I heard Tim Flannery on a radio station this morning, who responded when asked how much the temperature would drop if the whole world reduced its emissions .. he said we would not know for hundreds of years.

He also aid that by 2020 if we reduced our CO2 by 5% on 2000 levels, it would be around 1/1000 of a degree, and not for hundreds of years.

So not even in our childrens or grandchildrens lifetimes will we get any effect out of what activists want us to do now.

You're all so sure of the problem, but seem to have zero idea of what your solution will do, if anything or by when. Or if it is even feasible to do, the whole principle of "we have to do something" has no scientific basis, it is completely emotional.

So that's the Climate Commission front man, paid by the government at huge expense to travel the country to promote the Carbon tax .. and he's not even sure and hemmed and hawed and was very uncomfortable about committing.

So to those who bleat that we're affecting our childrens or grandchildrens futures .. get over it, you've been sold a pup, you've swallowed the spin and hype.

Even if its true, there is nothing we can do about it, so use the money to adapt, not this folly of trying to reverse the climate, you just know it is not going to work, like stopping tectonic plate movement or stopping a volcanic eruption, these things, like climate, are beyond present day science .. just because we "think" we know everything doesn't mean we do, what hubris

me, I'm off to the F1 GP practice session in Melbourne ..

Rich 2 I have to assume you have disconnected all utilities and are completely sustainable? If not why not? If you and other supporters did this there would be no problem and no need for carbon tax.
You asked who is for and who is against this nonsense? Happy to emlighten you there. The IPCC and mates are given loads and loads of my money for spinning this threat.
There are billions being spent on this self perpertuating scam. Range all your white coats and degrees you like mate but the ordinary punter wil just vote out labour, The Greens and this tax scam and the sooner the better.
Australia is now entering a wetter 20 year phase so unless the tax is in now, every year it will be more and more obvious this is a con!

Tombee and others - You are quite corect to say that CO2 increases will change temperatures. The effect is well known and set out in a classic paper by a French scientist C Lorius and others (Nature, September 13, 1990 - findable online), which calculates that if CO2 concentrations in the air double from back then, and ignoring all feebacks, the result will be an increase of 1.1 degrees C.

This finding has never been disputed, as far as I know. the argument has always been over feedbacks caused by that temperature increase - specifically over the amount of water vapour in the stmosphere. The climate models assume that water vapour increases will, for various reasons, amplify the fairly small temperature increase from CO2. And they all make the same assumption.

Thus the interest in water vapour, and the author does make an interesting point. Earlier articles one this site have also pointed out that scientists are only now making serious efforts to check the assumption behind the models.

Another point you can take away is that there is no real indication, on current trends and never mind the modelling, that CO2 concentrations will double by the turn of the century. An increase of 50 per cent, perhaps, if trends hold. Look up the Mauna Loa figures http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo
for yourself and graph the year to year increase if you don't believe me. Anyone who has seriously looked at the science behind the CO2 projections will, in any case, realise just how dodgy that stuff is - anything could happen.

Oh dear another one, ask any Physicist and they'll tell you they regularly get letters from people claiming to have proven relativity is wrong. Biologist get letters telling them their all wrong about Evolutions. Geologist get letter about the age of the earth. Now Climate scientist are getting letters saying they're wrong about climate change.
The methods used by all groups of deniers are the same and all a grounded in the belief that Scientist are evil people just after the money.
Bottom line these deniers are anti-science anti-progress nay Sayers who should not be listened to. Oh and they vote conservative and listen to shock jocks instead of experts.
Bring on the Carbon tax.

Amicus you have deliberately mis-represented what Tim said and you know it

Amicus.
Your comment contains elementary logic flaws. Reducing emissions may not have much impact on reducing temperature. However you have missed the obvious point that continuing on our business as usual emissions path will increase temperatures. D'oh. Therefore it is still essential we reduce emissions.
Then you say "Even if its true, there is nothing we can do about it so use the money to adapt". Wrong - there is something we can do so lets do it (ie: switch to carbon free energy sources).
I observe that if you ask a scientist, like Tim Flannery, about something that is 99% certain they won't give definitive answers because they are only 99% certain. Ask a politician or a climate denier about something that is only 1% likely and they will tell you it is 100% certain with no room for doubt. Hence it is a skewed debate.
JBowyer.
You say you are happy to enlighten me but dont name a single scientific body that disagrees with the IPCC view. I believe that the percentage of people believing in climate change will increase over time as will support for a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. My reasoning is that sadly it will become more and more obvious that the climate is changing to the point where deniers will be regarded the same way that those who believe cigarette smoking doesnt have an impact on physical health, that is with a degree of sadness and an understanding that their views are irrelevant to the real world.

Rich I am happy to agree to disagree with you here.
Every year that goes by will prove one of us right and the other a gullible fool.
I have to assume you are connected to the grid too? Of course if all the greens made their own power arrangements we would see a lot of emissions reductions but its all about the money?
P.S. I do not smoke.