Will the U.S. learn from this?

snip~
Australian science body the CSIRO is expected to slash hundreds of jobs, according to multiple reports.

The departments bearing the brunt of the cuts are the Oceans and Atmosphere division and the Land and Water division, Fairfax Media reported. It is believed more than 100 jobs in each department with be lost.

more @
http://mashable.com/2016/02/04/csiro-job-losses-australia/#B.svTVmyikqg

Good maybe they'll go out and get real jobs. Instead of trying to make a living off a phony politically driven scam. Designed to scare the folks into accepting totalitarian socialism.

Just to share some facts that I recently uncovered while engaging an AGW fanatic in the equivalent of what they like to call a "discussion" - refuting the shrill, hysterical claim that  "human beings contribute infinitely more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year than natural sources".

Here are the actual numbers:

Volcanoes 130 – 230 gigatonnes
Vegetation decay 780  gigatonnes (1990)
Natural forest fires 430 gigtonnes
Human activity 33.5 gigatonnes (2010)

Those are average natural annual emissions and can be much higher, but never much lower.
Nature contributes an average of about 1,340 gigtonnes while human activity contributes about 33.5 gigatonnes. In years when there are large-scale forest/plains fires or large volcanic eruptions, the natural contributions can be as much as ten times higher.

It should also be noted that the total emissions do not equal the total which remains in the atmosphere because the larger part is absorbed in plant metabolism (with oxygen returned in exchange) or is otherwise absorbed by natural processes on land and in the ocean.

The usual reaction I get from the Reality-Denying AGW fanatics is vituperation, denial and insults.

As a rule, the only way to gain the undying enmity of cacogens is to tell them the truth when they don't want to hear it.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on March 06, 2016, 01:00:58 PM
Just to share some facts that I recently uncovered while engaging an AGW fanatic in the equivalent of what they like to call a "discussion" - refuting the shrill, hysterical claim that  "human beings contribute infinitely more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year than natural sources".

Here are the actual numbers:

Volcanoes 130 – 230 gigatonnes
Vegetation decay 780  gigatonnes (1990)
Natural forest fires 430 gigtonnes
Human activity 33.5 gigatonnes (2010)

Those are average natural annual emissions and can be much higher, but never much lower.
Nature contributes an average of about 1,340 gigtonnes while human activity contributes about 33.5 gigatonnes. In years when there are large-scale forest/plains fires or large volcanic eruptions, the natural contributions can be as much as ten times higher.

It should also be noted that the total emissions do not equal the total which remains in the atmosphere because the larger part is absorbed in plant metabolism (with oxygen returned in exchange) or is otherwise absorbed by natural processes on land and in the ocean.

The usual reaction I get from the Reality-Denying AGW fanatics is vituperation, denial and insults.

As a rule, the only way to gain the undying enmity of cacogens is to tell them the truth when they don't want to hear it.

So what your saying is I am just a little fart in a very big wind.

Yes, sieur! Though I would not insult you thus! The fact is that every day Sol shines about 30 nonillion watts of EM energy onto the face of Terra, equivalent to the annual energy output of the Human Race for ten million years. To believe that an inert trace gas which is never more than about 0.04% of the total atmospheric gas, has more do to with atmospheric temperature than the combined effects of: variations in solar output, variations in orbital precession around the sun, variations in planetary axial tilt, variations in distribution of water as humidity, rain, low clouds, fog, rivers, lakes, ocean's surface, ocean currents, natural CO2 emissions from forest/plains fires (caused by lightening), volcanoes, deep ocean current upwelling, plant decay, or by variations of Coriolis wind, and cosmic ray effects on high cloud formation, is as absurd as belief in the boogey man.