What Carbon

[SeatBackForward]

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. The carbon tax did not and does not reduce pollution =

Not the first time this has slipped into this discussion. The Australian Carbon tax, and the accounting standards that were to sit around it, use the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Determination as the basis for the measurement of Co2e emissions. This is taken from the Governments site regarding NGERs:

The range of emission sources covered in the Determination includes:

• the combustion of fuels for energy
• fugitive emissions from the extraction of coal
• oil and gas
• industrial processes (such as producing cement and steel)
• waste management.

Each of the above are part of the carbon tax, are you suggesting none of the above can be considered as pollutants?

 

[RAM]

Not the first time this has slipped into this discussion. The Australian Carbon tax, and the accounting standards that were to sit around it, use the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Determination as the basis for the measurement of Co2e emissions. This is taken from the Governments site regarding NGERs:

Each of the above are part of the carbon tax, are you suggesting none of the above can be considered as pollutants?

I only suggest what I have written - not what you may alter it to be or quote out of context.

You added the 5 range of emission sources below the quote from my post.

The carbon tax is not aimed at anything but CO2.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Simple statements, simple truths that have been validated.

Does the carbon tax cover Hydrogen sulfide emissions?
Does the carbon tax cover fine particulate (non-carbon) emissions?

 

[Moody]

... CO2 is not a pollutant....

Oh really? Here is the rather long definition of pollutant from the Encyclopedia Britannica pollution (environment) -- Encyclopedia Britannica Do you need me to explain it to you?

Do you also deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Now THAT would be breathtakingly stupid ... (PTP).

[It may surprise you to know that air can also be a pollutant, and I have nearly been deep enough to experience it myself.]

 

[Pushka]

I found this interesting.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/natio...hat-didnt-happen/story-e6frg6xf-1227041833824

 

[amaroo]

I found this interesting.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Danger, Will Robinson!

It appears some here can't read articles without posting a bucket of vile and insults I suppose it's entertainment - if you're into juvenile behaviour.

 

[Pushka]

I think the article today that rebutted the original one claims it's important not to cherry pick. Seems to me it's a case of glass houses. As soon as one example is used (by both sides of the discussion) then of course it's cherry picking.

 

[RAM]

Oh really? Here is the rather long definition of pollutant from the Encyclopedia Britannica pollution (environment) -- Encyclopedia Britannica Do you need me to explain it to you?

Do you also deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Now THAT would be breathtakingly stupid ... (PTP).

[It may surprise you to know that air can also be a pollutant, and I have nearly been deep enough to experience it myself.]

If the UN (your climate change champions) do not class CO2 as a pollutant then please stop resorting to abuse to try and prove a failing point.

<redacted>

 

[Moody]

If the UN (your climate change champions) do not class CO2 as a pollutant then please stop resorting to abuse to try and prove a failing point.

If you don't believe CO2 can be described as a pollutant then I have a roomful of it that I would like you to examine for me.... 5 minutes ought to do it!

<redacted>

 

[RAM]

If you don't believe CO2 can be described as a pollutant then I have a roomful of it that I would like you to examine for me.... 5 minutes ought to do it!
<redacted>

A good rant is the sign of a bad tyrant!

Still you will not acknowledge that even the IPCC do not claim CO2 is classed as a pollutant? I appreciate you appear to emit more than most (from your own admission).

<redacted>

The current ICAC hearings appear to have been your 'inspiration' - refuse to acknowledge the truth, slander or denigrate the message-bearers and make ever more outlandish claims.

Unfortunately, as with the ICAC and the public - no-one is fooled other than perhaps the misguided.

 

[Pushka]

Rising CO2 levels are helping to ensure global food security.

Anything can be a pollutant if the levels soar. CO2 is far from that. A room full of O2 would be as dangerous as a room full of CO2.

 

[RAM]

Rising CO2 levels are helping to ensure global food security.

Anything can be a pollutant if the levels soar. CO2 is far from that. A room full of O2 would be as dangerous as a room full of CO2.

True, anyone can construct something that is not 'real-worldly' correct - that does not make it correct.

The UN has a list of "Pollutants" that to be included on it the item must satisfy a number of scientifically valid requirements. The IPCC does not make the claims that some are here. Think about that!

