The title should read,"Price carbon and face a bleek future." just yesterday I hear that the volcano in Iceland is due to global warming.Really? So earthquakes etc and now due to man burning carbon.So I suppose CO2 caused Fukushima to melt down.This this flat earth science.

The Sun is the prime driving force of climate and it works in cycles.So in the 1960-70's the CO2 was going to cause an ice age,then it is Global Warming, now it is Climate Change.Would someone please make up their mind? Extreme climate conditions have existed right throughout our history.The Sun will reach it's 10 yr maximum next yr and go quiet for the next 30 yrs.That is the predicted cycle.

Nothing we do will change anything.They have admitted that.According to the AGW experts,even if we stop buring all fossil fuels tomorrow,nothing will change for the next 1000 yrs.So what's the hurry? Yes it is all about taxes to service unneceessy debt and a new derivative called ETS for the share market that will give the big players even more power.

Yet another fact free pep talk from one of the warmest brigade.

When will they learn.

The free ride is over. Give us some evidence or take a hike, we're no longer susceptible to the idle chatter of alarmists.

Arjay and Hasbeen,
are like a cracked record about the warming science and about natural catastrophes which they have no evidence of .

As of yesterday tornadoes are now the worst on record according to US met records and the tornado season is not over yet. The massive loss of glacier ice on Iceland may have the volcano eruptions more likely. As for the the peak of 2012 sunspot activity it might take out the US power grid and bring hell to US urban areas. Totally reliant on coal based electricity.

The lunacy of the carbon tax is summed up by his statement No 1:

"Electricity generators using fossil fuels would continue operating as before and the price of electricity would rise"

Duh, so there are no changes in emissions, only the cost of living. Maybe the title of this thread should be:

Price carbon and face a bleak future

When I read the opposition to carbon reduction schemes, "we will all be ruined if we do this" I am reminded of the howls from the vehicle industry over emissions connrols in the 1970s and 80s. These were going to destroy our way of life in the west. Instead we have seen cars with much more efficient engines which pollute far less (but not enough)than the clunkers in our cars back then.

If we make the right rules about carbon the industries will quickly adapt and we might just save the world.

I for one do not want to have to tell my grandchildren that we blew a window of opportunity and they have to pay....

Unlike some of the comments so far, I do support Mike Pope’s tenet. We do need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the industries that are bleating will not face a catastrophic future as a consequence. If they move with the times.

I am less supportive of some of his comments. When he asks the (I suspect rhetorical) question “Should we believe politicians who tell us that Australia will be providing a fair contribution to reducing global emissions by making a 5% reduction in its emissions by 2020 when other countries are making 25% reductions?” he fails to understand the comparison. A 5% reduction from 2000 levels in Australia is equivalent to a 25% reduction in Europe. The important issue he either doesn’t understand or glosses over is that we are taking about a reduction from business as usual in 2020 for both regions. Australia is growing much more rapidly than Europe and will continue to do so. To ignore this and make direct comparisons is nonsense.

His view that “generators using fossil fuel will face increasing competition from low and no emission generators such as wind, hydro, importantly geothermal and, more importantly in the longer term, from solar energy” fails to recognise the limitations of some of the quoted technologies and the time frames involved. It is likely that fossil fuel generators looking to reduce GHG emissions will never face serious competition from wind. Hydro resources in Australia are largely utilised already. Geothermal in Australia may still be decades away – if ever, given the technology difficulties with hot rock geothermal systems. At least he recognises that for solar to be a serious competitive will take time.

He fails to mention the one technology best placed to replace fossil fuels, nuclear power. Our government needs to urgently review its policy here if it has any chance of reaching it’s emission reduction targets for 2050.

Good article Mike; sane summary of the the issue which the majority would agree with. Of course you are quite right; the work doesnt end and we dont plunge into deep recession as soon as we adopt a carbon price - dozens of countries in Europe can testify to this and many of these already have 30 - 50 % renewable energy due to the carbon price. Totally agree with your comment too Robborg.

