There are a number of arguments against reducing CO2 emissions still floating around. They are all based on some kind of misunderstanding. A focus on scientific uncertainty ignores the economic reality and the principles of risk management which are fundamental to sound economic management. A focus on China and other poor countries ignores the reality that they will never match our level of per capita CO2 emissions and that they are already investing more in renewable energy than we are. Criticisms of Kyoto ignore the fact that it is merely a first step, not a final solution and that attempting to create our own version is a step backwards.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/climate-change-for-the-sceptics.html

---

Aussies warned about higher energy bills

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Aussies-warned-about-higher-energy-bills/2007/11/14/1194766684805.html

Australians should prepare to pay more for petrol and electricity as part of a policy response to climate change, new research says.

Under policies to fight climate change, consumers will suffer higher costs for goods and services that depend on cheap energy, says Melbourne University professor of economics John Freebairn in a collection of research for the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA).

The report, Climate Change: Getting It Right, is written by a range of scientists, academic and industry professionals and explores ways to reduce greenhouse gases with a minimum effect on economic growth.

Mr Byers said that action on climate change is needed now.

"We certainly can not wait for perfect knowledge before taking action," he said in the introduction to the report.

"Public policy has tools for making decisions in conditions of risk and uncertainty.

"These general rules apply equally to climate change issues."

argument invalid.

I dont believe in risk management. I believe in doing what i deem to be right in every instance.

But risk management is about doing what is right.

Do you believe in refusing to deal with uncertainty in a rational manner?

what is rational is only a matter of perspective

You can take perspective into account in dealing with uncertainty, for example by considering risk neutral or risk averse approaches. John Howard's approach is only rational if your perspective is that you like to put the economy at risk and eventually destroy it.

We were warned.

The problem with this world is population -
it's out of control.

Only 500 million people can have a 1st world lifestyle
without destroying the environment forever -
yet we have 7 billion people all wanting that lifestyle &
in Africa they are breeding like rabbits.

The problem is that no-one listened to FreeDiver's original post back in 2007 !!!!
:o

Bobby. wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 12:27am:

The problem with this world is population - it's out of control. Only 500 million people can have a 1st world lifestyle without destroying the environment forever - yet we have 7 billion people all wanting that lifestyle & in Africa they are breeding like rabbits.

Spot on, Bobby! Ironically, the quest for first world living standards is also driving third world immigration. Check out Bruegel's painting, The Land of Plenty'. There isn't enough room on the hill!  The first step for us in wealthy countries to combat world poverty is to all give up a sizeable portion of OUR wealth. So, who's first,hmmmnnn?

The problem causing the earth to heat is emission of GHGs. The wealthy countries emit most.

As first world countries turn away from fossil fuels, developing nations like India and Brazil will fill the void. It's already happening! All we will see is the economic growth of third world countries at our expense with zero benefit to the environment.

India is also investing heaps in renewables: it has the biggest solar generator in the world.

India and China have vast populations needing to have very basic lifestyles improved so that they need some coal etc generators is understood.

Turning to renewable energy, perhaps backed up by some nuclear, will see no more miner’s black lung, no more respiratory diseases and death from the emissions of coal fired generators, fewer deaths in coal mines.

What is not to like?

Pity this board does not have a good Environment Board where this could be thrashed out.

So we can agree that its the two 'irresponsible' extremes of

Over-Population: poor people who keep having more kids than they can feed.

Over-Indulgent: rich people who keep making more money than they can spend (on themselves).

So Super Rich Man has all the latest technologically advanced 'toys' but no (time for) kids and if they do have kids - they are really just 'pets'.
Super Poor Man hasn't got a dime but has to revert to crime, poaching, piracy to feed his eleven kids his had with three different women.

Yes - Over-Population is the main cause of the 'over-load' on the World and the Over-Indulgent do nothing but look after themselves at the 'expense of others'.

No offence - but I think the world is stuffed!

Even now in Australia - there is a Minority of Over-Indulgent growing for the aim of 'Uber-Wealth' which will of course, cause the collapse of our 'Middle-Class' system and create a social breakdown and sudden 'population explosion' via the new 'real' poverty.

