I foolishly thought that it would give a bit of an airing to the fact that anthropogenic climate change hasn't been proven.
I'm not going to bother, it's Believers complaining that Rudd hasn't gone far enough and that industry has been lobbying the government to water down their carbon reduction scheme...
And it has the obligatory references to the recent fire events in Victoria and the connection with carbon pollution...
I can't watch this shit.
The transcript and vodcast should be here later tonight, if you can stomach it.
Kev's giving the end of the world as we know it speech to the UN. Arrgh.
18 comments:
The fires in Victoria, during a single weekend, emitted the equivalent of a year's worth of carbons for the whole of Australia.
Proof, if ever needed, of how asinine are the emission and climate "reversal" goals.
Will the eggs be unscrambled when AGW is exposed as a false hypothesis?
My bet is it will be too hard.
And the more money they extract from unwitting dupes the harder it will be to unscramble.
Some day, off in the future, someone, somewhere, is going to have to put their hand up and admit that hundreds of trillions of dollars have been pissed up against a wall, with not a single life saved, and that "we" were woefully wrong in "our" goals.
Then that person, and all their friends, will be made to sit in a corner and write "I'm sorry for being a fucktard" a million times.
That time is not now.
It will come.
OK Caz
Now you've made me sad.
Not yet.
I foolishly thought that it would give a bit of an airing to the fact that anthropogenic climate change hasn't been proven.
I didn't but I forced myself to watch it so that I can understand the politics of the loony left. It's important for my consulting work.
There was one interesting moment. From the transcript:
MITCH HOOKE, MINERALS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA: Five per cent is the equivalent on a business as usual cut, so 5 per cent cut by 2020 is the equivalent of taking 250-million tonnes of emissions out of the system.
That is the equivalent, not that it'll ever happen, of moving to a candles economy, riding horses. You've got to shut down your transport sector and your power generation. That's, that's the magnitude of the challenge.
LIZ JACKSON: It's been put to us that the, the five per cent, the unconditional five per cent, is the equivalent of taking out 250-million tonnes of emission and that's the equivalent of shutting down our transport section and our power generators, is that true?
PROFESSOR ROSS GARNAUT: Nope.
FRANK JOTZO, ECONOMIST, AUST. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY: (Laughs) You don't have to do these things. Of course you would not achieve these cuts by taking all cars off the road, or taking or switching off the electricity system. It would be a response that goes throughout the economy, that starts with greater efficiency in the way we use energy, that starts with more efficient cars, that starts with lower greenhouse gas sources of electricity, that just goes through the whole economy.
The look on Garnaut's face as well as Jotzo's laugh says it all. These economists do not have a clue. But never mind, if the mad scheme does go ahead they will eventually learn that the technologies do not exist to bring about the changes they are seeking. And unless someone can come up with new laws of Physics, the new technologies and efficiencies will not appear. It will be a pity about that.
Yeah, but Wand, who are the bunnies who will be paying for this crock of warm vomit?
Will the eggs be unscrambled when AGW is exposed as a false hypothesis?
A good question kae. I've made the suggestion to some of my business colleagues that part of the lobbying against this mad scheme should be that business will keep detailed records of the damage that the scheme does and be ready to swiftly seek damages and compensation from government when it is shown to be a scam.
Furthermore business would most likely seek damages at an individual level from senior bureaucrats complicit in the scam.
It would dwarf the Pan Pharmaceuticals class action.
Kae,
Yeah, but Wand, who are the bunnies who will be paying for this crock of warm vomit?
Easy - the end user of course. Any cost imposed on businesses will and must be passed on. So the one who pays is at the end of the line.
And if a business cannot pass the increased costs on and cannot absorb them it goes out of business.
(hey the characters for verification were shiltled - pretty much akin to shitload)
Shitload, shitstorm.. it's all the same to Kevin.
He can make them, but not clean them up.
Shitload, shitstorm.. it's all the same to Kevin.
He can make them, but not clean them up.
He sure can. And just putting the "Heat on the Hill" into a current context: Norway weathers snow, ice and sub-zero temperatures. And from this story: "Several weeks ago, around 40cm fell over a Sunday night. Even for Oslo this was a lot; my 70-year-old neighbour told me it was the most snow he had ever seen in the shortest period of time."
WWKS? (What would Kevni say?)
The 70 year old must be mistake of course. Hasn't he been told the world is getting hotter?
Let's never ever forget that 5% reduction by 2020 is 5% of 1.5% of the world's emissions.
Feeling utterly stupid yet?
Don't worry, you will.
Ah, Caz, and the world's emissions of CO2 (anthropogenic) are what percentage of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?
Ah, Caz, and the world's emissions of CO2 (anthropogenic) are what percentage of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?
Let me jump in here - all that information may be found here. Picking out the answers to your question: Total CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.038% having increased from about 0.028% pre industrial revolution. However, from what I have read CO2 is spread unevenly through the atmosphere but that’s another story.
Now within that 0.038%, “Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural.”
That equates to 0.001292% of the atmosphere. Australia’s emissions are about 1.5% of the the world so Our ETS will try to control 0.000019% of the world’s atmosphere! What a deal!!
And thousands of jobs will be lost in the attempt that ultimately will prove futile.
But never mind, I’m sure Kenvi747 has a plan and that would be to print more money if necessary which could look something like this. And the end result is pretty well going to be something like this. Hang on that’s the USA's story - oh WTF, Australia’s story is not likely to be much different because we are going down the same path.
You might be missing some zeros there, carbons are measured in parts per MILLION.
So, will an increase in a minor trace gas that is a 0.00038 (380 parts per million) part of the atmosphere, to, say, 0 .00048 (480 ppm. ) part of the atmosphere, cause runaway global warming?"
Take your best shot. Yes or no.
I don't think that PPM and percentages are interchangable.
The government says it will decrease emissions by 5%. Five percent of Australia's emissions is how much, in percentage, of the emissions of the world which is how much, in percentage, of the total percentage of the atmosphere which is made up of CO2?
I don't know why I'm bothering with this crap, because we know it's all bull.
Penny Wong and her "carbon pollution" needs a big wake-up call. I want to see her backpedal, and I want to see the eggs unscrambled.
Caz
No I'm not missing any zeros - I was talking in percentages. 380 ppm = .00038 of the atmosphere = 0.038%.
No need to take any best shot. The answer is no but the real questions should be can a trace gas increasing from 0.038% to 0.048% of the atmosphere of which human beings can claim responsibility for 3.4% cause runaway global warming? If so, would limiting part of the 3.4% make any difference?
Of course the answers are no, but the Eco warriors will soldier on.
That's another of their problems Kae, carbon is NOT a pollution, it's essential for life.
Caz, I think the branding of it as "Carbon Pollution" was a marketing ploy.
People thinking they're saving the world from poison, pollution, plastic bags and so on would grab onto the notion that CO2 (which is a gas which is quite natural in miniscule amounts in the earth's atmosphere), is something that they must reduce because they've been programmed not to pollute and to save the world and so on.
It's a shame the fools can't see that they've been conned.
Post a Comment