Campaigning against Abbott on climate change.

She wants 100% renewable energy – wind & solar.

She says Labor’s planned reduction of greenhouse gasses by 45% by 2030 is not enough.
She wants zero emissions, from Australia. Think about that? Emissions from electricity only make up a 1/3 of our emissions.

So Australia’s emissions make up only 1% of global emissions. 1/3 of that is from electricity.

Put into perspective – the IPCC’s worst case scenario for a doubling of CO2 is 4.5C.

1/3 of 1% is 0.33%

0.33% of 4.5C is 0.01485C

Australia would be responsible for only

What sort of a moron would care less about that.

If the idiots that do care about that were fairdinkum they would go harass China & India
AND
be protesting in the streets for nuclear

Zeppelin said:

Campaigning against Abbott on climate change.

She wants 100% renewable energy – wind & solar.

She says Labor’s planned reduction of greenhouse gasses by 45% by 2030 is not enough.
She wants zero emissions, from Australia. Think about that? Emissions from electricity only make up a 1/3 of our emissions.

So Australia’s emissions make up only 1% of global emissions. 1/3 of that is from electricity.

Put into perspective – the IPCC’s worst case scenario for a doubling of CO2 is 4.5C.

1/3 of 1% is 0.33%

0.33% of 4.5C is 0.01485C

Australia would be responsible for only

What sort of a moron would care less about that.

If the idiots that do care about that were fairdinkum they would go harass China & India
AND
be protesting in the streets for nuclear

You’re using all the talking points tonight Zeppy: Climate change is natural; check! Australia’s contrihution is negligible so why bother; check!

Witty Rejoinder said:

Zeppelin said:

Campaigning against Abbott on climate change.

She wants 100% renewable energy – wind & solar.

She says Labor’s planned reduction of greenhouse gasses by 45% by 2030 is not enough.
She wants zero emissions, from Australia. Think about that? Emissions from electricity only make up a 1/3 of our emissions.

So Australia’s emissions make up only 1% of global emissions. 1/3 of that is from electricity.

Put into perspective – the IPCC’s worst case scenario for a doubling of CO2 is 4.5C.

1/3 of 1% is 0.33%

0.33% of 4.5C is 0.01485C

Australia would be responsible for only

What sort of a moron would care less about that.

If the idiots that do care about that were fairdinkum they would go harass China & India
AND
be protesting in the streets for nuclear

You’re using all the talking points tonight Zeppy: Climate change is natural; check! Australia’s contrihution is negligible so why bother; check!

She’s basing her argument for renewables on the warming being anthropogenic

Zeppelin said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Zeppelin said:

Campaigning against Abbott on climate change.

She wants 100% renewable energy – wind & solar.

She says Labor’s planned reduction of greenhouse gasses by 45% by 2030 is not enough.
She wants zero emissions, from Australia. Think about that? Emissions from electricity only make up a 1/3 of our emissions.

So Australia’s emissions make up only 1% of global emissions. 1/3 of that is from electricity.

Put into perspective – the IPCC’s worst case scenario for a doubling of CO2 is 4.5C.

1/3 of 1% is 0.33%

0.33% of 4.5C is 0.01485C

Australia would be responsible for only

What sort of a moron would care less about that.

If the idiots that do care about that were fairdinkum they would go harass China & India
AND
be protesting in the streets for nuclear

You’re using all the talking points tonight Zeppy: Climate change is natural; check! Australia’s contrihution is negligible so why bother; check!

She’s basing her argument for renewables on the warming being anthropogenic

You’re a Flat Earther Zep! The world has moved on and you just look silly.

PermeateFree said:

Zeppelin said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You’re using all the talking points tonight Zeppy: Climate change is natural; check! Australia’s contrihution is negligible so why bother; check!

She’s basing her argument for renewables on the warming being anthropogenic

You’re a Flat Earther Zep! The world has moved on and you just look silly.

Can you make an argument against what I’v said pf? Or is be rude all you’ve got?

I love you by the way pf

Zeppelin said:

PermeateFree said:

Zeppelin said:

She’s basing her argument for renewables on the warming being anthropogenic

You’re a Flat Earther Zep! The world has moved on and you just look silly.

Can you make an argument against what I’v said pf? Or is be rude all you’ve got?

I love you by the way pf

You don’t say anything that has not said before, which in your case has not only been proved wrong but a lot of mis-information. People not only don’t believe you anymore Zep, but they don’t care what you think, because under all your pseudo-science is nothing but deceit.

PermeateFree said:

Zeppelin said:

PermeateFree said:

You’re a Flat Earther Zep! The world has moved on and you just look silly.

