mhaze,

Good to see you, like Finkel, agree that activity by Australian's is having an impact on the Earths climate, and as individuals, or as a nation our contribution is relatively small VIRTUALLY nothing, I agree. Well the figure can't be "immeasurable", now can it as you quote Finkel's figure of 1.3%. Your out is the use of that word VIRTUALLY, which doesn't mean zero at all, it implies the measurement is quantitative, which it is. If Australia's contribution was measurably zero, yes a big fat "0", nothing, zilch, couldn't be less, non existent, etc etc, then I would agree with you, Australia would have to do nothing to reduce its contribution to climate change. But since its not zilch, zero, nothing, 0,0,0 naught etc etc, and as you have indicated it is something then we have to do something about it. Agree?

If Australia's contribution is VIRTUALLY nothing, then there are about 200 other countries who could claim the same thing. Big population countries like China and India could use their people numbers to say their contribution is VIRTUALLY nothing. See using your reasoning no one would have to do anything, jack sh!t in fact, with that reasoning of VIRTUALLY nothing.

Paul,
You're getting confused (again). The level of emission is measurable but, if those levels were reduced to zero, the change in temperature of theoretically 0.007c would be immeasurable by the temperature gauges currently in use. Or to put it another way, 0.007c falls well within the margin of error of the gauges.

"Big population countries like China and India could use their people numbers to say their contribution is VIRTUALLY nothing. "

Could say that AND do say that. China and India and a whole bunch of other nations have basically refused to play this silly net zero game. Only virtue signalling nations like us are making the claim that we will get to net zero. Of course, we won't get there but plenty of pain will be spread around in the meantime and plenty of wealth will be diverted to people you, via your ideology, would normally despise.

Couldn't help but notice that you decided to drop the whole malarkey about increased deaths due to warming....wise move.

mhaze,

"whole malarkey about increased deaths due to warming" 110 DEAD in Hawaiian wild fires! Now that's not malarkey! Your 'Ostrich Approach' to climate change is understandable, there is a cost due the impact of CC, although visible now, generally its not impacting people like you and me to a great extent, insurance up 30%, well we can live with that can't we.

Glad you are not using the word immeasurable, relying on a 5 year old report using the James Bond number 007, well not for me. AND you have dropped that weasel word "virtually"

p/s Being a devout Trumpster, why the Old Joe word "malarkey" (how American) shouldn't you be using FAKE NEWS, FAKE NEWS, like Danerous Doctor Donald does?

Paul,

110 dead in Hawaii. Well has it been proven this was caused by climate change? Or is every disaster these days caused by climate change in the minds of the alarmists? After all, there were never forest fires before the rise of the dreaded CO2. </sarc>

I can see the nature of climate change and the effects of a purported net zero eludes you. Just one last time.... the alarmist community can use their climate models to see what would happen if Australia got to net zero. This is all theory based on models that have yet to be verified. Still, based on these theoretic models, the effect of Australia going net zero would be a reduction in world temperatures in 2100 of 0.007c. But, in the real world (and you should join us one day) such a decline would be immeasurable by current technology. If you look up, you'll see the logic of that going over your head.

"110 dead in Hawaii."

Well it turns out it was caused by man....but not in the way your standard alarmist 'thinks'.

Poor maintenance of the power lines which then resulted in the lines causing sparks that caused the fires.

Warnings in the past that the areas that ultimately burned were in danger of catastrophic fires which were ignored. Recommendations as to how to reduce the risks, ignored.

But the classic... the chap in charge of the water resources thought the water was sacred and shouldn't be used for mundane things like putting out fires. So he refused to release the water resources to fight the fire while it was still fightable!!

Until a time when the adults are back in charge, we're screwed.

mhaze,

You have no understanding of climate change, and the part human activity is playing in exacerbating that change, you simply see it all as severe weather phenomena. Well you probably do know, but for selfish reasons you choose to ignore the reality. The science is unequivocal, and the juries not out, it along with the rest of the court, has well and truly gone home, the judge has past sentence; "Do something about human induced climate change, or suffer the diabolical consequences of inaction!"

In the case of the unprecedented Hawaiian wild firers that have claimed the lives of at least 111 people. Unless you believe in spontaneous combustion, there must have been a cause of ignition in the first instance, either natural, for example lightning, or through human activity, such as fallen power lines. The climatic conditions were so out of the ordinary that it only took a spark to cause this catastrophic event. This is not unusual, now more than previously, disasters as a result of human induced climate change, are happening with monotonous regularity all over the planet.

Now forget human induced climate change, lets debate your other belief, that the Earth is flat!