a question potential brawl

[malleefarmer]

I entirely agree with grass.

There is a bit of a groundswell happening about nuclear in australia, seems like its at least getting to mthe stage lets look at this again.

Stand corrected think in australian we are number 3 or 4 in world for known uranium deposits think canada and russia sit above us.

Even a "middle" ground green politician is open to looking at it.

We export heaps to france and they tirn it into power.

[jazz]

Curious why Australia with no oil and no winter and only 24 million people all on the coast has emissions nearly the same as Canada.

[grassfarmer]

Curious why Australia with no oil and no winter and only 24 million people has emissions nearly the same as Canada.

First the figures shown expressed by GDP are a deliberate attempt to skew the message and make the countries with large populations like India and China bad. If you look at actual per capita emissions which I think are more relevant Australia is higher than Canada - maybe it's a factor of wealth, lifestyles, distances to travel? or maybe need for air-conditioning lol as Saudi Arabia is higher still.

[jazz]

Same size as SK with nearly 67 million population!

We can have 67 million people too, if you dont mind 30 million more coming in from the poorest countries in Africa and the ME. France has been reverse colonized.

[malleefarmer]

First the figures shown expressed by GDP are a deliberate attempt to skew the message and make the countries with large populations like India and China bad. If you look at actual per capita emissions which I think are more relevant Australia is higher than Canada - maybe it's a factor of wealth, lifestyles, distances to travel? or maybe need for air-conditioning lol as Saudi Arabia is higher still.

Niether agreeing or disagreeing grassfarmer its perception of figures i guess. So if australia had a influx of immigrants say 7 million our emmisions per capita would fall despite fact extra population would use more fuel and electricity.

does that make sensnce?

could also mean canada and australia are export based economies?

actually were almost all having a rational discussion rare indeed

[furrowtickler]

Hmmmm , Canada at 1.95% .... but hey let’s completely *** all industry here by saving the world ... lol lol

[checking]

Canadians are right to not want pipelines in their food. Easier ways to receive your daily iron requirements.

[fjlip]

The amount of climate scaremongering in the past few weeks is stunning. And it's all pure bullshit.

Check out these headlines.

Wall Street Journal: U.N. Panel Warns Drastic Action Needed to Stave Off Climate Change

New York Times: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

The Intercept: FOSSIL FUELS ARE A THREAT TO CIVILIZATION, NEW U.N. REPORT CONCLUDES

Earther: We Have a Decade to Prevent a Total Climate Disaster

MarketWatch: Drastic action needed to prevent climate catastrophe, U.N. panel warns

Daily Caller: AL GORE: ‘WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME’ ON GLOBAL WARMING

Riddled With Errors

BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors

Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
The dataset starts in 1850 but for just over two years at the start of the record the only land-based data for the entire Southern Hemisphere came from a single observation station in Indonesia. At the end of five years just three stations reported data in that hemisphere. Global averages are calculated from the averages for each of the two hemispheres, so these few stations have a large influence on what’s supposedly “global”.
According to the method of calculating coverage for the dataset, 50% global coverage wasn’t reached until 1906 and 50% of the Southern Hemisphere wasn’t reached until about 1950.
In May 1861 global coverage was a mere 12% – that’s less than one-eighth. In much of the 1860s and 1870s most of the supposedly global coverage was from Europe and its trade sea routes and ports, covering only about 13% of the Earth’s surface. To calculate averages from this data and refer to them as “global averages” is stretching credulity.
When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.
Data prior to 1950 suffers from poor coverage and very likely multiple incorrect adjustments of station data. Data since that year has better coverage but still has the problem of data adjustments and a host of other issues mentioned in the audit.
Another implication is that the proposal that the Paris Climate Agreement adopt 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of pre-industrial temperatures is fatally flawed. During that period global coverage is low – it averages 30% across that time – and many land-based temperatures are very likely to be excessively adjusted and therefore incorrect.