Your position is untenable , you need to somehow become more rational .
Why don't you concentrate on one issue at a time .

You and I both know that the capacity of Car , Ute and Truck engines need to be limited back to basic requirements .
What is a Prime Mover doing with a 700 HP engine ? Answer providing the driver with a sports car experience , get rid of the city 4WD's by taxing tyres and increasing Sales Tax . Modified Cars cop the Car Club rego ( not sure what happens ? I think so many outings per year Club events only) ; goodbye lunatics . Limit acceleration and top speed by ignition drop out system .
and RPM limited to 7000 all cars turbocharged and aftercooled. Make passing on Freeways illegal.
Insert whatever else that will reduce energy consumption .
Limit weight of all vehicles to encourage intelligence in design reward with Rego discounts eg; if IQ design can reduce fuel consumption by 50% current Reg. fees pay for 18 months .
Treble freeway fees peak hour discount for full cars etc etc etc.

What car with 1100 cc engine and a gear ratio of 26 MPH per 1000 RPM can beat 3 and 4 liter cars including V8's around Au ?

Clownfish Hsbeen and Wing Ah Ling, please don't post any more of your untruths about declining global temperatures until you have watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M&feature=channel.

I'm not sure if you have been fooled or whether you are attempting to fool others. Either way this brief outline of the science will soon set you straight.

Strange thing is that the typical sceptic on these sites does not respond to anything anyone else says to undermine their arguements. Do they just go from site to site pasting in random insults? I'll be amazed if i get a sensible reply from any of you. It would be vaguely amusing if the issue were not so serious.

I don't know how your consciences allow you to do what you do. Do you ever stop to think about what you are doing? What if we were too late to avoid the deaths of millions of people and mass extinctions? And you had contributed to the delay??

JaneM "I don't know how your consciences allow you to do what you do."

Not everyone lives with your guilt.

"I'm not sure if you have been fooled or whether you are attempting to fool others. Either way this brief outline of the science will soon set you straight."

YouTube videos are not science, they are entertainment.

"..where climate scientists effortlessly demolish the lies of the fossil fuel funded sceptics."

Not all sceptics are funded by fossil fuel industry. Do you struggle to believe that anyone can have a contrary view to yourself without it being a conspiracy? There is a multitude of sites with differing views, you've chosen that one as beholding the "truth!", mind you don't become religious with your adherence to one line of thought.

JaneM, most sceptics are normal people from the community who have seen other predictions of disaster pass away without comment. In a community are a range of views, that's a democracy and free society, you can't force everyone to think the way you do. Conciliation rather than coercion may be the way to approach and convince people, battering them just p*sses them off.

Hi Julien,

great peace, I mean piece.

Whilst I agree that the CPRS should not pass as it is, I'd like to add your reasons.

The CPRS sets a target, for a minimum amount of CO2 reduction, yet it's main flaw is that IT SETS A FLOOR, below which emmisions can't fall.

Regardless of the rest of the details, the fact is, IF THE TARGET WAS ADEQUATE, THE SCHEME WOULD WORK, and be a great step forward, a price on carbon!

Thanks for the great article, the skeptics are welcome to their opinion, and we are welcome to cease to reply to a conversation that ended some time ago.

However, 2 points -

1.

Population X Affluence X Technology = Impact

We can't talk about climate change, without listing consumption and population growth as the major factors.

We can have all the wind turbines we like, but the planet cannot support the lifestyle of the west, neither for the current west, or for the rest.

Any serious solution must suggest we drastically cut our consumption and limit our global population growth.

2. Peak Oil

Solve climate change? If we are to do it with technology, then we don't have long. Oil Production has peaked. Any techno-fix without plastic and oil in its production is almost impossible. We must face these two problems simultaneously (Climate Change and Peak Oil) as the planet will not survive our withdrawl from oil, without thorough prior planning. Cheap, abundant energy is a thing of the past, we must use our remaining oil, to build the renewable energy infrastructure for tomorrow, today.

So whilst I much enjoyed your piece, it missed the opportunity to intertwine the solution to peak oil into it, and failed to address the two main contributing causes of climate change.

PLAN C - (third time lucky)

Non-violence will not solve this crisis, as the Dalai Lama says, 'non-violence is not enough.'

We must learn to understand one another, to act, not to please the 'little me' that is our ego, but the 'big me' that is our collective global consciousness.

Cheers

Hey Wing-aling,

Fascism hey? It's easy to call names, but you're just sounding hysterical. Were western nations fascist when they legislated against using lead in petrol, or asbestos, or ozone destroying CFC’s? What about when they declare no developers will bulldoze a new National Park? Do we still have a functioning democracy after these “fascist” interventions in the “holy of holies”, the marketplace? Dear oh dear, how ever did the market — indeed, our very democracy — survive these outrages? (Oh, that’s right, we HAVE governments to make these laws for the public good... I nearly forgot this fact in the face of your impeccable logic. ;-)

The reality is that global warming science is CLEAR IN THE PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE of those who MATTER in this field. I don't get my car serviced by my dentist, and I don't get my legal advice from my baker. You might choose to, but I prefer to go by the professionals in their respective fields. So if you want to know about climate science, don't bother with geologist climate wannabe's like Plimer. Read the real climatologists!

And now, here's my usual piece for sceptics.

As it is, you've said nothing to disprove the REAL physics behind global warming. Be careful, because if you DO disprove the physics behind global warming, you might just "disprove" our microwave ovens and the internet as well (and then they'll disappear in a puff of logic). You'd basically have to disprove everything we know about Spectrometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrometer
Or try this:
Co2 = "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

The Radiative Forcing Equation counts how much extra energy there is in the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

The rest is counting other forcings in the climate, and that’s it!