RedRaider wrote:
No - simply don't portray every detail as sacrosanct and unable to be questioned as you do.
Bull. You’ve shown you don’t accept the fundamentals of the modelling at all.
If you did you’d be happy to say this:
“The world is warming rapidly and the projections, that will almost certainly occur, are that it will continue to warm rapidly to levels that are dangerous to human civilisation”.
RedRaider wrote:
You won't have remembered them so I'll say again - this is a global issue and needs all nations on board. The four largest emitters are not on board and they generate more than 50% of global emissions. China for example has around 30%, they drew level with the USA in 2006 and are now more than double the emissions levels of the USA by 2019. The Paris agreement allows the Chinese to expand emissions and this is counter productive to the world effort. If does not mean Australia should do nothing and I think Australia should fulfill its Paris Agreement commitments by 2030. Not in 2019, but in 2030 as we have signed up to.
We don’t meet 2030 targets by sitting around and doing little until then. The current projections are that we miss our Paris targets by a long way, unless we use carry over credits. An approach which does nothing to help our future, and we’re the only ones trying to argue for it and in doing so we helped derail the last U.N. talks. Talks where we could have actually helped to try and get the large emitters to do more. I’ve responded to your China concerns on multiple occasions and you’ve never engaged those at all. You merely repeat your original complaint.
Yes, it does need as many nations as possible to help. It also requires us to help because all those “negligible” countries add up to something like 40% of emissions (forget the exact number). So, are you going to look at your grandchildren and tell them “well they wouldn’t do anything first, what did you want me to do? Sorry your future is ****”? Australia is a wealthy country, with a strong research history. We can be a much stronger leader. Scratch that, we can actually be a leader instead of an active detriment to the process.
How about we truly focus on rapid technology development, bringing down our emissions and showing other countries how it can be done? We can be pioneers in the clean energy technologies, sell them and our implementation expertise to larger nations and multiply our impact on the future.
But I mean your approach of sitting and sulking is pretty good too I guess.
RedRaider wrote:
What area of Science did you say your tertiary qualification was in?
Oh man, why would you go back to this well? You already established my academic credentials are better than yours. You want to keep going? What would it matter to you?
You strike me as someone who struggles to accept that other people’s views may be more informed than yours. Have you always been in roles of authority in life? Not had your views challenged very often?
RedRaider wrote:
The empirical evidence shows that flying is one of the safest forms of transport so while there is always risk, no tapping is required.
The empirical evidence is that the scientific method has been humanity’s greatest tool in understanding and predicting our natural world. You are dismissing the outcome of that process because you are unwilling to believe it.