When all is done, the simple fact of the matter is that scientists -

have absolutely no fking idea whether the emissions of humans has played any major role in changing the earth's climate.

The fact that Mars' increases - which is by the same amount as Earth over the same period and is the most like-for-like planet to us - is easily written off as a natural occuring phenomenon on Mars climate.

Then Pluto, which is warming up, despite moving away from the sun - is described as 'difficult to judge given the distance away'.

Triton's climate is changing because 'it is believed' the changing in pull from the home planet has effected the climate pattern.

Yet Earth is not natural, it's human made.

I mean really, it's a load of "if's", "maybes" and "possibles" and we are supposed to force people to pay more just on a hunch?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 10:46am:


Given that climate is a science so complex that particle physics looks simple by comparison, your assumptions are at best a guess and more than likely totally wrong. You might be ASTONISHED (your words) but thats possibly the worst argument IVe heard yet.

Show me someone who is 100% sure humans have caused the earth's climate change -

and I will show you an idiot.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 11:54am:


There has been some evidence in the past of rising temperatures preceding rising CO2 levels. This then creates a feedback mechanism where the rising CO2 causes further rises in temperature. (sort of the like the reverse of the reflective snow example I used in an earlier post). What can't be disputed is that there is a definite link between CO2 levels and temperature.

Any benefit plants might receive from greater Co2 is more than countered by the rate of deforestation over the world, especially in Asia and Latin America.

Yes the planet is warming and the climate is changing..

But is that any great surprise, since a fairly major glaciation event finished just over a century ago???

The planet warms, then the planet cools, then it warms etc etc..

There's still no conclusive proof that OUR actions do (or CAN) have a significant affect on the amount or speed of that change...

____ wrote on Dec 8^th, 2010 at 12:42pm:


And WHAT exactly can the Greens and Labor do to protect the beaches??
Australia produces 1.28% of the world Co2 emissions...so if we go to zero emissions tomorrow, what difference will it real make??

If the sea level is going to rise by 100 metres this century, if we go carbon neutral NOW, that means the seas will only rise 98.72 metres..

Not a great difference is it????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 1:34pm:



Nothing

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 1:34pm:


Nothing


gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 1:34pm:


Nope


So that means the GALP are all about promoting nothing!
No wonder the Greens understand their policies as they "know nothing"

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 5:03pm:




What is really ironic is that the Climate advocates have held two annual global warming conferences.
1) Copenhagen in 2009 where it was in freezing conditions, and recorded the coldest weather for more than 40 years.
2) Cancun in 2010 a tropical resort in Mexico much akin to places in northern Qld, and has been subjected to blizzards all week and record low temperatures.
Recall how the greenies tried to scare people into believing that in the future our children won't even know want snow is. Well with the Cancun blizzards I'm sure that the other conference members believed that crap.

Seems much more like global cooling doesn't it, but the greenies would never understand that.
And, looks like not even God himself believes the rhetorical bull that the greenies are preaching about climate change!