What Carbon

[drron]

Well Moody I am sorry you don't understand my answer but I felt it obvious that I am unsure.However I doubt the extreme warmist projections are accurate.
Besides the climate has changed as much in the not too distant past without the influence of CO2-the Medieval warm period which enabled the Vikings to establish a farming community in Greenland.
How do you explain that one?

 

[dfcatch]

Moody - drop the "A" from your "AGW" and then it's a legit question.

And the real question actually is "How much of GW is caused by CO2?"

The next question is "Will CO2 reduction strategies actually have a discernible affect on GW?"

And similar questions along that line.

Ultimately you then have to model the cost of mitigation vs cost of carbon dioxide emission reduction.

There are still way too many questions for ANYONE to claim any aspect of the science is settled.

In the meantime - Australia could cease existing tomorrow and it won't make an ounce of difference to global emissions.

So I for one an much happier that we're not artificially sabotaging our economy and our primary competitive advantage (cheap energy) in the name of dickheads like Gore and Flannery.

You and Medhead are of course more than welcome to zero-out your own carbon footprint as I assume you are totally independent from the grid with your personal renewables?

I also assume you don't drive a vehicle?

And I assume you offset all your flights as well?

If so - that's great! You are entitled to believe in the need to reduce emissions at-any-cost and you're welcome to spend your own money doing so.

You're not entitled to force bad policies onto the entire population and handicap economic growth at the same time.

For the record, I believe:

The world is warming;
Man made emissions are part of the equation;
The world will not end tomorrow;
Australia's emissions (at 1.5%) are irrelevant and totally negligible;
We can not stop GW so we need to concentrate on management and mitigation strategies.

 

[SeatBackForward]

(earlier post seemed to disappear after hitting submit - so here goes)

By considering only CO2 emissions, the whole benefit of the "carbon tax" is not being considered. There are other emissions that contribute to greenhouse warming, and also other emissions that are outright toxic- all this is captured under the current National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme (and if anyone is interested, this scheme is much more akin to an accounting standard than as a pure environmental scheme).

As for the matter of international competitiveness, consider that ‘emissions-intensive trade-exposed’ industries are already awarded free carbon units because of exactly that, to ensure they remain internationally competitive while other nations are still developing their schemes. The Wikipedia link i gave earlier lists who received those free units.

There is another question that can also be asked? who has actually been effected by the carbon tax to date, that they've changed their behaviour? To most of us as individuals, the impact is going to be through the price we pay for electricity, and it should be noted that the steep increases in electricity prices of late have very little to do with carbon tax.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was never intended to be an overnight change, but to occur over a longer time period, to allow industries to adapt and find solutions.

 

[Moody]

Well Moody I am sorry you don't understand my answer but I felt it obvious that I am unsure.However I doubt the extreme warmist projections are accurate.
Besides the climate has changed as much in the not too distant past without the influence of CO2-the Medieval warm period which enabled the Vikings to establish a farming community in Greenland.
How do you explain that one?

If you remember our conversation so far it goes something like this :-

Moody - Do you agree that the planet is currently warming?
Drron - Yes
Moody - Do you believe that the warming is entirely natural or has been influenced by human activities?
Drron - [Some guff about various optimistic and pessimistic models that equate CO2 levels with increased global temperatures]
Moody - Assuming the above is supposed to translate to "yes - AGW is real" [debatable], then do you agree that CO2 levels are the most significant human factor?
Drron - [See above]

So with a typical politicians' skill you avoid the direct questions and try to deflect with irrelevancies. Why should I answer your questions when you don't answer mine ???? Because I have INTEGRITY.

So here you go ....

The Medieval Warm period was not global, and even the warmer areas (which seemed to be around the North Atlantic) are now thought to be not as warm as now. So Vikings with long ancestral memories may indeed be saying "Ah - this takes me back to the summer of 966", but the rest of the globe has not seen these temperatures. Also the reasons for this localised warming are better understood ..... but only by those that bother to find out.

 

[drron]

And there are other theories on possible causes of warming but only known to those who bother to find out.

 

[Moody]

And there are other theories on possible causes of warming but only known to those who bother to find out.

If you could quote me a single scientist who mounts a credible case that AGW is a myth, I would be happy to discuss their research and models. Sure beats trying to catch greased pigs ...

 

[drron]

If you could quote me a single scientist who mounts a credible case that AGW is a myth, I would be happy to discuss their research and models. Sure beats trying to catch greased pigs ...

Setting up a straw man Moody.Again where do I say it is a myth.And there certainly are respected scientists who believe the case for AGW is overstated.A person of integrity would know that.

 

[Moody]

Setting up a straw man Moody.Again where do I say it is a myth.And there certainly are respected scientists who believe the case for AGW is overstated.A person of integrity would know that.

