Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling

Australia has become the first country in the world to abolish its hated carbon tax - in fulfillment of an electoral "pledge in blood" by Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/17/Australia-repeals-its-hated-carbon-tax

The tax was introduced by the Labor-Greens coalition in mid-2012, despite earlier promises to the contrary by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
Prime Minister Abbott described the tax - estimated to have cost every Australian household $550 per year - as "useless and destructive." It has now been repealed, after much wrangling - and only on the third attempt - by the Australian senate.
As Phillip Hutchings reports at Watts Up With That?, the tax was indeed a total waste of time and money.
Among the reasons it was so misbegotten are:
1. Australia is an island built on carbon and is the world's largest exporter of coal and Liquid Natural Gas. So to impose a tax on its economic raison d'etre made about as much sense as a well-endowed male porn star lopping five inches off his penis.
2. In order to buy off its friends in industry, the Labor-led Coalition created so many exemptions that it was never going to be very effective. As Hutchings reports:
To minimise the economic fall-out, the Labor-Green Government limited the carbon tax to large industrial emitters (more than 25,000 CO2e/yr). Road transport and agriculture was exempt. Put together, that meant only about 185 companies in Australia’s US$ 1.5 trillion economy had to comply. And even those few were only lightly touched.
Industries which are “trade exposed” such as cement or aluminium smelting were mostly excused. They got either 66% or 94.5% of their carbon cost covered by the award of free units.
Just over one-third of Australia’s carbon emissions come from coal-fired electricity generators. And the dirtiest electricity comes from the aging brown-coal plants in Victoria – with almost double the emissions of modern gas-fired plants. Yet being located in a Labor-voting union heartland, they too got off lightly with the first half of their emissions effectively carbon- tax free. Nice.
3. It did little, if anything, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Guardian, of course, claims otherwise. But this is greenie wishful thinking. As Hutchings notes, though greenhouse emissions in Australia have been declining for almost eight years (long before the carbon tax was introduced) this has much more to do with the doubling of electricity prices, which caused consumers to cut back drastically on their consumption. This is exactly what the carbon tax was supposed to do (drive up prices; change consumer habits) but it had already happened naturally so the tax was pointless.
Other countries to have experimented with either a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme (which instead of taxing carbon dioxide directly, imposes a ceiling on CO2 production through tradeable permits) include the European Union member states, Japan and Korea.
Some US states - eg California - run similar schemes, although these expose them to perhaps the most fundamental problem of carbon taxation: unless it is instituted on a universal global level both big energy users and ordinary consumers will always have the option of moving elsewhere where the costs of energy have not been driven unaffordably high by well-meaning but pointless eco legislation.

 

Bill Maher came up with the perfect name for people like jem: zombie liars.

A zombie lie is a lie that has been killed by exposure to the facts but it keeps being raised from the dead like a zombie by shameless perpetrators like jem.

I don't think engaging these zombie liars goes anywhere. It's like the old saying: Never mud-wrestle with a pig ... the pig enjoys it too much.

 

oh look another sock puppet came out today.
Stu and this troll on the same day... how nice.

here is your chance to show you are not the zombie liar.

1. show us proof that man made co2 causes warming that is not based on failed models? link us to some science... its should not be hard... you all claim there are thousands of papers which show it?

Only a moronic left drone... could think the sun and the tides do not have much to do with warming and cooling.

 

Check my previous posts in this forum, asswipe. I've already posted evidence. You of course chose to ignore it, so no point in either of us pretending like YOU care about evidence.

Goodbye, zombie liar.

 

typical troll response... if you have some science that is not a failed model you would win a nobel prize.
what pleasure do you get for being so deceitful?

New rule... if you mention bill maher when you can't prove something... you are are a confirmed pre fascist troll.

 

Aside from being an intellectually disingenuous sack of shit, jerm is also a fool. He pretends to care about the economic effects of addressing global warming. In fact, the danger is the economic catastrophe that will certainly occur if we continue with business as usual.

Next he will be saying that tobacco is part of the healthy lifestyle.


Economic Consequences

The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease. Extreme weather can create extreme financial setbacks. For example, during the record-breaking hurricane year of 2005, Louisiana saw a 15 percent drop in income during the months following the storms, while property damage was estimated at $135 billion [source: Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University ].

Economic considerations reach into nearly every facet of our lives. Consumers face rising food and energy costs along with increased insurance premiums for health and home. Governments suffer the consequences of diminished tourism and industrial profits, soaring energy, food and water demands, disaster cleanup and border tensions.

And ignoring the problem won't make it go away. A recent study conducted by the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University suggests that inaction in the face of global warming crises could result in a $20 trillion price tag by 2100 [source: Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University ].

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/worst-effects-global-warming.htm

 

I gotta wonder how much toadies like jem get paid to shill for the fossil fuel industries or is he stupid enough to do all this dancing and prancing for free.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KsKtauVMSgQ?list=UUFa_paUy6F2IMpUOtgZA1fg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

We ask for a pretty simple thing... proof that the insults a troll makes can be backed up by science.
what we get is more b.s. and not science.
why can't these leftist pre fascist big govt loving troll produce any science showing man made co2 causes warming?

Is it cause the science we have shows it causes cooling?

 

wait... here is some science on co2.
in this experiment... NASA shows co2 blocks 95% of the suns rays back into space and it is a very efficient coolant.
Now could co2 also warm the earth via the so called greenhouse effect... yet it could.

The question that science has not answered is whether adding more of it acts more as a blanket or more as a shield.




http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/



Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.