"Alley cats", "hissy fits", "A-grade denier".

Great contribution csteele.

Your only 'point' is this:

"Australia gets 5.2% of its energy from renewables. The figure for China is 17%, over three times ours. In most people's book that would have them doing 'hugely well' in comparison."

And it is wrong:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/china-power-renewables-idINL4E8J80J120120808

Hydro is far and away the dominant 'renewable' in China; so, csteele go and reread what Lomborg said about China; quite simply they are playing the West, particularly suckers like us, about renewables.

Are you really that gullible to think China is going down the 'renewable' path? Now how much do you think China is increasing its coal and nuclear power? By the same % as renewable, bearing in mind the VASTLY greater base coal and nuclear start from compared with the 'renewables', or by a larger %?

Japan sent up a satellite to gather information on CO2. They seem not to be bound by Political Correctness and published the truth about the results. The West absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had long claimed that, ‘there is a consensus among scientists that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), are harming global climate’.

The Japanese satellite map shows regions coloured the deepest leaf green (net absorbers of CO2) being predominantly those developed nations of Europe and North America; thus indicating built up environments absorbed more CO2 than they emitted into the atmosphere.”

http://co2insanity.com/2011/11/15/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon-dioxide-climate-theory/

This information has been available since October 2011, but there is no change in the misinformation of the AGW fraud backers.

No wonder it is impossible to measure any effect of human emissions on climate. We are net absorbers.

It also seems impossible to stop the false assertions of AGW by the fraud backers.

CSteele's contribution put me in mind of one of the many problems with the Climate Commission's report. It states that 9 per cent of electricity in China came from renewable sources in 2010, but neglects to point out that almost all of it would have come from hydro electricity. The country has major hydro projects, such as the Three Gorges Dam which long predates western obsession with emissions.

The entry for South Korean states, correctly, that the country will have an emissions trading scheme in 2013, but does not mention that the Korean government has declared that 90 per cent of the permits required will be issued for free.

The report is just propoganda and should be treated as such.

@Ludwig "Surely you can see that it is eminently sensible to move forward cautiously, and that if we are to err, then it should be on the side of caution."

In what universe is it 'sensible' and 'cautious' to slap a crippling tax on our most productive producers, and spend the resulting cash on hare-brained green schemes which have already failed overseas?

The first step towards framing a 'sensible' response to an alleged threat is to verify that the threat actually exists. Unfortunately this is the step that the Gillard government has chosen to omit.

If you're interested, Leo Lane, all of the available and recent GOSAT images are here…

https://data.gosat.nies.go.jp/GosatBrowseImage/browseImage/fts_l2_swir_co2_gallery_en.html

As I understand it anything above 390ppm is above current average – the sort of yellowy-red colours.

Certainly seems to be a trend over the last three years although I couldn't find an explanation of why their scale has change from 360-390 in 2010 to 370-400 this year.

Flannery's claim "if we go on stupidly burning fossil fuels the ocean will rise by 80 metres" shows he gives little consideration to even basic maths!