Yep climate has always changed and always will - but it is about the rates of change. Animals and plants can evolve to deal with relatively slow change and not with high rates.
Predicting the actual amounts of warming is difficult - but the climate has warmed since the Industrial Revolution measurably and continues to do so - there will always be variation year to year, but the average trend over time is warming. The last winter was the warmest in Melbourne in 90 years.
Please answer this -When the Carbon Dioxide tax comes into play -
How much will the earths average temperature decrease by and how much much will it cost.? - funny that not one of our lefty politians or a single "climate" scientist will answer that !!!!
It will take at least 100 years for CO2 levels to stabilise and then drop. The carbon tax is about trying to reduce the rate of increase. So climate change will continue unless we take much more drastic action than the carbon tax. But personally I'd rather try and reduce the damage we are doing than just ignore it. The estimated costs of climate change are in the Garnaut Report (it was written by an economist after all) - they are in the ballpark of 100x the cost of the carbon tax.The best estimates are .004 of 1 degree and this may take a thousand years to take effect (confirmed by that fool Tim Flannery who said "it may never rain again" - hence why we have desal plants costing billions which will be never used )
I don't quite get the rain and temperature connection here, but ok. Best estimates are a 3.5 deg increase by 2070 for Victoria. The drought of the last ten years was caused by the El nino (the cyclic warming of the Pacific Ocean) - we will now have 10+ years of wet which is caused by La Nina - the now cooling of the Pacific Ocean
Yep, droughts aren't climate change. But if you superimpose droughts on a drying climate then things get really scary. BTW - the last volcanic eruption in Indonesia spewed out more CO2 into the atmosphere than what man has put out in the last 100 years.- fact stated in Scientific American journal
Can't find anything which Scientific American said like that (remembering Scientific American also isn't a scientific journal). Volcanic eruptions on the scale of Pinataubo in the Phillipines are about the same as one months human sourced CO2.Also - notice the subtle change form the "Global Warming" hesteria to the new term "Climate Change" - this is very convenient way to blame every weather event of man made CO2 emissions ....(and please stop calling it carbon polution as CO2 is not a polutant) .....are you kidding me
Climate change is what scientists have been calling it for decades. Global warming is a really old term the media like. Climate change for south eastern Australia has been predicting for almost a decade long dry spells (10-15 years) interspersed with extreme wet spells (2-3 years), and changing patterns of rainfall, favouring summer extremes. These patterns were first predicted in 1986. But for other places it won't warm. Poor old NZ is getting cooler and wtter. The only "inconvenient truth"is that this CO2 tax is all about the political need to balance the budget, rake in more revenue and distribute it to the labour/green voters to buy more votes. The climate change debate is perpetuated by those who have a vested interest in "green technology" - Al Gore has major shares in wind farms and other major US/UN funded green energy projects - fact.
"Climate Scientists"are funded by the current government - Scientists who wish to prove the negative and there are many thousands of them, get no funding and are ridiculed as herotics !
Strange that most climate research in Australia was done under the previous right wing government - who actively sought to suppress research findings to the extent of firing scientists from CSIRO. As a scientist I would love to disprove climate change - it would make me much more famous than agreeing with it.
There certainly aren't thousands of scientists who 'wish to prove the negative' (which wouldn't be a very good way to approach the science - sounds like some pre-conceptions). Across all areas of science the major scientific bodies put the percentage of scientists who doubt anthropogenic climate change at less than a tenth of a percent. That would be less than a hundred people in Australian science. Now that half the country is under water does any body notice the conspicuous absence of Tim Flannery, Ros Gaunet (spelling) and all the rest of the doomsday profits telling us we will be drinking our own urine in 10 years , not to build dams as they will never fill and to spend billions on desal plants (that consumed massive amounts of electricity thereby pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere !!!!)
I don't think very many environmentalists proposed the desal plant. More a political decision, that one. As outlined above the climate predictions for Australia predict extreme wet years - the problem is that we need to plan for extreme dry ones, unless someone can find a magic box to store water in.Some facts
It is now raining - and lots of it.
True enough. See above.Sea levels have stabilised and are now falling
Not true. No studies support falling sea levels. Arctic ice may be less than previous years but Antartcic Ice has increased significantly
Not true. Arctic Ice has declined significantly, Antarctic snow pack has increased, areas of ice are within the range of previous years.The Great barrier reef is not dead
Very true. Did anyone say it was going to be??
Average temps on earth have not increased in the last 10 years.
Not true. Global average temps over the last decade are up 0.55 degrees - at the upper end of the worst predictions made a decade ago. In closing - it is impossible to have a logical deabte on this subject as anyone who disagrees (with the alarmists) and has evidence to prove it is shouted down and ridiculed .
Not shouting you down at all - nor am I using inflammatory language like 'alarmists', claiming anyone is saying stuff just because of their political inclinations or bad mouthing any individuals.
Happy to have a logical debate, but that means making sure the facts are sound as a basis for that debate. Some of the ones in previous messages are wrong.