>I've come to my conclusion based on the available information. I haven't read every peer-reviewed scientific paper written on the subject but there are certainly enough summaries of those papers available to make an informed decision.<

Great, so could you suggest a few of the best in your opinion?

> The fiasco in Copenhagen was the icing on the cake along with the leaked IPCC documents.<

Leaked IPCC documents? Please tell me you're not talking about the East Anglia emails?

> There is a very good video on YouTube by a climate scientist named Bob Carter from Queensland that was the first evidence I saw that got me rethinking my belief about global warming. Just enter Bob Carter Climate Change in you tube to see it.<

I will, what about peer reviewed articles though? The way real science is practices with back and forth comments debated points?

>To anyone quoting articles from New Scientist <

The blog author was quoting New Scientist to make her point!

>I also don't feel the need to play games by answering your quiz David.<

Play games? just a simple exercise, would you like me to give you the answers or are you just not interested in seeing how really small amounts of things can make a huge difference?

>By the way, are you the same Mr David Driscoll, Committee Clerk. Standing Committee on Environment & Public Affairs. Parliament House. Perth WA<

Nope Exercise Physioologist and Dietitan from Sydney, also with no vested interests!

Obviously David we have differing viewpoints. You are not going to change my opinion anymore than I will change yours.

I don't see why you think I have to answer your questions. No matter who or what I quote won't be good enough. You do not seem to see the bigger picture or the other forces at work. A carbon tax is not going to prevent climate change, face up to the fact.

Being against the Carbon Tax is not all about the science. There are other agendas at work. Man-made climate change is a theory that has support from a group of scientists many of whom also have politcical ties and agendas. Peer-viewed maybe used to mean something but when its only a bunch of insiders reviewing each others papers and excluding dissent, as is the case with the IPPC and East Anglia, it doesn't carry the same weight.

David, believe what you want. I will continue to argue against the introduction of a carbon tax and useless exercises from the government that interfere with my life.

Thank you for making it possible to express my viewpoints in ways I would't have without your prodding. In the end people have to decide what they believe on their own. Maybe this discussion will benefit someone other than us.

>You are not going to change my opinion anymore than I will change yours.<

But you did change your mind (and it's sad that you are saying you are not going to change it again), you claimed based on evidence, all I am doing is asking for that evidence (and hoping that it is more than a youtube video).

>I don't see why you think I have to answer your questions.<

You don't, but I'm trying to answer yours, i.e. "How can anyone seriously believe such a miniscule reduction will have any impact on global warming". I'll give you the answers since you seem to have an aversion to participating in answering your own question!

Ozone molecule concentration (that forms the protective ozone layer) is in the order of 100 parts per million - similar range to CO2 (I know it is closer to 400 but it's within that range), and thus similar analogies to pools of water, volumes of air, rulers etc. Yes, such a small concentration protects us from large amounts of UV radiation, it's relatively low concentration says nothing about its effectiveness.

The concentration of damaging Chlorine, in the range of 100 parts per Billion! Yes billion with a B, one thousand times less than the minute ozone concentration, yet something so small is literally destroying a protective layer - small numbers matter. Countless other examples include concentrations of minerals and hormones in the blood!

So will you at least concede this point, it doesn't mean that everything else you believe is false - but small number can matter and the silly analogy doesn't disprove all of the other types of evidence.

>No matter who or what I quote won't be good enough. <

Oh please, try me, the only criteria I set was peer-reviewed. If the evidence is not peer-reviewed, then I ask that you simply say so, and not say you have it but don't want to share.

>You do not seem to see the bigger picture or the other forces at work. <

No I don't

>A carbon tax is not going to prevent climate change, face up to the fact.<

A totally different arguement from denying that the climate is changing based on man-made CO2. I know NOTHING about economics so I don't even have a weak opinion on what should be done, but in terms of the background science, I think it is very clear that SOMETHING needs to be done.

>Being against the Carbon Tax is not all about the science. <

Agreed, it's economics, which I assume is why Tim Flannery has his position and not a relevant scientist.

>There are other agendas at work. Man-made climate change is a theory that has support from a group of scientists many of whom also have politcical ties and agendas. Peer-viewed maybe used to mean something but when its only a bunch of insiders reviewing each others papers and excluding dissent, as is the case with the IPPC and East Anglia, it doesn't carry the same weight.<

Try this most recent surveying RELEVANTLY PUBLISHED scientists and their opinions (which also references previous papers - as does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change - and yes I follow the references). I think you are misrepresenting the numbers claiming that they are anything but an overwhelming majority, far from a bunch of insiders!

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20566872 (can get the entire free article here via a link)

> I will continue to argue against the introduction of a carbon tax and useless exercises from the government that interfere with my life. <

Which again could mean that arguing on an economic basis (there is a better solution) or denying that any steps are necessary because it isn't happening (or even that we can't stop)