Next Ice Age?
"Maybe they (deniers) are right and it’s all crap, although that doesn’t seem to be very likely."To support this dubious statement, Mr Kohler relies on Ross Garnaut's 2011 dribble, Department of Environment, the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO, which have all been discredited.
The total of atmospheric CO2 is a very tiny 0.04% and, of that tiny percent, man's contribution is a mere 3%. Gee! 3% of 0.04%? AND Australia's contribution is ONLY 3% of the world's contribution.
|Here is the atmosphere||100%||1|
|Here is .04% of 1||1*0.04%||0.0004|
|Here is 3% of B||B*3%||0.000012|
|This is Australia's contribution to the mythical global warming!|
Not my maths. This (above) is from an Excel spreadsheet. Be that as it may, if you accept the false
premise that man's CO2 emissions (and ONLY man's CO2 emissions) are responsible for global
Austrralia is responsible for such a SMALL amount, we shouldn't worry until the rest of the
world makes a significant contribution.
Mr Kohler continues:
Surely we need a baseline set of agreed facts about the impact of climate change and a national strategy for dealing with it, instead of assertions by people in a fog of ideology or with an axe to grind.
Gee, Mr. Kohler, are you in a "fog of ideology?" Or do you "have an axe to grind."
Then he adds:
Then he adds:
It seems to me the best way to achieve that, given the apparent seriousness of the situation, would be an independent body, a bit like an expert, permanent royal commission, made up of a cross-section of scientists, statisticians and economists, to pull together the data and advise the government.Now, you're talking, Alan, baby. Us realists, the people that you call "anti-science deniers" have been calling for (as you say:)
- an independent body,
- permanent royal commission, made up of a cross-section of scientists, statisticians and economist
Gee, Mr Kohler, NOW we have reached an agreement.