I have just listen to an interview with Prof Bob Carter, and by the sounds of it the Kevin 747, and Wong are sending us down a very expensive path.

From what I understand from the interview is that we are now in a period of global cooling, and we are going to pay through the nose in order to keep warm. Because keeping warm means producing more CO2.

Here is something for the sceptics to ponder and if they are convinced that the answer to any of the questions is indeed no, do as Monbiot suggests. It would be appreciated too if the authors, or whoever else does find him/herself in a position to make a claim on the Noble Prize Committee, would provide this forum with a preview of their scientific documentation in support of their findings.

I, myself would be very pleased to learn that the world could continue on its present course without having to worry about what seems to me a civilization (as we know it) threatening process.

I quote from George Monbiot's book "Heat".

"Questions to ask of climate change sceptics…

Does the atmosphere contain CO2?

Does atmospheric CO2 raise the average global temperature?

Will the influence be enhanced by the addition of more CO2?

Have human activities led to a net emission of CO2?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, suggest the person that he/she put themselves forward for a Nobel Prize as they will have turned science on its head."

It should be noted too that if Garnaut had his way the Emissions Trading Scheme would be revenue neutral in that that ALL revenue from the sale of carbon trading rights would be pumped back into the economy in ways that would help enhance the goal of reducing Australia's emissions or assist effected entities to make the transition to a less carbon intensive economy.

Any comments?

(Note: - The government's Green Paper differs from Garnaut in that it proposes to spend a lot of the the ETS revenue by giving it right back to the main polluters (the coal-fired power stations) so they stand to make a substantial windfall profit out of the scheme. This proposal is indeed ridiculous.)

Kulu - something for you to ponder, even if all those points are true, so what? It's like trying to prove or disprove god exists or doesn't. It still makes no difference to the world we live in.

We have to adapt regardless, even if we stopped creating any CO2 by any means at all, the Climate, which we do not control - and that's the point I'm making by the way, will continue to change whichever way it does.

BTW - your point "Does atmospheric CO2 raise the average global temperature?" is the hinge of your and Monbiot's entire argument, but there is no Factual Proof that this happens, there is modeling that makes it highly probable, but that's not proof - there is no proof. What you are proposing is a hypothesis and challenging "skeptics" to prove it otherwise; well that's just tricky and a typical theological argument.

"Will the influence be enhanced by the addition of more CO2?” no one knows do they, you have been lead by Monbiot's logic to believe this, again you are asking “skeptics” to prove it is not true, without providing any proof it is true – god argument again.

Try harder! Don't just read stuff by fanatics who make their living from selling their ideas without questioning it, read other stuff as well, counter arguments help you learn.

dear kulu
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

>>''the sum over all man-made greenhouse gases, weighted by their global warming potential over the next 100 years.

This consists of 72% carbon dioxide, 18% methane, 9% nitrous oxide and 1% other gases.

Lower panels show the comparable information for each of these three primary greenhouse gases, with the same coloring of sectors as used in the top chart.<<

Segments with less than 1% fraction are not labeled''
[but clearly there are 7 unnamed gasses
what is their potency
[not end post point re methane]

from
http://21cvision.blogspot.com/2008/08/global-warming-greenhouse-gas.html
>>Greenhouse gases are essential to maintaining the temperature of the Earth; without them the planet would be so cold as to be uninhabitable.
However, an excess of greenhouse gases can raise the temperature of a planet to lethal levels, as on Venus where the 90 bar partial pressure of carbon dioxide (CO2) contributes to a surface temperature of about 467 °C (872 °F).<<

[note use of 'greenhouse gases
[then full focus anmd blame upon co2

continued>>Greenhouse gases are produced by many natural and industrial processes, which currently result in CO2 levels of 380 ppmv in the atmosphere.

The most important greenhouse gases are:

* water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
* carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
* methane, which causes 4–9%
* ozone, which causes 3–7%...<<

note the co2 top =72 percent co2
note bottum
9-26 %
so which one is true?

how many breen house gasses are WORSE than co2?

taking the lower number see the space between 4-9%
[times 10 because it is 10 times worse than co2

then 40 to 90 % is caused by methane
[from back yard compost bins and doggie doo]

The flat earther stuff is funny. They obviously don't use GPS to get to their meetings. I imagine they are a bunch of quirky British aristocrats having a bit of a laugh. On the other hand, the Gaia stuff sounds really kooky, like something from the pen of L.Ron Hubbard.

Climate change happens all the time.

This planet goes through a natural cycle of climate change, from summer to winter every year.

The climate has changed on this planet, even before the advent of us mere mortals.