… a ball bearing perhaps?
0.4 percentage points is the estimate of the CPI impact of the carbon price, published in the Herald Sun (hardly likely to understate it). In the attempt to stop this catastrophe, the Australian political right has trashed its intellectual credibility, embraced lurid conspiracy theories, reduced its leading publications to laughing stocks, and promulgated a string of easily falsified talking points, each one more absurd than the last. So, now that their predictions of doom have come to this, what will be their response? My guess is that they will double down – Catallaxy and Andrew Bolt are already on the job.
Of course, a price of $23/tonne is just the thin end of the wedge. Most estimates suggest that we need a price somewhere in the range $50-100/tonne to produce a long run shift to a low-carbon economy. That might amount to a price increase of 2 or 3 per cent – about the same as the GST.
John Quiggin 
Don’t know what it is with these neo luddites hanging on by the skin of their teeth to what essentially amounts to 19th century technology.
“The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”
Not sure if Adam Smith consideres retrospective trouble to be valid, but there lies the fundamental argument for a substantial ‘upgrade’ to renewables.
There is a simple solution to not pay the carbon tax, reduce your carbon foot print. And if renewable industries could have a access to a equitable proportion of those subsidies and incentives the fossile fuel industry enjoys, it would be game over.
John Dawson, I say to you Pig poo!
“We have a lot of empirical evidence about the effectiveness of power supplies. Wind & water & firewood power, but mainly muscle power, kept less than a billion people (for most barely) alive. Fossil fuel power (with the help of about 15% of other types) keeps about 7 billion (for most abundantly) alive. You do the math.”
Clearly it is completely impossible for us to ever invent anything better than what we have. Solar, geothermal, fusion all cannot possibly exist.
So many non sequiturs, so little time.
I don’t want to debate minor scientific disputes Hal9000, but was told that my arguments lacked hard numbers and despite three tries at moving on Ronald insisted I addressing the science of CO2. I’m aware what passes for debate amongst warmists, there’s the apocalyptic alarmists to whip up unthinking hysteria and the pessimistic alarmists to try and cloak their AGW king in the robes of science.
After the nuclear holocaust and you have achieved your utopia I’ll be glad for the pig poo power at barter town Ootz, but in the mean time you have no right to penalize me for using fossil fuel power.
There is every possibility of inventing something new to replace coal and oil Stephen, provided the heavy hand of government is lifted off the economy and it is free to use the best available power to fuel it.
It is good, John Dawson, that you finally see unregulated CO2 polution as emissions anarchy which infringes on your property rights. There quite a few other odourless, colourless, trace gasses emitted into the atmosphere which over time put your personal health and welbeing at risk. Lead oxide from petrol was one that has been regulated away, CFC’s the ozone hole gas is another. Carbon monoxide, mercury, vinyl chloride, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and many other industrial gasses, all endanger your life while infringing your property rights.
When you get into your 2 litre car and drive for two and a quarter hours your car uses more oxygen than you, or I, will consume in a year. So by owning and casually driving a medium sized car for a lifetime you will consume 200 times your natural share of oxygen, and emit 200 times your natural share of CO2. And that is before all of the other CO2 emitted to support your living standard is taken into account.
Yes, you rightly point out that there is atmospheric emission anarchy, and it must be regulated. Hence the Carbon Price.
“….. no right to penalize me for using fossil fuel power.”
In case you have not noticed, you are actually compensated for the ‘penalty’ at the moment. Now if you reduce your carbon foot print you save even, you’ll be way ahead 🙂
…. provided the heavy hand of government is lifted off the economy…”
<a href="Agreed
“….. the best available power to fuel it.”
You are displaying a classic luddite argument as in
“Climate sceptics are on the wrong side of this transition. Like the original Luddites and their countless descendants through history, they resist technological progress because it makes them feel scared and insecure, clinging to any theory, no matter how crackpot, that helps to justify their position.
Ultimately, the green economy is about nothing so much as it is about modernity. Businesses understand this. That is why many of the world’s biggest firms want to invest in this low carbon transition, partly because they want to mitigate climate risks that could do them untold harm, but mostly because they want to do what progressive businesses have always tried to do: make the world a better place, by innovating and creating new markets, all the while making money in the process.” How to argue with “climate sceptics”
So John Dawson, you are saying that you agree with me that more than enough CO2 has been released from the burning of fossil fuels to increase its concentration in the atmosphere by over a third. And do you also agree that there is a completely clear correlation between increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and CO2 released by humans burning fossil fuels and land clearning? In other words, that there is a clear relationship between the net amount of CO2 released by human activity and its concentration in the atmosphere?