In a nut shell the bottom line is a hand full of very rich, powerful and greedy men want to charge the rest of us fro the air that we breathe.

No other cause can recruit soldiers like the environment does, they know it and have taken advantage of it.

CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth all one has to do is look into our history, for if it did as the alarmists claim it does it would be evident in our climate history.

Now get of your arses and look.

Ajax wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 10:31pm:

In a nut shell the bottom line is a hand full of very rich, powerful and greedy men want to charge the rest of us fro the air that we breathe. No other cause can recruit soldiers like the environment does, they know it and have taken advantage of it. CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth all one has to do is look into our history, for if it did as the alarmists claim it does it would be evident in our climate history. Now get of your arses and look.

and it will be the same people who poisoned the air in the first place. The Treatment and the Cure.

Jasin wrote on Jul 17^th, 2017 at 12:47am:

Ajax wrote on Jul 16th, 2017 at 10:31pm: In a nut shell the bottom line is a hand full of very rich, powerful and greedy men want to charge the rest of us fro the air that we breathe. No other cause can recruit soldiers like the environment does, they know it and have taken advantage of it. CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth all one has to do is look into our history, for if it did as the alarmists claim it does it would be evident in our climate history. Now get of your arses and look. and it will be the same people who poisoned the air in the first place. The Treatment and the Cure.

Damn right its the same people, but don't be fooled CO2 is not a pollutant, even though it does get formed when combustion takes place.

Main Pollutants during combustion

Sox, Sulphur oxides, dust

Nox, Nitrogen oxides, ash

PM, Particle matters, Pm2.5, Pm10, Cox

CO2 is also given off but CO2 is not a pollutant, we drink CO2 in our beer and soft drinks those little bubbles.

Do we drink pollution when we drink those CO2 bubbles...?

We exhale CO2 from our bodies, which plants then breathe in and they in turn exhale oxygen for us to breathe.

Plants cannot live without CO2, the threshold for plant life to survive is 180 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric CO2, today we have  just over 400ppm.

If plants could talk what safe level of CO2 would they demand, I'm sure it would be in the thousands (ppm).

CO2 is plant food

CO2 is not pollution

CO2 is invisible to the eye, you cannot see CO2.

These stacks are hot water vapour (steam) condensing when contacting the cooler atmosphere they may have traces of CO2 in them.

http://i65.tinypic.com/33uvqiv.jpg

I know that I in our Prehistoric past, well even before the Dinosaurs. The atmosphere changed considerably. At times, the CO2 level was much higher than today or much lower. Oxygen was much higher or lower.
But this considerable amounts took a very slow process of over a few million years.

I would kinda like a world where the Oxygen level was so thick, it was kinda like swimming to a small degree and Scientists consider it as a major factor why the Dinosaurs could support their immense weight, let alone 'glide' in the sky. Other's have said that such an Oxygen thickness would 'crush' us, similar to the pressure of the deeper ocean just a km down.

Jasin wrote on Jul 17^th, 2017 at 11:14am:

I know that I in our Prehistoric past, well even before the Dinosaurs. The atmosphere changed considerably. At times, the CO2 level was much higher than today or much lower. Oxygen was much higher or lower. But this considerable amounts took a very slow process of over a few million years. I would kinda like a world where the Oxygen level was so thick, it was kinda like swimming to a small degree and Scientists consider it as a major factor why the Dinosaurs could support their immense weight, let alone 'glide' in the sky. Other's have said that such an Oxygen thickness would 'crush' us, similar to the pressure of the deeper ocean just a km down.

Still no need to worry about the rate that CO2 has increased in our atmosphere lately, its still governed by the natural sinks venting more CO2 intro the atmosphere because of the current warming.

Man's emissions are so small, while they do contribute they hardly even register.

