Unbelievable amount of CO2 coming from China and India compared to what we pump out. Carbon tax..........pffft!!
Problem is the lack of honesty in almost all public discourse on this issue. To say that it won't make the slightest difference is certainly not true in an holistic sense, I have no doubt that our actions speak, I think we can be influential and I think our transition to a low carbon economy can be ecomically beneficial for the majority of Australian businesses (particularly the service sector, but there are opportunites in many other areas as well). But anyone that implies that Australia's own emissions savings will make any difference in a literal sense (as opposed to a political or consulting/product/academic contribution) to the worlds CO2 levels is being disingenuous....btw I do not see that claim in the word "tackle".
Quite true. And the most dishonest claim is that global warming (or is that now climate change?) is caused by human activity.
Dishonest? The evidence I am afraid doesn't agree with you and you are entitled to your opinion...but dishonesty re the claims??? Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia FYI.....both sides of politics believe in the science, so are they both being dishonest (re the science, not their manipulation of the climate change debate....which was my original point)? Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt told ABC News Online that Mr Abbott accepts the science on climate change. "Tony Abbott has repeatedly said he accepts the science of climate change and that humans contribute to global warming," Mr Hunt said. Colleagues defend Abbott's climate change stance - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The only reason Abbott "accepts the evidence of global warming" is because he knows that in the current political climate he has to pretend that he does. The issue isn't whether or not climate change is happening. It is. The issue is whether we are causing it, and whether we can influence it. We aren't, and we can't. And there is most certainly not a universal view amongst the scientific community that the science of global warming is done and dusted. Maybe it is amongst the Tim Flannerys of the world, but even I've got more weather / climate qualifications than he has, and that's not saying much! Having said that, I think as individuals we should be doing all we can to lead lives which are energy efficient, and place the least burden on the planet as possible. That's just common sense. I love watching my rabid green-voting friends squirm when I point out how my impact on the planet is far less than theirs is, despite the fact I don't believe their global warming crap. As usual with these types, it's more "do as I say" than "do as I do".
Does he? I'm not sure he even has an opinion . In any case there is no excuse for it and supports the view I originally expressed above. Wiki says 90% but they are being very generous, Its about as universal as you can get in the world of consensus amongst the scientific community. Back in 2005 (which is a loooong time ago in Internet time), Naomi Oreskes published a famous paper in Science titled "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". It's a meta-study that looked at 928 scientific papers between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that, despite what the media often implied, there was a very strong consensus among scientists about climate change, with none of the papers disagreeing with consensus position. Fast-forward to the present, and James Lawrence Powell has done a similar meta-study, but including a lot more peer-reviewed papers (thousands have been published since 2003). What did he find? Well, out of 13,950 scientific papers published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012, he found 24, or 0.17%, or 1 in 581, that clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. That last part is important, as CO2 is central to the mainstream scientific view on global warming. "If one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."
With the exception of two fundamental ones of course... coal mining and power generation Exactly. Just like the during the inquisition where disagreeing with the ruling religious zealots was counter productive to a long and peaceful life When you look at the CO2 emission figures from China and India it is completely clear that believing that they can be significantly reduced is a fantasy. Money would be better spent on developing solutions to a world that has "climate change"
So you agree with me. It's not a universal opinion. And if we then deduct the % of pseudo scientists (such as Flannery) and those whose incomes depend on scaring everyone into believing in global warming... Righto, lets assume for a moment that this bunkum is real, and we need to reduce our CO2 emissions to save the world, you'd be in favour of nuclear power then, right? After all, we have the worlds largest resource of fuel and very stable geology. So, why aren't we investing in high-tech nuclear power instead of ridiculously expensive and inefficient wind farms and the like?
Yep never argued it was. My point has always been that it is the opinion of the overwhelming majority, the paper I quoted above suggests 99.83% Flannery is hardly a pseudo scientist, but I'm talking about peer reviewed scientific papers and I don't know how many of those he has published on Climate Change. I'd be in favour if the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence suggested that Nuclear is the way to go.
He is when it comes to climate science. Of course that didn't stop the ALP appointing him to the role of Chief Population Scarer on Climate Change. Haha! Nice one.
I caught ip with a school friend of mine over christmas, who is a senior environmental advisor to one of the state governments. His own view was that the only valid objection to nuclear power was that it was expensive to commission, no country had managed to put it in without big government tax breaks. He thought that solar & wind, with gas to cover peaks was more cost effective. He also said the existing vested interests that had invested in coal & coal fired power stations were a strong impediment to the adoption of any new technology. M
Coal is by a huge margin the cheapest way to make electricity and Australia has lots of it. Interestingly, Germany has the fastest increase in coal power station in the EU now, since they shut down the soviet era nuclear plants and the politics of the Greens made it impossible to build new nuclear. They're building Lignite burning plants - worse even than our brown coal. The world will be burning twice as much coal as today by 2030. If you think humans cause climate change then there is no way to stop it. If you think its a natural cycle, we still have to deal with the consequences. The argument shouldn't be about what causes climate change, but how will we live with it.
Half a story Is Germany switching to coal? - 100% renewable - Renewables International Finally, it is simply not possible for Germany to increase its carbon emissions from the power sector because the country has emissions trading, which sets a limit on emissions. If anything, the phase-out of nuclear will remove a chunk of low-carbon generating capacity, thereby raising the price of carbon, which will make future investments in coal plants expensive -- but the effects will not be felt for years because it takes years to build these plants. I can't or at least don't want to be that fatalistic.....even though my greatest fear is that you will be proved correct I only half agree with this statement. The reality is that it is happening, so yes you are right that we should be planning for the consequences (something that we are not doing very well at currently). But if the evidence suggests it is caused by humans (and it does....overwhelmingly ) then we must try and do something about it. Some countries are BTW but the US has been particularly unhelpful in finding a global solution and the rise of China and India is more about equity than it is about climate change and thereforefore this requires global attention rather than treatment as a domestic problem. "Work with China to deliver low-Carbon growth" urges Energy and Climate Change Committee - News from Parliament - UK Parliament E.U. and India: Cases of low-carbon development in 2012
LOL Gough's happy Because he is no longer the worst Australian Prime Minister in living memory Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I wonder if he didn't do more damage though. They were still blaming Gough and his government for the next 10 to 15 years.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3M48kvJQRg&playnext=1&list=PL784FB3CEF7C2F141&feature=results-main]John Howard & Dubya: A Deep Personal Love - Buttress O'Kneel - YouTube[/ame]
Go and ask your Dad then. I remember the day in 1975 he was turfed out. I was still at school in Grade 8, first year in Senior School. Admittedly a very pro Liberal Boys Grammar school. You could hear the yells of approval and jubilation miles away.
Here's an interesting read: About how Little Johnnie Winston Howard's father defrauded the Commonwealth of Australia & utilised the fraud & slave labour for profit. The secret Howard plantations - National - smh.com.au
Not half a story at all, I prefer The Economist as an accurate source of information. "Renewables International" - they wouldn't be biased to a particular viewpoint, would they? "It is simply not possible for Germany to increase". That is LOL funny. I guess you haven't lived in Europe and discovered how things work in the EU bureaucracy. I refer you to The Economist 5th Jan 2013 Europe?s dirty secret: The unwelcome renaissance | The Economist "The problem is that when the system was set up, regulators allowed companies overly generous permits to pollute, in part because of lobbying and in part because the effects of the recession were not foreseen. This oversupply has swamped the impact of emissions from coal-fired power plants."
