Thinker, Examinator, you have both just as much as have admitted that you agree that CO2 caused global warming is a con. That you go along with it, because you want to bring down the western type economy. Then you wonder why people don't like your beheviour.

Have you ever thought of telling the truth, & having your opinions judged on their worth. No, of course not. You don't believe you could convince anyone of their value.

I don't know what you believe you can achieve for your childrens children, with lies & deciet, but it can't be too good an idea, if that's the only way of doing it.

Hasbeen,
Ok in the interest of fairness, what sites, books, would you suggest we read?
I've yet to read *ANY Post with supporting scientific data* from you. Lots of opinions from old women, the newspaper and TV (none of which are scientific authorities)

BTW Greenpeace? Show me any post of mine where I quote them as authority?

If you bothered to check the sites/books I post as references,you'll note they are current and scientifically verifiable information.
Some of the confirming data I quote comes from from recently launched9last 3-4 months and active satellites . none of which are mentioned by Monckton, Plimer or Carter. (they don't fit their mindsets)

I can only recommend you read a few sites that will clarify your confusion on what the working theory AGW/CC is actually about.
Clearly you have no idea at least scientifically.

BTW Smoke stack toxins, pollution, and car exhausts were the reason the CCP closed them all down in Beijing for the Olympic games.
It's also the reason several cities have bad pollution days including Brisbane, the atmosphere keeps in in place and the wind doesn't blow it away.

My daughter, who lives at home is 4/5 through a relevant Double degree on science and we discuss The issues regularly.

I have gained tertiary qualifications in the last 10 years.(computer programing, modeling, project design and management).

I've also done numerous university modules on relevant current science principals, so I could work taking measurements etc and computer work on a health/biological study on Morton Bay that went to the government.
Remember that one? *You* claimed there was no science to back the closures, your source the local disgruntled fishing club?

Oh yes, you're the one who wanted Joh back. How many years has he been gone?

All this is in addition to my BBus with majors in marketing and psych

All this has been published before.
Now Hasbeen, tell me yours.

PS I told you that you were out of your depth with environmental issues, and you should call everyone names in lieu of facts. Prove me wrong.

Examinator, a red herring perhaps, to hide the answer.

If it will help you, I finished my B Sc in 62, then did post grad stuff in the US on guess what. Yes heat, & also hydraulics. I know it's hard for you to believe, but I did quite a bit on radiation, & conduction.

You did ask.

I have no idea what that proves, but that's it.

A bit of reading about climategate would do more for your understanding of climate science. Byt then, we now know that the science has nothing to do with it for you.

Don't want to pry, but would your daghter be doing environmental science by any chance? I sure hope not. I had a look at some of the course notes on one of those recently. Propaganda, & little else, my mates daughter got high distinctions, with about 10% attendance. A real joke.

Hasbeen,
You accused me of being 20 years out of date I just proved that wrong.

BTW your BSc is how old? 40 + years ago
The mind boggles how many advancements there has been since then
out of your field of expertise.

You've read a bit about "Climategate?" where? what authority?
That's not science! Keep digging, you're burying your specific science credibility in irrelevancy. You are simply not scientifically competent in the specific area.

Your friends daughter? Think about that statement, that isn't proof is here-say at best. Bollocks at worst. When? where?

BTW you asked me no question just made a load of bogus assertions, so what is it specifically, I'm supposedly dodging?

I'll back the relevance of my science on the subject at hand, to your very specific unrelated 48 yo BSc any day. The key term is *relevance*.

I repeat, where are your references, reasoning. All lost in the bluster, me thinks.

When push comes to shove your on the ground, up to date, relevant science& experience is virtually limited to newspaper competence ...i.e. nil.

You are entitled to an opinion, that doesn't require facts, but if you're going to call other people names, and treat with disdain CSIRO, NASA and several universities in areas you have no knowledge in etc, then you're setting yourself up as a self proclaimed expert, a source of ridicule.

Your degree and experience are quite specific and if I ever wander into that discipline, then, you are in your right to call me names. However, untill I or others do, some civility and objectivity is apposite.

FYI I do not claim expert status but clearly I am far more current in the relevant field than you.

BTW, my daughter is doing a BSc + B marine Bio, that's two degrees and she's heading for masters in both.
She often vets my posts and corrects them where appropriate.

I agree Arjay (not about my thinking), but that the Govt's ETS goes nowhere near far enough either, and Richie 10 brings forward the issue of "user pays"; an attitude adjustment provided for us by the powers that be with regard to whom it is we ultimately believe responsible for the down side of things.

I should never have mentioned Tony Abbott and thereby(sadly),introduced party politics to the discussion. My original post was about being time to pay the rent for the future.

About the attitudes we have, regarding the issue of human pollution and it's affect on our planet and it's habitat in general, I think it is absolutely appropriate to suggest that the consumer did not make the decisions about how we have achieved our needs; but a group of elite decision makers have decided in the past, are doing so now, and will seemingly do so in the future. "They" decided to burn fossil fuels to generate power and transport, they decided to chop down forests to make paper, they got us into this mess in the first place so why cant they now pay to get us out.

Yesterdays decision makers are not todays I hear you say, but regardless, todays decision makers are just as capable of continuing the bone headed short sighted sort of thinking that their predecessors were capable of, based upon they same unsustainable set of beliefs and principals that their forebears held.

The time has come to pay the rent I say again, and people should understand "who it is" that is actually responsible for our past, current and future predicaments and elect Govt's that will make them fix it; because they (commerce and industry) are now the only one's that can fix it

HasBeen: ALL Australians [Degree or no Degree]deserve the right to contribute, and in the process, educate others on Forums such as this. After working with thousands of Australians who have attained degrees in most fields; it is interesting to note that many without degrees, are, in many instances, better able to 'observe, 'identify', 'innovate' [factually] and correctly assess data and updates on climate change or any other issue.

Suffering from sleep deprivation tonight and would have phrased the above concisely. My point in a nutshell is that scientists often interact and take on board an independent brain and eye that is more neutrally qualified.

There would be quite a few scientists interested in many of The forum's participants' viewpoints on climate change concepts put forth here, including The Examinator's concepts.

Debating opinions are fine, however hinting or questioning an individual's qualifications is pointless and has no relevance as to whether their claims are true or false.