do the greens need a lesson in economics? news.com.au article

[spludgey]

Your question doesn't make sense. The current 0.04% concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere already includes the cumulative effect of all human CO2 emissions ever.

Which is an increase of 33% in a century. Still not significant?

You keep posting it as a belittling 0.04% concentration, as though something in a concentration like that couldn't possibly have a strong negative effect.
Would you care for 0.04% of cyanide in your food? Come on, it's only 400ppm and the meal itself is only 1% of your body weight, so it can't possibly have an impact!

 

[LibGS]

PSSSSTTTT

These people just solved the problem of the influenza virus, All you do is ignore it because it is so small.

When someone with flu sneezes, they release droplets 1-4 microns in diameter called "droplet nuclei"; these remain suspended in the air for very long periods and may not only travel long distances, but can reach the lower respiratory tract. Inhalation of droplets and droplet nuclei places virus in the upper respiratory tract, where it may initiate infection.

But lets put this into perspective. Average human male height in Australia is 177.8 cm. This is 1778000 microns.

Thus, these droplet nuclei are 0.000225% the size of a human. We must therefore conclude, that infection by droplet nuclei is a myth.

The mythology of HIV/AIDS is worse! 0.1 microns which makes it 0.00000562% the size of the average Australian male.

Those researchers are charlatans I tell you!

 

[BayView]

PSSSSTTTT

These people just solved the problem of the influenza virus, All you do is ignore it because it is so small.

When someone with flu sneezes, they release droplets 1-4 microns in diameter called "droplet nuclei"; these remain suspended in the air for very long periods and may not only travel long distances, but can reach the lower respiratory tract. Inhalation of droplets and droplet nuclei places virus in the upper respiratory tract, where it may initiate infection.

But lets put this into perspective. Average human male height in Australia is 177.8 cm. This is 1778000 microns.

Thus, these droplet nuclei are 0.000225% the size of a human. We must therefore conclude, that infection by droplet nuclei is a myth.

The mythology of HIV/AIDS is worse! 0.1 microns which makes it 0.00000562% the size of the average Australian male.

Those researchers are charlatans I tell you!

The association of incremental temp changes to the overall health of the planet has been shown to be almost zero influence.

Granted; a sustained significant change in the temps will affect life of plants etc. We have not seen anything like that for centuries, other than yer usual droughts, floods - which are not temp changes, but land surface condition changes related to water supply.

In the whole CC/GW mania, there is always talk of a progressive and steady rise in temps which apparently will be harmful.

At what temp level will that be, and when?

I've said this before about the human influence on temps - relating to CO2 levels specifically (which have no effect as it turns out) - when Andrew Bolt asks the experts - and he has asked dozens - what they estimate will be the increase in temps from CO2 by the end of this century, the best estimate that any of them could come up with was 1/4000th of a degree.

Apparently the world's temp has not increased in the last 18 years.

On top of that; it has a zillion different temp changes from - to + all over the planet every day. How would even 1 degree affect anything?

Despite this; everyone screams "But we have to do something!!"

And he rightly responds - as do I - why?

Do some thing about...what?

 

[sanj]

I was wondering when the suppository of wisdom andrew bolt was gonna be mentioned.

 

[LibGS]

I've said this before about the human influence on temps - relating to CO2 levels specifically (which have no effect as it turns out) - when Andrew Bolt asks the experts - and he has asked dozens - what they estimate will be the increase in temps from CO2 by the end of this century, the best estimate that any of them could come up with was 1/4000th of a degree.

If you are going to quote rubbish at least quote the correct rubbish. The 1/4000th relates to what will be the global affect of the Carbon Tax in terms of temperature.

And Bolt is correct. By the carbon tax was always meant to be a pricing signal so that Australia can prepare for the changes to come. Only fools and dishonest people would say otherwise.

 

[BayView]

I was wondering when the suppository of wisdom andrew bolt was gonna be mentioned.

Nevertheless; you might slag him off, but he's out there asking the questions and demanding these folks support their statements.

