Global Warming

[Lucas]

YAWN

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot ... again.html

[Rorschach]

Here ya go SN... while you are in the ME rent a dvd called Orbit made by the BBC a 3 parter and you'll understand why we keep telling you lot about the complexity of climate.

[Rorschach]

Bloody Bill Shorten seems to think education is what was wrong with the carbon tax... not the ALP, not the policy... just us dunderheads in the public domain.

[Neferti]

Bloody Bill Shorten seems to think education is what was wrong with the carbon tax... not the ALP, not the policy... just us dunderheads in the public domain.

Billy Shortarse wouldn't know what day it was and KRudd made sure that they can't change the ALP Leader willy nilly, so the Lefties are stuck with the clown.

[Super Nova]

The following logic I will call IQism.

If everyone else if f..king up the planet there is no point us doing anything to help either. It just creates disadvantage.

This IQism I do understand. So we need to get global agreement.

The UK seems to be thinking about adopting IQism as it's policy.

China and India must cut their emissions ‘or else’ we will adopted IQism

Britain will not sign a global deal on climate change unless it includes commitments from China and India on reducing emissions, the energy and climate change secretary said on the eve of visiting the two countries.

China is the world’s highest emitter of greenhouse gases and India the third. Neither has agreed any cap on emissions. In an interview with The Times, Ed Davey said that there was little point in Britain making great efforts to cut emissions if other countries did not. “If I looked around the world and no one was doing anything I would have to ask myself the question : is it worth us doing anything if no one else is?” he said.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environme ... 152863.ece

[IQS.RLOW]

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph ... e_deniers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One beautiful little number might have helped turn the climate change debate in Australia, ultimately leading to last week’s triumphant demolition of the carbon tax.

Beginning around 2005, people gradually became aware of just how tiny was Australia’s contribution to the world’s overall amount of human-caused carbon dioxide. In opinion pieces, radio talkback shows and online, the figure “1.4 per cent” began appearing.

It became a “did you know” question during conversations and quarrels over global warming. Sceptical parents encouraged their children to ask gullible warmy teachers about it.

Once alerted to that number, obvious implications followed. If our contribution is so small that even erasing it entirely would do nothing to lower the planet’s temperature, what is the point of wasting several billion dollars to drop the figure from 1.4 per cent to, say, 1.2 per cent?

Until Australia’s miniscule contribution became part of the climate discussion, it was relatively easy for warmists to convince the public that Australia was a major factor in the planet’s carbon-led destruction. After all, we’re wealthy, industrialised and make lots of money from mining. On a superficial level, it makes sense to assume we’re a big-time carbon polluter.

But we’re not. Australia barely counts as a destructive entity, which forced warmists into another line of argument. You might have seen this one kicking around various climate catastrophe propaganda outfits: Australia is per capita the world’s worst carbon offender.

This is nonsensical. It assumes that the source of carbon, rather than the overall amount, is the issue.

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose an international gang were to beat someone up – Vladimir Putin, for example – in Brisbane this November, and then set his stupid face on fire. It seems to me that the Russian president would be rather more concerned about the totality of his torching experience than by the fact that 1.4 per cent of his facial injuries were caused by an Australian.

(Incidentally, if the above scenario ever does occur, I urge the Aussie to go for the eyelids. When there isn’t much to work with, you’ve really got to make it count.)

The per-capita line works on simple people, which is why it got a re-run from several Twitter folk last week. Over time, it’s morphed from “worst per capita” to “Australia, one of the world’s biggest polluters.” Sorry, friend. We’re only a 1.4 per cent minnow. There are probably individual Chinese cities that generate more carbon dioxide than us.

So the argument shifted again. According to some on the overheated side of the debate, Australia’s carbon tax would set an example to other nations that they, too, must join in the great heroic struggle against trace element plant food.

I suppose this is why China and India followed our previous example and abolished capital punishment. Except, of course, they haven’t. Neither have 20 other nations that carried out executions in 2013. If international consensus is such a big deal to our climate change pals, they should be pushing for Australia to join in this widespread global movement. An added advantage: it’ll make that per capita carbon figure even more impressive.

Developing nations couldn’t care less about Australian hand-wringing over carbon, which in their case is toxic black stuff on the walls of huts heated by burning cattle dung and not an asinine Q & A talking point. What they do care about is nudging general standards of living above a level that would not have been acceptable in Australia even in the late 1800s.

They can only reach those standards by following an Australian example we should be proud of: properly exploiting our resources to provide wealth, employment and services to a happy nation.

Instead, we’re fussing over a weeny sum of airborne vegetable nutrients that may or may not make NSW a little more like Queensland in 100 years or so. Labor is now vowing to re-introduce the carbon tax, or a variation of it, if it is returned to office at the next election. On Ten’s The Bolt Report, former Labor minister Craig Emerson hailed Labor leader Bill Shorten’s commitment to reducing carbon, pointing out that Prime Minister Tony Abbott and John Howard once backed an emissions trading scheme.

They did, it’s true, but in the 1970s they also used to wear flares and massive lapels. Like carbon panic in 2007, they were the style at the time. But the times have changed. As an example of just how different now is to then, former chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery is no longer pulling down $180,000 in your taxes for a year of part-time climate commissioning. Recently he turned up on YouTube asking for donations to “help support me”.

Still, if Labor wants to again link itself to a policy that can be brought down with one simple statistic, please do proceed. Old 1.4 per cent cannot wait to take another scalp.

[skippy]

Why do the conga line pretend climate change is a " lefty thing"? The overwhelming majority of world leaders believe it's true, the conalition here are the exception not the rule.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Why do the conga line pretend climate change is a " lefty thing"? The overwhelming majority of world leaders believe it's true, the conalition here are the exception not the rule.

Because the energy industry (coal and oil) paid some fake scientists to deny GW's existence, and the Jesus freak doomsday nutter crowd jumped on it, claiming only their god can do such things, which gives them time to work on creating an apocolypse, so Jesus will have to come back to save them.

Personally I wouldn't mind if the planet warmed a touch. I hate winter, 'coz I'm scared of the cold

[IQS.RLOW]

It is a lefty thing. Only lefty moonbats believe a tax will change the climate.

You leftys see it as a way to undermine society because it fucks with the "means of production" so youve gladly humped yourself silly every time its mentioned.

No need to worry any more. It's dead and buried, along with Shortens chance at ever being PM

[Rorschach]

The IPCC admitted it was about global wealth redistribution... just ask mantra.