You [and many more] really think you’ve found the holy grail with this one don’t you BilB, the rational to tax and command every human for the original sin of living on the planet, especially all those neo fascist luddite racist sexist misogynist bodgy capitalists who do all those things and give you all that stuff only to expect payment for it when the government should take it and give them to you free; you can finally bring the commanding heights of the world’s industry and agriculture and lifestyle under the infallible control of an inter government body and everyone who is permitted will be in his permitted place doing his permitted thing and all will be as it should be and the planet will be safe for the polar bears and the spirogyra.
Or maybe your just befuddled by postmodern professors and political propagandists, so let me state for the record: no matter how many people say how often that white is black and slavery is freedom and 4 is 5 and CO2 is pollution, it just aint so.
“………. CO2 is pollution, it just aint so.” KAZOOOOOOOOMP
What exactly makes you think you are entitled to have that particular opinion?
Come back when you can state one academy of sciences or international reputable science organisation which is NOT seriously concerned about human induced CO2 and its effect.
In the mean time read my second link in my comment just two above yours, which is presently moderated presumably for featuring two links.
@Chris Warren
Thank you Chris. Yours is the only answer I got to my question. Your answer boils down to (1) people game the system and (2) general profiteering (in capitalism) can both be causes of inflation following a revenue neutral tax change. I tend to agree with you. I cannot think of any other causes. However, bourgeois economists are probably not going to admit this except in carefully coded statements.
My god, where have you people been for the last 50 years, it’s like listening to Marxist students of the 1960s.
No doubt climate science organisations are concerned about human induced CO2 Ootz, that doesn’t make CO2 pollution. If you fill your room with H2O you’ll drown, but H2O is not pollution either.
@Ikonoclast
While not defending the criticism on “passing on the cost” behavior, this by itself have its merits on the objective the carbon pricing is trying to achieve. While the overall CPI increase is relatively low because electricity is only a portion of operating cost for businesses; the majority of this “passing on the cost” price rise is in the electricity industry. Thus for consumers and businesses, this rise in electricity cost may change their electricity usage or source, e.g. switching to energy efficient electricity appliances and/or installing solar etc.
From this perspective, perhaps (I can’t speak on behalf of policy makers) one of carbon pricing’s main implication is to use the “passing on the cost” behavior of businesses to achieve the objective. Whether if the target reduction can be achieved or not is a different story.
@John Dawson
by your definition there is no such thing as pollution – or maybe it is synonymous with toxin
all “pollutants” are combinations of one or more elements – and (almost) all elements are natural
most compounds are natural though some are less likely to occur than others
you play with the word pollution and redefine it
but then according to your definition any substance that can grow as a proportion of your environment until it becomes dangerous (eg water) can kill you (though you will not curse “pollution” in your dying breath)
playing with words and claiming thereby that everybody else is wrong is quite dishonest
fact is that if CO2 grows to the point that it kills us all then along the way we might think we have a problem – wherever it came from
arguing as we die whether or not the water filling the room we are in came from a river or a desalination plant or a sewerage recycling plant is of little use to us if there is only a few inches of air left in the room – you seem to think it’s important
the facts are simple – the room is filling with water or it is not?
if it is then can we do anything about it or not?
if we can then what should that be and who should pay for it?
according to your very flawed view of the world (a very childish version of a very demented Ayn Rand)
the “superior” ones in the room should invent their way of the predicament and charge the rest of the people in the room for a way out
now in almost everybody’s book but yours that makes you someone nobody could possibly like
i’m not saying that laws to charge people for carbon use are the right or wrong way to go
i’m just dealing with an aspect of your dishonesty – or maybe it’s your fear based self delusion (denial) – or maybe it’s that you are demented – or maybe a schill i do not know
p
I’ve been following John Dawson’s contributions (if that’s the right word) with some bemusement.
He’s just another cornucopian, it’s not worth the effort of engaging with him.
@The Peak Oil Poet
Except in this case the family that you claim is limiting themselves to one cow, is also the family who has the largest apetite for beef among the commons.