Look here,


Quote:

Compared to natural CO2 emissions mans emissions of CO2 are just too small to register. Notice the sharp rise in fossil fuel CO2 emissions after 2000. After 2000 fossil fuel emissions were 3 times the amount of fossil fuel emissions in the prior decade to 2000, that is 3 times as much fossil fuel emission went into our atmosphere after 2000 than the decade before 2000. But the average yearly increase after 2000 just like the decade prior to 2000, average increase in CO2 remains more or less steady at 2.1ppm per year. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions at 2.3% of the total CO2 natural emissions are insignificant and get lost in the noise. That's why the average yearly increase of CO2 has remained steady at 2.1ppm per year even though fossil fuel emissions have shot through the roof. Again your argument is shot down. Yes fossil fuels emissions contribute but the contribution is small at 2.3% of the total amount of natural CO2 that is emitted.

http://i63.tinypic.com/24ez5zd.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM

Anthropogenic Global Warming = A storm in a tea cup.

95% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapour.

3.7% of the greenhouse effect comes from CO2.

Man's contribution to the CO2 is about 3%.

So thats 3% of 0.0037 = 0.000111

From 0.0037 man contributes 0.000111.

CO2 molecules have a life span of about 5 years in our atmosphere.

Our history shows that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

All of the CO2 increase can be attributed to the current warming and the release of natural CO2 emissions which dwarf man made emissions.

The effects of more and more CO2 going into the atmosphere as the CO2 approaches its saturation point, well as can be seen below most of the heating is from from the first 20ppm or so then the heating affect becomes logarithmic.


The logarithmic effect of CO2

http://i65.tinypic.com/2r47o5i.jpg



Quote:

Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just “unemployed” molecules.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

We have been warming because we are coming out of the Mini Ice Age (MIA), which was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).

A question everyone should be asking themselves is why did the IPCC hide the MWP and the MIA.

http://i66.tinypic.com/fzaudt.jpg

http://i65.tinypic.com/vyld92.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/qssivs.jpg

http://i63.tinypic.com/hskznq.jpg

We are going to pay billions of dollars in carbon derivatives on an ETS system or another name for it is a tax based on computer model information that was wrong.

Why should we give billions of dollars in tax to the United Nations and Bankers, the computer models were wrong...!!!

The temperature by end of this century will increase by about 1°C.

We don't need to spend billions to try and reduce the temperature to under 2°C as we are continuously being told.

This will happen all by itself.


Quote:

In 1990 IPCC computer models projected a warming of +2.78°C by end of this century The last 27 years of empirical data projects a warming of +1.01°C by end of this century

http://i65.tinypic.com/2nl5nh4.png

The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds (Richard Feynman)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU

http://i64.tinypic.com/30mbl0h.jpg

The 2500BC to 2040AD graph is a good example.
I've been saying for years that its just like the Tides.
Even with King Tides.
That the planet sways from its big Summers to big Winters.
I honestly think we are in a 'natural' occurrence of the earth having left its 'Ice Age' far behind and entering it's 'Fire Age'.
Of course, there are even BIGGER versions - like the Ice Age that scuttled the Aboriginals from 10,000BC to 25,000 BC and dried this continent out to a sparse existence.

Regardless, its a natural occurrence.

It is not natural. We are causing the heating we are seeing. We have caused so much heating that any end to the interglacial that some here talk about just is not going to happen.

The oceans have so much heat stored in them that if we were to disappear tomorrow the heating would still continue for centuries.

The main ice ages, at 100,000 year intervals, used to be 40,000 year intervals, are caused by orbital variations.

AGW is the only problem that is of first order importance facing us today. I have given up trying to discuss this here.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 18^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

It is not natural. We are causing the heating we are seeing. We have caused so much heating that any end to the interglacial that some here talk about just is not going to happen. The oceans have so much heat stored in them that if we were to disappear tomorrow the heating would still continue for centuries. The main ice ages, at 100,000 year intervals, used to be 40,000 year intervals, are caused by orbital variations. AGW is the only problem that is of first order importance facing us today. I have given up trying to discuss this here.

When the IPCC computer models first started to calculate the temperature within their data base due to man’s emissions of CO2, they came up with a signature foot print for Anthropogenic Global Warming, proof that it existed beyond a doubt.

This signature foot print in the computer models was showing a hot spot around the equator due to the accumulation of manmade CO2 (I wonder what the natural CO2 which eclipses man’s efforts by a long shot was doing, must have been on holiday at that time), this hot spot in the computer data base was in the tropopause about 10 to 12 kilometres above the Earth’s surface.