Can you make an argument against what I’v said pf? Or is be rude all you’ve got?

I love you by the way pf

You don’t say anything that has not said before, which in your case has not only been proved wrong but a lot of mis-information. People not only don’t believe you anymore Zep, but they don’t care what you think, because under all your pseudo-science is nothing but deceit.

Nothing pseudo about what I’ve posted pf. I think that’s why your pleading insanity with your posts.
Never mind I know you’re not up to it, but I love you anyway mate.

Zeppelin said:

PermeateFree said:

Zeppelin said:

Can you make an argument against what I’v said pf? Or is be rude all you’ve got?

I love you by the way pf

You don’t say anything that has not said before, which in your case has not only been proved wrong but a lot of mis-information. People not only don’t believe you anymore Zep, but they don’t care what you think, because under all your pseudo-science is nothing but deceit.

Nothing pseudo about what I’ve posted pf. I think that’s why your pleading insanity with your posts.
Never mind I know you’re not up to it, but I love you anyway mate.

You are not upsetting me Zep, as I have always thought of you being a troll amongst other things. I just like pointing out the stupidness of your position and how far behind the times you are. Could it be you have been discarded by the deniers because you lag so far behind?

> So Australia’s emissions make up only 1% of global emissions. 1/3 of that is from electricity.

How much of that is bushfires?

“No drop of water thinks it’s to blame for the flood.”

We’re all in this together, who gives a shit if Australian emissions are small fry? We have influence.

Also, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/13/transport-emissions-continue-to-rise-as-australia-lags-behind-other-nations

Electricity production makes up 33% of our emissions and transport another 18%. Together that’s half.

Both industries will make use of the same advancing battery technology, which continues to improve.

(shrugs)

Australia is one of the world’s major emitters. We’re in the top 10.

dv said:

(shrugs)

Australia is one of the world’s major emitters. We’re in the top 10.

and to make matters worse, we are pretending that it isn’t happening.

Kothos said:

“No drop of water thinks it’s to blame for the flood.”

We’re all in this together, who gives a shit if Australian emissions are small fry? We have influence.

Influence,,, LOL

dv said:

(shrugs)

Australia is one of the world’s major emitters. We’re in the top 10.

1% might put us in the top 10, but 1% is minuscule, not major.

Your argument is based on political ideals. Its like a religion to you. Reality & facts have no influence on your opinion & that’s why your opinion is illogical.

Zeppelin said:

dv said:

(shrugs)

Australia is one of the world’s major emitters. We’re in the top 10.

1% might put us in the top 10, but 1% is minuscule, not major.

Your argument is based on political ideals. Its like a religion to you. Reality & facts have no influence on your opinion & that’s why your opinion is illogical.

and yours isn’t? 97% of the world’s scientists disagree with you.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

(shrugs)

Australia is one of the world’s major emitters. We’re in the top 10.

and to make matters worse, we are pretending that it isn’t happening.

From what I’ve seen of your responses Rough, you have no idea of the basics of the greenhouse theory, so you cannot logically argue with what I say, yet you tell me I’m wrong.
Its a religion to you

Zeppelin said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

(shrugs)

Australia is one of the world’s major emitters. We’re in the top 10.

and to make matters worse, we are pretending that it isn’t happening.

From what I’ve seen of your responses Rough, you have no idea of the basics of the greenhouse theory, so you cannot logically argue with what I say, yet you tell me I’m wrong.
Its a religion to you

Probably because I deliberately try to avoid entering an argument with a one eyed prick.

roughbarked said:

Zeppelin said:

dv said:

(shrugs)

Australia is one of the world’s major emitters. We’re in the top 10.

1% might put us in the top 10, but 1% is minuscule, not major.

Your argument is based on political ideals. Its like a religion to you. Reality & facts have no influence on your opinion & that’s why your opinion is illogical.

and yours isn’t? 97% of the world’s scientists disagree with you.

This is another example of your ignorance. I quote the mainstream science & then show how measurements prove that the warming is not dominated by greenhouse forcing & positive feedback, You don’t know the basics to recognise this. You just put up a baseless argument

roughbarked said:

Zeppelin said:

roughbarked said:

and to make matters worse, we are pretending that it isn’t happening.

From what I’ve seen of your responses Rough, you have no idea of the basics of the greenhouse theory, so you cannot logically argue with what I say, yet you tell me I’m wrong.
Its a religion to you

Probably because I deliberately try to avoid entering an argument with a one eyed prick.

Now that you cannot disprove what I put forward, because i base it on the mainstream theory, & you do not even know what it is, you start with the name calling. You lose.

