buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:46pm:


if you believe industry will not pass on these imposts then contact me. I have a bridge to sell you.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 8:13am:





dont you love the Penny Wongs in this govt always having a bet each way...now it isnt a silver bullet... and the CARBON TAX that gillard keeps spouting about isnt a TAX after all..lol..its painful to listen to them. talk about dodge city they put the wildwest to shame they really do..

and I for one am sick to death of being treated like I am braindead like their followers... bring on an election its the FAIR way



what about the compensation why would they compensate us if we were not getting this passed on.... will some one tell her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:


Cods how about we start with understanding what his claim is before worrying about whether it is true?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 7:38pm:




FD I dont care what he claims in the year 2100 plus... do you???.. if you do good luck to you I trust you will around to prove him right.. I wont be.. I prefer the real truth the facts... not predictions...he is claiming the tempreature will fall.. lol.. well tell him it did just now its going to be 15 tomorrow in Canberra a couple of days ago it was 24... tell me how bloody hard is it to predict temperatures will go UP and then they will go DOWN

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 8:12am:


Depends how you count the cost really, doesn't it?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=639

cods wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 8:57pm:


You need to familarise yourself with some basic concepts. Start with these two:
'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability

Predicting climate is not the same as predicting weather. Climate deals with, at a minimum, 30 year averages. You can flip a coin 100 times and, while you can't say how the coin will fall on any given toss, you can calculate the probability of it landing either heads or tails.

Or, a better example, you know that in summer you are likely to have a higher average temperature and in winter a lower average temperature without knowing exactly what temperature it will be on any given day.

Same thing, dude.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 10:01pm:


And calculating the radiative forcing of a gas is relatively simple too, Svente Arrenhius did it with an abacus 120 years ago.

Quote:


Actually, there has, there is good evidence now suggesting that domesticating animals led to a marked increase in methane that prevented the planet slipping into another glacial period...

But that aside, whether a climatic change is caused by humans or not is irrelevant, the climate responds to a small number of forcings, change the value of one or more and the climate will change correspondingly.

We have very good data on the role CO2 has played in numerous climate changes, we know for instance that the changes in solar radiation that triggered the last interglacial was nowhere near enough to warm the planet to the degree that we enjoyed throughout the Holocene. The only way to explain the degree that the planet 'recovers' from ice ages in the way that it does is if the maths used to calculate the radiative forcing of CO2 is about right.

Quote:


Yes there is, reams of it, from the historical data referred to above, to the satellite data that confirms there is more energy entering the climate system than is coming out of it, to the experimental data that confirms the rate at which CO2 reemits infra-red etc etc etc

And no climate scientist says that it will be X temperature, they say there is a very high chance that if emissions continue at X rate then average temperatures will increase between a range of Y and Z.