- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 03-04-2014 05:59 PM
it isn't correct or relevant. this is climate change caused by human activity (CO2) if human activity caused it (it did) then actions taken ny humans in the form of abatements can reverse it. its not that hard to understand.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 03-04-2014 06:08 PM
Did you know a Murdoch "journalist" was requesting on twitter for people to provide obscene signs? Typical Murdoch hack had no intention of reporting honestly, she was only interested in the photoshopped fakes or the one or two deemed "obscene" ...and why would she do this? Because she knows her readership. She knows the type of easily-fooled person who reads that partisan drama mag masquerading as a newspaper.
Of course, we all know none of the signs were anywhere near as obscene as the "ditch the witch" and various death threats to Julia Gillard. Those were the signs our current prime minister and house Speaker supported.
The next official march is in August, so there's your chance to show abbott what you think of his "loggers are the best environmentalists" and "unlock the national parks for loggers" policies.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-04-2014 06:14 PM - edited 03-04-2014 06:16 PM
Icy did you mean the one's the then opposition leader (current PM) Tony Abbott,Browyn Bishop (now Madam Speaker..)
and co stood infront of at the No Confidence (anti Gillard Government CO2 tax rally) ?
The one's I can't post here as they are too obscene for CS.
How embarrassing that is ..they are Governing our Country for us ![]()
Placards also included “Australia hates liars” ![]()
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 03-04-2014 06:18 PM
their supporters play dumb out of convenience. dont let facts interfere with the official line by andrew and co. that is really pathetic and lemming -like to be kind.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 03-04-2014 06:18 PM
@lakeland27 wrote:it isn't correct or relevant. this is climate change caused by human activity (CO2) if human activity caused it (it did) then actions taken ny humans in the form of abatements can reverse it. its not that hard to understand.
i think people who believe a tax on carbon will reverse man made climate change has a poor understanding of science
Signatures suck.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 03-04-2014 06:22 PM
reducing carbon will reverse/slow the problem . that takes some modification of behaviours, a carbon tax is one (very effective) measure. a tax will help reduce carbon emissions , it already has.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 03-04-2014 06:22 PM
![]()
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 03-04-2014 06:29 PM
The UN's New Focus: Surviving, Not Stopping, Climate Change
The United Nations' latest report on climate change contains plenty of dire warnings about the adverse impact "human interference with the climate system" is having on everything from sea levels to crop yields to violent conflicts. But the primary message of the study isn't, as John Kerry suggested on Sunday, for countries to collectively reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Instead, the subtext appears to be this: Climate change is happening and will continue to happen for the foreseeable future. As a result, we need to adapt to a warming planet—to minimize the risks and maximize the benefits associated with increasing temperatures—rather than focusing solely on curbing warming in the first place. And it's businesses and local governments, rather than the international community, that can lead the way.
“The really big breakthrough in this report is the new idea of thinking about managing climate change,” Chris Field, the co-chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study, said this week, adding that governments, companies, and communities are already experimenting with “climate-change adaptation.”
First, a definition of terms is in order. Since the 1990s, the climate-policy community has been engaged in a debate about whether to focus on reducing emissions ("mitigation"), managing climate change ("adaptation"), or both. But in a 2007 article for Nature, a team of academics gave three reasons for why the "taboo on adaptation" was gradually disappearing:
1. The "timescale mismatch": Even if world leaders take decisive action to cut emissions (a big "if"), it won't have an impact on the climate for decades, and greenhouse-gas concentrations will continue to increase in the meantime.
2. The emissions fallacy: People are vulnerable to the climate for reasons other than greenhouse-gas emissions, including factors like socioeconomic inequality and rapid population growth along coasts.
3. The demands of developing countries: While wealthy countries account for most greenhouse-gas emissions, poor countries suffer the most damage from climate change. And these developing countries want the international community to help them become less vulnerable to the extreme climactic events they're facing now, rather than arguing over emission targets that will theoretically protect them in the future.
The IPCC's early climate reports in the 1990s barely mentioned climate-change adaptation. But that changed in the panel's 2001 edition, which noted that "adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to complement climate mitigation efforts." The IPCC spent two pages discussing "adaptation options" in its 2007 study, and this week has devoted more than four chapters to the strategy, including a graph that shows our ability to adapt to climate change in three eras: the present; the near-future we've committed ourselves to based on current emissions; and the distant future we still have the capacity to shape.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 03-04-2014 06:29 PM
I learnt something amazing this week.... and it was not political or being pushed by a greens group... it was just some really interesting information in a documentary about the local people of the Amazon and their life and degradation of it... but there was some very interesting facts that came out of it.
Amazon Rain Forest..... Statistics say that we are losing 2.4 acres of rain forest per second. That is equal to two U.S. football fields per second or 120 football fields per minute. There is about 78 million acres of rain forest being destroyed each year..... more CO2 is created each year by loss of this rain forest that ALL CO2 emission produced by the rest of the world.....
So what that means is that if you believe man made CO2 is what causes climate change then you must also believe the science that says that nothing that we do to reduce our emissions will make any difference to our climate while they are cutting down the lungs of the earth.....
no matter how much we reduce our emissions by it will not impact the environment one bit....
We need real action to repair the forests that we have cut down, to repair the waterways and to stop rubbish from flowing into our oceans.... that is the only way that we can make a real difference in my opinion.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 03-04-2014 06:31 PM
your solution maybe iza, but the facts remain
there is no solution to reverse the affects of man made climate change, it is simply irreversible!
the only way for the planet to fully recover is the extinction of the human species
Signatures suck.