A lot of European countries seem to value reason and education highly. Sometimes I need to remind myself that we ain’t like that down in these here parts.
They have had the foresight to diversify their export portfolio. Russia, Poland and Holland all export coal. They are just smart enough nations now to know it’s a dying commodity. You could argue if they had more coal they’d export it more, but at least in Holland’s case their GDP per capita is better than ours without it.
Foresight has never been Australia’s strong suit
We are indeed very selfish. We are a bunch of NIMBY’s. People hear or read about the nature of climate change and its like, it has nothing whatever to do with me or my country. Australia is a large polluter and the Pacific Nations are now starting to complain about us and making the environment worse for them. I don’t know that our Government is listening.
I was speaking about the water crisis in Australia to some one the other day and this person said, “That’s bllshit, our Government wouldn’t stand for people sabotaging the water from the river’s.” I said its already happened. They were absolutely staggered. I said, you have no idea how doing this is going to affect our farmers and everyone. Farmers need water to produce food for the nation. This effects everyone, everyone who wants to keep eating. People must walk around with their heads up their backsides.
Simply by allowing this to happen has set a precedent. I cannot believe the Government pretended not to know and stood by and did nothing. Whoever these people are would have needed permit to build these huge dams. Who is going to buy their water now and at what cost?
PLEASE NAME THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD THE BIG DAMS TO HOLD THE WATER FROM THE RIVER WITHOUT PUMPING RIGHTS? WHO KNEW AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? Someone ought to hang the baskets! Everything reliant on the river without water will die. There needs to be massive rainfall to save the river. This was a treasonous act.
Could you clear me up on this statement, from the way your post reads you are saying only 3% is natural which is 12.5 ppm.
All life on earth ceases at levels below 150 ppm.
I can clear it up for you.
Stating that ‘97% of CO2 is natural’ is incorrect, is not stating that 3% of CO2 is natural.
I don’t see how you read it that way at all.
Edit: And if CO2 levels have increased by 25% in seventy years and are at levels not seen for three million years, and that was mostly natural, wouldn’t that be truly extraordinary?
If you accepted those figures (and I’m not saying you do or don’t), and you thought it was natural then you’d need to present some pretty unbelievably compelling evidence to back that up.
As wim says, you are misreading me. It was werewolf who was claiming that 97% of atmospheric co2 is natural. I was pointing out that this is utter malevolent fiction, since co2 levels have risen from 280 parts per million in 1800 to 300ppm in 1950 to 415ppm last week, and (spoiler alert) this number entirely tracks the massive increase in fossil fuel consumption over that time, and that there is no alternative natural explanation.
Well, yes. I might have said Average Australian Joe, but were not alone despite being put to shame by some in Europe. You’re moving to the US, aren’t you? No shortage of stupid selfish morons there.
Moving my business there, but I think I will live just above Auckland for 6 months and in Hoi An for the other six months.
Don’t tell Mrs Fox, as I have not shared the plans we her yet.
She’ll find you eventually. They always do.
Now I know why you can’t read a graph
Mrs Fox will be happy to live in those place, she is too busy buying things in Europe at present to care.
I am still trying to find a paper written about 1972 by I can recall was written by Willie Soon that had the calculations done by Michael Mann.
He said the maximum temperature increase from any concentration of CO2 was between 1.5 and 2.0. Degrees.
I wil try to find it.
Mind you this was a a time when scientists were whipping up a frenzy over climate change (the coming Ice Age type)
I’m not an expert on the maximum heating capacity of CO2, but given it was written 47 years ago I assume it’s a well respected piece of work to have stood for so long.
But I assume that whether CO2 has an upper limit on heating capacity regardless of concentration is a testable, and therefore tested, thing.
The ability to properly test these assumptions is a very good question. The earth is such a complicated entity and that makes it very challenging. And what exactly do you test for? Temperature? Rainfall? Winds? Ocean temperatures? Vegetation growth? Cloud formation? etc etc
So long as you also look up every paper since then that examines whether his conclusions are valid or not. 1972 was a long time ago, and we know MUCH more about climate than we did back then.
Nice that you’ve finally accepted that co2 causes global temperature increases though.
Have to lol at 1972, … that’s just so sorfed, level/era thinking.
Oh, by the way, a quick google tells me that Willie Soon got his PhD (in aerospace engineering, not anything to do with climate, by the way) in 1991. Assuming he was around 25 years old then, he must have written this paper when he was aged about 6. Anyway, it’s impressive that he’s writing revolutionary climate change papers 13 years before even getting his Bachelor’s degree (in 1985…)