RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
January 20, 2013 at 7:08 am
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2013 at 7:12 am by Aractus.)
Okay, what you and I just said is basically the same thing, so for simplicity let's just say I'll agree with your statement verbatim.
I see it took more than 100 years to accumulate enough CO2 in the atmosphere to discern the signal from the noise.
Why do climate alarmists tell us that the WHOLE 150 year trend is due to anthropogenic influence on EGHG levels?
OK, next question.
Computer modelling in 2011 produced by NASA (sorry don't have the link on hand), attributes anthropogenic CO2 to less than 50% of the cause to the current trend. 47% to be precise. The rest is made up of Methane, Black Carbon and CFC's (though the CFC's are very minor). Others have reproduced similar results in their modelling.
Michael Mann, Tim Flannery, and the rest of the climate-enthusiast lunatics, keep saying we need to "act now", and they are always targeting CO2 (not methane or black carbon). Now you have to understand that if we are causing some amount of global climate change, and we understand the amount that we are causing (which we don't know, but for argument's sake I'll assume we do know), knowing this I simply as this ...
Australia emits 1.34% of the world's CO2. CO2 is 47% attributable to the global warming trend. So Australia contributes 0.63% of the global warming trend overall. Why should we - Australians - want to cut our CO2 emissions that make fuck all difference to global warming? Gillard calls it "CO2 pollution", I nearly choke when repeating those words, surely there is real pollution and environmental issues that we could address instead of trying to cut CO2????
IF by 2050 we fuck up our entire economy by reducing our 2000 emission levels by 20%, then we will have achieved the result of slowing global warming by 0.126%, correct? How the FUCK is that value for money? Can you even measure 0.126% (of course you can't).
Furthermore if the entire world works together and reduces their 2000 level CO2 emissions by 20% by 2050, then we will have - according to the modelling - reduced the impact of climate change by 9.4%, that's the difference between a 3 degree rise in temperature and a 2.7 degree rise in temperature. How is that value for money?
I see it took more than 100 years to accumulate enough CO2 in the atmosphere to discern the signal from the noise.
Why do climate alarmists tell us that the WHOLE 150 year trend is due to anthropogenic influence on EGHG levels?
OK, next question.
Computer modelling in 2011 produced by NASA (sorry don't have the link on hand), attributes anthropogenic CO2 to less than 50% of the cause to the current trend. 47% to be precise. The rest is made up of Methane, Black Carbon and CFC's (though the CFC's are very minor). Others have reproduced similar results in their modelling.
Michael Mann, Tim Flannery, and the rest of the climate-enthusiast lunatics, keep saying we need to "act now", and they are always targeting CO2 (not methane or black carbon). Now you have to understand that if we are causing some amount of global climate change, and we understand the amount that we are causing (which we don't know, but for argument's sake I'll assume we do know), knowing this I simply as this ...
Australia emits 1.34% of the world's CO2. CO2 is 47% attributable to the global warming trend. So Australia contributes 0.63% of the global warming trend overall. Why should we - Australians - want to cut our CO2 emissions that make fuck all difference to global warming? Gillard calls it "CO2 pollution", I nearly choke when repeating those words, surely there is real pollution and environmental issues that we could address instead of trying to cut CO2????
IF by 2050 we fuck up our entire economy by reducing our 2000 emission levels by 20%, then we will have achieved the result of slowing global warming by 0.126%, correct? How the FUCK is that value for money? Can you even measure 0.126% (of course you can't).
Furthermore if the entire world works together and reduces their 2000 level CO2 emissions by 20% by 2050, then we will have - according to the modelling - reduced the impact of climate change by 9.4%, that's the difference between a 3 degree rise in temperature and a 2.7 degree rise in temperature. How is that value for money?
