Seebob

The Australian Government is about to announce a carbon tax,in response to growing demands to act on Climate Change and reduce carbon emissions.

The coal industry in Australia is concerned that this tax on their business can lead to job loses,mine closures and reduced investment,

But...the Prime Minister,Julia Gillard, has assured them...

"I am absolutely confident the coal industry has got a fantastic future in this nation - a future of growing jobs with $70 billion of investment in the coming pipeline."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/06/3262...

Australia is the world's leading exporter of coal.

If the coal industry has this "fantastic future",surely that means that Australia will export MORE ,polluting, climate changing coal,releasing ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Of course it will be our developing economy trading partners doing the polluting..not Australia

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of Australia espousing the evil of coal and it's CO2, taxing it's output to appease the climate change adherents,and shipping this "pollutant" overseas for others to pollute the atmosphere?

Could their cynicism be any more transparent?

warming must be fake" questions?

Compare these 2 recent questions by the same contributor.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai0yP...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmToe...

How many others are trolling, seeking to purvey the image that "deniers" can't see the difference between weather and climate.

Pretty pathetic I think.

12 months after the debacle of Copenhagen, can we expect world leaders to learn from the consequences of their inaction and forge new and lasting processes to fight climate change?

There has been many questions posed in this section that 2010 will be the hottest year on record.

Australia has just experienced a colder than average Winter, and with Spring ending yesterday...."Nationally averaged maximum temperatures were −1.23ºC below normal for spring, making it Australia’s 4th coldest spring on record."

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/s...

With one month to go...and Europe in a deep freeze, has the hottest year on record fallen at the final hurdle?

When I was a kid, I had a light on my bike that was powered by a generator that worked by rotating against my spinning front wheel.

Since a motor car has 4 wheels, why could you not attach generators to each wheel, which would continuously recharge the battery.

Once the car has started, it will be powered by the rotating wheels.

I'm no scientist, just a thought, tell me where I am going wrong.

Currently, CO2 atmospheric concentrations stand at 386 ppm.

Even the most optimistic adherents of AGW admit that this figure will rise as there is no global will to reduce CO2 emissions.

Already, the "tipping point" of 350 ppm has been reached.

So, would it be more sensible, not to spend money on CO2 reduction, but spend money on coping with any consequences that may arise?

Are you prepared to risk the ire and the snide remarks from the true believers by declaring that you are not particularly concerned about the supposed dire consequences of climate change.

Sure, we are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, no one disputes that...and the temperature has risen a fraction of 1 degree.

But who believes the "sky is falling in" predictions?

Who is more concerned about keeping or finding a job...and paying the mortgage than about predicted catastrophic consequences some computer has come up with?

When we are presented with the doomsday predictions of climate change, do many of us think along the line..."Sorry...too busy, got other things to worry about"

In the 13 years since Kyoto, if a person sees absolutely no change to the environment they personally live in, aren't they inclined not to be fazed?

Summers are just as they remember, Winters are just as they remember.

It is human nature to be slow to react.

Even events of massive human tragedies like earthquakes, floods and tsunamis soon fade from memory.

Humans worry more about the here and now, the global financial crisis, losing the house, being able to put food on the table.

In a lifetime, no human is going to notice any effects of climate change, so is it fair to say, that would be a reason a lot of people don't give a damn about it and don't share the passion of the "true believers"?

I am in Australia and have just ordered a Nokia E71 thru Optus.

The phone has WiFi and the plan includes 100mb download a month.

At home I have WiFi for my laptop with a massive 120 gig monthly allowance.

Can I tap into my laptop allowance and not worry about the 100mb allowance.

What do I have to do to ensure I am using my laptop allowance and not the phone's 100mb allowance.

I'm terrified of going over the 100mb allowance as it is 50c per mb over .

thanks

Australians are going to the polls on August 21 and the incumbent government has just released their climate change policy.

http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/j...

Hot on the heels of Copenhagen, where the inaction was deafening, the Australian government have again washed their hands of it.

They propose to do nothing about about any ETS until a "citizen's assembly" of 150 Australians discuss our need for such a scheme over the next 12 months.

If the general consensus is that no such ETS scheme is needed, it will be shelved indefinitely.

Surely, if the science of climate change is settled and global doom is pending, a responsible government would implement strategies now, based on the available data, not the musings of a select 150.

Since it has now been determined with 100% certainty that climate change is 100% man-made due to increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2, can the IPCC now cease to exist and money saved spent on some other body charged with rectifying the situation?

I still don't have my new thermometer with 1/100th gradients so I can't detect any actual temperature variants.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

After being attacked by one of the AGW elitist clique here for not being able to read a thermometer, therefore not realising that the Earth is warming, I need to buy said thermometer so that I do not make a fool of myself by not realising that it not actually 23.5degrees today, but 23.51 degrees.

The following graph was provided by the prominent contributors Dana 1981 and Dawei, apparently in support of their argument when answering my question posted earlier today

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr...

Does this graph indicate that from a date in late 1990s, dare I say that landmark year 1997, that there has only been one year that average global temperatures have exceeded that year, and there appears to be a levelling out or even decline in temperatures?

Please correct me if I'm wrong

I concede that correct analysis of graphs if fundamental to the understanding of climate change

Currently, we still have 4 recognisable seasons... Summer is hot...Winter is cold.

Sometimes...Summers are a bit hotter than usual. sometimes a bit colder than usual.

We all see the posts here...Oh..its colder today than usual, so there can't be global warming.

What stage of climate reversal do we have to get to, to label it climate change, not just a change in the weather?

Here is part of the IPCC report of 2007...

The panel predicted global average temperature rises of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.

However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues......

So what is it going to be...temperature rises of 3.2 or 7 degrees...

Sea rises of 7 or 23 inches?

We all agree the IPCC predictions are based on computer modeling, but surely if we are going to be asked to invest untold billions to correct the problem, shouldn't we expect a bit more certainty.

If my doctor said I had cancer and said I had 7 to 23 weeks to live, I think I would seek a second opinion

I believe there is not a snowball's chance in hell that CO2 levels will decrease.

There is no political will to move in that direction...and anyway, growing economies throughout the world have no intention of reducing carbon emissions in any meaningful measure and certainly not to pre 1997 levels.

Shouldn't we be concentrating on measures to live with..or even benefit from rising CO2 levels.

The clock on my Toshiba Satellite L300 is constantly freezing.

O/S is Windows Vista Home Premium.

I have Norton Anti Virus.

Any clues?

Whether dangers of climate change exist or not...does rapidly decreasing interest in the topic mean that politicians will back away from action even more than they currently have.

After all, politicians are only interested if there are votes in it.

Can you see action on global change dying a natural death...presuming it is not dead and buried already?

Low lying islands in the Pacific have actually grown over the last 60 years.

Since we no longer have to worry about relocating the inhabitants of those islands, can we worry less about any other possible effects of Global Warming.

Maybe we can now rejoice that we can have lovely warmer days sitting in the beer garden for more of the year.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/climate-change-...