To follow the analogy one step further; the head of this family is just trying to introduce some vegies into their childrens’ diet.
Like most children, they kick and scream, throw a tantrum and make a global scene but never the less, the head of this family understands that children don’t always know what is best for themselves.
One day when the children have grown up, they will thank their parents for having the foresight to do what was best for them so many years ago despite the fact it would have been much easier just to let the kids have their way.
Thats right DI(nr), as he has history as a defender of what senior liberals call ”fruit loops” and “f…wits” from way back.
Besides where is the handwringing by the free-marketeers and the so called opposition, about all the price gouging and gold-plating associated price hikes that went on in the power industries over recent times?
Since my previous comment is still stuck in moderation, presumably because of two links, I’ll split it in two and repost. JQ please delete the moderation awaiting post.
“….. no right to penalize me for using fossil fuel power.”
In case you have not noticed, you are actually compensated for the ‘penalty’ at the moment.
…. provided the heavy hand of government is lifted off the economy…”
Agreed
@The Peak Oil Poet
Pollution is a matter of perspective. If the anaerobic bacteria that inhabited the planet for all but the last 600million years or so had had a perspective, they would have called oxygen pollution. Life on Earth got an enormous kickalong from the appearance of oxygen, and we humans, who need it to live, think it marvellous stuff. Not only is it essential to life, but it makes it possible to light fires, which single ecosystem service gave us advantages over all other life on the planet.
On the other hand, if oxygen were to be 35% of the atmosphere, wet peat moss would spontaneously combust, which wouldn’t suit us at all. Iron would rust far more quickly. If the free radical theory of cancer is right, we’d have a lot more cancer. We humans would age a lot faster and we’d have probably been far different beings, if we’d existed at all.
If some process of ours threatened to raise atmospheric oxygen above 20%, we would see this too as a source of pollution. It turns out that you can have too much of a good thing.
Pollution amounts to negative disruption to our taken for granted level of ecosystem service as a result of some agent consequent upon human activity.
“….. the best available power to fuel it.”
You are displaying a classic luddite argument as in
“Climate sceptics are on the wrong side of this transition. Like the original Luddites and their countless descendants through history, they resist technological progress because it makes them feel scared and insecure, clinging to any theory, no matter how crackpot, that helps to justify their position.
Ultimately, the green economy is about nothing so much as it is about modernity. Businesses understand this. That is why many of the world’s biggest firms want to invest in this low carbon transition, partly because they want to mitigate climate risks that could do them untold harm, but mostly because they want to do what progressive businesses have always tried to do: make the world a better place, by innovating and creating new markets, all the while making money in the process.
via ”How to argue with “climate sceptics”
@John Dawson
John, Ayn Rand was not a lexicographer or an environmental specialist and is not a valid source for a definition of what a pollutant is.
So what is a pollutant? Here is the Oxford dictionary definition of pollutant “oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/english/pollution”
“Definition of pollution: noun [mass noun] the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects”
Please note the word ‘harmful’. In your interpretation of the concept so far you seem to discount this concept of ‘harmful’ and equate pollutants with what we generally think of as toxins. To be sure some toxins are seen as pollutants to like cyanide in gold mine holding pond when it leaches in large volumes into the groundwater.
But pollution also covers hundreds of chemicals which are fine or even beneficial at low levels but which if released in large quantities or in problematic circumstances cause “harm” – like phosphorus (grows your veges but also leads to toxic cyanobacterial blooms which kill cattle), nitrogen (grows crops kills many native species of plants and promotes weed growth costing farmers), copper (used as an oxygen carrier by gastropods but in high concentrations kills the life in sediments which feed fish), hormones like oestrogen (essential for regulating bodies but in high concentrations confuse reproductive cycles especially with marine life) or maybe molasses from a sugar mill (good for rum but when dumped into east coast estuaries used to cause oxygen sag in estuaries leading to massive fish kills). These problems we controlled to a degree through legislation which forced companies to look for solutions via such means as paying for discharge license -essentially taxes – following which technical entrepreneurs came in with various solutions utilising research findings generally funded at government expense (studies of nutrient and contaminant cycles and impacts).
This isnt marxist dogma – its environmental science 101. Science and technology have provided many benefits but to keep this going sustainably with requires developing a dynamic balance with the natural world that does not give absolute primacy to human values and lives. This contrasts with the traditional “we can do what we like with it as long as it doesnt harm a neighbour because god gave it to us (an outdated but still powerful idea embedded in property rights concepts).
