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 > Carbon delusions and defective models > Comments

Carbon delusions and defective models : Comments

By Viv Forbes, published 11/4/2016

The models fail to explain Earth's long history of changing climates and ignore the powerful role of interacting cycles in the solar system.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Young people in the US have brought their concerns in relation to climate change to a Court setting and won.

http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/event/740/breaking-victory-landmark-climate-case

Another article about the same matter:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/10/3768092/climate-trust-suit-moves-forward/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3&utm_term=1&utm_content=13&elqTrackId=003984bd6f134ebd95727c75e0ee3097&elq=8812e2c1cb46473e8687ff49e4f3fd34&elqaid=29763&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=5407

Meanwhile a number of US State Attorney Generals plan on investigating ExxonMobil for allegedly misleading investors in relation to climate change.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 12 April 2016 1:29:37 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
Here you all go again in a pointless argument !
It does not matter whether the warmists are right or wrong.
We have to leave oil and coal before oil & coal leave us.

Interestingly there has been a report of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
technology that has completed a test run of 350 days at 1 megawatt
output with the output being 50 times the power input to run the system.

http://tinyurl.com/jp45xmz

It is now mired in an argument about the patent and whether the
licensee Heat Systems, has breached the licence conditions.

I have watched this process for a a few years now and it does seem to
be getting close to commercialisation. The next year should be
interesting as it could remove all worries about base load.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 13 April 2016 9:45:14 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
"Here you all go again in a pointless argument!"
I hear you Bazz. It's annoying when people who respect science get rubbish like this served up as an 'editorial' from someone that studies soil science, not climate. The myths in this petty little Agit Prop piece are so numerous as to be breathtaking. The human race has known for nearly 2 centuries what CO2 does and by how much it does it. Yet this farmer wants to tell us that he knows better than the atmospheric physicists! It's obvious from the word go that it is pointless debating an ideologue like the author: but what about the lurkers who might be undecided?

"Peak oil" and coal and gas won't get us before climate change can. There's enough CTL and GTL and electric cars and even recyclable boron-powered cars to keep us going through peak oil until ALL the coal is burned. That's the point! There's way too MUCH coal and other alternative hydrocarbons: this coming from myself, a former peaknik that helped form Sydney Peak Oil and present stuff to the NSW Cross-Benchers about it way back in 2005!
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:01:21 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
Bazz

Arnold Schwarzenegger got it right when he stated that regardless of whether climate has been changing due to natural processes, or man has had a major impact; we need to do something.
Those who write against the science are often trying to slow down the process of getting across the message something needs to be done.

Politicians will only move if they believe that the electorate is behind them; those who tend to have contrary views on climate change hold up important decisions.
Arguably the LNP is divided in views on climate change and their "policy" is extremely weak; Labor has better policies though not strong enough.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:41:16 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
Max Green said;
There's way too MUCH coal and other alternative hydrocarbons: this coming from myself,

Do you really believe this ? In a way you are right but we can not afford it.
Just look at the enormous investments being made in search & development
and the very poor returns.
Coal is becoming too expensive for most countries and oil has
reached the point of Goldilocks is dead. It costs more to get it out
than the drillers can sell it. That is why Shell pulled out of Alaska.

The ERoEI of coal & oil have fallen to levels where they are marginal.

Ant;
No pollie party gives signs that they understand what is going on.
All the efforts being put into reducing CO2 is a waste of time & money.

The money should be going into research on base load generation.
Solar & wind cannot do it for more than a day at a time.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 13 April 2016 4:20:26 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
Anthropocentric climate change is far more complicated than stated.
Here's an entertaining and informative video that addresses all his BS
"Contemporary Climate Change as Seen Through Measurements"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujf6EIGRUdw
Posted by 124c4u, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 2:06:25 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. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

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