The usual den of half a dozen or so climate denier vipers has predictably struck again, trying in vain to counter sane arguments for climate change action as they always do on these pages. To them I ask 'who pays you?". I am happy to start the ball rolling by saying who pays me. I fund myself on meagre earnings from consulting, odd jobs, a small term deposit and a rental property. I earn little more than the pension, but I do have some time to weigh into these debates

Here is an interesting snippet: "Nine out of ten of the main contributors to the Global Warming Foundation's list of '900 peer reviewed sceptical papers' are financially linked to Exxon Mobil and many others are linked to oil-industry funded think tanks………"
These facts and others about the climate denier campaign have been detailed in such books as 'Climate Cover Up' and 'Merchants of Doubt'. The corrupt 'smoking is not linked to cancer' campaign is now common knowledge as is the corrupt climate denial campaign. It is well known who funds them to propagate lies.

To my surprise I agree with about half of Mike Pope's article. However, he spoils it by his childish insistence, despite all that has happened, that really the sceptics have no evidence. This sort of sniping is getting old, and pointless.

As for the carbon tax, I agree that it will probably not have a noticeable effect. It may shave a few points of economic growth and hit the middle class consumers, who are unlikely to be compensated despite Pope's claim.

But will it save carbon? Switching power plants is not easy. Once a coal plant is up and firing away, it will most likely be used for its full 30-40 year life cycle. The carbon tax debate has delayed investment in new, more efficient plants that may well be gas rather than coal powered. There are indications that new capacity is in fast cycling open-cycle gas plants - less efficient than the big gas plants - to fill in the gaps between the dionsaur coal plants. However, when a carbon tax is announced, any changes will take decades.

Maybe you should ask Portuguese taxpayers about whether their businesses have 'come to an end' as a result of taxing carbon:

http://tinyurl.com/3lbo9e4

The carbon tax may not the sole reason why Portugal, Greece and Ireland are in deep financial trouble, but it sure ain't helping any.

As for... "the release of methane from the immense deposits in the Arctic...", this is exactly what we need: the deposits are so massive that they can stave off energy depletion and provide us with heat, light, computer power and food for many decades to come:

http://www.freshpatents.com/Methane-conversion-to-higher-hydrocarbons-dt20070816ptan20070191664.php

One person's apocalypse is another's opportunity. But of course, cheap and abundant energy is the last thing the dreary AGW death cult actually wants.

I agree that a small Carbon Tax may not be the end of the world, but is it the best policy.

Both Liberal and Labor have stated that they want to reduce CO2 emissions but the policies coming from both sides have been woeful.

Their initiatives so far have caused the price of RECs to crash causing the construction of new wind farms to be put on hold. Government policy encouraged rooftop solar at 50c/kWh to the detriment of wind at 11c/kWh. AGL Energy, Pacific Hydro, Accionna and Origin Energy have all deferred major wind farm projects because they are presently uneconomic.

Carbon Tax or no Carbon Tax? I don't know. I just want policy that works and doesn't destroy the economy.

And then Roses1 comes out with this equally tired nonsense.
"Nine out of ten of the main contributors to the Global Warming Foundation's list of '900 peer reviewed sceptical papers' are financially linked to Exxon Mobil and many others are linked to oil-industry funded think tanks."

That statistic and other rantings in the same post about funding for sceptical research do not make a lot of sense, but are almost certainly wrong.

The overwhelming bulk of all funds in this area have gone into the greenhouse side. It is possible to point to a million here or a million there that has gone to organisations that might be described as sceptical. But for every such million it is possible to point to a billion on the Greenhouse side. Greenpeace alone turns over 400 million euro worldwide, and that's just one of any number of strident pro-greenhouse organisations, all raising money.

As for funds that have gone into research, what research where? Sceptical scientists have told me that they cannot get funding for their proposals. Nor is there a scrap of evidence that the energy companies have been financing climate research on any scale. Naomi Oreskes has simply taken a line from the tobacco companies and assumed the energy companies are doing the same thing. They are not. Its a different market, different product and different circumstances. Oreskes should adjust her viewpoint to take in those circumstances, and find some evidence for her assertions beyond the occasional grant. So should Roses1.

"Really, the sceptics have no evidence." Curm objects to this sentence, which is no more than a statement of fact. The science supporting the theory of human-influenced climate change has not been refuted. The (very rare) science which occasionally surfaces and attempts to provide an alternative theory has not, so far, been able to survive close examination.

Most so-called sceptics are nothing of the sort, being out-and-out denialists and impervious to evidence. Very occasionally, a real sceptic appears, prepared to examine the evidence. Recently, Prof Richard A. Muller set up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (funded in part by oil-billionaire Charles Koch) in the expectation that close analysis of the data would refute mainstream climate science. But in a surprising announcement to the US Congress (March 2011), Prof Muller said that the Berkeley data closely matches mainstream data, and the fact that some surface temeperature stations are "poor" (as claimed by Watts et al) makes no difference to the observed global warming trend.