CO2 is just the same – in current concentrations it is critical to regulating atmospheric temperature and stopping us from freezing like on the Moon and Mars but when present in too high a concentration it will cook us (Venus).
While we are probably some distance from inducing a Venus event (though there are some biogeochemists who think this is possible) the evidence is still that with the “let the market rule” approach, CO2 will continue to accumulate in the and eventually set off even worse positive feedback cycles than this years Arctic ice melt – methane and CO2 release from the tundra soils, destabilisation of methane hydrates, increased albedo in both the Arctic and Antarctic. You might argue that then the market will respond. But by then all the people who understand what’s happening know it will be too late. And that is why the scientific consensus on this matter from those in the know is near 100% and we are trying this carbon tax approach for all its limitations.
The injustice in it all which I appeal to you to think about is that if we cant solve this mess we who are causing this change, or not changing our behaviour enough, will not suffer – it will be our descendants. And its this I would guess which is driving progressive coalition members like Turnbull to fly in the face of pressure to do otherwise.
@latebowl
ick – i work in government – if you think than i would trust ANY of the people i know to make decisions for me you are completely crazy – the senior decision makers are almost exclusively self serving slime who have become millionaires on the back of tax payers – by implementing (and very badly in most cases) think big projects they do not understand, do not take responsibility for but take any credit if things turn out well
in fact my general view is this – if a bureaucrat or a politician wants to do it then whatever it is i don’t want it
bottom line is that i detest government and pretty much everyone employed directly or indirectly by it
but that does not mean i love idiots who are just as self serving or are sycophants for another variety of thieves
i like that line from Black Adder “kill everybody”
🙂
p
@Ootz
Exactly. The most bizarre aspect of the arguments of Climate Skeptics (as well as the more strident pro-nuclear advocates) is their constant insistence that renewable energy technology can never, ever, provide an economic source of large-scale power. This claim is essentially identical to Lord Kelvin’s statement that ‘heavier than air flying machines are impossible’ (eight years before the Wright Brothers), or Richard Woolley’s remark that ‘space travel is utter bilge’ (one year before Sputnik). These people think they believe in progress, but in fact they have no faith in it at all.
@Fran Barlow
being a scientist i hardly need the lecture – but thanks anyway
🙂
fact is that change is a natural thing for old mother earth
so whatever the cause of change i believe we should accept it and live with it (or die with it)
trying to fight change is exactly like the old adage of pushing excrement uphill
i do not believe government should be involved in fighting carbon
unless it does so totally honestly – which it can’t for various reasons including defence – ie by banning all exports of carbon products
i don’t trust government – it is always a bad system – because you only need to corrupt a few to harm the many – and corruption comes in many flavours
the best world is one were we all carry guns and can shoot anyone who upsets us – be they ideologues, idealists, idiots or just innocents in the way
in the end that’s the world we are in but everyone wants to pretend otherwise and it’s in that delusion we allow ourselves to be made slaves
p
@Newtownian
An excellent answer Newtonian. You have completely dubunked the nonsense that CO2 cannot be a pollutant. Of course it can be. It can also be a toxin as well as an asphyixiant gas. From memory, chronic CO2 at 5% concentration in an otherwise nearly normal air mix will lead eventually to respiratory acidosis (blood acidosis) and death.
@The Peak Oil Poet
It wasn’t specifically aimed at you — indeed, I had no idea what training you’ve had — but was intended as a more general observation.
John Dawson,
CO2 is both a pollutant and a poison.
CO2 buildup in the oceans is a pollutant to shelled sea life every bit as devastating as DDT is to land life.
CO2 kills land life as well, although rarely.
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2011-1/fomine.htm
Thank you for mounting the AGW case civilly Newtowner, I think you precis it well.
“As to whether the carbon tax will work now that is a more interesting question.” It won’t work at all well. The “free market” doesn’t work because it’s a market but because it’s free (of government manipulation.)
The Oxford definition of pollution does not denote H2O or N etc or CO2 just because under certain circumstances they can be harmful. The categorisation of CO2 as pollution is nothing more than cynical Orwellian spin-doctoring.
I agree that “this isn’t marxist dogma”. He expected everyone to sacrifice their interests to achieve a future utopia for people, he wasn’t depraved enough to expect everyone to sacrifice their interests to achieve a utopia “that does not give absolute primacy to human values and lives”.
