. After 5 years the ceiling’s removed. If we give away less permits, high emitters effectively have 5 years to work out ways to reform their operations – or pay for it.
Domestically, the main problem with the current legislation is there is no incentive for big emitters to change. I agree that its important to get the public to move, but in terms of emissions, if you got a single Alcoa or Boral to reform you’d immediately see our country’s emissions shift.
You’re working on the assumption, which is widespread, that the only way for companies to adapt to higher pollution costs is to move out. But that just accepts the whining we’ve had coming from the greenhouse mafia.
Bernard Keane’s done a good job of exposing the duplicity of this lot.
I reckon we should call their bluff. As Guy Pearse pointed out in his Quarry Vision essay, there’s a hell of a lot of pluses for these companies to remain in Australia and a move overseas for a single smelter (imagine the cost of something like that) is a massive gamble that the country of destination won’t be putting in similar emissions controls themselves in the next couple of decades. A brave decision, indeed.
Smelters are run on renewable energy all over the world (hydro in Chile, geothermal in Iceland). A stiff reductions target and fewer free permits would sure be a good way to get Alcoa interested in quicker progress on geothermal energy from the Cooper Basin.
And btw, paying for overseas permits is OK if its part of package of international abatement assistance but it will completely stunt domestic abatement if we stick with 100% permit assistance.
“Domestically, the main problem with the current legislation is there is no incentive for big emitters to change.”
This isn’t quite true. There’s almost no penalty if they don’t change. However if a smelter finds some way to produce the same output, while cutting its emissions they still get their free permits and simply pocket the savings. Its all carrot, no stick. But the carrot is actually there.
The electricity sector is similar. The wholesale price paid will rise by the intensity of the price setter x carbon price. IF a generator can reduce its intensity then they get to keep that saving. However once the whole sector does that then the intensity of the price setter will drop. The complication is that the average price of electricity is dominated by the prices in less than 5% of the year. These prices (>$300/Mwh) are set by market gaming on hot days, which has very little to do with carbon price.
Sure livin’ up to your nickname there, pedant!
but a fair point nevertheless…
The main issue really is timeframe. Given the urgency of the changes that need to be made, why are we not putting into place a scheme that has both big carrots and big sticks? Handing out billions of dollars seems like the perfect time to tie the $ to some big asks in terms of fundamental intensity reform, not just little carrots for efficiencies around the edges.
I agree Aussie.
A big reduction in emissions requires either a big drop in energy use (emission intensive industry shuts-down and residential usage drops) or dramatic shift in the fuel mix.
One thing that concerns me is the assumption by industry that they deserve massive compensation for any future changes. I guess it all comes down to who bears the burden of change and it looks like being tax payers rather than investors.
Doesn’t any body realize it is NOT necessary to have >ANY FORM< of a carbon reduction scheme,C02 is no more a polutant than water.CO2 as a pollutant is stupid. Hell, water is far more dangerous to humans than CO2 – that fact still doesn’t make water a pollutant.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Gerlich, Gerhard; Tscheuschner, Ralf D.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
——–
Amazing!Hasen’t anyone noticed temperatures have been falling for about the last decade while Co2 has been increasing proving last century’s worring but poor correlation of C02 f-a-l-s-e?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SPPI8YR.jpg
——
There Is No Correlation Between CO2and Climate Change
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
——–
WHERE ON EARTH IS THERE A PROBLEM? NO decrease in rainfall,
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/aus/latest.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/09/mdb/latest.gif
——-
The ice caps have recovered,
NORTH
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
SOUTH
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
——
The imposibillity of no ice at either of the poles in five years or even 50 for that matter.
The Antarctic it’s about55 degrees below and in the Antarctic is about 55 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. The South Pole (Amundsen-Scott Station), the average temperature of the coldest month (August) is approximately –76 F (– 60 C), and the average temperature of the warmest month (January) is – 18º F (–28.2 C).
The North Pole can range from between minus 43 degrees Centigrade and minus 26
degrees Centigrade, which is between minus 45 degrees Fahrenheit and minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
In order to melt any ice at all, you’d have to raise the temperature of the region by 87
degrees just to get to the melting point of ice. To do this in 50 years is — incredible.
Third, notes Easterbrook, the volume of ice in the Antarctic is about 30 million cubic
meters. To melt most of this ice in 10 years, two to three million cubic meters would have had to melt per year and remember, the average temperature is minus 55 degrees.
