I did say this in that post: "Personally, having researched it for myself, I accept there is a human component of significance on top of the current natural peak."fish wrote:The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, who I'd say know more about climate and climate change than us lot, say that: "Rising CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels has affected global temperature much more than natural climate variability during the past century". They go into more detail in their recent State of the Climate 2012 report.Psyber wrote:How much is the current natural cycle due for a peak now, and how much is the human contribution on top of that?
I was trying to not set you off again but I guess you went off before you got that far...
I know that is the intention, but the legislation does not support financing or forcing any change in technology, and can be ignored by just trading credits.fish wrote:As I understand it the price on carbon is intended to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions not solve the global warming problem.Psyber wrote:How much difference will a Carbon price make towards actually reducing the effect?
So, I can't see it being effective in lowering "our carbon monoxide emissions", let alone the world's.
As I've said before the Greens' policy, and the Democrats', is better here.
1. I never read Andrew Bolt, and I do know better than what you both thought I said.Gozu wrote:Don't bother Fish, Psyber is just regurgitating Andrew Bolt's line. The sad part is he's old enough to know better.
2. You both need to brush up your reading comprehension skills, and not misread what anyone says thorough your assumptions about them.
