Thank you Bonmont - the ranks of the reasonable and INFORMED contributor have been thinned, therefore, to read your knowledgeable posts is always a relief.

I still don't understand what is so difficult, even for those without a science background, to grasp that investing in clean renewable energy and, in Australia's case, use our plentiful Gas reserves until the new technologies become efficient, is such a difficult prospect.

Do we need to source power from polluting systems, in the short (coal) or long term (nuclear)?

Short answer, no.

Only those with vested interests and they are huge (oil, coal, nuclear) and are still in receipt of government subsidies have reason and the financial might to conduct a campaign against more efficient and clean technologies. And look at those who fall for the propaganda - numerous on a supposedly 'balanced' OLO.

I laugh when people suggest that more carbon dioxide is not harmful. In the short term it will suit lifeforms that thrive on carbon dioxide (that does not necessarily include mammals - look at previous climate types throughout Earth's history - some life forms do better than others on different atmosphere mixes).

And an excess of greenhouse gases? One need look no further than our sister planet Venus.

Thanks Ammonite for adding some sense to this whole debate which, on this Forum, has been woefully inadequate. People only need to appreciate two things: that Arrhenius found that carbon dioxide had a greenhouse effect, i.e. it trapped heat, and that Keeling measured atmospheric carbon dioxide from the top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii for decades and found levels rising. Today's news is that the past year's Arctic ice has been the equal lowest on record - further ice loss will lead to amplification of warming. Should it go so high as to release much of the methane in the tundra and oceans, we really face runaway warming and rising sealevels. Where do 100 million Bangladeshis go? Where do 100 million Indians in low-lying areas go? Similarly, 300 million Chinese? We're facing a crisis and we need to deal with it and the first step in Australia is accepting a carbon tax with good grace.

"I still don't understand what is so difficult, even for those without a science background, to grasp that investing in clean renewable energy and, in Australia's case, use our plentiful Gas reserves until the new technologies become efficient, is such a difficult prospect."

Ammonite, there is no documented scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused any measurable global warming. (In the unlikely event that you know of such evidence, then please table it for all to see.)

Hence there is no scientific or economic justification for introducing a carbon tax , or any CO2 emission reduction measures for that matter.

How you can support the crazy proposition of phasing out efficient, low-cost coal-derived electricity generation with unreliable, inefficient wind-driven energy generation that is five times more costly and with unreliable, inefficient solar power generation that is at least 10 times more costly, is a complete mystery. The substitution of gas-fired for coal-fired generation would not reduce CO2 emissions substantially

popnperish

Thank you.

>> first step in Australia is accepting a carbon tax with good grace <<

"good grace" - not words we hear from any pollies (or the self righteous).

A carbon tax is merely a start. Investment in a varied raft of alternative clean technologies is the path that requires development and investment - not better ways to sequester nuclear waste or excess carbon dioxide - what a waste of taxpayers money should we continue with this thinly veiled attempt to prop up dinosaur tech AKA fossil fuels.

Why the hysteria over carbon tax but not a whimper about government welfare for dino-tech?

Ted: you may be logical in your argument and you are right as far as you go with your facts but there are too many gaps in what you know for you to draw any sensible logical conclusion. Your known world is skimpy on known data: the Arrehenius effect is real but falls off with increasing CO2 and the known association between CO2 and Temperature is over only a short time-frame. It is only an association over the limited time range and there is no evidence for a causal relationship. There are much better predictors of T which are more accurate over longer time frames including the last 100 years. Yes CO2 is definitely rising and human activity has a lot to do with this but CO2 is a plantlife-promoting gas and would not be harmful to land animals at even 20x the current concentration. A tax on carbon will do zippity-do and have many negative impacts. These include not just negative impacts on the Australian economy driving jobs off-shore but negative impacts on the environment.

We need to tread more lightly on this earth but acting like lemmings wont achieve that. PS: As a scientist I am shocked but never surprised by the spruiking from established science bodies such as CSIRO and IPCC and the top-ranked science journals.

megatherium: "PS: As a scientist I am shocked but never surprised by the spruiking from established science bodies such as CSIRO and IPCC and the top-ranked science journals."

Scientists know the difference between a scientific body (institution, academy, organisation, etc) and the IPCC.
You clearly do not.

Btw
"Your known world is skimpy on known data: the Arrehenius effect is real but falls off with increasing CO2 and the known association between CO2 and Temperature is over only a short time-frame."

These are not the words of a real scientist. They are certainly not the words of any 'climate scientist'.