Us humans certainly do have the right to “do what we like with it as long as it doesnt harm a neighbour”, not because god gave it to us, but because, as living entities, we must selfishly activate our means of survival (as do all living entities).
CO2 will not cook us. A doubling of the CO2 from pre industrial levels will increase global temperatures by about 1.2 C. The allarms about much higher rises assume feedback effects from that rise, but these feedbacks work both ways, some warming some cooling, and the net effect is speculative.
The grossest injustice would be to deny present generations the benefits of fossil fuels and future generations the progress that flows from that prosperity.
@Ikonoclast
Thanks for the support Ikonoclast. Unfortunately our friend John will not be convinced by anything other than a full blown melt down I think. His response just now is still selective e.g. a claim the rise will be only 1.2 C without explaining why it should stop there or accounting for feedback cycles and thermal inertia or the fact that all models have us on course for 3 C or more by 2100.
Even then analysis approach would allow readjustment. Consider the remarkable Arctic Ocean melt this year which demonstrates how conservative the science has been to date on balance and should have closed down arguments such as the one we are having here. It hasnt and like the Greenland plateau melt it is just spawning another rash of cherry-picking chatter. Still I am hopeful that maybe our various efforts will set a seed in the minds of unpersuaded people and eventually flower into an existential epiphany.
And I did elicit this beauty from him “Us humans certainly do have the right do what we like with (the natural world)……because, as living entities, we must selfishly activate our means of survival”.
The models have not successfully projected temperatures decades ahead, to disempower the world’s economies on the assumption they’ve got it right centuries out is insane.
As for cheery-picking and all the fuss about the Arctic’s record low, at the same time the Antarctic reached a record high.
The grossest injustice of all would be to deny future generations a time share of fossil fuels with which to undo the horrific mess that previous generations have dumped them with and progress their own development in their own way.
Imagine how future generations are going to feel having been dumped with the responsibility to maintain the safety of mountains of toxic nuclear waste throughtout their time and onto other future generations, a toxic mess that does nothing for them economically while increasing their vulnerability to many forms of cancer. And do this with the most difficult to extract scant remnants of squandered fossil fuels.
The present time is known as the Anthropozoic era. It could equally be thought of as the “Selfindulgentozoic” era.
John D:
1) Why is it a given that human values and life take precedence over non-human values and life? (‘Because we can’ is not good enough.)
2) Why the assumption that increased non-renewable/slow-cycle throughput now would increase rather than decrease the quality of life of our descendents? Note that Georgescu-Roegen and other thermoeconomists would argue that not only is this hopeful, it is physically impossible.
Dan 1) Quite so!
Dan
1. There are no intrinsic values, values pertain to valuers. As a human my values are pro-human-life. A spider values webs and flys because they keep it alive. I value reason and production because it keeps me alive. The spider has no intention of sacrificing its values. Neither do I.
2. If fossil fuel power is to becomes physically impossible or will run out you don’t need a carbon tax to stop it, do you!
@John Dawson
Hi John,
I’m wondering which of “the models” (should I assume from this you’re well versed in the field of climate modelling?) made all these wrong temperature predictions. It’s especially curious since several of the most prominent climate models (the IPCC 2001 report or Hansens effort all the way back in 1988 for example) have been shown to be in such good agreement with the observed temperature record.
Perhaps you are referring to the fact that although the IPCC numbers are within expected variability the all UNDERestimate the temperature. Given even larger underestimations in sea level rise and Arctic ice disappearance I assume you’re point is that climate scientists have been overly cautious about the dangers of global warming.
Is there no reason to be concerned about the effects of a 1.2 degree global temperature rise?
And is there any reason to assume that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration won’t go beyond a doubling of pre-industrial levels?
J-D. About half of the 1.2 warming has probably occurred already. If CO2 were to double a second time the warming effect would be much less than the first time. There is not a lot to be worried about with this direct warming effect of CO2, the worry is any net feedback warming; but it’s not sufficient to warent a precautionary disempowerment of the world. It’s much more sensible to deal with climate changes, be they natural or man made, as they arise, with our ever increasing knowledge, improving technology and increasing resources. Imagine what folly it would have been 100 years ago to try and project the problems of our time and act to solve them with the knowledge technology and resources available then.
