I can't image anyone complaining about having carbon dioxide stored under their house, but in an article entitled 'Carbon storage won't be optional' Matthew Warren, writing for The Australian, begins with the emotive statement that:
"Australian may be stripped of their right to block the storage of greenhouse gases beneath their land under laws being considered by the state and federal governments.
"The capture of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from power stations and their storage in giant underground reservoirs, a process known as geosequestration, have been backed by the Howard Government and Labor as major steps in helping Australia and other nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Experts claim the technology could be commercially viable in Australia by 2015.
"A geosequestration law expert has warned that if proven viable, the new technology will need new laws based on oil and gas exploration and extraction that override landowners' rights to veto storage underneath their properties."
Read the complete article here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21530480-2702,00.html
I'd be happy to have the carbon dioxide stored under my place and I'ld be happy if they build a nuclear power plant in the neighbourhood and I'm hanging-out to drink recycled water.
"At this stage all you have done is to portray your own guesstimates as if they were statistical certainties."
YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!! This is what we call leftist projection. Leftists are mentally deranged in this way.
"At this stage all you have done is to portray your own guesstimates as if they were statistical certainties."
THATS WHAT YOU DID YOU MORON!!!!! I didn't do that thats what you did and I gave you are a hard time about it REMEMBER.
Now you are being rude. Lying like that. So stop lying. And now that I've tipped you off on your inherence mental derangement.
STATEMENT ONE OF THE DERANGED MOTT:
"In my assessment the probability of a new ice age is about the same as the probability of a climate toast-off, in the order of 0.02 each. And that leaves a whole 0.96 to be allocated to every possibility in between."
AND THEN THE TOTALLY DERANGED LUNATIC FOLLOWED THAT UP WITH:
"At this stage all you have done is to portray your own guesstimates as if they were statistical certainties."
LEFTIST PROJECTION.
Don't do it again Mott you jerk!................... (idiot).
So now we are debating the distinction between zero probability of substantial warming and a 0.02 probability of substantial warming.
And when Graeme says, "We are likely to see very strong cooling within the next 3 decades", he clearly does not mean it is absolutely certain that there will be a "very strong cooling". He obviously means there is room in there for other outcomes.
So do us all a favour Graeme, first tell us what a "very strong cooling" would amount to in degrees C. And then tell us how "likely" this event will be by expressing it in number form.
Can we assume that your term, "likely" means a probability greater than 0.5? And if so, then some of us would like the opportunity to consider the other possible outcomes, on their merits.
At this stage all you have done is to portray your own guesstimates as if they were statistical certainties. And that sort of crap may work with your mum but it doesn't cut the mustard here, me bucko.
Bird-crap - Don't you use "fella" mate. That's Ian's word.
And it's funny that you dribble on about science yet refuse to read science papers. Why's that? You wouldn't be a total liar would you.