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 > Why direct action on climate change fails > Comments

Why direct action on climate change fails : Comments

By John Le Mesurier, published 17/8/2010

The Liberal's policy on climate change is not likely to achieve the necessary reductions in carbon emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Mr Turnbull supports population growth AND is concerned about global warming. An absurdity.
Posted by watersnake, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 10:13:36 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
John, you might give us the scientific basis upon which you consider that Australia needs to reduce its emissions.

Reputable, peer reviewed, science shows that human emissions are of no significance to global warming.

The Journal of Geophysical Science published a study McLean et al, on 29 July 2009, which showed that all warming is accounted from natural sources, and there is no room for the asserted “very likely” of the IPCC as to human emissions causing global warming.

If someone disputes this, then put up the scientific study which shows otherwise. The IPCC cannot, or they would not rely on an unscientific, “very likely”, to support the assertion of AGW.

If the atmosphere were represented by a line one kilometere in length, the emissions from Australia would be represented by less then the width of a human hair. It is no wonder that the effect of human emissions cannot be detected. They are insignificant.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 1:11:06 PM
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
If, like me, you were to email the IPCC asking for information on the research that proves that carbon dioxide is a pollutant you will receive advice that their is none available. They go on to say that the US EPA Clean Air Act decreed that it is a pollutant.
If you consider that scientific decisions can be made in a Court of Law, continue worrying.
Its just one step away from a decree that Accountants have to be eliminated.
Research the work of Dr Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts and find out how the misleading conclusions about global warming were manipulated. Just Google Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts.
As an Accountant you must know what Balance means. There is no balance in the global warming debate. Just pure greed by such as Al Gore.
Posted by phoenix94, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 1:51:50 PM
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
Thank God that the Rhodes Scholar is a skeptic. He was obviously around when the 'science is settled mob' insisted we were heading for another ice age not all that long back. Julia is also a skeptic as shown by her complete lack of courage and political will. The difference is she is not honest enough to admit it. We all know that both Liberal and Labour will end up supporting the nuke industry so all the talk about 2020 from both parties is just a delaying tactic. In 2020 Julia and Tony will look back and be embarassed at the political games they have had to blame to try and impress some International body. The 'scientific world' would of invented another scam by then.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 2:20:05 PM
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
Phoenix94

CO2 does not have to be a pollutant to have an impact on the world. That argument is a strawman. There are plenty of substances that may not technically be thought of as pollutants that can have significant impacts. Water vapour, methane etc.

Water isn't a pollutant and yet, quite amazingly, it can kill you in the right quantity and situation. Oxygen is also not a pollutant, but get too much of it and it will also kill you.

Your slightly warped view of the debate does not appear to relate to any science, just opinion.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 4:06:19 PM
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
Phil, so can bull sh1t.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 4:17:12 PM
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. All

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