An honest skeptic would outline the minimum conditions that would cause him to change his mind about the benign consequences of AGW.
I’ve asked skeptics and denialists of different ilks several times to outline those conditions. Thus far, none have accepted the invitation.
Is John Dawson more intellectually honest than his forerunners?
@Katz
i do not think you need to qualify which of his dishonesties he needs to address
he’s a shill – sure as G-d made little green apples
he thinks his honest just as (wait for it) Hitler, Stalin et al believed themselves to be honest
🙂
p
I find it telling that someone who accuses those who use the word “pollution” to describe excess atmospheric CO2 of being “Orwellian” can also describe proposals for what is a form of “user-pays” in fossil fuel usage as “like listening to Marxist students of the 1960s. ” It tells me that at least one of the following is true:
Dawson never listened to Marxist students of the 1960s
He did but he didn’t understand them
He did understand them but is verballing them because he thinks nobody reading this blog listened to them and understood.
He is clueless on the concept of “the tragedy of the commons” and “collective action problems”
He is simply doing rhetoric as part of a general cultural preference for existing patterns of conusmption.
Oh goodeee, we’re discussing meee. And hear I was thinking we were wasting our time discussing carbon taxes and global catastrophes.
Re the models Nathan, see a couple of recent reports:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/
http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/
Oh goodeee, we’re discussing meee. And hear I was thinking we were wasting our time discussing carbon taxes and global catastrophes.
Re the models Nathan, see a couple of recent reports:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/
@John Dawson
As you have brought no substance to the commentary, the closest thing to real data you have brough is … your own sentiment. I’d sooner discuss that, because that drives your utterances. I find culture interesting.
Since you have no science or even, as far as can be told, any capacity to weigh public policy, why not explain why you make the claims that you do? That could be interesting.
@John Dawson
The CO2 has not quite half-doubled and already the temperature is up 0.8 C. Inertia only works one way so you’re wrong already.
@John Dawson
I’d hate to burst your bubble but the warming force from the second doubling is the same as the warming force from the first doubling. That’s what “logarithmic dependence” means. But don’t let me spoil your delusions. You’re obviously enjoying them immensely.
@Chris O’Neill
Dawson is a Randite dogmatist – placing his instinctive private interests over the reasoned interests of society.
Fran: knock yourself out.
Chris: your wrong.
John: thanks for hosting.
Nice chatting.
@John Dawson
Can we really believe everything we read. Here is an example of a so-called journalist just making stuff up. And of course the usual suspects lap it up.
@John Dawson
here’s the problem with you
you hold two positions – one of which is defensible and one is not
the one that is not is that all the worlds scientists are wrong – only a complete idiot or a deluded fool or a liar or a shill would hold that position – to pretend that CO2 is not a problem and that it is not a human created one is just being dishonest in every possible way
the position that is valid is that government should not be doing anything about it – (or it should – remember it is a political issue not a scientific one)
the slimyness of your type is this – by holding both positions immutably – both the defensible and the indefensible you leave open a path to something that i detest above all things – gross government control of our lives
see it will play out like this
your lot will all of a sudden discover that your indefensible position must be abandoned and that oh my gosh things are so very very bad we have to impose martial law like control of the working and middle class
you pretend to be fighting for the liberty of the “free man” but you are not – you are a George Bush and a Geoffrey Sachs just waiting for your big opportunity to use catastrophe to rip us all off – we have all seen you do it time and time again
i suggest you go slime away somewhere and feed on your own flesh – you are worse than these commie lot that infest this place – i detest their high and mighty “we superior elite can save us all” view of things but your lot are far far worse – because you are out and out thieves and murderers just waiting for your chance to start your pogroms
if it were in my power i’d gun you all down
p
@The Peak Oil Poet Wonder what John Dawson thinks about seatbelts and vaccination?
Looks like John Dawson has chosen to behave like all other denialists, as noted @ #32.
Even if it’s true that there’s already been a 0.6 degree increase in global temperature as a direct effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, how does that in any way affect whether it’s reasonable to be concerned about further increases in global temperature as a result of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (or, for that matter, for any other reason)?
If you consider that a total rise of 1.2 degrees is not a cause for concern, how are you deciding the level of rise which would legitimately be a cause for concern?
If you don’t think it makes sense to plan one hundred years ahead, how far ahead do you think it does make sense to plan, and why?