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 > Climate change agnosticism, John Howard and some inconvenient truths > Comments

Climate change agnosticism, John Howard and some inconvenient truths : Comments

By Chas Keys, published 11/11/2013

For people of Howard's generation this scenario will not have to be faced, but if it occurs it may have severe impacts during the lifetimes of some people who are now with us.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. All
Fuel cells using hydrocarbons (methane) produce the same amount of CO2 as combustion.

Thorium, yes, and the sooner the better we get onboard the better.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 11 November 2013 12:01:55 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
The very worst thing we could do, would be to establish an ETS!
This has proven elsewhere, to be totally non effective; and, just churns money, all while making the cost of doing business, far more expensive.
Haven't enough or our corporations already gone to offshore destinations, where the energy choices may be cheaper, along with the labour, but vastly more polluting as well.
This is a Clayton's lose/lose solution, and one we should never ever adopt, unless we want to shut down manufacturing in this country altogether.
Oh sure, tourists can come and replace all those lost jobs.
Sure all our boiler makers, welders, metal stampers etc, would just love to have their current take home pay packages reduced to just one third of what they earned previously and additional hours that rob them of their weekends and social events!
If only we could have the same financial paradigm applied unavoidably, to accountants, lawyers, college professors and other professionals, maybe some of the more moronic obtuse demands would cease.
We could actually put a price on carbon by placing a tax on it. Not all of it, just that above a sensible cap.
That cap could be what we produce now!
The tax could then be used to fund tax credits for all those who had reduced their carbon footprint?
And to claim those credits; claimants, would also have to provide credible evidence!
It's just too easy!
Or, should we all just learn to sing, hey Mr tally man tally me banana, daylight come, anyone go home? etc/etc.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 11 November 2013 12:10:43 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
There is a wonderfully elegant disproof of AGW here:

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2013/10/18/canadian-geophysicist-calculates-the-greenhouse-effect-for-the-first-time-exposing-climate-change-as-a-trillion-dollar-fraud/

Kalmanovitch simply uses Hansen's famous definition of the Greenhouse effect from his 1981 paper expressed thus Te = [So(1-A)/4σ]1/4 where So is TSI and A albedo and σ the SB constant with Te is the Greenhouse effect..

Since TSI and A are known and σ is a constant Kalmanovitch simply used the values for So and A between 1980 and 2010 and shows the Greenhouse effect, Te, has reduced over that period despite increases in CO2:

1980 Ts = 288.2 K Te = 252.64 K greenhouse effect = 288.2-252.64=35.56°C

2010 Ts = 288.6 K Te = 253.18 K greenhouse effect = 288.6-253.18=35.42°C

So there you are; using Hansen's definition of the GHE, and the known values of the formula the Greenhouse effect is conclusively shown to have declined.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 11 November 2013 12:43:18 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
"So far, the link has not been made from the bush fire record in Australia. But these are early days, and it is entirely possible that in future the links between climate change and bush fire characteristics will become clearer."

And it is entirely possible that the absence of any link will become clearer. So until we know one way or the other we should act in the same way as responsible scientists and consider the null hypothesis -- that there is no link -- to be confirmed. Lobbying to base government policy on what some scientists may or may not confirm at some unspecified time in the future is mere lunacy.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 11 November 2013 2:33:05 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
Let's not get too excited about the "super" Typhoon. Andrew Bolt has some interesting intelligence. It appears it was only a category 4, and weaker than Cyclone Yasi that hit Queensland two years ago. It appears that someone saw wind speeds in kilometres per hour but rendered them as miles per hour, making them about a two-thirds faster than they really were.

It says something profound about the confirmation bias in meteorology that no-one queried the high reported wind speed at the time.

Now we will be over-run with carpet baggers and rent seekers quoting the wrong figures.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 11 November 2013 2:56:49 PM
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
Simple logic tells us that you could prevent many bushfires and subsequent damage if you could
1. Stop firebugs 2. Clear trees around power lines and 3. Allow people to clear larger distances around their houses. Climate change of 3/4 pf a degree is an insignificant contributor.

Natural disasters affect more people now because there are simply more people especially in areas which were formerly barely inhabited such as near national parks etc.

.75 of a degree increase since 1850 could NOT cause a massive increase in bushfires.
Posted by Atman, Monday, 11 November 2013 3:51:49 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. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. All

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