Have we been conned

[the_hawk*]

What is the truth

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html

[lakeland27]

that figure is wrong. 8.6 % is the.emission reduction on electricity generation in first 6 months of the carbon tax . in the U.S. there is intense lobbying for a carbon tax like the australian model, but there are also big energy friendly republican senators who block everything regardless of a bills merit.

it is coming despite the stalling http://www.carbontax.org/

[the_hawk*]

LL I was referring to the reduction we have achieved in Australia, on the global output its a grain of sand

[lakeland27]

and i was showing the potential of it being implemented in more places 🙂

[the_hawk*]

LL if you want a few more things to worry about thats also linked to the changes, iy may take a lot of reading to find if its a cause or effect but its a rather large problem.

some are blaming earth quacks while some suggest its climate change, either way it is real

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=5&gs_ri=psy-ab&pq=earth%20tilt%20change&cp=19&gs_id=1l&xhr=t&q=earth+tilt+change+2011&es_nrs=true&pf=p&rlz=1W1SAVJ_enAU509&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22earth+tilt+change%22&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.dGI&fp=fa053f86b6abb411&biw=800&bih=399

[the_hawk*]

I found this rather interesting and not a large leap to the rain forest destruction theory of raising temperatures and changing weather patterns

  Snow and sea ice reflect sunlight, and as they disappear they leave exposed sea and land surfaces that absorb heat instead.

This, say the researchers, could raise the local temperature by as much as 8°C even if globally, temperatures only rise by 3°C.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23254-the-melting-of-canadas-glaciers-is-irreversible.html

[monman12]

"I found this rather interesting and not a large leap to the rain forest destruction theory of raising temperatures and changing weather patterns"

Mature forests are carbon neutral TH, and I await  a reference  for your theory, try the CSIRO or the BOM. Apart from that, anthropogenic emissions are by far the greatest cause of the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration., and Australia's annual total  is insignificant.

[the_hawk*]

you want a link to a person opinion that links 2 similar events :^O

Mature forests are carbon neutral

Then you had better go and tell Greenpeace that, so they can correct their information

[lakeland27]

all of the data here has less impact than the weather itself. if people cannott see anything amiss going on outside they are truly in denial. its here.

[the_hawk*]

all of the data here has less impact than the weather itself. if people cannott see anything amiss going on outside they are truly in denial. its here.

I am not sure what part of what I have said you are not getting, I am saying the weather is changing, the only thing in dispute is what we are blaming as the cause, you say its all CO2s fault, I say its more complicated and its a cause and effect issue.

The weather pattern changes are IMO having more of an impact than the carbon is, its whats causing the changes thats in dispute.

read this carefully http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23254-the-melting-of-canadas-glaciers-is-irreversible.html

Then think what is happening when the Amazon forests are cleared and bare dirt is left, then go do some reading on changing the environment that then affects weather patterns and rain fall.

As I understand it the polar ice is being melted from below by the change in ocean currents, as the ice melts the surface temperature  rises accelerating the melting on the surface for the reasons in the above link.

Changing ocean currents

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROpod/Fingerprints-of-climate-change-ocean-currents.aspx

The csiro link explains the south pole, check out the  North Atlantic Drift to work out whats happening up there

Its all linked, CO2 is not the only cause 

I still say the tax is a con

[monman12]

"Mature forests are carbon neutral"

TH : "Then you had better go and tell Greenpeace that, so they can correct their information"

An  unbiased  scientific organisation??  I would be interested to read  a link TH, but in the meantime a check of  Greenpeace reports produced this:

"The report, based on recent peer-reviewed scientific literature, challenges the claims that simply burning forest biomass is green, clean and carbon-neutral"

Again TH I repeat "mature forests are carbon neutral" No mention of burning them whatsoever.

But if you bother to research you will find that under the Kyoto Protocol  bioenergy  (burning wood/plants) is regarded as carbon dioxide neutral, and if it is used to produce electricity (cogeneration) it will become eligible for carbon credits.