——-
There has been NO increase in Cyclones tornadoes or storms
http://ecoworld.com/articles/images/monckton_16.gif
——
According to the University of Colorado sea level data there has been no sea level rise for the past three years,Just ups and downs.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
——
Any melting of SOME Glaciers can be put down to natural causes seeing we have been comming out of the little ice age for the last 300 years,
The Earth is actually in a Co2 DROUGHT.
———-
So much for Greenland melting.
Plane found Under 90 metres of Ice in Greenland
http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm
———-
Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.
Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
———
As shown on Andrew Bolts forum, Bob Forster, suggested the following:
If you ignore the distraction of the bars for individual years, and just look at the 5-year running mean, you will discover that most of the warming was in a single step-change in the latter half of the 1970s.
That jump in Australian average temperature correlates with the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/1977. The Shift marks a change from Pacific Decadal Oscillation cool phase to warm phase – thus reversing a cool shift in the early 1940s. This 76/7 climatic step-change correlates with an abrupt reduction in the upwelling quantity of cold deep water in the equatorial eastern Pacific. Put another way – before the shift there was a preponderance of La Niña conditions, and after it El Niño dominated.
——
I find it hard to fathom why some people give credibillity to the IPCC ,Gov,the media and SOME Scientists when they tout ice shelf collapse’s,other global warming stories and leave out important relevant information like e.g. there are Volcanic and Sisemic activity going on under the sea at BOTH poles.
Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080627-sea-volcanoes.html
Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice-By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer
This map of the Arctic Ocean shows the Gakkel Ridge, Nansen Basin, Lomononsov Ridge, and the proposed cruise track of the icebreaker Oden. Credit: Jack Cook/WHOI.
New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/could-volcanoes-be-melting-the-arctic-ice
The eruptions — as big as the one that buried Pompei — took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.
Scientists suspected even at the time that a simultaneous series of earthquakes were linked to these volcanic spasms.
Antarctic-Volcanoes
Volcano, Not Global Warming Effects, May be Melting an Antarctic Glacier
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AntarcticVolcanoes2.jpg
The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep PDF
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Patterson_Interview.pdf
——–
P-R-O-O-F it WAS only ANOTHER NATURAL CYCLE
Warm_periods of Past 5000 years Temperatures
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/Main/Warm_periods.jpg
Chugg, you may well be right, though I’m fairly sure you’re not. But given the unanimity of the world’s scientific community that you’re completely wrong, its prudent for countries like Australia to start cutting their emissions urgently as the risk of catastrophic consequences is so great.
Once we’ve done that we can sit back and wait for you guys to convince us of your argument. I’ll be relieved if you’re right – though fairly surprised.
In the meantime, can you please quit with the yelling…
Chugg I’m prepared to accept that the scientific evidence could be mis-leading. We should know in 5-10 years with a lot more certainty.
However as a gambling man I’m prepared to take out a moderately priced insurance policy against the evidence being correct (or even under-estimating the trend) and the possibility of a human induced climate apocalypse.
The consequences of CO2 reduction measures being wrong are a few % points of gdp over 50 years (and we can also turn around and burn that coal later). The consequences of you being wrong is irreversible drought, famine and extinction of various species.
You have the consider both worst case scenario’s. There’s no such thing as 100% certainty when you deal with statistical measures (just really high confidence).
(quote)But given the unanimity of the world’s scientific community that you’re completely wrong(end quote)
Thats a problem,There is no “unanimity” in fact there’s app. 32,000 Scientists AND GROWING all the time along with public opinion that now reject the AGW hypothisis.
Scientists now rejecting the AGW hypothisis OUT-NUMBER the 54? IPCC >TWELVE TO ONE.
Sheesh! “How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
—————–
“scientific community”!
Sheesh! You mean these “scientific community” guys?
“How many MIT and IPCC lies and fraud does it take before you see the sham?
>>>The MIT modellers violated 49 principles of forecasting<<>>IPCC clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting<<>>an intense cold climate, globally<<<
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/nasa-solar-cycle-may-cause-dangerous-global-cooling-in-a-few-years-time/#comments
NOPE!! you’re the one completely wrong!
