Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:59pm:


The thing I don't like about both sides on the MMGW debate is when they make outlandish claims about how bad the earth's climate will become. Whether you're on the anti MMGW side claiming the earth will enter a new ice age and become a giant popsicle due to the expectations of a prolonged solar minimum after Solar Cycle 25, or whether you're on the pro MMGW side claiming average global temperatures will be similar to Venus, you are not doing your side justice by making claims that have no basis based on the current data available. All you do is turn people away from your hypothesis and any chance to enact policies to mitigate the probable effects of the change in climate will diminish.

Based on current data, if we burnt all of the fossil fuels on earth, which based on current rates of consumption will take a few hundred years at the earliest, it is estimated that average global temperatures will rise by about 10 degrees C, which will raise ocean levels by about 50 metres. Given that within the next 30 - 40 year we will have developed energy technologies that will dramatically reduce, even eliminate, our reliance on carbon based fuels, I doubt that such a scenario will be achieved.

However, I am unsure whether or not this factors in the effects of melted Arctic Permafrost. There is still a degree of debate as to what effect this melted permafrost will have. Again, if energy technologies develop that will reduce or eliminate our reliance on carbon based fuels this will stop further increases of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will reduce the possibility of the Arctic Permafrost melting.

lee wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 12:19pm:

You're cherrypicking again, I see.

Ignoring land clearing, ignoring bushfires, ignoring fugitive emissions, ignoring everything else, but cherrypicking something you like and beating it for all it's worth. If you think the scientists who know more on this topic than you are wrong, why don't you write to them a letter explaining this and then post it here?

Bam wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:39pm:



if you actually looked at the graph the 559Mt CO2e is actually the maximum amount. By including them the emissions are lower.

But that would be much too hard for you.

Do try harder.

Of course it only helps if you can read a graph.

lee wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

You're making sht up again ...

From the OP....

Quote:


The fact is this Government is lying to the Australian people over climate change policy which sees the Coalition fall way short of the mark with no policies to address the situation of rising emissions....Despite their complete capitulation to the climate change deniers they continue to claim all is good and fiddle whilst Rome is burning....We need leadership and environment policies that protect the environment not fossil fuels and the Mineral lobby....This complete rabble must go!!!

lee wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:


Typical deflection....The Government signed up to Paris targets and are responsible for Australia's emissions under that agreement....The Coalition claims we will meet those targets whilst doing nothing which is a lie....The Government released the report on the eave of the AFL Grand final to bury the embarrassing data....There is no certainty and no leadership....Address the issue and stop deflecting with denialist bullshit....The Government is lying to the Australian people and you have never addressed the issue or it's implications....You are a flake mate!!!

The Government is responsible for policies and reducing emissions....They are failing and need to be held to account on their commitments to the Australian people at the next election....This rabble must go!!!