Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:03am:


AND WHY NOT

No fast result in cuts: Flannery Mitchell Nadin, Stuart Rintoul From: The Australian March 26, 2011 12:00AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share
Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?THE Gillard government's chief promoter of the climate change debate has admitted even a global effort to cut carbon emissions would not lower temperatures for up to 1000 years.
Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery also said Julia Gillard was wrong in saying there were no respected climate-sceptic scientists.

In an interview with Macquarie Radio yesterday, Professor Flannery told hosts Steve Price and Andrew Bolt that if Australia achieved its aim of a 5 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases on 2000 levels, it would have a negligible short- or even medium-term impact on world temperatures.

"If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years," he said.

Professor Flannery leads the Climate Change Commission, an organisation created by the Gillard government charged with "leading public dialogue covering the science of climate change, how climate change may affect Australia, how carbon pricing could interact with the Australian economy, and what other countries are already doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageTax to make no difference to climate Herald Sun, 9 hours ago
Black pall over Labor carbon tax Courier Mail, 9 Mar 2011
Flannery quits as climate body chief Courier Mail, 5 Mar 2011
Where's Tim? The Australian, 3 Mar 2011
Tim Flannery The Australian, 15 Feb 2011
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The commission is currently in Geelong, 75km southwest of Melbourne, the first of many host towns to hold discussion forums.

In the interview, Professor Flannery said he was not there to offer comfort to employees or talk about the carbon tax, but added he would speak about the broader economics of the situation.

Professor Flannery also admitted that the Prime Minister had incorrectly stated that her side of the argument was "backed by every reputable climate scientist in the world". He agreed that there were reputable scientists who did not necessarily believe in the science of climate change.

But Professor Flannery said doing nothing risked "triggering a change we can't control".

Before last night's forum, Professor Flannery had compared climate change deniers to flat Earth believers and said the level of debate on the issue in Australia showed "a lot of heat, but not much light".

Speaking to The Weekend Australian, he also defended the lack of a climate change sceptic on the federal government's new commission, saying deniers were not sceptical enough to allow for the possibility of climate change.

"Climate deniers say they know the future; they know what will happen; the climate isn't changing. That is not a scientific way of approaching things," he said.

About 500 people attended last night's forum, in an industry and trade-exposed city, filling the town hall to standing room.

At one point, a man in the audience asked how much he had profited from years of "scaremongering and alarmist false predictions", but it was an isolated comment and Professor Flannery was applauded when he replied that what was needed was a clear and level-headed discussio.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:53am:



Further to this post....

we have 6,910,000,000 carbon emitting humans

environmentalists can't tell me in percentage terms how much humans contribute to it

what if these 6,910,000,000 carbon emitting humans only represent 1% of the total carbon emissions on Earth?

even if ALL of the 6,910,000,000 are wiped out it would not stop global warming

Summary

6,910,000,000 = 1% of ALL carbon emissions

Does anyone know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere?

0.01% to 0.1%
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/912_liftoff_atm.html

in percentage terms how much of this 0.01% to 0.1% do humans contribute to?

so equitists and ALL others - YOU HAVE NO PROOF other than some loose observations on some temperature gauge

so Gillard wants to
(1) tax 21,000,000 Australians which only contributes 1.2% to the 6,910,000,000 polluters
(2) which represents potentially 1% to carbon dioxide which only makes up between 0.01% to 0.1% of the atmosphere
(3) All this costing Australians billions $$$$$ a year for thousands of years

FOR WHAT?

so 21 million Australians can win some moral argument against the other 6 billion around the world??!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 12:49pm:



Make a nice change to being thrown out for shop-lifting though won't it?

Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:03am:



I laughed one boobie off at that one.  The pinnacle of the "useless comment".  

mavisdavis wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

Please stop grossing the online community off their weetbix!

Please stop grossing the online community off their weetbix!

yuk!

None of the above postulations changes the fact the Tim Flannery is really the flim flam man hired by Gillard to sell an obnoxious, Australian destroying tax that will do practically zilch climate wise.  Propaganda at it's worst as Gillard and her crumby lot will find out sooner rather than later