Unfortunately for the alarmists and their overlords the oligarchy this hot spot which showed up in the most sophisticated computer weather models didn’t exist in real world.

They should’ve done a reality check before announcing it to the world but they didn’t, maybe they thought we would be like sheep and not question these findings maybe they got ahead of themselves doesn’t really matter because they were shooting blanks with this theory.

Radiosonde instrumentation on weather balloons and satellite data in the real world gathering weather data couldn’t find this hot spot that appeared in the most sophisticated climate models in their computers, so sceptics started to call this out.

So the alarmists realizing that we weren’t going to behave like sheep and that we have instruments to measure this phenomenon if it did really exist, started to say that the heat had gone into the oceans and that’s why we could no longer detect this hot spot in the tropopause with empirical data, that is actual measurements taken by weather balloons and satellites.

Unfortunately once again for the alarmists and their overlords the oligarchy, we had a temperature measuring system in the oceans called the ARGO, a team of strategically placed buoys around the world oceans taking temperatures down to about 750 to 800 metres.

Of course this extra heat that was supposed to be absorbed by the oceans never registered with the buoys, so the alarmists said the heat had snuck by the buoys and gone into the oceans depths where the buoys couldn’t measure it anymore.

But surely they would have registered this extra heat as it found its way to the bottom of the ocean passing through the first 800 metres, but offcourse the alarmists can’t think straight to begin with and they even till this day insist that the this extra heat snuck by the buoys down to the ocean depths and that were it remains till this day.

Every time they present a signature foot print it gets shot down faster that they could drop a hot potato, so the only way to make people believe them is, every time the ice shelf cracks it AGW, every time we have a cyclone or any type of natural disaster its AGW, scare tactics are the only instruments they have left, because they cannot explain the hiatus even though manmade CO2 emissions are going through the roof.

http://i63.tinypic.com/219s8yf.gif

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1
http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) , It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING ! This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2
http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale (NO) , (millions of years)

Graph-3
http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

[url]http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf[/urll]

(4).....Lately
http://i42.tinypic.com/10wnz8z.jpg

So really the age of the Hominid/Sapien is really in a default situation going against the 'natural' average of the common atmosphere. We came into existence during a 'freak' period of a very low fluctuation.
Things will eventually go back to normal
...and will we be able to survive it>?

Maybe the Scientists know this and are trying to trick us into keeping the 'average/normal' atmosphere at bay.

Jasin wrote on Jul 18^th, 2017 at 10:12pm:

So really the age of the Hominid/Sapien is really in a default situation going against the 'natural' average of the common atmosphere. We came into existence during a 'freak' period of a very low fluctuation. Things will eventually go back to normal ...and will we be able to survive it>? Maybe the Scientists know this and are trying to trick us into keeping the 'average/normal' atmosphere at bay.

Being deliberately vague is the trick of the con-artist  ;D

fascinating

fascinating

fascinating

FD is sooo concerned about AGW that he made a complete numpty who is brainwashed by a con man (Dubyne) Mod of Environment.

Consequently, Environment became the Dubyne MRB and people’s posts got changed and deleted.

FD’s committment to sustainability is a fraud.

Is that a violin I can hear?

So you are saying Booby has not been changing and deleting posts that go against the worship of St Dubyne the Dubious? You are saying Environment is not the Dubyne MRB? You are saying you cannot be abusive in the Dubyne MRB unless you believe a heap of codswallop with no scientific backing when you can be as abusive as hell? Look at some of The Moronic’s posts!

Electing MRB Mods has proven to be a total failure, as predicted. Please fix.

No, I am not wanting to Mod Environment or any other board.

And we see the heavy hand of snippy in Fringe.

Drug Policy and Travel have no Mods. Is it so hard to appoint a few mods and sack a couple of other Mods? Keep your board more active?

Unbanning JohnSmith and mothra would boost activity too, or at least tell them what the hell they were given permanent bans for, eh?

And everyone should be able to post in Feedback else why have that board?