(Continued)

The average Australian voter can see through the nonsense science offered up by the ALP. They can see that it is a n excuse, a ruse to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor nations and they think it is madness to send money to Colonel Gadhafi and to Robert Mugabe (in Copenhagen, 2009).

Of course the Minister for Energy, Combet, has twice mentioned in addresses to the National Press Club that an important part of the CO2 Tax is to redress the wealth imbalance. At least he is honest!

I enjoy your posts Belly, but you are living in fairy-land if you think enough Liberals believe in the Carbon Tax to force a change in leadership in the Liberal Party.

Regards, Geoffrey Kelley

Belly,

Geoffrey Kelly says:

“scientists” you believe in say it is caused by human activity burning fossil fuel."

Another deliberate lie by a political ideologue or an inadvertent misrepresentation to what the scientists actually say - take your pick.

What the science says is:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-spm-3.html

Belly, Mr Kelly has got blinkers on (but so do you).

qanda,

Here we go again. You claim to be an environmental scientist, but you continually misrepresent what I say. The graph you show is under the heading, “Global anthropogenic GHG emissions“. The graphs you present show the contributions to the environment of GHGs and group deforestation in with the detritus industry. The detritus industry is that part of the biomass that breaks down dead and dying vegetable and animal matter. It is the insects, molds, etc. that exist on the floor of the ecosystem. It is hard at work in our back yards and lawns, paddocks and woodlands, forests and beaches. It is immense compared to the husbandry of domestic animals. The IPCC 2007 report shows that forestry is responsible for the equivalent of 17.3% of the anthropogenic CO2 production.

Qanda, perhaps you can educate us here? Does this 17.3% contribution from forestry only apply to the detritus industry resulting from the wastage from the forestry? If so, can you show Belly and me the contribution of all the anthropogenic CO2 as a percentage of all the natural CO2 entering the atmosphere each year? For instance, CO2 is released from volcanoes, both on land and under the sea; it is also released all over the world from bushfires. It is also released from the beasts of the fields, the birds and especially from the insects.

Given that you measure the resultant CO2 levels in the atmosphere, how much is actually due to man?

But all the above pales into insignificance when you consider that I was actually referring to the deforestation of the rainforest that has been carried out on a massive scale over the last 60 years and the resultant lack of vegetation (reduction of the capacity of the lungs of the earth to convert CO2 to oxygen!)

Belly, qanda is the one wearing blinkers! He cannot follow the arguments and leaps in with irrelevant data. If he was a scientist he would be able to follow the argument and not get confused. Furthermore he would produce data that is relevant to the discussion.

Geoffrey Kelley

No Geoffrey, there you go again.

You say scientists “say it (GW) is caused by human activity burning fossil fuel.”

I showed you the part you (deliberately) left out, including land use management practices.

You say I “claim to be an environmental scientist.”

Please Geoffrey, refresh my memory – where and when did I claim that?

From your last post, it appears you haven’t even read the AR4 report on ‘attribution’.

Really Geoffrey, it is not that hard – or would you prefer to wait for AR5?

As to providing stuff irrelevant to the discussion, you are the one talking detritus.

--

Belly,

‘Climate change’ has been politicised – it’s not about the science anymore, it’s been contaminated by political ideologues.

qanda please explain?
GK do not bother to try, but thanks for the grin.
I am a believer, but base my thoughts on science.
This morning either goggle news or SMH has a related story.
GK and others will discard it, comes from Australia's top climate scientists/fraudsters [according to non believers].
And adds to the list I created, Had thought about it but slipped my lay mans mind.
Says our climate has already changed, and in some places for the better.
There is a truth, some parts of our country and the world, will be better others far worse.
Near daily, but say weekly, subjects like that appear in print.
Can we agree while not every one, some folk are clearly wrong?
I see a few here who impose personal bias on the subject, and refuse to look at the science.

Shadow
The funding for Victorian hospitals is around the $4000 million mark
accepting the claim that hospital energy costs have increased by $6.7 million (dubious), it means that the net extra cost to Vic hospitals is 0.17%. The labor government claim they will increase funding to cover this short fall, anyway in the scheme of things this is not a significant amount.

This is just another example of spin without substance lets quote large scary figures to fit our agenda. Sometimes politicians take the general public for fools.

The aluminium industry in this country has enjoyed some massive subsidies, and now they are winging because they might have to pay a small amount extra for electricity. In any event bauxite (aluminium ore) can be converted to aluminium at a lower monetary and environmental cost in parts of Africa and Iceland where they have cheap renewable energy. In this case let the market decide