Shadow Minister makes the rather facile comment of citing point 1 (electricity prices rise) while tactically ignoring point 2 (households are compensated). Perhaps it has escaped SM that the compensation proposed by government is akin to that given when the GST was introduced: end users were compensated for its effects.

He goes on to display his lack of understanding of the article which is that the point of raising electricity prices is to attract new investment in the electricity generating business who emit less CO2, pay less or no carbon tax and can therefore not only compete with fossil fuelled generators but eventually replace them – in other words put them out of business unless they reduce their emissions.

Martin N makes a perfectly valid point in noting that going “Nuclear” offers a tried and reliable alternative to renewable energy and it should have got a mention. My own view is that until we can safely store nuclear waste they are probably not a politically acceptable option. If they were, why did successive Howard Governments not give approval to a single nuclear power station?

As for geothermal being decades away and having problematic technology, well my information is that a demonstration plant will be operating next year and that a 25Mw power station is less than 5 years away from being a reality. But, proof of the pudding is in the eating.

No, Nicco, this silly insistance that skeptics are just denialists is becoming old, tiresome nonsense.

The sloppyness of the counter arguments can be seen in the very point you mention. The bit about the data in fact I agree with, or don't care much about one way or another. What they are referring to is the data from the land stations which some sceptics claim, not without reason, is flawed.

I happen to agree, like all other sceptics, that there is, or was, a warming trend. The satellite data also shows this, just a less dramatic trend than that of the instrument network. The problem is deciding what is causing it. Further, that has always been the main case. Yet, there are those who insist, in the teeth of all reason, that the argument is really about whether there has been a warming trend of not, or whether the earth's climate can be considered warm.

If you want to make yourself useful, find some hard evidence that some part of the present climactic warmth is due to emissions. The best the climate commission report could come up with was highly equivocal indications, and more silly abuse as a substitute for reasoned arguement.

If carbon is a problem,then why are our Govts allowing atrocious practises coal seam gas which is detroying our environment and farmlands.The Govt says one thing and does another.It is total hypocracy.Tell them to frack off.

If carbon is a problem,tax it as it comes out of the ground.No, both the Corps and Govt want to screw the worker.

No Curmudgeon. You, as a “skeptic”, concede that global warming is occurring but assert that it is not due to human emission of greenhouse gases.

Science has put forward a substantial proven explanation. You have said no, no that is not right.

Fine, but it is not good enough for you to simply reject this explanation. You have to tell us why it is wrong, You have to tell us what the cause of global warming is. You have to put up a persuasive argument why your view is right.

Let me tell readers now that the Curmodgeons of this world will do none of these things. Why? Because they have no other explanation which can not be and has not already been shown to be wrong – and if there is one thing these pseudo skeptics do not like is being shown to be wrong.

Nicco is of course quite right. If Curmdgeon had anything better to offer than an irrational vacuous rant, it would be welcome by science but unfortunately that is not the case.

Arjay asks a good question. Why do governments allow grossly uncontrolled extraction of coal-seam gas to the detriment of farmland, the Great Artesian Basin and the environment?

NSW and QLD State Governments are definitely guilty and the reason they allow it can be summed up in one word – GREED. Both governments have made themselves highly dependent on mining revenue. Both need more revenue and see this as a means of meeting that need.

However, Senator Heffanan has demanded safeguards and reform of the coal-seam gas industry and the Commonwealth government has indicated that it will act to impose much tighter regulation – particularly to protect farmland and the environment. And about time too!

Agnostic of Mittagong
finally you are getting the idea that the arguement is over whether the present climate warmth is part of a natural cycle or induced by industrial emissions in some way. We are getting some where.

Now to the next level of total misunderstanding of the debate on the part of activists. You assert that scientists have advanced an explanation, which sceptics have rejected. Wrong. they have advanced an explanation which they have yet to verify in any meaninful fashion, and its up to them to prove it.

The bulk of the "proofs" offered for greenhouse theories - peer review, a "consensus" of experts, matching of model output to historical results - are completely meaningless as proofs. The history of science is full of wrong theories that were backed by a consensus, and back testing.

