Imajulianutter, I linked a newspaper article that cited two scientists. I'm not about to do your homework for you, so lookup their work if you're genuinely interested...but I have a strong sense that you're not.

I wasn't sold on anything, as it came out of the mouths of politicians. If you're a partisan supporter, then more fool you. Your mate in office is about to sell more Australian assets and further reduce revenue capabilities. Both sides have done it, claiming "fiscal responsibility". Both have sold us down the toilet.

If you remember the 80's, we changed car emissions and stopped using fluorocarbons as they were creating a hole in the ozone layer. Since doing that, the ozone layer has repaired itself somewhat. So if you're proffering that humanity has no impact upon the environment, I'd have to say that's swill.

I recognize that the planet has its own cycle. But to suggest we have no impact is just plain foolish. The amount of impact compared to the planet's cycle is the only debatable question, of which I certainly have no answer, nor most scientists. But pollutants and deforestation amongst other things, DO impact upon the environment.

Well, given my druthers, I'd raise the carbon tax to around a million dollars a ton.
However, the missing element is a cap, which could be current emission: meaning no sane person would ever actually pay this tax, repeat, no sane person would ever pay this tax!
And following that, I would want governments to invest in very localized, cheaper than coal thorium power. Localized, given that lowers retail costs, by a further half!
We have enough thorium to power the world for around 700 years! However, we could simply retain it for the huge economic advantages that would then accrue to us.
And it helps, that it is also carbon free power; meaning we can use it, to make steel using the direct reduction, arc furnace method, and get on refining aluminium, which is often described as congealed electricity.
And it could also underpin, a brand new light metals smelting industry
I just don't understand why all you folks are arguing about whether or not climate change is real or man made! It just doesn't matter!
Simply put, climate change is accepted by most nations, and we can, if we are bright, use that acceptance, to vastly improve our economy, by picking options that actually quite dramatically lower the cost of energy!
So what's the problem, Punch, Judy? Don't you like money?
Rhrosty.

Agro opines:

"There has been statistically significant warming of surface temperatures since 1998. More importantly, there has also been warming of the deep oceans."

OHC in the depths is a furphy because that warming, which is problematic anyway, is not coming from the surface with SST plummeting since 2003 and OHC to 700 meters flat over the same period. It must be the volcanoes or aliens on the ocean floor sending heat up. No doubt agro, who is in touch with aliens, will set us straight.

And global temps have been flat for periods up to over 17 years depending on which indice you use, which is interesting in itself; that is all the temp indices are different.

Dick links to the new wind paper by Nerilie J. Abram et al which supposedly shows Antarctic winds increasing and causing droughts in Australia.

What a terrible paper.

Every region and Australia as a whole is showing increases in rainfall except the South West which has its rainfall determined by the Indian Ocean Dipole not the Antarctic; BOM charts show this:

http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=T

Winds world wide are decreasing due to "Stilling":

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487

Winds in Australia are declining:

http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2011/alexander_hres.pdf

The Antarctic Jet Stream is declining:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8545306/Wind-farms-Britain-is-running-out-of-wind.html

And if AGW were real winds would be declining due to the reduced energy gradients between the poles and the rest of the globe; even Professor Mueller says that.

Just the usual crap from the alarmists with the usual alarmist devotees here to spruik the dream.

‘morning Agronomist,

Excellent stuff but may I just seek a little clarification?

So those with no climate expertise should be ignored, as you suggest with this author OK?

Those with a great deal of professional experience in climatology are OK as long as they don’t write papers on the topic or have them per reviewed and belong to the nongovernment panel on climate change, OK?

But it is OK for those who write the IPCC’s SPM to have not one single scientist of any description on their panel, OK?

You are happy to debate skeptics as long as they admit they are “denialist”, accept the CAGW proposition and then you think you might “make some progress”, OK?

But if we do admit we are denialist and even accept the CAGW proposition, you will still exclude us because we don’t have “expertise in climate science”, OK?

So if I take your entire list of “conditions of acceptability”, the entire global public is excluded even if they admit to their sins and convert and non-conformist science globally is excluded.

That means only members of the public that already believe in CAGW are allowed a voice, scientists are allowed a voice if they already believe, and even those who are non-scientists are OK if they support the cause, OK?

I don’t know you from a bar of soap Agronomist, yet there is one thing of which I can be absolutely certain, you said all the above but you could never get past your schizophrenia to explain it.

But I would like you to try.

(Health Warning:- Attempts to “feel” this post rather than “comprehending” it are potentially hazardous)

Spindoc...nicely put.

Cheers.

The fraud-backers were quick off the mark in comments. A truthful article about the AGW fraud really stirs them up. Understandably, as there is no science to support the fraud, they are reduced to blatant lies, like James’ 97% of climate scientists, and Dick thr Dunce on the melting Antarctic, where, in fact, the ice extent has established a new record:
“ the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.“This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, “
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63013

Agronomist, the serial fraudbacker, is so ignorant of science that he has been known to give Skeptical Science as a “scientific” reference

This article is timely and welcome, because it reminds us that there is sanity and reason, which will eventually prevail over the madness and dishonesty of the AGW fraud. It gives us a look at the nonsense and complete lack of substance of those who support this obscene fraud