I like Kevin Rudd's way of washing his hand of global warming

If there is no global warming, he can also say, the data was in the Wong hands, the statistics that was given to me was Wong, it was the Wong prognosis

Kevin will alway be able to blame someone else. I say "Blame Canada"

"The other startling idea is that the carbon tax is all extra tax. The reality is that a large part of carbon tax will either replace an existing tax or return to consumers via compensation allowances. But I guess $4000 extra/family grabs our attention."
Well John why not leave the money in our pockets in the first place. The last thing Australia needs is another complex money-goround. We already have our current taxation system.

Perhaps the question should be why Carter and co-authors Evans, Frank and Kinnimouth want us to believe those are good questions when they are full of loaded assertions and imply things about the nature of climate that climate science doesn't say and aren't true.

The planet hasn't warmed? Rubbish. Ocean Heat Content has risen, there's less glacial ice, less mutiyear sea ice, less ice shelves, less ice in ice sheets, more heat in the ground (borehole temps). Those aren't exactly evidence of stasis and cooling are they? They've been rising over the periods the authors want us to believe don't have evidence of cooling. If they think Suface Air Temperature's (SAT's) should steadily rise year by year then they are denying the existence of natural cycles that make SAT's vary all the time. Remember natural cycles? Climate science does! Implying it ignores them is wrong.

Q3 is pure BS. Averages of GCM's might show average rises in SAT's, but individual runs show SAT's with variations - a bit like the reality that the authors neglect to take into consideration. No one, least of all climate scientists are predicting steady year by year rises in SAT's. Meanwhile GCMs show lots of variation around a long term warming trend. Some show nice steady plateaus for a couple of decades only to be followed by huge SAT rises. But don't quote me, go to a blog like RealClimate where real climate scientists hang out. Definitely don't take what Bob and co says they say as true. It isn't.

I notice a number of posters suggesting that ocean temperatures are climbing, which was contrary to what I understood to be the case, so I went looking for the most recent evidence on this.

This article seems to provide a good precis of the issue along with relevant and current references with some maths that is relatively easy to follow. Interested in comments http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

"in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?"

I can't believe an intelligent person even asking this question. So I'll ask one too - maybe it's one for Professor Plimer, who I understand is a geologist, not a climate scientist. Here it is:

During the periods of rapid temperature rise millions of years ago, with accompanying rapid sea level rise, how did places like Sydney, London, Hamburg and New York manage? How much did it cost relative to their national GDP?

How many living creatures died as a direct result? Did their scientists, ethicists, politicians, etc, think that mattered?

Etc, etc. But maybe the folk that asked that question will not see the sarcasm, and take my questions seriously. I wonder.

Since when did Governments ever have to address science issues in order to appease the Greens. All they have to do is go along with the dogma in order to sure up the Green vote (as if the Greens would preference the Liberals anyway). The climate change champions really have egg all over their face but like good earth worshippers they fail to show a tint of humility. Instead they continue to preach religous dogmas and jump on anyone challenging their doctrine. Quite hilarous to see the game played out except for those losing jobs and families through this stupidity. Thankfully people are now demanding some evidence for the Greens ridiculous dogmas. Don't hold your breath.