Instead the theory needs a demonstrable track record. Forecasts that have actually be confirmed, rather than proved wrong, unequivocal forecasts of heating patterns in the upper atmosphere that can be domonstrated through actual measurements (there have been various claims and counter-claims on that last point), measurements of increases in humidity in the upper atmosphere as required by the models, and so on. A solid record of seasonal forecasating would be good too, rather than a history of compelte misses.

It would be nice if activists could gain some idea of what the debate is actually about. Going over the same ground many times because activists have not stepped to read anything about the debate, and being abused in the process, is becoming tiresome.

Curmudgeon, theories are accepted on the basis of evidence and overturned by alternative theories and the basis of evidence for those.

What is your alternative theory? Natural cycles?

What is the mechanism by which this theory works? That is, if it is indeed a natural cycle, what is the mechanism that is causing the temperatures to rise?

The reason that most scientists do not accept that the entirety of the current warming is natural is that they believe that, other than rising levels of CO2, that mechanism has not yet been found.

If you have good evidence that it has, then please enlighten us.

Bugsy
Excellent! You've nailed it! An alternative theory is indeed missing. One alternative is the solar magnetic theory which, to my mind, has a lot going for it, but its obviously not finished. This may be due to the fact that there is simply no funding for such research. Scientists of both sides have also broadly agreed that solar magnetic variations can account for all the changes in climate up to a couple of decades ago, then the link breaks down.

But does it break down? If so, are CO2 concentrations the missing piece of that puzzle or do those concentrations simply follow temperatures, rather than drive them? (Global warming scientists have been trying hard to get rid of that one - with insults - but so far it hasn't gone away.)

Given all that, and the rather poor performance of the concensus theory, in all circumstances, are we really going to trust forecasts made using it for decades into the future, particularly when it comes to paying out billions? Doubt it.

You still on about it Mark?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10372#169822

Your post history (pun intended) in that thread gave me a chuckle, thanks.

LOL, I can just see you clutching a Nobel for Physics.

Actually, it's more enlightening (and entertaining) reading all the posts:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10372&page=0

Yes, bonmot, still beating the same drum. Problem is that there is simply no research funds for anything other than greenhouse theory, so the science hasn't moved very much. When last I heard they were running more tests for the cosmic ray-cloud connection, but its slow going.

Repetition may finally drive the point home, however.. we can only home.

You're unbelievable. The answer to your rhetorical questions is yes. Solar irradiance does not explain the currently measured climate forcing. There's been quite a lot of research published in this area since you made up your mind that this was your 'missing link' as it were. Which also seems to be at odds with the idea that there is no funding for such research. Maybe they all worked part-time at the local gas-station.

And yes, CO2 measurements are adequate to explain, and the answer to your (probably rhetorical) question is BOTH. Historically, they both can follow and force, does that confuse you? It sure seems to confuse a lot of people for some reason. The other thing that also appears to confuse is the idea that long-term models can often be far more accurate than short-term.

It's just plain demagoguery to exploit the fact that most people cannot understand the difference between stochastic and deterministic processes and models. It sure aint science.

Where's your alternative theory Mark? Where?

Show me the theory. AGW is not going anywhere until it can be replaced with something else that explains the trends better. Stop throwing stones and show us.

Bugsy,

I would suggest that those sceptical of AGW are not proposing to spend trillions of dollars "fixing" climate change. Therefore, the obligation of providing unchallenged proof rather than theory, models and correlations rests with your mob.

Also, here's a tip - if you guys really want to "fix" climate change by reducing the greenhouse effect, why mess around with CO2 which only contributes about 5% of the greenhouse effect? Why not try to reduce water vapour emissions and get a 20:1 leverage over CO2? Maybe you could call it "water pollution" (ie. not pollution OF water but pollution BY water). You could spend $50B on research to "prove" that it's our fault and then impose a Water Tax to fix it.

If that all sound ridiculous, you might get an insight into how the so-called climate sceptics feel.

Rhetorically confused or perhaps confusingly rhetorical by the looks of it.

Must be nice knowing science without actually having to bother understanding any of it.

Blog on.

Rhetorical? Certainly. Confused? No, I'll leave that to you. But I AM interested in you explaining the science to me ...

When you attack the scientific basis and refuse to acknowledge the validity of it because you don't like the political policy decisions proposed to deal with it, yes I call that confused. Most of you are confused.

You can argue about the validity of the (political) policies all you like, I don't ever object to that. After all, we all want something that will work

Curmdgeon – you offer not a shred of evidence that science has not cogently and for good reason shown to be wrong.

