"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an...

"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere," Prof. Segalstad concludes.


Who is Prof. Segalstad??

He was an expert reviewer to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's Third Assessment Report.

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad is head of the Geological Museum within the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo. Formerly, he was head of the Mineralogical-Geologic-al Museum at the University of Oslo, director of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo, and program chairman for mineralogy/petrology/ geochemistry at the University of Oslo. His research projects include geological mapping in Norway, Svalbard (Arctic), Sweden and Iceland, and have involved geochemistry, volcanology, metallogenesis (how mineral and ore deposits form) and magmatic petrogenesis (how magmatic rocks form).


I am just a Johnny-come-lately to this debate. I saw Gore's film and became a shocked believer. Skimmed more and more articles of deafening scientific support for models showing world destruction through warming climate. Carbon has now become 'pollution'. I remember studying 'carbon life forms' in biology.

Then there was more and more skeptical reports as to the basis of the climate models, and hence their outcomes; manipulated data and graphs to support ever increasing temperatures, on and on an on.

Conflicting scientific evidence has morphed into a religious debate with 'denialistas', and global warming 'heretics'.

This thing is unravelling faster than a slinky dog.

What is indisputable; is Rudd and other governments, will have more taxes, more legislation, more international treaties. In his grovelling (Rudd's, and Howard's for that matter) ambition to put Australia at the world forefront in controlling carbon emissions, he will end up hurting Australia's economy.

Penny Wong's target was 25% reduction by (some year?). Now the US are looking at 15%. So, Penny is now backpeddling and saying she will now look at what's 'on the table' in Copenhagen (as to what % reduction to decide on); I mean wtf. Is it 25% to save the planet from total destruction, or 15%? You'd think they would know by now.

So actually, we are looking for a figure that is, what 'convenient'; 'sustainable'; 'achievable'? I would have thought that science does not allow for such vagaries. Ice melts at exactly + > ZERO C.



Cheers, Skip