cranston

The UK Telegraph says you are wrong

Source

GarryP

You might want to hold off on trusting that 'evidence':

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-l...top-scientist/
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...mperature-rise

As I said, the lie is going round the world (in this case to the telegraph) before the truth got its boots on.

WillBlack

To dispute a claim is to make a counter claim. A claim of man made global warming and counter claim of no man made global warming. Alternative Hypotheses.

cranston

deleted.

verystormy

As an earth scientist who has looked at the data, in particular the ice core data i can not find any evidence of man made global warming. I can also say that the majority of actual scientists i have spoken to also think there is no evidence. What people should ask when they see reports is who they are written by and what that persons role is. Many of the "scientists" that peddle this stuff are eactually social scientists and economists.
Most believe the climate is changing. However even this is far from certain. Remember we are dealing with a system that is 4.5 billion years old and we have data for maybe a hundred years and only good world wide data for the last 30. To model the earths entire weather systems on such a small data set is ludicrous. It is more likely that changes we see are not actual changes but more periodic swings.

Cape Blue

Do you think you are qualified and experienced enough to make that statement?

mindblower

All a waste of time until the worlds worst polluters do something...USA,China,Russia,Japan,India.

ABCDiamond

When you look at it that way, with the share of the top 20 broken down as follows:

1. 25.94% China
2. 25.45% United States
3. 7.35% Russia
4. 5.57% India
5. 5.37% Japan
6. 3.70% Germany
7. 2.65% Canada
8. 2.52% United Kingdom
9. 2.22% South Korea
10. 2.03% Iran
11. 2.02% Italy
12. 1.91% South Africa
13. 1.88% Mexico
14. 1.83% Saudi Arabia
15. 1.80% France
16. 1.80% Australia
17. 1.63% Brazil
18. 1.61% Spain
19. 1.42% Ukraine
20. 1.31% Poland

The Australian share 1.8% isn't really of much consequence...

Wol

And the figures per capita?

Lord_Farquar

Indeed. Those figures make it look like Australia doesn't pollute much. However, compare Brazil a country with a population in excess of 192 million and a land mass bigger than Australia and it doesn't quite so rosy.

moneypenny20

Ahh common sense, that's what I like to see. Nice post. As others have said and I've said in the past, yes let's cut pollution, lets find better environmental ways of doing stuff if only for our own health and well being but to say we have to do this stuff in order to save the planet is, in my ever so humble, non scientific opinion, hogwash. However that is my opinion and if others with lots of letters after their names disagree, that's fine, I won't lose any sleep over it.

MartinLuther

Because if Aus goes carbon neutral tomorrow the world will be saved? I don't think so

ABCDiamond

But if Australia removed 100% of all pollution, it would hardly change the world, reducing world pollution by just 1.8%.

However, if US or China could reduce theirs by 7%, it would have the same effect.

The question is; Why is the Australian pollution per capita so high ?

If we had ten times the population, would it still be as high ?
If the human population was just enough to produce the goods mined and exported for overseas use, how high would it be ?
Anyone got those answers ?

John_R

When I was at school being educated on the bronze age, god knows why, but anyway, tempratures at that time period were 2-3 degrees warmer than now. Also at some point, iceland was being farmed, something you can't do at the moment.

We tend to forget that our planet has had more global warmings and coolings than I've had hot dinners. Take a look at north Africa, largest desert in the world, used to be green rolling hills and forests, full of roming animals, but changed long before man influenced it. As for the ozone hole, how long has it been around? Nobody know's as we only (20yrs or so) had the technology to detect and monitor it, it may have been increasing/decreasing in size over the past millions of years, especially during large volcanic activity. Yes today's society has some influence upon this and the reason it's so in our faces with government research etc, is probably due to the extra taxes they can put on everyone for producing and using 'enviromentaly damaging products'. This warming phase was going to happen whether we were on this planet or not, it may have just been speeded up by .1% by our productivity. If you were to look at the UK region some 60 million years ago, it was a tropical place with palm like tree's and clear blue waters, and now

Sorry for my rant, I'm on my 2nd bottle of wine, and enviromentalist tend to have tunnel vision, and not a histolic view on our planet. We are scewing it, but are we really scewing it that quickly... I dont think so, we have and do cause problems and need to be cautious, especially on forest destruction and development. Well I have the twizzies as that 3 rd bottle is calling me.....hic


John

WillBlack

Australian National Greenhouse Accounts, National Inventory by Economic Sector

In summary, electricity production accounts for ~37% of CO2 emissions, is a ubiquitous input to many other sectors and is coal powered. ~10% of electricity is consumed in the production od alumina and aluminium, almost all for export. Forestry used to be a bigger emitter, agriculture is the second largest emitter.

Compare to France which produces much electricity using nuclear fuel. Nuclear power was banned by the Commonwealth Labor Goverment in the 1970s.