Peter Mac – try reading science that has survived peer review instead of asking others to spoon feed you. I suggest a good start might be: http://skepticalscience.com It is informative and easy to read, even for non-scientists.

Bugsy - please point out where I have "attacked the science"? I suggested that the AGW case is based on theory, models and correlations and that "unchallenged proof" is needed to justify the enormous cost of CO2 emissions reduction.

A scientific process will develop and advance a theory, support this theory through observation (including correlations) and then model this to predict future outcomes.. However, the crucial element to healthy science is the process of challenging the theory and its support. I believe that this has not been done "properly" in the case of AGW theory.

Supporters point to "peer reviews" but I believe this is in many cases a lot of like-minded people agreeing with each other - this is not science.

Most opposition to the AGW concept has been called "denial" and opponents labelled with insults, which include: greed, in the pay of oil companies, don't understand science, etc. This is not science. (BTW – I am a mining engineer so you will probably disqualify me because I am obviously not capable of independent thought!)

AGW supporters tell us that "the majority of scientists agree" and “the science is settled”. This can be called democracy or consensus but it is not science.

You see, I am happy with the science. I understand the science. And my protests are in support of science. What I object to in this case is that what I believe to be incorrect conclusions have been drawn and presented as facts. This is not science.

This situation is not restricted to AGW but the difference with the AGW case is that the lunatics have been let out of the asylum. The world’s population cannot be expected to spend trillions based on a theory that is, in my opinion, unproven.

So exchanging views and opinions on blogs anonymously is all good fun. Using semantics to advance your argument is clever. Getting one over the other guy is satisfying. Using esoteric terms and imbedding links to articles that support your point of view is great. But do not ask me to fund your fantasy.

Agnostic - my request for an explanation of the science was sarcastic. I have read hundreds of papers from so-called climate scientists, AGW supporters and sceptics and have formed a considered opinion (as an engineer with post-graduate qualifications) that the AGW case is generally weak and certainly the science is not "settled".

But thanks for the link anyway - I'm always open to reading different information on the subject - you should try it sometime.

I love correlations. If I can dig it out, I will post a link where the global temperature measurements were plotted against the price of US postage stamps. I personnally plotted the average age of my immediate family and got a pretty good match - FYI, the plateau in global temperatures over the last decade is due to my elderly mother dying recently. You're right - it's not solar radiation after all.

"Fantasy"? Yep, you sure know which side your bread is buttered alright. You ask to point to where you have "attacked the science" and then proceed to do just that by misrepresenting the entirely of observation and testing of hypotheses by trying to dismiss it all as just unsupported modelling and correlations. The phrase "unchallenged proof" displays an engineering bias that comes mostly from mathemathics as far as I can tell. There are plenty of policy decisions that are mad on far less evidence of working, let alone "proof", the penal code for instance.

We agree with what a scientific process does, and that theories are challenged. Yes, I would say that has happened and the alternative theories are currently losing or have lost. You don't believe that the challenge t theory has been done 'properly'. Well, that is an unsupported personal opinion at this point isn't it?

The rest of your post involves mixing up political viewpoints and justifying value judgements etc. You may try and represent me as "most opposition", however you will find that I am not. I am not making (and do not make) policy statements about what we should do. That is for politicians. However do not make the mistake that if the policy for action is considered 'wrong', that somehow the science must be also.

The only fantasy around here is what you think I am.

Bugsy when the mathematics don't work, & they don't with AGW, then you don't have science at all. All you have left then is a religion, & your new AGW one has a fair way to go to challenge half a dozen of fully established old ones.

After all, they have been fine tuning their mythology for centuries, not just a few years like yours.

Bugsy
we've hit more total misunderstandings. You're talking about solar IRRADIANCE. Yes, a lot has been published on that. I'm talking about solar MAGNETISM. Its a completely different effect. Although I hate to sound like a broken record here the key paper where the global warmers admitted the effect is 'Recently opposite directed trends in climate forcings and the global mean surface temperature (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, July 13, 2007)'. Its available online. Also note the mass of evidence it the paper cites.

Agnostic of Mittigong - the paper I cite above is an excellent place to start if you want to get to grips with all the problems with greenhouse. Again, as I have stated, its up to the global warmers to establish a track record. Then they can be taken seriously.

