PL,

"First it assumes that a policy that cannot not deliver the claimed benefits – i.e. of climate damages avoided – will in fact deliver the benefits because you believe it must." The Nordhaus document cited in your Senate submission, has a chapter entitled "The Many Advantages of Carbon Taxes", page 148. Huh?

"Second, your assumption that ‘dependent’s survival depends on the policy succeeding is not fact. It’s belief." ....as is your belief that she'll be right mate, it'll never happen, trust me. On what evidence do you base your belief, the unprecedented rate of temperature rise in the last century, the link between temperature and CO2 concentration over the last million years, what?

"“The Australia can lead” is ignorance." So, let's stop trying and just make ourselves as comfortable as we can, eh? That's your prerogative based on your belief. (Ever read "The Power of One"?)

Re ”Your basic conclusion is we should simply adapt to whatever temperature we reach.” and your, "I never said any such thing. You made that up." OK, you got me, I should have put it in context by adding, "...because she'll be right mate, it'll never happen, trust me." What's your conclusion if not that? Your cost-benefit approach has not addressed the IPCC's worst case scenario. Why not, because you don't believe it? IMO, it's ridiculous to go down your do nothing path with the notion it will never be too late to apply the brakes(have you ever skied?). Here's a lttle on that and more http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/heep/papers/HEEP%20Discussion%2011.pdf

Regarding the art of cost-benefit analysis of AGW mitigation, you'd be aware Tol has his critics. , https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/9/policy-politics/richard-tols-flawed-claims-about-stern-review
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/9/science-environment/richard-tols-ipcc-errors&sa=U&ei=SdlcU6kIw8KQBaC8gOgG&ved=0CAYQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHWvau7b2lNoqwoMo1aUZcJzsarqA

Regarding your doomsday economics and carbon pricing http://theconversation.com/the-carbon-tax-insurance-against-climate-change-824: "Modelling by the Australian Treasury supported by the Centre of Policy Studies (CoPS), shows that to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 80% below 2000 levels in 2050, the Australian economy would be 2.8% smaller than it otherwise would have been."

Where we do agree is on nuclear and not wasting money on green alternatives that will never meet base-load needs.

Sorry, that last link was http://theconversation.com/the-carbon-tax-insurance-against-climate-change-8244

PS The pound of flesh was revealed today by the government's keeping-secrets unit, it's going to be a "debt" levy. How cunningly brilliant!

Who is going to tell NASA they are wrong, when they write (22 January 2014)

"...And our planet is changing. Through the gradual build-up of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Earth is warming. As Earth warms, ocean waters expand and ice melts to make sea levels rise. The cycle of rainfall and evaporation accelerates, leading to more severe droughts and more severe bouts of rainfall. Heat waves become more frequent and more intense...."

The Congo has the second largest tropical rainforest on the planet and it is under stress at present due to drought.

""It's important to understand these changes because most climate models predict tropical forests may be under stress due to increasing severe water shortages in a warmer and drier 21st century climate," Zhou said." Report released on 23 April 2014.

They even have satellites committing fraud now, Leo.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/april/nasa-satellites-show-drought-may-take-toll-on-congo-rainforest/#.U118mvmSw1I

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#co2

Hey ant; have you found that graph in FAR showing claims by alarmists the Arctic sea ice is at low levels is absolute crap yet?

Luci says: "OK, you got me, I should have put it in context by adding";

Put in context!? Peter means one thing and you add the context to completely change the meaning!

Ha ha ha; AGW summed up; well done luci.

And agnostic says:

"Hi Ant – Thanks for your post. Saves me the job of pointing out how fraudulent Salby is."

For a true explanation of how Salby was disgracefully fired and slandered see:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/

What a wreck AGW and its supporters are; all of them chicken littles and doomsday merchants and spivs. How amazing that the world has been held to ransom by these liars, frauds, conmen and ideological ratbags

I knew NASA was bad, ant, because of the liar Hansen, one of their top scientists, but am reminded how bad by you locating absolute nonsense like this and posting it. They are as disingenuous as the UN.
Some years ago, a group of NASA scientists complained by letter about his nonsense on global warming, but to no avail. He is apparently most effective in securing funding.

“The letter’s co-signatories “respectfully request” that both NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – the latter run by the high priest of climate alarmism James Hansen – refrain from making “unproven remarks in public releases and websites”. Claims that man-made CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are “not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.”

http://www.energytribune.com/10610/climate-dissent-launches-at-nasa

NASA has been publishing false data for years.

http://gwswindle.blogspot.com.au/2008/11/science-vs-science-nasa-rewriting.html

AGW is a fraud, ant. Come up with science that says otherwise, or stop posting garbage.