dibbsy,
Noted your post referring to sea levels rising.

Here is some info that may interest posters.

Question. Which expert knows best? this one or the bloke from Cairns?

Even the threats of rising sea levels have been rejected by one of the world’s foremost sea-rise experts, Nils-Axel Morner, the leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, who wrote in October to Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed telling him that the results of extensive testing of the sea levels in the Maldives over several decades showed “overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years”.The same goes for Tuvalu and the other island nations claiming to be threatened by calamitous sea rise, he said. Very emotive, but a fraud.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Bazz seems like we have something in common radio.
As a full call ham I am aware of the sunspot cycle, it is not as you know fixed at 11 years but can be much longer or shorter.
Like to see raw mustard give some examples of the fraud, evidence not words.
Nuclear is the first answer, it has to be, already is for a great deal of the world.
Other fuels/power sources can only be developed when all politicians care more about the planet than petroleum owners/power interests, unlikely in my lifetime.
Few fail to understand whatever we do will cost money and fewer still think that it will not be us, the average consumer who ends up paying, not sure about that post Bazz, was it in this thread or the one I quoted you in about house prices?

Just had to share this!
Global warming explained?
900 million women worldwide are in the early stages of menopause and experiencing what is commonly known as “hot flashes” according to a report by Professor of Meteorology Dr. Cyrill Sanders at a convention of environmental experts in Osaka, Japan. Dr Saunders suggests a correlation between the number of women entering menopause over the past 25 years and increasing global temperatures, but concedes the contribution from each individual woman is minuscule (less than 0.0000000023 degrees F each year. Dr Saunders argued that when the Earth's population was small, the effect was barely noticeable, thus attributing part of the problem to the growth in the worldwide population of perimenopausal women. Not all at the conference were entirely convinced. Dr Brigitta Watson, a 49-year-old British scientist was quoted as saying "It's well-known that the burning of fossil fuels is the prime cause of global warning. To lay the blame at the doorstep of menopausal women is the act of a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal." Before anyone gets too hot under the collar, it its worth noting that the original source for this story was the US newspaper Weekly World News. Other stories covered by this prestigious tabloid include recent sighting of Elvis Presley, the discovery of a mutant “bat boy” living in a cave in New Mexico, and an incident involving an ice-skating circus bear that killed one person and injured another during rehearsals. Interpret with caution …

Banjo: "Question. Which expert knows best? this one or the bloke from Cairns?"

It is a bit of a misleading way to ask the question Banjo. Here is a few other ways you could have asked it:

- would you believe our guy in Cairns, or some guy from Stockholm who also happens to believe in dowsing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner#Views_on_dowsing

- would you believe the measurements from one guy in Stockholm, or the measurements taken by Geoscientific Australia and our Bureau of Meteorology? http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/reports_yearly.shtml

- would you believe a guy that only every cites his own data which he arrives at by "coring, levelling, sampling and carbon dating", but not ever direct measurement of the sea level by tide gauges or satellite data? http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/the_australians_war_on_science_24.php

- would you believe a guy who published papers about the sea level in the Maldives were were directly refuted by multiple other studes done by his peers. Quote from Church, White and Hunter, 2006 Global and Planetary Change: In the Indian Ocean, the tide-gauge records at the Maldives indicate large rates of relative sea-level rise in agreement with Singh et al. (2001) and Woodworth (2005), and in disagreement with Morner et al. (2004) ... has also been shown to be inconsistent with geological data (Woodroffe, 2005;Kench et al., 2005).

See Banjo, it is so easy to get the answer you want by just asking the question a little differently.

That said, unlike many other names passed off here as "sceptical experts" Nils-Axel Mörner is the real deal - a genuine scientist who has spent a lot of time studying the area he is commenting on. The only point I really want to make is it not just some guy in Cairns that disagrees with him - it is in fact the vast majority of his peers. In other words, the way you spun it was downright deceptive.

Belly wrote:
"Like to see raw mustard give some examples of the fraud, evidence not words."

Did you read the article?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

Here, knock yourself out.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://joannenova.com.au/

Now show me one paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming? Just one!

What a depresssing thread. I've been too busy to contribute until now, and after reading through the mostly ignorantly triumphant posts from the climate delusionist brigade, I'm just going to respond to the specific points made by Belly and rstuart.

I'm no spokesperson for the Greens, but as I understand it they oppose the ETS as proposed because to do otherwise would be hypocritical. You say the 40% target proposed by the Greens is unrealistic when compared with Rudd's 5% - I think it all depends on what you think is realistic.

My own view is that 'business as usual' is unrealistic, because all the available evidence indicates that if we don't reduce greenhouse emissions significantly and rapidly, it will 'cost' us and our children much more ultimately, in terms of sustainability. I think we're stuffed - humans are too driven by self-interest to be able to agree co-operatively on the kinds of large-scale action that is needed.

At least the Greens stick to their principles, and are still inviting negotiation with the Government on climate change - which is much more than can be said for the Opposition.