Conclusions to the paper you cite:

... Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, WHICHEVER of the (solar) mechanisms (including MAGNETISM Mark) is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf

Mark, you keep your thumbs in your ears and your fingers covering your eyes and still repeat like a broken record the same old-same old.

Please, don't link me to Monckton's think-tank refutation either.

You say >> Problem is that there is simply no research funds for anything other than greenhouse theory, so the science hasn't moved very much. <<

Wrong.

Mark, some of the most powerful and cashed up oil, coal and gas consortiums in the world are stumbling over each other to find a fatal flaw in AGW (they have more to lose than you can poke a stick at).

Guess what? They can't do it.

One small country with a carbon tax doesn't make sense compared to India and China. But never mind the Oz companies will go off shore and import the goods back to us. The carbon tax may be needed to pay the unemployed.

No Mark, there's no 'total misunderstandings' here. I know you were talking about solar "magnetism" (whichever part you might like to pick, sunspots, GCRs etc), it's not like you haven't trumpeted on about it before.

And trotted out that reference to try and support your idea that it might just be the answers to a curmudgeons prayer.

Except that it isn't and the effects of the sun (yes including 'magnetism') have been reviewed even more recently and found wanting.

The comment on funding is classic conspiracy theory though. I love it, I'd like to see more of it from you.

I love the strategy though, pick an obscure hypothesis that might just exlain everything you want because noone will understand it properly, except the people who actually work in the field (or so you think).
Then you can say, 'it's the missing link, more needs to be done, but the activists have the funding' etc etc ad nauseum.

I love it, I'm sure it works well on Bolt's pages.

Bugsy,

Sorry - rhetoric when I said “most opposition” and “your fantasy”. My comments weren’t to you personally and I apologise if you have interpreted this as a criticism of who you are or what you stand for – none intended. And call me crazy, but I have simply expressed my opinions on a forum entitled “onlineopinion”.

The intent of my last post was to suggest that science has been perverted by the conclusions, predictions and policy/actions that have resulted. Again – I have no problem with the science (although I reserve my rights to disagree and do with some of it); it is the management, interpretation and manipulation of the science that is wrong (yes, in my opinion).

I will let you know how I started my (almost obsessive at times) research into AGW. I was watching Sunrise several years ago (yes, I know, have a chuckle now! – I don’t anymore) and they were promoting a global warming action initiative with a snazzy slogan. I was curious to find out more on the subject so went to the Channel 7 website and clicked on the link. I was directed to a webpage that asked for my credit card details to buy carbon credits. “Hmm”, I thought, “that’s interesting!”

Several hundred websites, blogs, scientific papers, journals, articles, discussions, emails, meetings and books later and my initial cynicism has only been reinforced. Some of this has to do with science, but most of it has to do with “the politics” of the issue.

However, whatever you or I say or do, carbon taxes and ETSs will be introduced, carbon dioxide emissions from participating countries will be reduced or kept in check and money will be spent on renewable energy research. If the climate stops warming, it will be hailed as a triumph of global action and vindication of green activism; if it continues warming, AGW proponents will say it was because we did not act soon enough. The science and the truth will be irrelevant.

Tax women who want more than two children and immigrants who want immediate astronomical rises in their living standards or face ugly consequences

Why?

People cause climate change, NOT Carbon.

Listen, Canberra is full of politicians which means its full of cheats and liars, and when they're not kissing babies they're stealing their lollipops. But it also means They keep their options open.

It could also mean Canberra is full of schizophrenic politicianss who can happily KNOW the truth but act contrarily with ease and panache. Which accounts for the huge agreement to extend budget bonuses to mental health care ... presumably for when they retire. Gillard's Flannery/Garnaut santa Clause Climate report highlights this. It is just a blunt instrument to beggar average Australians while gaining immense power over them as they continue to squeeze more immigrants into capital cities which inevitably raises stress levels and dilutes the power of any individual to have a say in the future of this nation.

Now we know its people who kill people not guns and likewise people cause climate change, not Carbon. Politicians know this yet immigrate more people to the hilt and supply over generous baby bonuses paid for with all the extra immigrant GST. They don't care about jobs or old age care. CEO's take care of the former and the grim reaper takes care of the latter with great assistance from peak hour traffic pollution, a lot of which comes from 4WD's that should have been banned as a climate change policy before any Tooth Fairy Climate report was ever commissioned. Canberra is just externalising the costs of more people onto communities in the capital cities while they reap the economic rewards and political power. Then they say they can't understand why teens stab each other to death in fits of mindless and utterly disrespectful rage in peak hour on Bankstown station.

