Thank you runner.

HASBEEN,
The Garnaut report predicted 2019 spot on, discussing statistically drier, hotter weather, but not *predicting* when that weather would fall across 2019 - because exactly when is not climate, but weather. See the difference?

Again, look up:

Keywords for climate Deniers to read in the dictionary:
WEATHER,
CLIMATE,
RECORD AS IN ‘RECORD DROUGHT 2019’, and of course
MYOPIC as in ‘He was myopic and thought his Shire portrayed the world.’

"The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis."

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/report-us-led-all-countries-reducing-co2-emissions-2019

If you don't support fracking, you aren't serious about emission reductions.

Runner & Mr Opinion,
I live in Sydney's bible belt, and most of the Christians I know are Theistic Evolutionists. There's simply no reason for Runner to fear evolution or old earth sciences like climatology. There is a long history of recognising that early Genesis Chapters 1 to 11 was written as a borrowing Ancient Middle Eastern cosmology as metaphor for making theological statements, not literal ones. It’s a theological polemic, correcting the theology of surrounding creation narratives. EG: Genesis 1 contains the theological bombshell that God made the stars to tell us the seasons and basically serve *us*, and not us to serve the stars! Keep in mind that the Jewish thinker Philo read early Genesis as literary, not literal, and that was 2000 years ago.

Reading Genesis literally is a modern American (and Queensland) fad. Many of Darwin's friends were Anglican Reverends, and they encouraged him to publish “On the origin of species”. http://www.publicchristianity.org/the-history-of-creationism/

Trashing Genesis by appealing to *science* is simply missing the genre. It's a category mistake, like debunking Shakespeare with appeals to cosmology. For example, if you read, "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun!" hopefully you don't react "Boo! Boo! Juliette is *not* a giant ball of fusing hydrogen!"

Dr John Dickson, Phd in history and theology, explains further.
"To put it starkly but no less accurately, even if science ended up proving that the universe was created in six days around 6000 year ago, this happy correspondence between the scientific data and the surface structure of Genesis 1 would not affect my interpretation of the text at all. I would still insist that the opening chapter of the Bible does not aim to teach a particular cosmic chronology and that to suggest otherwise misconstrues the author’s original intention."
http://www.iscast.org/node/268

mhaze,

After you have posted your comments do you take a minute out to pray and thank God for his guidance? Because we all know that you are a deeply religious man.

MHAZE,

We can do vastly better than fracking! That's just enhanced oil recovery, and as we have already seen oil is finite and about to peak.

Nuclear + EV's = ZERO emission energy sector.

(When I say Electric Vehicles above as well as cars I also have in mind trains and trams and electrically derived oil alternatives like the synfuels in e-diesel, etc. If it's not running on a battery, it's running on nuclear or renewable derived synthetic e-fuel that we manufactured from clean energy.)

Yup. Pretty much zero, even from the embedded energy in the energy infrastructure capital hardware! When we replace the diesel used to mine stuff with e-diesel, and the coking coal with hydrogen as reductant, we can have pretty much CO2 neutral manufacturing. There are even proposals for CO2 negative concrete using seaweed in the chemical processes of manufacturing concrete. (See Tim Flannery's "Can seaweed save the world?")
http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/saving-the-oceans/