please think more clearly
your too emotional
these 'facts' mate its spin

but lets continue eh?

fertilisers and other polutants
like sand/underrwater mining..and dumping poisen into oceans

BUT Mate...we are only taxing c02

so what...?

..are we going to change agriculture
monoculture..stop deforrestation..
tax polutive mining..no we are taxing air

[not water polution]

""sea surface temperatures,..""
i will let grayham refute that data set

""ocean heat,""

a buzzword
we got ice in oceans[recall the drowing polar bears..lol]
recall the ice last year at the poles actually got thicker

""and ocean circulation""

ahhhh now your talking
cold fresh ice melt water sinks
so this proves what?

""have all been changing in ways
unseen for thousands of years.""

well as you know time and tide wait for ono-one
the oceanic current is like a train
WHERE IS YOUR DATA..that indicates its stoped or warmed?

""Arctic sea ice melted significantly more
during summers in the last 30 years,..""

yet last year the ice thickness doubled

go figure eh?

""and storms are intensifying.""

please give some proof
see man funnels storm runoff into water cources
and with deforrestation and such..the peons in flood planes
cop a rush of water..instead of the trickle

we would get if we wernt busy building mono culture..palm oil/soy..or 'carbon traps'..by clearfelling old carbon reserves

""Flood assessment,""

oh good you got an assesment of the data sets
WHERE IS IT?

""duration,..frequency and forecasting.""

forcasting data sets and only presenting spin mate
how is that working out for ya

forcasting aint data

""Observation and computing technologies
upon material basic hydrologic science.""

present data

""Such as computer modelling,""

a model is bling

""assessing intensity of weather events.""

dont tempt me by using big words
ned i spell it out?

""Current
and forecast""

having a bob each way?

""trends in sea-ice
predictions made back in the 70's and 80's
have been proven correct...Unfortunately.

im noting the date stamp says 2007?

""Changes in vegetation spread,""

yes man done that
but not c02

""early event flowering,
extinction of indigenous vegetation""

mate the old people
let the event..ie the flowering
lead them...like wattle flowerrs mean its time to fish for mullet

please verify that flowers allways flower by time
not rain..or temp

you infure..its ""due to warming""

as well due to"",animal migration.""

yes nothing like being on a sure whinner

a bob each way?

[Deleted for abuse.]

Eclipse Now

Hoping you kept a copy of your post.

Back to topic.

BP is one of the few fossil corporations to be actively engaged in alternative fuel sources. Why?

Glad you asked.

Because they accept that 97% of the world's climatologists and related scientists are correct that the releasing of previously contained carbon deposits (oil, coal, gas) adds significant effect of CO2 to the current world atmosphere. If it is difficult to understand just consider that only a small percentage of virus can make you very ill indeed.

"The Context for BP’s Break with the Industry

On May 19, 1997 John Browne, British Petroleum's Group Chief Executive, broke with the oil industry's position on greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change with these words.

"There's a lot of noise in the data. It is hard to isolate cause and effect. But there is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature. The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point."

In this speech at Stanford University Browne acknowledged BP's role in contributing to greenhouse gases and announced a strategy for reducing such emissions across the worldwide operations of the company. "

http://indigodev.com/BPclim.html

BP is also a contributor to the documentary aired 16th August in SBS, "Power Surge".

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/fear-greed-real-energy-challenge

For those who missed it, can be watched online at SBS.

http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/powersurge

Another fact to consider is the response by the Insurance Industry to climate change:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5949991.ece

Am emailing copy of this post to other OLO posters.

Ammonite:"Am emailing copy of this post to other OLO posters."

Translation: "please suspend me, I want to be a victim too"

LOL

amholdingontight quoted john brown
lets read between the lines

"""There's a lot of noise in the data.""

we as multi-billionairs
have requested the best scientists
to egsamin the data..the SAY...'there is a lot of noise"

which is science speak..for the numbers are all over the place
and only someone ignorant of the meaning of concensus..would dare conclude anything based on them

BECAUSE..""It is hard to isolate cause and effect.""

of course that gets compounded by special intrests...lobbying for a new tax SUBSIDY..[the waters are too muddy to call it one way or the other

we can measure temp
we can measure if its getting hotter todaty than it was yesterday
but basiclly to blame one grenhouse gas as its ONLY cause would be insane

never the less our many shareholders..have swallowed the coolaid

so depite the data beibng gibberish
[scientificly speaking]outside lobby and inside lobby
tell us

""..BUT*"..""there is now an effective consensus""

consensus is not based on science
[because science is about testing..retesting..allways doudting]
first we must STATE a faulsifyable[that if refuted refutes the hypothesis]

but no hypothesis jumps out of the numbers
"""There's a lot of noise..*in the data.

It is hard to isolate cause
and effect."".!*!

'"But there is now
an *effective consensus""

not an absolute consensus

""among the world's leading scientists""
in the new art of climate changing..and accounting and spin

IE..""and serious and well informed people
..outside the scientific community"""

to wit the mass of biologists getting in on the copn
and the economists..pushing the case of DO IT NOW
cause addopting early means we get heaps of work
figguring out FORMULAS to bill people

WHERE ARE YOUR Formulas..that say your CREATING this much c02
to create this much c02...[its known poor combustion cycles dont burn as hot..so this makes MORE or LESS c02]

thing is
its a guessti/mate..!