Continued ..

Continued,

Politicians know the right approach is not to ban guns and knives but to reduce and stabilise population to ease social pressure. They know that to stop climate change in OUR region all you need do is halt immigration apart from replacement levels and tax women who choose to have the UNEQUAL right to have more than two children in their lifetime without taking responsibility and maintaining the right to picket and blame everyone else but themselves. But the truth is unpopular. That's why it is a prerequisite to be Schizophrenic to be a politician. That way you can know the right thing to do and act contrarily ( to be popular and rich ) and NOT lose any sleep over it.

The point is should Australian's have to tolerate mental patients running this nation?

People like Cameron Leckie have spelled out to the last detail what the reality for the future is if we continue to pursue the Ponzi schema of endless economic growth based on exponential population growth. His reply to Budget Reply article from his "Catabolic Collapse Party" that contrary to Economic Growth Maniacs, stabilising population will result in great benefits to every Australian as the Fiscal Pie can be divided more equitably among fewer people.

Canberra should pay particular notice to Justus Von Liebig's law of the minimum as an antidote to their crepuscular economic growth mania..

I have to conclude that the best course of action for Curmudgeon would be to simply shut up. Curmudgeon says (repeatedly) that he is not satisfied with the science, so we are aware of that. But he offers nothing to replace what he asserts is at fault. He seems to believe that climate scientists, who have been studying climate change for decades, have somehow missed the gaps in their own - and their colleagues - arguments. His complacent view is that something may be happoening to the climate, in some small degree, but there's no need to worry.

His ideas about academic funding are merely insulting, but tell us something about how his ideology affects his observations.

Surely we don't have to spell it out again: climate scientists are in general agreemnent that the chance of human activities affecting climate is very high, and that there is no other credible cause for the observed and measured global warming. Many such causes have been suggested, a few by credible climate researchers, but none has survived careful scrutiny. (As has been suggested, it could be the work of leprechauns, but the evidence that it is industrial CO2 is far stronger.)

When Curmudgeon can offer something constructive, and not simply waste everyone's time with his Panglossian opinions, it will be time for us to hear from him again.

Nicco,

As we have just seen, Mark Lawson (curmudgeon) not only can't understand the scientific papers he himself cites, he deliberately distorts and misrepresents the conclusions of those papers to somehow give weight to his own beliefs. This is extraordinary from a supposed 'scientific journalist'.

Despite the fact that curmud’s distortions and misrepresentations have been pointed out, numerous times - in this thread and elsewhere, by many posters, he repeats the mantra. From my understanding, this is a behaviour pattern of anyone in "denial" - a psychological defence mechanism. It really does give the impression that his eyes are closed, has ear muffs on, and is chanting some dogma of his own.

Nicco, I doubt he will simply shut up though - look at his post history. He demonstrates an innate capacity to repeat the same stuff time and time again, often in a guise with similar ideological bent. And time and time again, as you suggest, people have had to "spell it out again". It becomes tedious and tiresome. Quite frankly, I think many casual but dedicated OLO observers just turn off - I can't blame them.

However, someone must/should take these defenders of deceit to task; they can wreak confusion and despair on an already confused and desperate society. So, thanks for your efforts.

Will common sense prevail? Only time will tell. You can be sure of one thing; as long as Australian politicians and 'stick-in-the-muds' play the denial and negativity game and oppose just for the sake of opposing, delay will be the outcome. In that they will have succeeded in entrenching our ultra-conservative world view reputation and demonstrate yet again how slow we are to adapt to the changes that confront us. This is a wrong in the global environment we live today, but there you go.

bonmot is right to point out that those who misrepresent and mislead in order to substantiate their “skeptical” views about AGW its causes and effects must be taken to task. However, rather than prove they are wrong, surely the onus must be put on them to prove that they are right? Their response is usually that they either remain silent or offer nothing. They know perfectly well that to speak-up will result in the error of their ways being pointed out to them and other readers.

In this instance curmudgeon failed to take the sensible advice on offer: put-up or shut-up. So thanks again to you and nicco for once more pointing out the error oh his ways – and the fact that his profession is that of a journalist - and a science writer to boot!. Science fiction maybe but he certainly offers nothing by way of response to the article under discussion or unfortunately, as a contribution to debate on AGW.