Comments on: Can Australians face up to REAL carbon reductions? Part 1

By: Peter Seligman

Peter Seligman — Wed, 10 Jul 2019 08:04:35 +0000

I don’t think that this is any justification for doing nothing. If you asked any voter what impact they would have if they didn’t vote, the answer would also be virtually nothing. Likewise if you divide the world into countries or states, each of which has a tiny impact and the answer would be the same.
But you cannot conclude that there is no point in doing something.

By: Mike Elliott

Mike Elliott — Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:54:39 +0000

I dont think anyone is listening to the Chief Scientist.

Senator MacDonald asked – “If we reduce the world’s carbon emissions by 1.3% [Australias Contribution], what impact would that have on the changing climate of the world?”

Chief Scientist Dr Finkel replied – “Virtually nothing”.

By: Jim Simpson

Jim Simpson — Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:58:50 +0000

Yes – I think there are those among us Anton who do “..care if it for the wrong reason”.

The abuse of science is evident in many quarters nowadays (not least in respect of the ongoing demonization of CO2), much to the chagrin of those who hold its principles high above all else.

I can ‘taste’ Robert’s frustration in finding traction for a nuclear future. I, and others within our Group, share it too. But – not at the expense of science that has yet as best as I can judge, failed to deliver empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 – ie that it’s a pollutant & primary driver of so called ‘global warming’. IMHO, riding on the coat tails of dubious science demonizing CO2 leaves something to be desired.

For you and/or others who might doubt the extensive number of peer reviewed scientific papers challenging the case against CO2, & have something to contribute toward the debate, here’s a link to one of but many such on-line discussions (including references to related Papers) that you might care to contribute to http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/13/uncertainties-errors-in-radiative-forcing-estimates-10-100-times-larger-than-entire-radiative-effect-of-increasing-co2/ .

Meantime, I suggest there’s a ‘take home’ message in that Tom Tamarkin Paper that’s perhaps worth revisiting.

By: Jim Simpson

Jim Simpson — Wed, 27 Feb 2019 04:30:37 +0000

Reducing Australia’s CO2 emissions might make sense Robert. if there were empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 (ie that CO2 is a pollutant & the primary driver of so called CAGW) but there isn’t & you know it.

Your demonization of CO2 (a miniscule atmospheric trace gas necessary for life on earth) does you no credit. It tars you with the same dubious brush of Climate Alarmists, perpetrating a lie to prosecute your own ends. That’s dishonest IMHO.

OTH, if you have such evidence proving the case against CO2, then you should publish it.

Whilst I too subscribe to a nuclear future, I do NOT do so at the expense of perfectly good reliable, affordable & dispatchable energy provided currently via fossil fuels. Technology that we know how to build, is not banned & should be progressed ASAP to replace our ageing fleet of coal fired power stations.

Longer term, yes, we should indeed get the ridiculous ban lifted on nuclear technology in Australia so it can stand on its own two feet in fair & transparent competition with ALL forms of energy generation. Let the free market decide which sources of energy they elect to use (technology neutral), uninhibited by financial subsidies for one & not the other.

Meantime, you & other followers here’ could do worse than make an effort to read The Great Climate Debate – An inconvenient truth Exposed by Tom D Tamarkin – here https://greatclimatedebate.com/?fbclid=IwAR1Hx2KfiIGXgxL8UmCvdDzYsni-0KQQPP2t6iDcTWRFJv1IEemPYJzjxUo – enjoy.
Jim Simpson
Convenor, Climate Realists of Five Dock