freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2019 at 7:05pm:



Quote:


You have not been asking the same question. FD. And you still haven't  quoted me to substantiate your first, 'totalitarian' assertion of  'no effect'.
To your second, different question: no direct causality only minimal indirect effect (human co2 us a very small percentage of the total atmospheric co2 economy). It most certainly is not the driver of any global  climate variations. There is no 'climate crisis'.  Deforestation and predatory land use are more significant human effects on local climate variations. Once more, all together:

Fossil fuel emissions as the climate ‘control knob’ is a simple and seductive idea. However this is a misleading oversimplification, since climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways. Apart from uncertainties in future emissions, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean circulations) will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over manmade warming
...
Climate change – both manmade and natural – is a chronic problem that will require centuries of management.

The extreme rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion and other activists is making political agreement on climate change policies more difficult.  Exaggerating the dangers beyond credibility makes it difficult to take climate change seriously. The monomaniacal focus on elimination of fossil fuel emissions distracts our attention from the primary causes of many of our problems and effective solutions.

Common sense strategies to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, improve environmental quality, develop better energy technologies, improve agricultural and land use practices, and better manage water resources can pave the way for a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – supporting climate change mitigation while improving human well being. These strategies avoid the political gridlock surrounding the current policies and avoid costly policies that will have minimal near-term impacts on the climate. And finally, these strategies don’t require agreement about the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

We don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will evolve, and we will undoubtedly be surprised. Given this uncertainty, precise emissions targets and deadlines are scientifically meaningless. We can avoid much of the political gridlock by implementing common sense, no-regrets strategies that improve energy technologies, lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient to extreme weather events.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/8


The 'climate crisis' is hysterics.

Frank wrote on Dec 9^th, 2019 at 9:32am:



Another person who doesn't understand the carbon cycle, and that human emissions are ADDITIONAL CO₂ that are accumulating in the atmosphere

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 9^th, 2019 at 9:36am:

It's  true, though.

Pedro Curevo wrote on Dec 9^th, 2019 at 6:19am:


Have you forgotten fires need fuel. If state governments don't manage fuel loads there will be more major bushfires .When did these climate scientists make these predictions?


Which fire fighting equipment does the military have? Airbases have fire trucks for aircraft. Are you saying all aircraft should be grounded while the fire is being fought?

Some bases have a few fire trucks for protecting their base assets. Apart from that they have fire beaters and knapsacks. Even Volunteer Fire Services are better equipped than that.

The most that could be provided for these fires is men on the ground with fire beaters and knapsacks. That would do no good in a forest environment.

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2019 at 11:13am:


More mindless contrarianism from lee.
I'm not even going to respond because lee isn't interested in an honest debate. He just posts crap like this

Your obsession with contradicting very post I make is quite pathetic

Wether or not, the CO2 is cause of climate change or not, it is less of importance.  What is important, is that, humanity is facing a transitional period from the types of energy generation.  Fossil fuels and Coals are finite resources, a type of stored biological solar power.  It is not matter of if, but when this type of resource would run out.  And both fossil fuels and coal takes a long time to become an usable form.

Fossile fuels and coals are also important for more essential travel needs: such as air space, and as well as plastics - used in a variety of applications (e.g. medical military and everyday uses)   As yet, we dont have a viable alternative for them.  So.. what we have left of the finite resource, we need to conserve it for those more important things. 

Therefore we need to innovate into new technologies, or at least start the process, so that our future generation would not be negatively impacted by our inaction.

tickleandrose wrote on Dec 9^th, 2019 at 1:27pm:


If coal is so finite & besides our existing coal mines & the few new ones planned ......

how come the CSG Fracking Industry can find all this 1,000s of hectares of coal seams underground to frack all over every state in this country? .....

and when the coal seams are fracked out they have like in the USA all these shale seams mapped out to frack for gas????

Pedro Curevo wrote on Dec 9^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:



The question is "how much"?

Pedro Curevo wrote on Dec 9^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:



Even the IPCC admits low confidence in global Floods and Drought increases.

Glaciers and ice sheets have decline before. The Arctic was sailed in 1878-9.

Pedro Curevo wrote on Dec 9^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:



Only according to the ice cores petal.

Pedro Curevo wrote on Dec 9^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:



And Australia is still a "carbon" sink.

Pedro Curevo wrote on Dec 9^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:



Who denies climate?