Garnaut's climateering scam proposes an emissions trading scheme that will become a huge money maker for the federal government ($7 billion and $20 billion by 2010) but he says his climateering will not be accepted politically, unless much of that money is given to households as compensation, for higher electricity and petrol prices. Remember this Garnaut is a banker and we need to be very concerned about what may happen when this global warming bubble he is re-creating bursts like the subprime bubble.

You know, back in the 1980's this joker well and good helped put up the level playing field removing protections/tarrifs to promote competition in the name of economic rationalism but here with his climateering he is doing a complete backflip based on superstition not rationalism. There is no due diligence with climateering here but there will be profiteering and the possibilities for corruption are immense.

I feel all Australians have an important fiduciary responsibility to manage our economy on sound economic principles without regard for risky superstitious climate schemes that will make the subprime bubble look tame by comparison.

ps If we take the aa index of geomagnetic activity which is essentially external to earth and place it with earth's global mean temperature since 1884 we will see sunnyboy as the perpetrator........ However, trying to find causality with CO2 and Temps produced on earth is anthropocentric.

Dickie, do you think you could explain what your hypothesis is? I am not going to try and deduce it from looking at a myriad of links.

Fester, you are putting the cart before the horse. Your claims boil down to that because something - wind patterns or temperature - has changed, man must be implicated and man made global warming is therefore proven.

The fact that Spencer might not have a hypothesis to explain warming (I have no idea whether he does or not) does not negate the validity of his observations.

"Fester, you are putting the cart before the horse."

Not at all, Graham. The change in Southern Australia's climate (ie warming and drying) is a consequence of an interaction of global warming and ozone depletion. A human cause for global warming might be in question, but the cases for humans causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 and halocarbons (man made gases) causing ozone depletion are quite clear. A predicted and measured effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is the cooling of the stratosphere. In the stratosphere over Antarctica in winter, conditions are cool enough to allow the halocarbons to form ice clouds. When winter ends, the clouds react with ultraviolet light to produce chemicals which catalyse the destruction of ozone. Witho less ozone, the stratosphere stays at a cooler temperature. Consequently the pressure is lower. This leads to the contraction of the polar vortex, which moves the frontal systems further south. The pressure difference consequent from global warming further contracts the vortex. With fewer frontal systems moving through Southern Australia, the climate is consequently warmer and dryer.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Tango/tango.html

It will be interesting to see whether the polar vortex expands as Antarctic ozone gas concentrations are restored.

Fester, I don't have a problem with attributing some destruction of ozone to man and HFC emissions, but you keep conflating this with global warming when they are two separate issues.

There's a few errors in what you say too. How do you demonstrate that there has been a change in South Australia's climate? Why do you say that Halocarbons are "manmade" when they occur naturally as well? How does colder air give rise to lower pressure?

Might be worth reading the article that you link to. It doesn't support most of what you say. It's an explanation as to why restoration of Antarctic ozone levels may take longer than predicted.

Graham

You advised:

“I've looked at your 9 questions and I don't think any of the things that you allege are happening - mass deaths of species, demonstrations (or) mercury contamination can be specifically tied to CO2 emissions”

Then:

“Dickie, do you think you could explain what your hypothesis is? I am not going to try and deduce it from looking at a myriad of links.”

As a comedian Graham, you’re second rate so may I suggest you hold on to your day job?

So why not read one or two links Graham? Has it occurred to you, there are none as blind as those who don’t want to see -- the denier -- the ostrich?

Hypothesis:

A/CO2 is affecting climate
A/Chlorine's long-term persistence continues to impact global ozone
A/C02 has polluted the planet’s ecosystems
A/C02 is acidifying oceans
A/C02 concentrations will continue to rapidly acidify oceans independent of climate change or global warming
Agricultural pollution is creating marine algal blooms and eutrophication
A/C02 and synthetic endocrine disruptor chemicals are predominantly responsible for air pollution, soil and water contamination and hazardous underground plumes
A/C02 is responsible for increased morbidity and mortality rates in all species

Additional areas of concern necessitating public debate:

The censoring of scientific information on the long term effects on the ionosphere from:

Military's atmospheric modification experiments
Chemical experimentation with Earth’s atmosphere
Missile defence systems
“Civilian” space programmes
Nuclear and atomic radiation effects on the ionosphere - civilian and military.

Fester “One logical problem with Spencer's hypothesis is that it leaves the observed warming of the Earth largely unexplained.”

It is better to understand that one does not know the answer and seek to discover the truth

Than to ignore the truth by pursuing a lie.

“how can either future warming or cooling be stated with confidence”

I am not a scientist but I can still reason,

It may just be the same things which produced similar events, before industrialization.

“Yet it is at least in part anthropogenic and economically damaging”

You might be right. Can you irrefutably quantify how much of the totality is attributable to anthropogenic activity?

“This again is a trite observation as there has been no incentive to find an alternative until recently.”

That is the same as suggesting no incentive for finding deep mine gold deposits whilst the market demand could be met from surface and alluvial supplies or
The exploration of offshore oil supplies whilst sufficient and politically stable land accessible wells were being discovered.

“Whether it proves to be competitive with coal is not yet known, but I have every reason to remain optimistic.”

I am pleased to read that, I too am optimistic, that whilst people remain free to pursue their passions and interests, one of those rare gems among us will discover something fundamental, presently hidden, which will alleviate the economic dominance of fossil fuels. His or her quest will only be enhanced by the an increase in market prices as supply if fossil fuels diminishes. It is called market competition and should not be underestimated as a genuine driver of change.

Dickie, “The censoring of scientific information on the long term effects on the ionosphere”

You are one of those who seek to censor debate by attempting to bully opposition into silence with comments like

“Big mistake to go after Q&A, a poster of modest persona with an immodest wealth of knowledge on this subject.”

“The personas of Jennifer, Col Rouge and Graham Young are as fragile as Humpty Dumpty and they remain out of Q&A's league on environmental issues.”