That's odd, runner.

You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on this forum urging people to transcend their "instincts" in favour of following the tenets handed down from on high.

I do appreciate the fact that you follow "your" instincts in declaring AGW "crap"...it's certainly not based on evidence.

Btw, looky here - http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/05/10/the-last-time-atmospheric-co2-was-at-400-parts-per-million-humans-didnt-exist/

..........

Saltpetre,

cohenite's specialty is unnecessarily malignant comment.

The problem for the greens has been their blinkered approach!
Their make it more costly to pollute first up, completely ignored the 40% or so, already living just above or in varying degrees, below the poverty line, with absolutely no more fat able to be trimmed from an already meagre budgets.
The second, the number of businesses merely treading water on 3% or less margins.
That would include many already debt laden farmers, most restaurants and some still independent supermarkets. The latter only able to continue, thanks to freehold premises and volume trade?
Thirdly, there are cheaper than coal carbon free alternatives, and alternative fuel types that quite literally suck the carbon straight from the atmosphere.
All of which failed, the make it more expensive mantra, that supplants pragmatism for most greens.
Many of who are anything but conservationists.
Who's lock it up and leave it principle policy paradigm, saw millions of hectares destroyed in the worst fire-storm we've witnessed in living memory; and millions of our furry and feathered friends, many already on the threatened or endangered list!
And rather than build more dams to mitigate against flooding and the tide of tons of alluvium, routinely and repeatedly destroying millions of hectares of sea grass and all who depend on it, they want to tear down already existing ones!
The real myth is that the greens are anything but realist conservationists, but rather recalcitrant wreckers, who made certain, that Rudd was replaced; simply by blocking his ETS!
And ditto Gillard, with their too high price for the green labour alliance?
Unfortunately, it's not them that is going to be decimated in the forthcoming federal election!
Rhrosty.

Poirot,

Your links get sillier and sillier.

It’s been pointed out to you before but it needs to be said again. You don’t like it so you refuse to recognize the reality.

If your links to your science had any validity there would still be a Kyoto, there would still be emissions trading market and there would still be a renewables industry on a global basis.

You continue to promote the links that have not only failed your warmer cause; they have also utterly destroyed the global infrastructure that was built to support your cause.

It is not our science that destroyed your cause, it is you own. Much as would like to blame you for your role in supporting this futile con, I’m actually quite grateful. I would like you to continue to send your failed scientific links to the wrong audience for the wrong reasons.

When you continue with your personal folly, trying to get the proverbial CAGW dead cat to bounce, there are many watching you who quietly muse to themselves, there goes another ideology at the expense of intellect.

At least in your case I can’t be accused of playing the man.

Get a life Poirot, find something else to fill the vacuum between your ears, you only have until Sept 14.

'I do appreciate the fact that you follow "your" instincts in declaring AGW "crap"..

Poirot

with only pseudo science to back anything you say about man made gw I think it is you who display a great lack of instinct. Are the left intentially gullible?

Yes, spindoc and runner,

I must say that it's overwhelming to come up against such towering intellects as yourselves on the subject of climate.

It's what keeps me coming back - the mere spectacle of so much denialist clap-trap all neatly powdered and primped - and all contained on one Aussie forum.

Surely the ultimate objective of 'The Greens' would be to use the carbon tax, and more importantly the ETS, as leverage for a sound argument to maintain and rejuvenate our environment - in forestry, agriculture and national parks - to maintain a truly 'green Australia'?
And surely there are no better carbon offsets, from our personal perspective, than to green our own backyard?
AGW or not, such a proposition has merit.

On the other hand, it appears clear (at least to me) that Labor's clear objective, and Gillard's in particular, was merely socialist engineering to redistribute wealth, and thereby to accumulate votes.

When you get down to it, the same goes for the Mining Tax.
If greater revenues could be gained from mining, then all that would be necessary would be for the States to negotiate higher royalties.
But then, States have a wider interest in mining than mere royalties, for there is the question of construction, jobs and infrastructure, and all that goes with these. States are not about to stab their benefactors in the back, but Federal Labor just could not resist attempting to dip their noses in the trough. This, even though Fed Labor always retained the mechanism of GST distribution as a 'leveler'.
'Rainbow chasing' and misguided muscle flexing.

But what may we hope for from an Abbott government?
We surely don't want a carbon tax (or ETS) or a mining tax, but I'm sure we would all appreciate lower electricity charges, and I would certainly like to see the home solar scheme reintroduced.

I would also like to see a substantial reduction of live animal exports (if not its entire elimination), for we could well do with more and better abattoir facilities, and the jobs these would garner, even to the point of having dedicated 'halal' facilities etc, employing 457 visa holders, including suitably qualified managers and supervisory staff. Two birds with one stone - jobs and cultural exchange, and a brave step forward to embrace 'the Asian Century'.