A very simplistic approach is trees. Abbott is very simplistic too.
Carbon to be available it has to be at ground level not floating around in heaven.
More fake news needs to be studied to come up with at least some sort of believable antidote. You will just have to live with alternate power supplies as coal is near dead.

Dear NNS,

You write; I'm just waiting until the realization that global warming is actually just localized warming due to something they called the "island heat effect”.

Really? Mate, after all that you have read on the topic including discussions on this very forum you have gone and retreated to that rubbish? Even some of the most ardent sceptics have trotted out that line in nearly a decade.

Me, I'm just waiting until the realisation that global warming is due to the excess CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is finally accepted by the little band of hold outs who serve to amuse and bewilder the rest of us.

I realise to do so will severely impact your world order so we need to be ready to extend compassion to those who will inevitably struggle.

All the best.

If you keep repeating that garbage often enough SR you might actually convince yourself it is true.

Hasbeen you old chocolate, you must have a hell of a lot of money tied up in the fossil fuel industry because it is so obvious that you are really shite-scared of AGW and its consequential climate change of being a reality.

You gotta give it to old Hassy, if nothing else he is persistent at claiming global warming is a scam. Not long back he had irrefutable evidence the plant was cooling not warming. Hassy's claim was based on some sort of nonsense, was it something to do with his geraniums dropping their petals early, or was it based on his 97 year old neighbour up the road who has kept records for the last 175 years of his chooks laying, not sure what it was, but like this one, it was another one of his ridiculous claims about GW.

To Steele Redux.

The heart of the global warming and the climate change (and whatever term is used next for the same thing) is whether the science behind it is trustworthy, if the observations are accurate, and if the pridictions for the future are accurate.

The science element is foggy at best when it becomes a social movement to blame anything and everything on climate change, including the fires in Austrilia, instead of looking for what can be done about reducing the risk of fire by managing the land or the resources better. Nonetheless the science about it talks about how CO2 increases heat. The way that's shown (from a link posted on OLO) is to record a tempature of two isolated enviornments one with a huge amount of CO2 pumped into it. And the other without.

This experiment is not a good representation of the world we live in and that can be discovered by just streight observations of the world around us. Islands have not disappeared. The rates of ice melt from the poles are one month loudly stated, and then quietly if a person is interested in the enviornment a quieter article later talks about the observation of ice sheets reforming. The observations around the "science" is doggy at best, and aimed at trying to scare the public for one more decade, before another alarming emergancy is put on the stage again.

(Continued)