So ...... we are back to square #1. Let me paraphrase your position :-

I, drron, believe that human activity is warming the planet but am too greedy to care. That is not a good look so I will claim that it is not really a problem and the vast majortiy of the world's climate scientists are engaged in a global conspiracy.

If you believe I have verballed you then feel free to state your true position. I would really like to know.

 

[drron]

So ...... we are back to square #1. Let me paraphrase your position :-

I, drron, believe that human activity is warming the planet but am too greedy to care. That is not a good look so I will claim that it is not really a problem and the vast majortiy of the world's climate scientists are engaged in a global conspiracy.

If you believe I have verballed you then feel free to state your true position. I would really like to know.

Moody there is no point arguing with you.I have explained my position several times.
Maybe you should find where I have said the things you impute.
There are none so blind.......

 

[medhead]

Moody there is no point arguing with you.I have explained my position several times.
Maybe you should find where I have said the things you impute.
There are none so blind.......

You have stated the world is not warming as quick as the models predict. Ignore the review of the models that found models that are designed for short term do predict the current temperature. Ignore that the current slower rate of warming is during a cooling cycle and that despite that cooling cycle temperature records are still being broken. Haven't commented on what will happen when our region switches back to a heating cycle.

On top of that you voted for the government, with a position that climate charge is a load of cough, to remove the carbon tax.

Please do let me know if I haven't accurately summarised your position. Or if I've misrepresented who you support.

 

[juddles]

...There are none so blind.......

I think both sides will, till the end of time, accuse the other of being those who refuse to see.

My position re the actual debate is unimportant as I am not an expert in the field. But my belief re the style/form of argument is that the Believers are way way into ¨bad science¨. They should embrace the ¨deniers¨ and encourage healthy debate with them, not ridicule them.

RE the drron/medhead saga, which exemplifies perfectly the overall clash, you should both (IMHO) consider just why it is such an important topic that you wish to keep arguing the point, and also reflect on the apparent failure of either party to persuade the other.

My words of advice (given without their seeking as I am of Dutch heritage and comfortable thus doing so) is:

Medhead: If you cannot convince the opposition to change, you must seek alternative ways to further your beliefs and desired actions.

Drron, as my father once told me: ¨Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time, and it irritates the pig.¨

 

[mrs.dr.ron]

Drron, as my father once told me: ¨Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time, and it irritates the pig.¨

Excellent advice Juddles

 

[Limewood]

Excellent advice Juddles

+ one

I asked the original question and this thread went way off track

 

[mrs.dr.ron]

I asked the original question and this thread went way off track

Ahhhh .... so it is your fault !

 

[medhead]

I'm not trying to convince. I'm just asking for the evidence. That peer reviewed papers that I presented are selectively accepted when they support the other position, but the bits that disprove that position are ignored, makes me wonder who is the pig being taught to sing. I certainly understand the the science can't be cherry picked. Anyway going full circle I'm not trying to convince anyone. The opposite in fact, I'm asking to be convinced of their position based on the evidence they used to adopted that position.

 

[cove]

This evening we are turning on our fourth solar system so if it goes all foggy in Melbourne then yes blame me. This one is a 30kW system with the usual payback times.

 

[medhead]

Great to see the carbon tax and feed in tariffs doing nothing.

 

[NM]

In my personal experience, for about 6 months every year I find that about half the Earth is warming while the other half is cooling. And for the other six months its the other way around. The process repeats on a regular basis (of approx 12 months). In my personal experience, this cycle continues with or without a tax laws being made or repealed. While those in Melbourne may need to wait until November or December to experience warming, those of us further north (but not too far north) are already starting to feel the effects. Cooling will recommence in about 9 months time.

 

[mrs.dr.ron]

In my personal experience, for about 6 months every year I find that about half the Earth is warming while the other half is cooling. And for the other six months its the other way around. The process repeats on a regular basis (of approx 12 months). In my personal experience, this cycle continues with or without a tax laws being made or repealed.

I tend to agree with you NM, and luckily living in QLD our warm is warmer and our cool not cold. But drron does drag me to cold places - the Arctic, Antarctica, Scotland, Greenland, Iceland to name a few. And if I spend enough I get my tax back ! :shock:

 

[james4321]

In my personal experience, for about 6 months every year I find that about half the Earth is warming while the other half is cooling. And for the other six months its the other way around. The process repeats on a regular basis (of approx 12 months). In my personal experience, this cycle continues with or without a tax laws being made or repealed. While those in Melbourne may need to wait until November or December to experience warming, those of us further north (but not too far north) are already starting to feel the effects. Cooling will recommence in about 9 months time.

While I think you are simply trying to introduce some lightness into the discussion, I do think that far too many Australians have given very little (if any) to the very real problem of climate change ie I'm OK, as for the future .... just not interested. Fast forward 50 years - our grandkids kids are going to ask "What the ^&*$ where they thinking (or drinking?)