Climate Change

[Mortdooley]

I live within 10 miles of major Oil Refineries and Chemical Plants. Before the EPA required strong control of emissions the air was yellow when you looked to the setting sun in the evenings. That was the suspended sulfur that escaped from the refining process. It rose up into the air and combined with the humidity and became a mild sulfuric acid wash that settled on cars, homes and even the equipment used in the refining process. It ate away metal and caused respiratory issues and cancers that cost the health and lives of people who worked in those industries. Keeping it in the pipes is a much more environmentally friendly choice than giving some Third World Despot millions of dollars and polluting as much as they are willing to pay for. It is a personal choice whether you believe in the church of global warming or not, that is nothing more than wealth redistribution while continuing to poison the environment. Just because it is not in your back yard doesn't make it acceptable!

[The4thEstate]

I want clean air and water, not some shell game where China and India continue to poison the Planet while buying "carbon credits" from third world non-industrialized Countries.

That is how the world works though. Everybody gets a certain amount of pollution. Some countries get to sell theirs in exchange for produced goods by countries that need to the extra credits. India and China are producing a lot of stuff that countries won't produce themselves because of labour costs. Either you reduce labour costs or you don't get all the goodies you desire, unless you're prepared to pay for them.

Yeah right, it's all about manufacturing in China. Guess that explains this April 2019 report from NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/71634764 ... et-on-coal

Edward Cunningham, a specialist on China and its energy markets at Harvard University, tells NPR that China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.

And yet, gruesome Greta and the signers of the Paris climate accord get more hair-on-fire angry at Trump, president of a nation whose carbon emissions have largely been dropping since 2007 (see chart: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/U ... -emissions) than China, which is
already the world's largest spewer of CO2 ... and now involved in an all-out effort to build more coal-fired generating plants at home and abroad.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-clim ... SKBN1W40HS


Of course, the Paris accord already granted China a 15-year reprieve on having to do anything about its carbon emissions -- while demanding that the U.S. cut its emissions 28 percent and pay $3 billion to a U.N. fund.

Gosh, it's almost as if the climate change alarmists are more interested in extorting money from Western industrial powers than doing anything about carbon emissions ... but that couldn't possibly be true, could it?

[Black Orchid]

I don't trust how the money is managed. The UN is a joke and now run by countries dictating to others about human rights whilst their own human rights records are appalling.

[brian ross]

Coalition quietly appoints expert panel to salvage emissions policy

[The4thEstate]

Coalition quietly appoints expert panel to salvage emissions policy

"The panel has been established despite Morrison and Taylor maintaining they have set out 'to the last tonne' of carbon dioxide how Australia will meet the 2030 emissions target announced before the Paris climate conference."

Why take the Paris climate agreement seriously? Australia produces around 400 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. Even if you believe in climate change, that compares to China's nearly 10 billion tons.

And China -- granted a 15-year reprieve by the Paris agreement -- is not only failing to cut its own emissions, but busily building coal-fired generating plants at home and abroad.

So I'd advise the Morrison government to devote their time to more important matters. Otherwise, you'll be like the guy who stops using his charcoal grill so he can help save the planet ... while just down the street, a factory belches thousands of times as much smoke into the atmosphere every day.

[brian ross]

We take all agreements that we have agreed to, seriously, 4E. We do not believe in Australian Exceptionalism, unlike yourself with US Exceptionalism. Australia accepts it is part of the world and acts as a responsible member of the world club, just as we did before, in the British Commonwealth and Empire.

[Outlaw Yogi]

... it has been long known that increased CO2 does directly relate to increased temperatures.

Yes, and it's also long been known from the geological record that the warming precedes the atmospheric CO2 increase.

This is because, as I've mentioned previously but the doomseekers ignore the science, that as the planet warms CO2 is expelled from the oceans into the atmosphere.

90% of CO2 on this planet is generated by zoo-plankton (baby sea creatures) - wonder how many carbon credits I could get for harvesting krill? - As sea temps rise a vast array of sea creatures become more active and increase reproduction in a similar fashion to insects when atmospheric temps rise.

It has been known for eons that as our solar system travels on its 25,980 year elliptic orbit around the galaxy (Milky Way) every 12,990 years we are subject to increased levels of cosmic radiation from a constant planet and star forming cosmic explosion at the centre of the galaxy. This radiation charges up our sun which in turn charges up the pressure intensity of the magma in the Earth. The result is increased volcanism, seismic activity and friction induced heat. As the oceans warm more water molecules enter the atmosphere. That's why there's 7% more water vapour in the air now than when NASA started recording the volume around 60 years ago.

At the same time the Earth's axis shifts roughly 30 degrees every 2165 years, so polar regions move into more temperate zones (thawing the ice) and temperate regions move into polar (freezing over) and tropical zones (warming up). That's why one side of Antarctic continent is warming as the other side is cooling.

Humanity emits 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere, so is global warming/climate change caused by CO2 or humans? .. because it can't be both.

[Outlaw Yogi]

... gruesome Greta and the signers of the Paris climate accord ...

Apparently Gretel Thunderbox reckons she can "see carbon dioxide" and claimed "science is the enemy of humanity".

And they take this Asperger seriously? ... to the point of celebrity status at the temple of wind turbines no less.

[The4thEstate]

... gruesome Greta and the signers of the Paris climate accord ...

Apparently Gretel Thunderbox reckons she can "see carbon dioxide" and claimed "science is the enemy of humanity".

And they take this Asperger seriously? ... to the point of celebrity status at the temple of wind turbines no less.

Well, y'know, the left loves to use kids as props for their agenda, figuring anyone who criticizes them will look like a big meanie.

As far as I'm concerned, Greta can protest wherever and however she likes, but that doesn't mean I have to take her seriously. She's only regurgitating what she's been spoon-fed by climate alarmists.

Plus, if she were really serious about it, she'd be protesting in front of the Chinese Embassy instead of treating Trump like the guy who operated the Death Star.

[The4thEstate]

We take all agreements that we have agreed to, seriously, 4E. We do not believe in Australian Exceptionalism, unlike yourself with US Exceptionalism. Australia accepts it is part of the world and acts as a responsible member of the world club, just as we did before, in the British Commonwealth and Empire.

Well, we take presidential elections seriously -- and as Obama once stated, "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."

Indeed they do have consequences, and at the end of the day, Trump won. Which means he has every constitutional right to direct a course change when it comes to American international policy.

The Paris agreement was an inequitable document that put the U.S. at at unjustifiable disadvantage. Why should we cut our CO2 emissions by 28 percent when they've already declined by about 14 percent since 2005? Why should we have to pay $3 billion to the U.N.? Why should China, the world's leading CO2 spewer, get to do nothing for 15 years -- and be able to aggressively build coal-fired generating plants at home and abroad?

Kind of tough to view the Paris agreement as anything other than a slick attempt to extort guilt money from industrial Western nations.

Obama made an inane commitment that showed he had a greater fondness for globalism, and winning the adoration of foreign nations, than defending the interests of the country he was supposed to be looking out for. And since the Paris agreement has a provision for getting out of it, there's nothing illegal about exercising that right.