Atman

Where in your link to http://www.climatechange.com.au/tag/drought/ is the evidence for your assertions that;

1. "People now realise Carbon is not an issue or even a pollutant" and,

2. "It is highly unlikely that man is causing any form of climate change particularly with CO2"?

As to your other assertion, my apologies (of course I know the drought has eased, and to the reason) - I wanted to focus on your:

3. "continuous drought" quote


You link to http://weatherforecasting.suite101.com/article.cfm/indian_ocean_controls_climate

and quote "Southeastern Australia has experienced almost continuous drought conditions"

The person you lifted this quote from is Sue Cartledge (http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/portiafaceslife )

Now, she's probably a very nice woman who is very passionate in her mission. But I doubt very much most people (apart from bigmal, and you, obviously) would consider her “continuous drought” statement valid. Not even the CSIRO or BOM are suggesting that – perhaps you (and Sue Cartledge) need to understand shifting climatic regions a little more.

Thanks for your instruction in climate dynamics; you must be an expert too, Atman. Not required though – that’s my day time job, particularly things to do with water. You know; hydrogeology, clouds, evaporation/precipitation, land/ocean/atmosphere coupling, and other stuff associated with water catchment management, agricultural practices, recycling, and other stuff.

That other link, http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx , interesting indeed - not a very big list is it? If you really would think about it, you will realise there are far more businesses and institutions funding climate change research, even governments. What I find strange though is that some people don’t want any funding, let alone research, at all to be done on “climate change” – isn’t that stupid?

Not too sure about bigmal’s link to American Thinker. Typically driving a wedge between Right and Left. Unfortunate given the significance AGW has attracted world-wide, across the spectrum of ideologies. I for one would like to think a global problem is sorted by a global response, however difficult that may seem. I have to admit, I'm somewhat disillusioned by some people's implied memes about; 'us' vs 'them' or 'right' vs 'left', or add your own.

By the way - there is a difference between (weight of) evidence and proof.

It seems some people equate the so called 'debate' on climate change with a finding in a Court of Law - guilt or innocence. It's not.

Also, statements like "prove" is fine in math, but has no meaning with probabilities.

I think Rudd is being much smarter than we give him credit for. Some of us may have missed, or ignored the “blinding glimpse of the obvious”.

The ETS looked a safe bet for Rudd when “Malcolm was in the middle”. The $10 billion a year looked good to cover the debts being accrued. Not only has he “spent” the $20 billion he inherited in surplus, he has run up a $94 billion national debt and whoops! No ETS revenue to cover the debt or a return to surplus.

So now he grabs 30% of GST (for health reform of course), and imposes a tax on mining to try to cover the deficit. The mining tax is also a tax on energy, coal and coal seam gas. So now we have our carbon tax by stealth. Rudd is happy to have the revenue to cover our national debt and he doesn’t even have to give any of it away to provide rebates for the inevitable increases in energy costs or to subsidize MRET initiatives. He gets to keep it all. This is one very smart cookie.

Sure there will be reduced corporation tax income from the mining sector, so what? That will be much less than he would have had to give back as rebates and RET's under the ETS and it will, unlike rebates, be totally uncontested.

What a bunch of “bunnies” we are.

Rudd had duded everyone. Our political journalists have gone into analysis paralysis on content and completely missed the main game.

We are all running around like headless chucks squawking about ETS vs. no ETS whilst Rudd laughs up his sleeve.

Doh!

spindoc, totally agree - the PM is clearing the decks, grabbing all he can, setting up wedges and generally plotting and planning - the question is how much BS will the public stand?

Regardless of his awesome media team, eventually people smell a trickster, but will it be in time to save the country from yet another term of no infrastructure spending and continual spin.

Although you see NSW with the ALP still in control and probably for ever, as they spin in each time with such fresh BS.

I suspect the ALP has a lot of dirt in store on the coalition and a bunch of spare money for those who show they are easily bought.

It will be a dirty election campaign, with a huge fear overhead from the unions and others who will play their roles for fear of loss of power or ego.

We'll get the government we deserve .. and if its the ALP, they'll piss it all away to stay in power, and do nothing else, like NSW, nothing to show for all those years of ALP rule.

Yes Doc, & he looks like getting another of his go broke quick schemes in place too. He may have failed to use the ETS to get our cash to give to the third world, so he is going to send us broke, with his 20% alternative energy plan.

That's the slippery slope Spain jumped on, to speed them into bankruptcy. The way they are going, they may just overtake Greece in the race to be the first EU country to actually go broke.

A recent studdy has shown that, not only has every "green" job in their new world economy cost then 2 jobs in the old one, but has cost over $200,000 in subsidies. Expensive unreliable power is no route to success.

We probably should try to manufacture a success for our village idiot, Rudd, so we could get him to paues & enjoy the moment, for a few months. His habit of leaping from each sinking failure to the next catastrophe is just too expensive for our kids future.

Without smart neighbours we won't even be able to work the Danish wind power model.

They found all their wind power stuffs up their grid. They have overcome this. When the wind doesn't blow, they buy Nuclear generated power from France. Expensive, but it works.

When it blows, & all that wind power starts to destabilise their grid, they sell the wind power to Sweden, who can manage it by turning some hydro power on, or off, quickly. They then buy their power from nuclear France, again.

The only problem is they have to pay 5 times as much for the nice stable French Nuclear power, as Sweden will pay them for their unstable wind stuff.

If it had been England, whatever bureaucrat came up with this scheme for throwing money away, would have got a knighthood. I wonder what we will give ours.

I sometimes wonder if Ruddy does a lot of research to come up with these schemes, or if they come to him, in a flash of blinding light, in the middle of the night.

Sheesh ... and some people call me an 'alarmist'.