Why is it the answers he keeps being given were less than rock solid or even worth a consideration as a problem.

He is not a stupid uneducated bogan, and hangs his hat on being unbiased and objective (even though he is a conservative, but once worked for the ABC; and he gives it to the Libs when required just as hard as he gives it to the Labs), so if someone of his credentials still shows skepticism after all this time; there would be something in it; wouldn't you say?

I mean; surely there would have been enough solid evidence by now to convince him otherwise?

So, just to recap; in this thread it has been claimed that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels, but now we read it is the ocean which is most responsible, and we have read that CO2 trails temp rises by up to 800 years, and we have read that CO2 has nothing to do with temp rises, and indeed there has been no noteable rise in temps in almost 2 decades - even with a rise in CO2.

Jeez; Sanj; thank god we had that Carbon Tax when we did.....supported by all the Greens, and half of the entire Aus Political Arena.

I guess good old Billy can reinstate it when he wins the next election.

My sides hurt.

 

[BayView]

If you are going to quote rubbish at least quote the correct rubbish. The 1/4000th relates to what will be the global affect of the Carbon Tax in terms of temperature.

He asked what the likely temp increase would be as a result of the effects of a Carbon Tax on decreasing CO2 emissions.

Noone would venture a guess. No Politician - on both sides - would make an estimate.

AB then asked; "If you are going to tax these Companies all these millions of dollars, they/we should at least get a figure to justify the amount of tax they will pay" or words to that effect.

Finally, someone admitted to a possible increase of 1/400th of a degree by the end of this century..

To which AB asked; "Why then are we even bothering with this tax, which will make no difference to the temp, and harm Aus business/investment/jobs etc in the process?"

And then several of them said (individually over several separate interviews - if you watched the show you would have seen this, and it bobs up every few weeks); "But we have to do something!!"

And Bolt is correct. By the carbon tax was always meant to be a pricing signal so that Australia can prepare for the changes to come. Only fools and dishonest people would say otherwise

But that's the point; based on the statement of the miniscule temp increase; it would appear that there is nothing to come - and certainly not by our own hands.

But if there is; a CO2 tax or some other idea to curb the impending disaster is a waste of our time.

Don't go after AB; he is not the problem. Thank god we have folks like him to keep this whole mania in check.

He is merely asking the hard questions of these people; to justify their actions. And they can't.

If you want to go after someone; go after those people who are feeding the misinformation..all your Greenie mates and most of the rest of the Pollies.

How is disagreeing with the benefit of a CO2 tax being dishonest?

 

[sanj]

Oh dear did you just really describe andrew bolt as unbiased and objective?

Hahaha bless you BayView

 

[LibGS]

Oh dear did you just really describe andrew bolt as unbiased and objective?

Hahaha bless you BayView

Remember. BV does this for fun. He is a troll.

 

[wategos]

The association of incremental temp changes to the overall health of the planet has been shown to be almost zero influence.

Not at all .. it has always been said that the worlds coral reefs are the "canary in the coal mine" for global warming. The most diverse ecosystems on the planet, they are very sensitive to increasing water temperatures and cannot survive a sustained 2 degree C temp rise, it causes coral bleaching and they die.

Well now that canary is dead and dying all over the world. Most of the coral in the Caribbean and Indian ocean is dead. Currently a lot of bleaching is underway in the northern Pacific. A lot of the great barrier reef has been affected as well. Some of the damage is caused by over-fishing or contaminants in fresh water runoff, but even isolated islands without these problems are being badly affected by the increasing water temps.

 

[BayView]

Oh dear did you just really describe andrew bolt as unbiased and objective?

Hahaha bless you BayView

Well, answer me this; AB has invited all and sundry on his show since day one - to argue anything at all.

They simply refuse to lock horns.

Meanwhile, he is more than happy to make an appearance on Q&A, and has openly said so on his show, yet he has not been invited to date.

He laughs until his sides hurt on that one....as do I.

Just pathetic, really.

