formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
I like the joke Slim, but aren't you worried that the theory of global warming is in the hands of a comedian?
When weather gets hot, it's all "see I told you that global warming was real."matty,it's pretty basic stuff: I believe in what my surroundings and 'nature' tell me in the "outside" world. You choose to believe a group of people ("unknown" to you), in air-conditioned rooms punching data into electronic devices plugged into power outlets, and asking them to predict the future!
Anyway, I'm off to the Reds v Tahs thread to moan about the Reds pathetic performance last night! Cheers.
formerflanker, if I was Ian Thorpe, I would say, "I love you mate", but I'm not, so I wont!!
I hope you understand?
Mr Doug's yard has not changed in the last 25 odd years and won't change in the next 25. Can we move all the grape growing there?Seriously guys. This climate change its getting serious.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/i...dName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&irpc=932
Climate change signals the end of Australian shiraz as we know it.
A study by the U.S. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that up to 73 percent of Australian land currently used for viticulture could become unsuitable by 2050.
As the country's traditional wine growing regions including the Barossa, the Hunter Valley and Margaret River grow ever hotter and drier, winemakers are rushing to the tiny island state of Tasmania. Average summer temperatures there are currently about 38 percent cooler than in the Barossa.
"The world's climate scientists have provided us with a clear message - that the balance of evidence suggests humans are having a discernible influence on global climate."
Here is a definition of "discernible" I read elsewhere today:
Natural sources are responsible for about 97% of atmospheric CO2, while humans are responsible for the remaining 3%. Australia’s contribution is about 1.5% of this 3.0%, which is .045% of all man made emissions.
Note the walk-back on CAGW in the original quote with the use of qualifiers such as balance of evidence andsuggests.
Scientists are very clearly saying that additional CO2 contribution is what is tipping things over the edge.
If WWF is to believed that photosynthesis is a key process in converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, wouldn't re-afforestation be a better than taxing CO2 emissions?
Sure. But how are you going to grow new trees as fast as they're being cut down for farming of commodities in the third world? In time to help arrest the CO2 problem, that is.
I am of the opinion that, once it becomes economically viable to pursue other technologies, the human race has a history of moving in that direction. Petrol took over from coal, and renewables will be the next step.
Another balanced piece from the Guardian.
"As global emissions increased, something surpassingly strange occurred"
Yeah, the average global temperature didn't get any warmer