G'day Dan,
I'm leaving again. This is just a waste of time as a site to discuss anything. All that happens is rather than discuss the particular points, you level sometimes quite mean attacks at individuals.
As to you redewenur, I actually did provide one figure. Here's another. If Australia stopped everything the difference to the world's output of carbon would be 1.8%. Trouble is Australia cannot stop bushfires even if you killed every single human being. As to who is safe and who isn't, the things humanity now does manages to let millions and millions die each year and no one seems to complain. Global warming may effect lives or it might actually make lives better in third world countries. I find it fascinating that people are quite willing to damage and kill third world people in attempts to reduce carbon output yet are not at all willing to do really basic things to stop tens of millions of lives lost through such things as clean water, cheap medications and the re-introduction of DDT.
If carbon is the big culprit of global warming then anything you do, no matter how large, will have no effect. So saving energy etc is not going to help in any way at all. Every little bit helps is a saying that does not always hold true. If Kyoto was signed by every country in the world and adhered to the difference in CO2 increase would be so minute as to be not measureable. For instance your former home has signed it but does not adhere to it at all.
Anything that does other damage but makes you feel good, especially things that make individuals feel good but have no real use, are not at least doing something, they are causing harm.
As to figures, you can find them anywhere. Domestic energy use in developed countries accounts for a very small proportion of CO2 output. It is industry that uses most of it, industry that creates jobs and makes energy efficient cars or the batteries to power hybrid cars or whatever. I think I mentioned the brilliant idea of the Australian government of simply banning incandescent lights. Quite apart from the insanity of banning something without compensation to those that bought it legally and the legitimate uses that only incadescent lights fulfill, if every person complied the difference in energy efficiency would be .0014% for Australia.
In this particular argument CO2 rates in the atmosphere are going to GO UP for a very long time yet to come, no matter what we do. Everything that has been suggested is fairy tale stuff. It is not going to stop going up because it makes you feel good to turn off your air-conditioning or even if everyone did it.
And all of this without any hard science linking CO2 to global warming in the first place.
And Dan, so what that you drink at Starbucks, the subject is global warming. I actually said what I found wrong with the study. If you don't agree with me, tell me why scientifically I was wrong. Suggest why the assumptions used had validity. Your comments are just a personal attack with nothing to back it up.
As to proofs, what proves that I'm incorrect, or invalid or any of the other comments you made? You saying so? Huh. The data sucks big time. There is a great deal of documented critiscms of the data from very respected sources. They are easy to find. The guardians of the datasets themselves often indicate the inadequecies. Of course, then you get NASA whitewashing the whole thing by saying that the problems are minor, without ever actually showing why the problems are actually minor.
The simplest test of all is that the data from weather stations does not even remotely match the satellite data. How about addressing that. If the satellite data shows no trend overall since 1979, don't you think that suggests something is wrong? And if you don't then say why you don't, not why I'm wrong or an idiot. That just gets boring real fast.
Richard