The silence from all you GW/CC disciples with your responses to my questions regarding Tim Flannery's predictions is...deafening.

Not even one counter-argument....not one.

Keep in mind he was predicting from a science based set of information, apparently.

Or maybe not...

Just personal attacks via PM, and snide side-swipes.

 

[BayView]

Not at all .. it has always been said that the worlds coral reefs are the "canary in the coal mine" for global warming. The most diverse ecosystems on the planet, they are very sensitive to increasing water temperatures and cannot survive a sustained 2 degree C temp rise, it causes coral bleaching and they die.

Well now that canary is dead and dying all over the world. Most of the coral in the Caribbean and Indian ocean is dead. Currently a lot of bleaching is underway in the northern Pacific. A lot of the great barrier reef has been affected as well. Some of the damage is caused by over-fishing or contaminants in fresh water runoff, but even isolated islands without these problems are being badly affected by the increasing water temps.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[BayView]

Remember. BV does this for fun. He is a troll.

Oh, for god's sake.

At least I don't carry on like a 5 year old and get all nasty in PM's like someone.

I'll be laughing about that for years.

 

[BayView]

Oh dear did you just really describe andrew bolt as unbiased and objective?

Hahaha bless you BayView

Yeah; just like the ABC radio, Sanjiv.

 

[LibGS]

Oh, for god's sake.

At least I don't carry on like a 5 year old and get all nasty in PM's like someone.

I'll be laughing about that for years.

You are an anti science troll. I get it now. Cheers.

 

[BayView]

You are an anti science troll. I get it now. Cheers.

Not at all.

If I really was a Troll, Sim and the gang would have shut me out of here years ago.

I am not anti-science; just anti-blind faith.

I'll tell ya what Lib; for the sake of the argument, I'll grant you that there have been some increases in the temp, and some increases in the sea level.

Now; tell me what they have been over the last 200 years, and I'll evaluate their relevance to the world as a whole.

So; for the sake of the argument; I am not refuting the claims you make; just humour me and give me the exact measurements for the last 200 years.

Forget man-made CC - that is a total joke...

Just the facts, ma'am; the temps, and the sea levels.

 

[LibGS]

Not at all.

So; for the sake of the argument; I am not refuting the claims you make; just humour me and give me the exact measurements for the last 200 years.

I don't have to do anything. The research and science has been done. It's all there on line. You are an anti science troll or a fool who doesn't know a money making opportunity when they see it. If I had your "proof" I would publish, and retire a very rich and happy man. Like all deniers, you have no courage to publish, you just post pseudo science and claim its true.

 

[wategos]

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Whats so funny about rising sea temps wiping out the coral reefs. ?.... if you are not interested in the current observed effects of global warming I don?t know why you keep asking what they are.

 

[BayView]

Whats so funny about rising sea temps wiping out the coral reefs. ?.... if you are not interested in the current observed effects of global warming I don?t know why you keep asking what they are.

The comedy is not in the damage - that is disastrous in anyone's book.

The comedy is in the various explanations for the damage - the GW disciples sprout on about the rising temps that cause the damage, but then in the above post where I've highlighted the sentence - they put some blame on over-fishing and other factors.

Come on; which is it?

See; this where I have to laugh because as we go along with this back and forth argument; more and more stuff comes out which contradicts the whole thing you guys are so passionate and fanatical about...

It's why I like to keep on asking the anti-mania questions.

Then you guys come up with; "we don't have to prove anything; the science is there".

Oh; really? It is supposed to be water temp rises, but now it is over-fishing, and other factors.

Shifting the goal posts and hedging the bets....

Incidentally though; if the water temps did rise, and given that coral needs to have a certain minimum water temp to grow; wouldn't a slight increase be conducive to more coral growing in other parts of the seas where it didn't grow before?

Say; further south?

 

[Shadow]

CO2 and other gases cause the heating

The sun causes the heating.

Heated oceans induce climate change through altered current and wind patterns

In what way, specifically, has the global climate changed?

This is not correct, the oceans have warmed quite a lot.

Not for a couple of decades...