Moody's "declaration" carries as much weight as Putin saying those tanks did not come from Russia, or that Russia has no intention of occupying the Crimea. Subsequent actions proved how false those declarations have been.

The 'torturing' of other's posts until they give up all resistance to manipulation never passes as 'informed' discussion. Just spin - plain and simple.

BTW - The fact that no living system can exist without CO2 should not be forgotten. Asbestos, 245D, 245DT etc can be eliminated and life continues (even better in fact).

 

[Moody]

A good rant is the sign of a bad tyrant!

Still you will not acknowledge that even the IPCC do not claim CO2 is classed as a pollutant? I appreciate you appear to emit more than most (from your own admission).

Constantly twisting, and failing to answer without abuse - would suggest you do not have any sound basis for your wild claims.

Please maintain a respectful approach as ranting neither helps nor furthers discussion.

The current ICAC hearings appear to have been your 'inspiration' - refuse to acknowledge the truth, slander or denigrate the message-bearers and make ever more outlandish claims.

Unfortunately, as with the ICAC and the public - no-one is fooled other than perhaps the misguided.

What, pray tell, does the IPCC say about CO2 then? That it is totally harmless? That we can keep producing as much as we like because it occurs naturally??

I am respectful of valid arguments made with reference to facts and defendable theories. Cretins who try on specious arguments deserve ridicule and abuse.

WHO CARES WHETHER THE IPCC CATEGORIZES ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 EMISSIONS AS POLLUTANTS OR NOT? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT ACTUALLY MAKE TO CLIMATE CHANGE?? ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME???

 

[Pushka]

I don't listen to anyone who yells.

 

[drron]

I just want to know what people think is the proven science of climate change.
Is it the predictions made by the IPCC?
Is it the forecasts given by believers such as Al Gore or Tim Flannery?
For example Al Gore made this statement before the Energy and Environment Committee in the USA-

- A number of new studies continue to show that climate change is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. Although we cannot attribute any particular storm to global warming, we can certainly look at the trend. Dr. Greg Holland from the National Center for Atmospheric Research says that we have already experienced a 300-400 percent increase in category 5 storms in the past 10 years in the United States. Last August, hundreds of thousands of people had to evacuate as Hurricane Gustav hit the Gulf Coast. And then, of course, there is the destruction of Galveston and areas of New Orleans, where the residents are still recovering. The same is happening in the rest of the world. Last year, Cyclone Nargis inflicted catastrophic death tolls in Burma (Myanmar) killing twenty thousand people and leading to the suffering of many more.

Al's Journal : Testimony
Is this proven science?
You see I do read widely but I have yet to see proof that most of the predictions about the effects of increased CO2 and the earth's response to that is as people such as Al Gore say.
I don't want an answer saying I am stupid or illiterate I just want someone to show me the scientific proof.
And Moody I do not want a link to Skeptical Science.That is written by a physicist from Townsville and I will take Medheads advice not to take a physicist's word about climate change.

 

[JohnK]

I don't listen to anyone who yells.

Is this argument going round and round in circles again?

 

[Pushka]

Carbon cycle indeed JohnK.

 

[Moody]

I don't listen to anyone who yells.

So you prefer to listen to stupid people who whisper? Or is there another alternative - listen to people who don't lie or attempt to deceive?

Sorry - what was I thinking ....

 

[Moody]

I just want to know what people think is the proven science of climate change.
Is it the predictions made by the IPCC?
.

The IPCC reports on the current climate state, the measured trends, the likely causes and the possible future outcomes based on optimistic and pessimistic models. It's not that hard really ...

What do I think will happen? I don't know - but there are enough warning signs to make apathy or denial a ridiculous and almost criminal approach.

 

[drron]

The IPCC reports on the current climate state, the measured trends, the likely causes and the possible future outcomes based on optimistic and pessimistic models. It's not that hard really ...

What do I think will happen? I don't know - but there are enough warning signs to make apathy or denial a ridiculous and almost criminal approach.

So do you believe Al Gore that severe weather events are warning signs?

 

[Pushka]

So you prefer to listen to stupid people who whisper? Or is there another alternative - listen to people who don't lie or attempt to deceive?

Sorry - what was I thinking ....

The forum isn't the place to call people stupid. They have an entitlement to their opinion just as you have yours. Tackle the discussion point not the person.