The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Indirect inaction insufficient > Comments

Indirect inaction insufficient : Comments

By Andrew Leigh, published 22/10/2013

We are bracing ourselves for a shocking summer. It has been too hot in NSW to even continue property-saving hazard reduction. Climate change is a clear and present danger to the nation.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I have a suggestion, Andrew; since the biggest obstacle to the AGW mitigation policies put forward by Labor and its comrades on the left is the absence of any recorded global warming for eighteen years, how about rallying the troops for a concerted effort? Burn truckloads of oil, cut down forests, anything.. it's a hell of a sacrifice, but if that's what it takes to get temperatures rising and convince those wicked sceptics, it will all have been worth it.

Or something.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 8:32:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Andrew,

According to Treasury figures, the net cost of the ETS would be $1,345 billion cumulative to 2050? Roughly, the cost is about 12 times the projected benefit. But the projected benefit almost certainly would not be realised.

It's explained here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/

I hope you will urge your colleagues to back away from Labors ideological pursuit of carbon pricing, and focus on issues that are of far greater importance for Australia and also for human well being globally.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 8:49:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The justification for AGW scare is over

The justification for the catastrophic/dangerous climate change scare campaign is over. The public have recognised it. Now there are just a decreasing number of extremists clinging to their doomsday dogma.

This chart shows the media interest in CAGW over the past 5 years: http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline . Even the release of IPCC AR5 caused only a minor blip in the trend of decreasing media interest. It’s fair to conclude the scare campaign has lost its effect.

Why is that? There are many reasons, but largely because of the exaggeration and perceived dishonesty/unreliability of the main climate science activists.

We now understand that:

1. IPCC AR5, WG1, Chapter 12, Table 12.4 effectively takes the ‘catastrophic’ out of AGW http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter12.pdf

2. The lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperatures over the past 500 million years does not support the alarmists’ claims about catastrophic global warming
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

3. Global warming would be net beneficial up to about 2.2 C from now (3C from pre-industrial):
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/
http://copenhagenconsensus.com/projects/how-much-have-global-problems-cost-world

4. Recent findings that climate sensitivity is lower than in the previous IPCC reports and in the modelling used for the projections, means the likelihood of such temperature increases is reduced.

5. Carbon pricing will have no effect on the climate but will have enormous costs.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtnUovGY_9Q
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 9:03:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like a child clinging to a comforting teddy bear, those who believe we can change the climate by modifying carbon dioxide emissions show little regard for physics or the fundamental laws of heat exchange. They cling to a myth. The trace gas, carbon dioxide, is essential to life on this planet, but it does not control the climate. Perhaps economists should study Henry's Law. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is regulated by the temperature of the ocean which is not heated from above, but from sub-sea volcanic activity. My old friend, Jock McPoet, summed it up:
'If you want to heat some water, would you wave a heater fan
Over it, or would you thoughta, using heat beneath the pan?'
This climate change scam has cost us dearly. About time we got on with the job of building our prosperity and defences against whatever Nature throws at us.
Posted by John McRobert, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 9:16:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
this from the party that could not export enough coal, coal, coal.

not saying we should not export coal, but I am saying supposed academics should stop bs'ing.

I am probably asking too much
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 9:31:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Labour preaching on climate action is the same as them preaching on illegal immigration ( we are allowed to say that now). The no carbon tax under my Government to the blatant lie, to Rudd then reversing it after previously running from the greatest 'moral dilema. Can't Labour just 'shut up'. No one is listening to you. If you appoint the failed prophet Flannery to scare the kids it shows how shallow your arguements are.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 11:45:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy