An historic moment in the climate change debate in Australia

I’ve put this into my previous post already on The children’s crusade but I think this deserves a moment to itself.

MORNING UPDATE: Just wandered into the kitchen and who should they be replaying on Channel 10 but Alan Jones and the snippet on climate change from last night. And there was Kerry-Anne defending Alan Jones and saying how mad it is to ruin our economy over such an unproven bit of nonsense.

You can watch Alan Jones for yourself. The entire segment takes six minutes but Alan comes in around four minutes in.

Here is the news report where the twitter feed is taken from with this as the sub-heading: There’s always a cringeworthy moment on Q&A and it came in the form of Alan Jones trying to take on this topic. Here is how the report describes what happened.

The 2GB host then went on about how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere and reeled off so many numbers in a row, no one could keep up.

“It’s 0.04 per cent, and of that 0.04 of a per cent, human beings around the world create 3 per cent. And of that 3 per cent Australia creates 1.3 per cent. So for the 1.3 per cent of 3 per of 0.04 per cent we then decide to have a national economic suicide note.”

Everyone was waiting for him to get out a bag of rice (you can relive that moment in the video above), but thankfully Tony Jones stepped in after pleas from the panel to make Alan stop.

They only tried to make him stop him because they had no answers to what he said.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to An historic moment in the climate change debate in Australia

  1. stackja

    TJ interruption lotto again!

  2. stackja

    TJ says science has the answer!

  3. Eddystone

    This just highlights the ignorance and, let’s face it, the stupidity, of the climate change activists.

    That fat, bearded wanker who asked the question was a sneering, pompous ass.

  4. Rebel with cause

    The Left are so invested in climate change and it is so entrenched in legislation, politics, academia and business that thinking it will go away any time soon is bonkers.

  5. Roger

    Yet the news.com.au headline this morning is ‘Q&A: Moment Alan Jones got owned on climate change’

    The dogma lives loudly within them.

  6. Rebel with cause

    Also its ‘a historic’ as the h has a consonant sound in this case.

  7. Mitchell Porter

    As a representative of climate science orthodoxy, let me say that Barnaby’s first and last figures are correct, but I don’t know what the “3%” – in “human beings around the world create 3 per cent” – is supposed to be. Preindustrial CO2 was about 280ppm, now it’s above 410 ppm and going up by 2ppm every year.

  8. RobK

    Mitch,
    , but I don’t know what the “3%” – in “human beings around the world create 3 per cent”
    Most of the increase from 280-400+ is due to the response of increased temperature, such as out gassing of the oceans, increased bio-activity etc. It lags natural temp increase as we exit cool cycles such as ice ages. Pretty basic stuff often glossed over for convenience.
    The CO2 conjecture is a scare campaign.

  9. stackja

    If humans stopped exhaling?

  10. Seco

    Mitchell Porter
    #3021347, posted on May 21, 2019 at 11:00 am
    As a representative of climate science orthodoxy, let me say that Barnaby’s first and last figures are correct, but I don’t know what the “3%” – in “human beings around the world create 3 per cent” – is supposed to be. Preindustrial CO2 was about 280ppm, now it’s above 410 ppm and going up by 2ppm every year.

    Barnaby never said anything, it was Alan Jones. I’m not a representative of the “climate science orthodoxy” but I know that he means of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere that human kind are supposed to be responsible for roughly 3% of that, the rest coming naturally. As for the increase from 280ppm to 410ppm I say so what! It has been much higher previously.

  11. nb

    Exercises in the little red schoolbook:
    Zero numbers and truckloads of opinion – ‘I can do that!’
    One number and spades of opinion – ‘Give me a calculator’.
    Two numbers – *crickets*
    Three numbers in a row – ‘pleas from the panel to make Alan stop’.

  12. duncanm

    Mitchell Porter
    #3021347, posted on May 21, 2019 at 11:00 am
    As a representative of climate science orthodoxy, let me say that Barnaby’s first and last figures are correct, but I don’t know what the “3%” – in “human beings around the world create 3 per cent” – is supposed to be.

    in simple graphics, from the IPCC no less:

    https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif

  13. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    communists have form when it comes to shutting down opposition – yesterday it was gulags today it’s digital assassination.

  14. duncanm

    .. and for those who think that the rise to 400ppm is entirely anthropogenic, there is an argument that the CO2 concentration is entirely driven by temperature.

  15. Roger

    They only tried to make him stop him because they had no answers to what he said.

    Facts?

    Don’t trouble us with facts!

  16. there is an argument that the CO2 concentration is entirely driven by temperature.

    More accurately. There is evidence that the CO2 concentration is almost entirely driven by temperature.

  17. Alessio

    “More accurately. There is evidence that the CO2 concentration is almost entirely driven by temperature.” Intuitively I agree but do you have a reference?

  18. For the left only:

    400ppm == 0.04% == 0.0004 (fraction) == 1e-4

    Isotope studies (Berry et al) put the human contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere as approx. 3%
    3% == 0.03 == 3e-2

    3e-2 x 1e-4 == 3e-6 == 0.000003 == three millionths

    Australia’s slice of the three millionths is about one hundredth.

    Which amounts to a grand total of SFA of SFA.

  19. Intuitively I agree but do you have a reference?

    Discarded it with my last PC.
    Ask Bruce of Newcastle.
    The magic number is 800 years.
    i.e. Earth warms and CO2 rises – 800 years later.
    The study was ice cores. Post the question as Jo Nova’s site and I’m sure you will get your references.

  20. Rococo Liberal

    .. and for those who think that the rise to 400ppm is entirely anthropogenic, there is an argument that the CO2 concentration is entirely driven by temperature.”
    Exactly.

  21. yarpos

    Never been a Jones fan, but thar was gold

  22. duncanm

    Alessio
    #3021402, posted on May 21, 2019 at 11:55 am
    Intuitively I agree but do you have a reference?

    read through the link I supplied above

  23. Tim Neilson

    Let’s talk science.

    Atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude.
    It varies according to conditions, but the international civil aviation authorities work off an average lapse rate of 6.5 degrees celsius per kilometre.

    The IPCC’s predictions, as best I can remember, are for a worst case scenario of about 4.5 degree temperature rise by 2100 if humanity continues its eeeevil ways.
    That’s equivalent to about 692 metres of lapse rate temperature change.
    Australia’s contribution to da eeeevil is about 1.3%.
    So we’d contribute just on 9 metres worth of temperature change by 2100.

    So if ScoMo et. al. did absolutely nothing about climate change for their whole 3 year term, we’d be contributing a temperature increase equal to about a third of one metre of temperature change during that 3 years.
    Given that not even the green loons expect total decarbonisation in a day, we’re really talking about a few centimetres worth of temperature change if Australia went flat stick for “climate action” in those 3 years.

    Try putting both hands in front of you, with one of them elevated a few centimetres above the other. You can thus feel the effects of total climate inaction by da eeeevil deniers until Shorten’s successor and “Minimum Wage” Di Natale take over in 3 years’ time.

  24. Alessio

    duncanm
    #3021435, posted on May 21, 2019 at 12:19 pm
    Alessio
    #3021402, posted on May 21, 2019 at 11:55 am
    Intuitively I agree but do you have a reference?

    read through the link I supplied above

    Cheers Duncan

  25. John Constantine

    Make him stop using numbers and mansplaining.

    So addicted to anxiety and the rush of hysteria hormones, they are so deeply wallowing in the feelings of their hearts that they cannot process numbers.

    Tap and go card level thinking, their left have corrupted education to the level that all their drones hear is angry birdsong when numbers are spoken and a grey blur they scan over when numbers are written.

    Controlling language to control thinking is one thing, but once the population become innumerate you really don’t have to do costings on your policies anymore.

    Comrades.

  26. calli

    Everyone was waiting for him to get out a bag of rice (you can relive that moment in the video above), but thankfully Tony Jones stepped in after pleas from the panel to make Alan stop.

    Oh pwease, pwease, pwease make the Bad Man stop. Too many debbildebbil numbers!

    Our widdle heads, they ache!

    Now gimme free stuff.

  27. Mother Lode

    “It’s 0.04 per cent, and of that 0.04 of a per cent, human beings around the world create 3 per cent. And of that 3 per cent Australia creates 1.3 per cent. So for the 1.3 per cent of 3 per of 0.04 per cent we then decide to have a national economic suicide note.”

    This, kids, is called making a point – it is an argument thing.

    We have a kid whose mum tells us she can see CO2 – I suspect in much the same way you can ‘see’ a tasty dish, or when you look at a picture of a desert you can ‘see’ the heat – this child sees chimneys and she subconsciously ‘fills in’ CO2 without saying that it is physically visible.

    But most important is that it is not an argument. It can’t be measured or verified, and it is almost certainly triggered by emotion.

    But we are meant to listen to this kid who has never studied any of the stuff she prates on about.

    Jones bring numbers. They could try rebutting with more numbers such as small changes can have disproportionate effect. Perhaps say that if you double the heat energy in a block at 20C, it doesn’t heat up to 40C because 0C is not the temperature at zero energy. At least it would be scientific.

    But they don’t. They just look very suspiciously at someone who uses numbers and logic. “What is he talking about? What is he trying to hide? Why doesn’t he address the topic?”

  28. No Minced Poodle

    Notice Christopher Pyne doesn’t mention Tony Abbott who won the 2013 election in a landslide. Just so glad Pyne is now gone from parliament.

  29. calli

    Jones tried to take The Precious.

    We know it can only be destroyed if someone is willing to chuck it in the volcano.

    Any takers?

  30. calli

    That would be AJ.

    TJ is more a Mouth of Sauron type.

  31. Biota

    Numbers and logic are hate speech, doncha know!

  32. Faye

    Here I go again exposing myself as a lightweight. This is how I worked out the Alan Jones sum. Is it correct, if not, please show me the right way.
    I interpreted it as dollars and cents.
    0.04 = 4 cents
    3 = $3 = 300 cents
    1.3 = $1.30 = 130 cents

    4 div by 300 div by 130 = 0.000102564% of the atmosphere is Australia’s total carbon dioxide emissions

  33. We have a kid whose mum tells us she can see CO2

    Maybe the next QnA invitee could take two gas jars.
    One filled with smoke (from my trout smoker).
    One filled with CO2.

    Which jar is the CO2 Tony?

  34. Mother Lode

    Jones tried to take The Precious.

    We hateses the Jones.

  35. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    We have a kid whose mum tells us she can see CO2

    I can see zombies

  36. Stimpson J. Cat

    there is an argument that the CO2 concentration is entirely driven by temperature.

    If only there was a way for us to cool the Sun.
    Nuclear winter is the only Sane option.

  37. Mother Lode

    Oh, CO2 is indeed leading to climate change!

    You know even when CO2 is ice it is hot – they even call it HOT ice.

    Won’t somebody think of the children!

  38. calli

    And in Hobart, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Good.

    Play by their rules using their tactics (without the violence and vandalism).

  39. Farmer Gez

    I work on the simple assumption that if the planet was so sensitive to CO2 levels then there would have been a runaway greenhouse disaster before now and life wouldn’t exist.
    A lack of CO2 in past ice ages very nearly extinguished all life.
    Water vapour is overwhelmingly the main greenhouse gas. Show me the huge increase in atmospheric water vapour to proof up the concept. They can’t.

  40. Rohan

    Tim Neilson
    #3021439, posted on May 21, 2019 at 12:29 pm
    Let’s talk science.

    Atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude.
    It varies according to conditions, but the international civil aviation authorities work off an average lapse rate of 6.5 degrees celsius per kilometre.

    This is a quite confusing means of explaining climate change and the effects of that change, especially to someone who’s highest level of science was year 9 at high school. I get where you’re going with this but it’s best not to confuse the issue.

    You would only introduce the adiabatic lapse rate only to argue against the modelled rise in upper equatorial troposphere temperatures due to CO2 known as “the hot spot”. Then go on to explain how the modelling of this aspect of the science is in direct violation to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Otherwise I would leave that one alone.

    Where AJ cut through last night was the complete lack of understanding of the elementary basics of the scientific argument. This is where what he did was important. He demonstrated with fact that we’re not anything like being a major player.

    A better tactic would be to add the fact that water vaour is also a greenhouse gas, is 22.5 times the concentration of CO2 and is 7.6 times stronger than C02. Yet it represents only 70-73% of the GH gas effect.

  41. Dr Fred Lenin

    The figures put the stupid lyingleft into perspective ,1.3 per cent of 3per cent of .o4 percent and it has created billions of bullshit words and lie s and cost zillions of dollars .
    This is a criminal conspiricy of epic proportions and warrants the re introduction of the death sentence . These figures should be spread around everywhere to re educate the people ,also the massive costs and where the money ended up,it wasnt burned so it should be traceable .start with soro and gore a the clintons . In Australia have a look at turnbull and his union comrades .

  42. Mother Lode

    And in Hobart, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    I saw the ABC banner news this morning saying that there had been angry and foul language in Hobart – my immediate thought was that they were not saying who had unleashed the bad language, so I could assume it was from the left.

    I was right.

    Funny thing is that one of the Alderman said that the three who walked out should not have done so because they all need to be present to debate. I would argue that the three who walked out made their positions abundantly clear.

    But the ABC also appreciates the eloquence of silence – the way they studiously avoid mentioning certain facts like who was the Tasmanian potty mouth.

    It is all an act. Morro got in, so the Greens and Labor are leaping to attack while Morro is distracted and not quite ready getting a feel for the new parliament.

    They really don’t give a rats about what real people think.

  43. sabena

    “Alan I am happy you made that point but the question has got to be answered by scientists”
    Translation, “there is no answer to Alan Jones point,so we need to stop the debate there in case some viewers start getting the wrong idea”
    Incidentally,the question is for us to answer,not scientists-we have not yet arrogated to them the power to make decisions for us.

  44. Beachcomber

    IC and Faye. It can also be calculated as simple proportions.

    – Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere = 400 ppm = 0.04% = 0.0004
    – Human contribution = 3% = 0.03
    – Australia’s component of human contribution = 1.3% = 0.013

    – 0.0004 x 0.03 x 0.013 = 0.000000156

    i.e., 0.0000156%

    Even if the Australian economy is completely disappeared from the planet it makes “SFA of SFA difference”. And that’s assuming that CO2 induced global is real.
    This is what the fascist left establishment insist is the klimate catastrophe that we must address by de-industrialising. Most Australian voters are starting to understand that it is a front for Maoist/Stalinist central planning.

  45. Mother Lode

    “Alan I am happy you made that point but the question has got to be answered by scientists”

    “Scientists” and “Experts” are the talismans that lefties keep to word off cluebats.

    They are spared the need to actually justify their mandates – that is a different department. And anyone who doubts an expert is anti-scientific. We have long noticed this from them – the idea that doubt means anti-science. They like to claim to be scientific because they have no doubt.

    I have had arguments on this very point with people, that scientists use the same logic as us Their concepts are more precise but they interact in a logical way. There is no situation where things that contradict each other are compatible, for example.

    A theory of which the predictions fail to come about is falsified. The left would say that you cannot say that because you are not an expert. I don’t think they really mean it, but arguing that point is a way of avoiding admitting that the underlying theory is wrong.

  46. Ubique

    Here’s a simple way of looking at it.
    1. Co2 makes up 410 ppm (0.041%) of the atmosphere. A simple fact unknown by 99.9 percent of the population.
    2. Three percent of that comes from anthropogenic sources = 12.3 ppm (virtually no one knows this either).
    3. One point three percent of the anthropogenic source is Australia = 0.16 ppm (ditto).

    So were we to cripple our economy and make electricity completely unaffordable by halving our CO2 emissions, we could reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by 0.08 ppm.

    That’s why the Chief Scientist admitted that nothing we do to reduce emissions will have any effect on climate. And that’s even before considering that climate sensitivity to CO2 above and beyond 20 ppm is virtually nothing anyway, as the effectiveness of CO2 as a GHG decreases on a logarithmic scale as CO2 levels rise.

  47. John A

    incoherent rambler #3021417, posted on May 21, 2019, at 12:07 pm

    For the left only:

    400ppm == 0.04% == 0.0004 (fraction) == 1e-4

    Isotope studies (Berry et al) put the human contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere as approx. 3%
    3% == 0.03 == 3e-2

    3e-2 x 1e-4 == 3e-6 == 0.000003 == three millionths

    Australia’s slice of the three millionths is about one hundredth.

    Which amounts to a grand total of SFA of SFA.

    It is even less than that.

    Picture the effect of removing Australia and all its people, industry, transport, agriculture – EVERYTHING.

    What will the atmosphere above the land mass do? Will it disappear and leave behind a vacuum? No, atmosphere with all the contents created by everyone ELSE around the globe will move into the purported vacuum.

    The net effect will be ZILCH, NADA, an exercise in abject futility.

    A second-level argument:
    Even if all the increase in CO2 was human-caused, and even if the average global temperature (fake concept, I know, but bear with me) rose by 2degrees C (well, really it’s 2degreesK, but “don’t you worry about that!”), this would represent a climate shift equivalent to the difference between Melbourne and Brisbane, or Hobart and Sydney. And lots of people migrate in the northerly direction for the lifestyle and health benefits, right?

  48. Tim Neilson

    Rohan
    #3021498, posted on May 21, 2019 at 1:30 pm

    You’re right.

    I set it out here in full because I knew there’d be people who’d understand.

    With a ‘progressive’ you’d just do the hand gesture, tell them that that was the temperature difference we’re arguing about, and challenge them to debate you on the science.

  49. 0.0000156%

    Close to the dilutions used in homeopathy.

  50. calli

    Gary! 🤣

    Perfect, and I’m sooooo using that.

  51. Which amounts to a grand total of SFA of SFA.

    It is even less than that.

    Oops. Correction:

    A grand total of SFA of SFA of SFA.

  52. Davefromweewaa

    Even the 1.3% of 3% (of 410ppm CO2) is a bit high. I believe it includes cow and sheep emissions which are clearly not fossil fueled!

  53. Davefromweewaa

    …as in sheep and cows are carbon neutral. They don’t add any new Carbon.

  54. Faye

    Dear Beachcomber, Thank you for your help. I made a mess of it. Converting percentages, decimals and fractions – I was hopelessly simplistically wrong!

  55. vicki

    As a reply to those who say no scientists disagree with the alarmism over CO2, see this discussion with Princeton University Physics Professor William Happer:

    https://youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs

  56. Colonel Crispin Berka

    of that 0.04 of a per cent, human beings around the world create 3 per cent. And of that 3 per cent Australia creates 1.3 per cent.

    That is false. The 0.04% is an amount at a moment in time, the 3 percent is related to the flux that occurs over an interval, so they cannot be simplistically multiplied together. It would be like multiplying your annual income by your current bank balance, the result is meaningless.

    The presumed intent of his statement is to show that Australia makes an insignificant contribution to the annual rate of rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. Only the net emission, net of all fluxes in and out of the atmosphere, determines this contribution. The 3 percent figure is a reference to anthropogenic fluxes into the air as a fraction of all the carbon fluxes into the atmosphere from all sources. The fluxes out of the atmosphere into the ocean/land have to be subtracted to get the net result figure. What is observable in controlled experiments on land, and also just by looking at how small the annual CO2 rise is compared to all the fluxes going on around the planet, is that the natural fluxes out very nearly cancel the natural fluxes in. Indeed that balance must be so as that’s the only way life was sustained over millions of years, with the gap being the coal/oil/gas that accumulated underground. Due to Henry’s Law there is certainly a bit of CO2 flux coming out of the ocean from 20th century warming, but it’s probably added 15ppm before 1960, nowhere near the observed rise that occurred since then. Compared with Nature, human activity is today by a long shot the only net contributor to the rise in CO2.
    Therefore the only figure relevant is the final 1.3%, that being Australia’s share of man-made emissions. The other two figures are red herrings and his statement is therefore a gish gallop. It’s a shame nobody on the panel knew enough to correct him, but not surprising.

    The IPCC chart linked by duncanm above also shows that same scale of the contributions, showing that man-made net emissions are 70% larger than the rate the Earth is overall absorbing them. Must be a bit embarrassing for Cats to not understand the charts they link to. It’s like you’re role-playing scientist by going through the motions of “referencing evidence” with the same degree of understanding as a dog wearing driving goggles while sitting in the driver’s seat of a car.

    All one has to say is that Australia’s greenhouse gas contribution is 1.3% of global industrial output, which by itself ought to be enough to put an end to this carbon reparations nonsense in this country. There was also a peer-reviewed paper a few years back which (based on equal parts computer model and observation) had calculated that Australia was not even a net source of CO2. Yeah, we were absorbing more than we were emitting. I know it was on Jo Nova’s site but darned if I can find it now.

  57. Mitchell Porter

    (While I was drafting this reply, “Colonel Crispin Berka” made a comment saying many similar things, but I will post this as it stands.)

    I asked what Alan Jones’s 3% (not Barnaby Jones, d’oh) referred to… duncanm (#3021376) is presumably on the right track: it refers to the human contribution to combined human + natural CO2 emissions every year, before you subtract the annual natural CO2 absorption from that total. Of course, in the conventional view, the human contribution gives rise to a net annual increase which, accumulated over 150 years, is responsible for about 30% of current CO2, not 3%.

    If the point of citing these numbers is to argue that Australian climate policy makes no material difference to world climate, the only one that really counts is the 1.3%, in conjunction with the observation that if the largest emitters do not also become carbon-neutral, Australia’s sacrifice would only make a hundredth of a degree’s difference in 2100, or some such. Pointing out that CO2 is less than a tenth of a percent of the atmosphere may shake up some naive environmentalists who had assumed that we must all be choking on the stuff, but all molecules are not made equal and they have very different properties. 99% of Earth’s atmosphere is not composed of greenhouse gases. 95% of Venus’s atmosphere is, and it’s hot enough to melt lead.

    There are some “alternative” views above which I hope to address later tonight or maybe tomorrow. First, there is the argument that the historically recent increase in CO2 is not due to that human “3%” annual excess at all, but is rather due to an increase in natural emissions of CO2, driven by a natural temperature increase. Usually one regards this as ruled out by isotopic analysis (this must be what ‘incoherent rambler’ refers to in #3021417): fossil carbon contains a different distribution of carbon isotopes to ‘recently living carbon’, and isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 allows us to infer that the growth is coming from fossil carbon. Putting that aside, I do not know whether there are other arguments against the viability of the theory that ‘CO2 increase is temperature-driven’, but I will look for them.

    Then there is the argument that the ice core data shows that CO2 levels depend on temperature rather than vice versa, because in the ice age cycle as recorded in the ice cores, the change in temperature comes first, and then the change in CO2 levels follow. Now to some extent this is true because the ultimate cause of the ice age cycle is Earth’s orbital dynamics (the Milankovitch cycles), and the way they affect the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. As I recall, the initial change in CO2 levels is indeed due to outgassing from a warmer ocean. The orthodox argument is that the greenhouse properties of CO2 then cause additional warming, and there is a positive feedback which produces about 2/3rds of the temperature difference between glacial and interglacial periods.

  58. egg_

    Oh pwease, pwease, pwease make the Bad Man stop. Too many debbildebbil numbers!

    Our widdle heads, they ache!

    Now gimme free stuff.

    Nailed it.

  59. egg_

    Too hard for ’em, AJ?

    Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s evolving
    And revolving at 900 miles an hour.
    It’s orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it’s reckoned,
    The sun that is the source of all our power.
    Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
    Are moving at a million miles a day,
    In the outer spiral arm, at 40, 000 miles an hour,
    Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.
    Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars;
    It’s a hundred thousand light-years side to side;
    It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick,
    But out by us it’s just three thousand light-years wide.
    We’re thirty thousand light-years from Galactic Central Point,
    We go ’round every two hundred million years;
    And our galaxy itself is one of millions of billions
    In this amazing and expanding universe.
    Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
    In all of the directions it can whiz;
    As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
    Twelve million miles a minute and that’s the fastest speed there is.
    So remember, when you’re feeling very small and insecure,
    How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
    And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere out in space,
    ‘Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth!

  60. The BigBlueCat

    Colonel Crispin Berka
    #3021872, posted on May 21, 2019 at 7:30 pm
    of that 0.04 of a per cent, human beings around the world create 3 per cent. And of that 3 per cent Australia creates 1.3 per cent.

    That is false. The 0.04% is an amount at a moment in time, the 3 percent is related to the flux that occurs over an interval, so they cannot be simplistically multiplied together. It would be like multiplying your annual income by your current bank balance, the result is meaningless.

    So if anthropogenic CO2 emissions annually are 2 ppm, we contribute 0.03 ppm (1.3% of 2 ppm). Which is 0.0075% of current atmospheric CO2 from all sources. Labor wanted us to spend billions to reduce this by 0.0030% (40% of the 0.0075%) – that is, reduce Australia’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions to 0.0045% of total atmospheric CO2. And we are expected to believe our efforts will save the world? Doesn’t add up to me. We’d be better off spending money to help us live on a warmer planet ….

    (I’m looking here for my data. They make a conclusion that small amounts add up and that’s what’s causing climate change … I dunno about that – what about the other forcings like increased cloudage, etc??).

  61. flyingduk

    Preindustrial CO2 was about 280ppm, now it’s above 410 ppm and going up by 2ppm every year.

    Depends how far back you go. CO2 was 8-10,000 ppm in the ‘dinosaur days’, and the environment loved it, growing plant matter to amazing abundance, which then rotted down and turned into all that lovely coal and oil. All we are doing nowadays is ‘recycling’ when we burn it!

  62. John Dee

    Strewth!
    Whilst all you galahs are arguing the toss about the maths you seem to have missed a first-class opera.
    Alan Jones told the story of Tanya Plibersek being as dumb as …..but the target was Alice.
    The setup was clinical and perfectly executed.
    Check out the look on Pyne’s face – no slouch as a tactician himself he knew something was being played.
    Tony Jones must have been having a brain fart and by the time he recovered it was all over.
    I watched QandA one-off to get a laugh post election…boy did that work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.