I have no argument with you on nuclear Max Green but check with your local Greens and our ABC and watch the sparks fly. They would fight in the courts, the courts of public opinion and would literally attack and fight any attempt to build nuclear. This is another reason I do not trust this global warming nonsense. It is a religion, no sense just pure hatred and desire to rip money off us.
I now think the ABC just has to be closed down. The irony is that is all the television I watch.

The Left say "Global Warming is true, so we all have to cut our energy budgets, return to the Middle Ages with a few mod-cons, and be good."

The Right see the marketplace as god, and cannot stand the idea of any regulation, whether or not it is based on science. So they say "Global Warming is not true, and nuclear power is the answer."

I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell the SCIENCE says Global Warming is really really true, and we're approaching 200 years since we worked out the physics of greenhouse gases. (See Joseph Fourier's work in the 1820's). The temperature charts are true. But 100% renewables, except for a very few places on earth with large hydro, just isn't viable!

The Left need to get their heads out of their ideological renewable sand-holes and the Right need to do the same with their precious attitude to the market. Markets have shifted off ice-hauling onto refrigerators. Coal will run out one day, and I'd like us to be prepared for that! We have the technology to shut down every single coal oil and gas plant on the planet and still have an abundant supply of energy, only this time it will be secure and last a billion years and prepare us for burning thorium on settlements on Mars.

If only we could get people like yourself to respect the REAL climate science, the real health risks from coal oil and gas, and the very REAL solutions in today's and tomorrows nukes. Then we could have a groundswell heading in the right direction. But right now? Nuclear power is illegal in Australia!

Max,

You say 'the science' of global warming is true, but you don't seem to have read my article, or the supporting information, for example the information at this link: http://tinyurl.com/hww8ho9

It would be more on-topic, and perhaps more interesting, if you could explain how you continue to have so much confidence in 'the science' when the observational data is so different from the remodelled?

As I conclude in my piece that precedes this thread: climate science has diverged into the post modern, it just makes stuff-up. I provide empirical evidence/examples, but you seem to ignore this.

The hound makes his usual effort to mislead us. Jennifer’s scientific comments on Cox’s pseudoscience have nothing to do with creationism, but, as the hound cannot fault Jennifer’s science, he makes a baseless and scurrilous reference to creationism, similar to the way in which the fraudulent Oreskes refers to the irrelevant, and imaginary "Big Tobacco".

Jennifer’s article is concise and scientifically sound, and we are grateful for her rebuttal of the fraud promoter Cox, who should be ashamed of himself.
As for you, ateday: If you wish to make baseless assertions, at least specify what you assert are the so-called “pollutants” to which you refer.

Max Green, the last time you made a fool of yourself with your baseless support of the climate fraud, you said you would not return to the forum..
You were unable to refer us to any science to show that there is any measurable human effect on climate.
Why are you back, reminding us of your foolish, and baseless assertions about climate, and even repeating them?
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, Max, so why do you continue to support the climate fraud?

I urge all those who treat Marohasy as just another blogger to research the salinity issue from the early 2000's to see that we are dealing with someone who is highly qualified to raise questions as to the efficacy of the BOM's temperature adjustments and who is quite conversant with the way group-think can cause some scientists to try to take the science down the garden path.

Of coarse, all this could have been resolved were the BOM required to be completely open about its adjustments and the methodology fully open to outside vetting. That Greg Hunt decided to kill the chances of such a resolution speaks volumes about just how confident the BOM is that it withstand such scrutiny.

It seems the BOM operates in the grand tradition of that unspeakable swine Phil Jones* of the UEA..."“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Science and the search for the truth doesn't really exist in some parts of the climate science community.

* He thought it was cheerful news that John Daly had passed away.