$4 Million for Climate Change research

That's what we are discussing yes, and my point is no-one should stop research with looks outside mainstream understanding. Regarding volcanic activity, it was in response to the prior poster and I was pointing out the variability of natural process and how important it is to increase Earth Science broadly to all possible influences (such as undersea volcanic activity for example) and not focus on building a specific case either way. You might not have noticed, but scientists tend to flock to the mainstream a little when it becomes a good career move - but its bad science. To limit science to a specific view or approach, by reactions such as in the UWA, is the antithesis of real science, hence my posting.

 

Lots of articles on how the money influences the science. Of course you are going to see a lot more papers on CO2 centric warming. That is where all the money is and with the current politically driven consensus science, one dare not step outside the mainstream or employment and publication are almost impossible.

 

Please tell me how Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide on a planetary scale of - 1.1% could be causing all these new extreme weather events, or causing climate change?

Do you logically think 1.1% out of 100% would be considered a dangerous percentage, or an irresponsible percentage. Considering there is 98.9% left unaccounted for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_to_global_warming_by_Australia

Surely you can see past the smoke 'n' mirrors, and realise something doesn't add-up?

I hope you realise that this climate scan is designed to lead to an air tax in the future that every human being will have to pay? Courtesy of the mongrels in the UN

Like a $200.00 air tax per year? You do understand this is what that are trying to do to get additional tax money from the people? Scare the hell out of them through nonsense, and then tax them.

 

So are you saying we should lean back and do nothing, because your 1.1% number is too small to ad things up?
Sit back and do nothing like our current government?
Regards

 

A) because it is cumulative - it is 1% PER YEAR - which is still not carbon neutral
b) of all the countries we are probably in a good position to go carbon neutral
c) that carbon footprint is higher than most other countries because the carbon emission versus population ratio is so high
d) 1% Does not take into account import/export, It does not count if China is doing the polluting so we can have cheaper patio furniture

As for the rest of the rave

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Human activity contributes .28% to the total greenhouse effect.

Australia contributes 1.3% of the total human contributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions

So Ausrtralia is responsible for 1.3% of .28% which is 0.0000364% of the totl greenhouse effect.

 

Yeap,
AM, sit back and relax and do nothing, good on you.
So many zeros, you think you got that right?
Regards

 

We don't do nothing. We do more than most people to reduce pollution. We have a solar system on our house which generates more power than we use. So not only are we not responsible for ANY co2 from coal fired power stations we actually reduce their emmissions buy supplying green energy. We grow most of our own fruit and vegetables, all our own eggs and most of our own meat. So we do not support the terribly polluting international food trade which flys and ships food around the world and we do not posion the soil and environment with chemicals.
And yep, those numbers are right. Australia's contribution is tiny. There is nothing we can do in Australia that would have any affect on the climate.

 

Wow,
so in your heart you are a Greene !!!! Good on you.....

But I don't agree on your last sentence: There is nothing we can do in Australia that would have any affect on the climate.
There is heaps we can do, and happy to learn you are a Greene, so you can teach others....

Cheerio

 

Wonder why people never quote NASA, their research is unchallenged, and their video is great to watch?

 

I know people who believe mankind has never been on the moon, all fake. Nasa, who is that?
Regards

 

So, I condered where you got the .28% - it is a BLOG and and a badly dated one at that - now 8 years old - going to keep using it until it leaves high school??

The advantage to me of course is that there is so much out there that challenges this site and proves how ridiculous the claims are - but if you do not want to go there yourself just consider IF it has passed test 1 and 2 of the "Is there any science" test? Point 1 - has it got any academic credentials - NOPE! Point 2 Does it have valid references - NOPE

 

Bjorn Lomborg: The Honor Of Being Mugged By Climate Censors

 

Lomborg would be pissed - he just got caught trying to stick his trotters in a big gravy boat courtesy of the Abbott government, There is no way he is going to admit he was rejected because of LACK OF CREDENTIALS

And is this not the epitome of "freedom of speech" that we, the people can reject a government mandate? (and we managed it without guns - woulda thought)

But seems Australia is not the only country to pull funding from Lomborg

But there is more to this

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...abbott-government-claims-20150423-1mqfnn.html

Bottom line is that this stinks and has from day one, of bullying. Of doing EXACTLY what many denialists have claimed that governments have been doing for years - buying opinions that they want

 

Bb,
you nailed it. well done.

H8,
the Abbott government can only survive as long as they create fear and/or talk things bad.
To ask a well known international figure (a real denialist of cc) to overview and conduct future findings is laughable, if not corrupt.

Regards

 

You are right, there is no room for a voice of reason in the climate madness.

- - - Updated - - -

Except for one thing, Lomborg is not a denialist. That seems to be the label for anyone that questions the wisdom of radical changes that will do more harm than good or at least be infective and a waste of limited resources. Are you aware of what Lomborg does?

 

Har har har! true to alarmist form. When someone or something questions the AGW Church doctrines, don't dispute the message, shoot the messenger instead. Go back and read the definition of Group Think I posted earlier.

 

The Church of AGW must really hate this site.

http://www.co2web.info/

 

That view is certainly very conservative, and neutral (?), to say the least....:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg

I honestly don't care how much or how little of climate change/global warming is caused by humans, but I do believe we need to do as much as we can, trying to keep a lid on things.
Lomborg appears to want it his way, in line with our current government.

Regards

 

Doing what is the most cost effective is what needs to be done. That which gives the most bang for the buck in a world with limited resources. That is what Lomborg's group calculates but nothing can get in the way of the environmentalists hysteria, not even common sense.

 

A man once saw an elephant and spent his life denying it existed!

 

The alarmism even before the new CO2 mania.

 

Silly boy, don't you know the warrming of the artic back in1922 was just a 'local' event unlike the warming in 2012 which was a global event and proof of agw. The Church of AGW has been very quite about all the ice returning and the now record level of ice in the anarctic.

 

Trends versus singular events

Blogs versus academically referenced and researched outcomes

Which is more accurate?

 

It's a blog

What is a blog - an opinion of sum bloke that has been uploaded (won't even refer to it as publishing) onto a website somewhere

Tell me - how is this more accurate than the classical

"Sum bloke in da pub who talked like dis tol' me dat waz what it waz"