Given that there is no scientific evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that global warming is man-caused, if Morrison were really serious about cutting expenditure, he should cut not only the ERF, but also all government subsidies to the renewals development industry, all monies that support the so-called environmental charities, all monies paid to international environment funds, all monies to be spent on direct action, and of course all climate-change related funding in the department of the environment and in universities.

Raycom, the science of climate change has been about for many decades, John Tyndall around 1859 was a pioneer. In the 1970s scientists employed by ExxonMobil were acknowledging man created climate change.

By suggesting that man created climate change is not real you are stating you know more than CSIRO, Royal Society and NASA and other peak scientific bodies. In making your statement you need to provide proof, otherwise it is in the realm of a nonsense statement. NASA has just sent a capsule beyond Pluto, they know something about the atmosphere and outer space; you're claiming you know better. NASA supports the view that man has created damage to the climate. We all know there are natural variations in climate, it just so happens man has placed extra tensions in the climate system.

As stated above in an earlier post the 11 year ARM study has definitively shown the relationship between CO2 and infrared light through applied science.

Ant: "In making your statement you need to provide proof, otherwise it is in the realm of a nonsense statement."

The application of scientific method calls for the proponents of an hypothesis to test whether it is correct or incorrect. However, no one has succeeded in tabling the empirical scientific evidence necessary to prove the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Rather than spoil a good story by acknowledging the inconvenient truth, proponents (including the corruptly-influenced IPCC, ideologically-biased national broadcasters (ABC, BBC, CBC, TVNZ), politicised science organisations (CSIRO and science academies), vested-interest and unprofessional scientists and entrepreneurs) resorted to unscientific means, viz. asserting, alarm-generating unvalidated climate models, politicising, propagandising, denigrating and shouting down anyone with an opposing view.

So Raycom, you are suggesting that John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and Callendar who were pioneers of climate change decades before the 1970s were committing fraud? ExxonMobil scientists were telling management about climate change in the 1970s. Were the scientists employed by ExxonMobil committing fraud?

Headline in relation to ExxonMobil scientists:

"Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions."

Quote from article:

"...It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert."

from:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Where there is a clash between making profit and science, sadly those seeking to make profit push against science. It has happened with the tobacco industry, drug industry, asbestos industry and now fossil fuel industry.