Zeppelin said:

roughbarked said:

Zeppelin said:

From what I’ve seen of your responses Rough, you have no idea of the basics of the greenhouse theory, so you cannot logically argue with what I say, yet you tell me I’m wrong.
Its a religion to you

Probably because I deliberately try to avoid entering an argument with a one eyed prick.

Now that you cannot disprove what I put forward, because i base it on the mainstream theory, & you do not even know what it is, you start with the name calling. You lose.

So too will you. Lose that is.

roughbarked said:

Zeppelin said:

roughbarked said:

Probably because I deliberately try to avoid entering an argument with a one eyed prick.

Now that you cannot disprove what I put forward, because i base it on the mainstream theory, & you do not even know what it is, you start with the name calling. You lose.

So too will you. Lose that is.

Seemingly you are basing everything on a theory which is somehhow qualified by the use of the word, mainstream.

I could ask you how if the oceans aren’t being warmed by gases, what is warming them then?

Back to the topic of this thread

IPCC climate model projections for the climates response to a doubling of CO2 give a range of 1.5C to a worst case scenario of 4.5C rise in average temperature.

Using the example of the worst case scenario, 4.5C, if australia sank into the ocean like atlantis, contributing no emissions, period, not just the third of our emissions electricity

generation, the result would change from 4.5C to 4.455C.

In the best case scenario, a rise in temp of 1.5C, which is far more realistic, the result would change from 1.5C to 1.485C

No matter what we do it will make no difference what so ever.

roughbarked said:

Zeppelin said:

roughbarked said:

Probably because I deliberately try to avoid entering an argument with a one eyed prick.

Now that you cannot disprove what I put forward, because i base it on the mainstream theory, & you do not even know what it is, you start with the name calling. You lose.

So too will you. Lose that is.

More meaning drivel rough

The topic of this thread isn’t name calling?

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Zeppelin said:

Now that you cannot disprove what I put forward, because i base it on the mainstream theory, & you do not even know what it is, you start with the name calling. You lose.

So too will you. Lose that is.

Seemingly you are basing everything on a theory which is somehhow qualified by the use of the word, mainstream.

I could ask you how if the oceans aren’t being warmed by gases, what is warming them then?

How about sunlight. Overturning redistributing heat.
the warming? honestly? you believe we have data going back any time that can reliably show what is happening, over the last 100, 200 years? That is bullshit. Any warming there’s been need not invoke a forcing of any kind. natural variability can explain it. Between 2005 and 2017, the global network of thousands of Argo floats have measured an average temperature increase of the upper half of the ocean of 0.04 deg. C. That’s less than 0.004 C/year, an inconceivably small number.

You think a slight rise in a trace gas, and the partial downwelling of heat towards the surface from that slight rise in a that trace gas, can somehow both increase evaporation and dive deep into the ocean to heat it up at the same time it is barely warming the atmosphere???? Preposterous!

Zeppelin said:

roughbarked said:

Zeppelin said:

Now that you cannot disprove what I put forward, because i base it on the mainstream theory, & you do not even know what it is, you start with the name calling. You lose.

So too will you. Lose that is.

More meaning drivel rough

Meaningless

roughbarked said:

The topic of this thread isn’t name calling?

Anyone who believes that australia going 100% renewable will have any affect on greenhouse forcing is a moron.

Zeppelin said:

roughbarked said:

The topic of this thread isn’t name calling?

Anyone who believes that australia going 100% renewable will have any affect on greenhouse forcing is a moron.

everyone who promotes the above is either ignorant or a liar.

Zeppelin said:

Zeppelin said:

roughbarked said:

The topic of this thread isn’t name calling?

Anyone who believes that australia going 100% renewable will have any affect on greenhouse forcing is a moron.

everyone who promotes the above is either ignorant or a liar.

Do you have any workings to show this theory?

roughbarked said:

Zeppelin said:

Zeppelin said:

Anyone who believes that australia going 100% renewable will have any affect on greenhouse forcing is a moron.

everyone who promotes the above is either ignorant or a liar.

Do you have any workings to show this theory?

you don’t understand what your talking about, at all, & repeatedly ask me to do what I’ve already done. Honestly rough, I think you’ve had too many cones this morning to make any sense

Zeppelin said:

roughbarked said:

Zeppelin said:

everyone who promotes the above is either ignorant or a liar.

Do you have any workings to show this theory?

you don’t understand what your talking about, at all, & repeatedly ask me to do what I’ve already done. Honestly rough, I think you’ve had too many cones this morning to make any sense

Oh I assure you that I know more about that of which I speak than you can ever surmise.