nicco .. that's not what you said and you know it .. try to understand, people who make statement such as, humans can stop climate change .. deserve to be ridiculed.

the greenhouse effect you speak of .. is questionable, and is questioned often, I'm sure you'll find some alarmist site to counter that, but that's just a Google war isn't it .. so I won't bother

I posted to respond to the hysterical statement you made is rubbish as I have stated, "that humans can stop climate change", which is what you said .. and it's stupid .. nothing more

Nicco I thought I explained that Insurance Companies have a vested interest in puffing up scare stories and premiums but you must be a slow learner mate!
As the US humourist Will Rogers said "Do not ask your barber if you need a haircut!" The CEO of an insurance Company will say anything to justify him making more money out of you. Do not be such a sap for goodness sake!

A clearer demonstration you couldn't ask for: Amicus fails to understand the simple concept that human beings, by their activities, can mitigate climate change (having, by their activities, caused it in the first place). Of course that's not ALL climate change, but that proportion of climate change which has been added to natural variability.

I'm not sure why JBowyer is so cynical about the insurance industry. Of course, insurance is big business, and hates to lose money by being forced to pay out when there are disasters which fall outside their routine actuarial calculations. But none of that is in any way surprising. What is significant is that the number-crunchers of the insurance industry have concluded that climate change and its consequential unstable weather do pose a real risk. That is, a risk of loss to insurance companies. This makes them anxious ...

nicco finally gets it, that his exaggeration is what I was calling his attention to. "Of course that's not ALL climate change, but that proportion of climate change which has been added to natural variability."

thank you nicco, but why did it take so long to back down from the wildly exaggerated hysterics .. don't answer it would only be more obfuscation I'm sure.

On the subject of undoing what has been done, I don't believe science, and especially climate science is far enough advanced to be able to claim that any additional change caused by man, can be undone, and certainly not by a tax. You clearly know better, you genius you, and know it can be .. I'd like to nominate you for a Nobel Prize .. oh wait, have you published?

Is CO2 a problem, that's the question, yes there is more, but why is the temperature not skyrocketing as per the various models?

Perhaps it's not CO2, and something else not yet discovered by an immature science? This is the skeptics dilemma, and why we do not subscribe to the alarmists, like yourself, blather about taxation being the solution to a physical situation, which you cal a problem, and are panicking.

Not everyone sees a warming planet as a problem, nor does everyone have the hubris of being able to change the temperature at will, and even more amusing, with money.

Anyway, being able to reverse man's effect as you claim, could we ask you to possibly demonstrate this on a much smaller and trivial scale?

Unmake an omelet, please. (not everything is as simple as you seem to think it is, is it?)

Another farrago of non-sequiturs from Amicus. Please try and concentrate.

Basic physics shows that CO2 affects the radiation of heat.
No one disputes natural climate variability.
Human activities have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Observation and measurement have shown a global warming trend.
Cutting greenhouse emissions would not cause cooling, because the extra CO2 is already in the atmosphere and there is a long lag time.
Cutting greenhouse emissions would help prevent further warming.
A small temperature increase may have large effects, as the oceans and the atmosphere gain energy.

Which of these simple statements do you dispute? And if you dispute it or them, can you refute it/them?

Doing the Maths on CO2 Reduction
One drop of food colouring in 50 liters of water is one part per million – 1ppm. The volume of a glass marble is 1.525 cubic centimetres.

According to those who believe manmade CO2 is the source of global warming the total CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 317ppm to 387ppm over the last 50 years. (Now up to 389 since the big volcano in Europe). The accepted figure for the annual manmade contribution to global CO2 emissions is 3.2% of the 387ppm or 12.4ppm compared to the 375ppm emitted by the oceans and other natural sources.
Australia allegedly emits 1% of the world's manmade CO2; that’s 1% of the 3.2% manmade CO2 going into the atmosphere. The government wants to reduce this amount by 20% by 2020.
To put this in a visual perspective if the global atmosphere was contained a room 2.75m x 2.75m x 2.0 meters in size, roughly the size of a small bedroom, the amount of atmospheric CO2 in the room would be the size of 387 glass marbles on the floor. The manmade contribution would be 12.4 of the marbles and Australia’s contribution about 1/8th of one marble.
The Australian Government’s proposed 20% reduction in CO2 emissions over the next 10 years at 2% per annum would be the equivalent of 25/1000ths of one marble.
How can anyone seriously believe such a miniscule reduction will have any impact on global warming or justify support for a carbon emissions tax when it’s very likely the major contributors will fail to make any significant reductions?

The carbon tax agenda is just a government money grab, they may as well tax the air.