We only have to look around us and see the awful consequences of our stewardship of our planet. Regardless of the science on offer, how is it good or permissable for polluters to pollute, for land and forests to be degraded, for water to be owned by a few, for people to be hungry, species be made extinct, for vast islands of plastic to clog our streams and oceans. How can we justify turning our planet into a rubbish tip?
Chugg, whether the temperature goes up or down, like a kid with an untidy bedroom, we have to clean up our act. This cannot be a bad thing to do. And I would be watching the insurance premiums and the fine print in all future legal contracts as a real indicator of the cost of inaction. Energypedant is right – why take the risk because of the science – just look outside your door – our planet is not better off for us being here – I think we owe it a big apology and some loving care.
(quote)how is it good or permissable for polluters to pollute(end quote)
If you are sugesting Co2 is polluting,you are wrong.
“CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see
around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.” – John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
——
(quote)for land and forests to be degraded(end quote)
It’s not as bad as some will try to have you believe.
Fudging Figures on Murray River Salinity: More Shame on CSIRO
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001387.html
——
Degraded?
I think we owe it a big apology and some loving care?
The present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2.
Ironically,There’s nothing better we could be doing than adding some additional Co2 for the planet.
——–
1- Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Mapping by satellite shows that the Earth has become about 6% greener overall in the past two decades, with forests expanding into arid regions. The Amazon rain forest was the biggest gainer, with two tons of additional biomass per acre per year.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=471&Itemid=1
Read the second paragraph to see the comparison between natural and the human Co2,It proves a carbon reduction scheme is useless even if Co2 was bad.
If CO2 isn’t a poison, Chugg, suggest filling a room with it, sit inside and see what happens.
There are many many elements which are essential to life which are poisons in larger doses (you can overdose on water, for example).
Noone who knows the science denies that CO2 has pluses and minuses, and that there will be winners under cc as well as losers.
Noone who knows the science denies that climate change is happening, it is related to CO2 output, and is having impacts on our climate as we speak.
The point is we’re not prepared for the present impacts and are not preparing ourselves for the future ones.
(quote)If CO2 isn’t a poison, Chugg, suggest filling a room with it, sit inside and see what happens.(end quote)
Then water is also a poison under your logic.
zoomster,You do realize Co2 is measured by ppm,NOT %
(quote)Noone who knows the science denies that climate change is happening, it is related to CO2 output, and is having impacts on our climate as we speak.(end quote)
Well who would have thought Co2 would geve us 63 new snow records also 6? yrs of consecutive cooling.
NOAA: U.S. breaks or ties 115 cold and sets 63 new snowfall records
http://tinyurl.com/6xel3h
also 6? yrs of consecutive cooling. http://tinyurl.com/ko4vcb
“Anyone who knows the science”
The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows
Let’s keep it scientific then: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)
6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)
7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)
10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures
11) Al Gores film was just deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just reveled that some of the footage in Al’s film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” (ABC)
13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
14) Storms have become less frequent and less severe (many GW alarmists are now backtracking these earlier “theories”)
15) Droughts have always happened and always will
16) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured
17) Several publications, including those that are “warmist” have recently written that the “natural” cycles of the earth may “mask” AGW. Give me a break.
18) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!
zoomster,you will get tired old son. Time to give it up and realize the game is up.
In isolation, does it matter what we do or don’t do compared to the largest polluters? Serious question, I want to know. If we do nothing at all but the key international players/polluters go to the max with carbon reduction, will we still be doomed or saved by them?
OR if we go to 100% reduction and the rest of the world does very little are we still doomed?
I confess I need to know more about carbon trading schemes. Even as a doubting Thomas, I am wondering if we HAVE to adopt some scheme just to be in the financial game that will emerge. A bit like world stockmarkets. believer or sceptic is there some penalty we will bear in international trade if we do not play? i am thinking this may in fact be the case. Assuming we cannot prevent the rest of the world from adopting this CTS even if we think its all bunk – are we obliged?
Well I don’t about Zoomster, but I’m certainly tired of you Chugg.
If you don’t even know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a theory, or genuinely think that any scientific theory can be 100% proven, then it doesn’t say much for the interpretations you’re putting on all the other ‘facts’ you’ve listed.
All the myths, errors, distortions and falsehoods you’ve regurgitated have been countered in ample depth over at this site http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/.
I don’t see much point in restating it all here.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.