OUG Mate,this is not one of those times I spit the dummy, have done that far too often.
And here and now pledge to do every thing in my power to never again do so, or keep my promise to me, leave here.
Now I still disagree, yep with almost every thing you said in those posts.
BUT I do think we are being side tracked on climate change.
It has become a debate about politics.
About science vs twisted science, some views may as well have come from you and me, on both sides.
Humans drift along thinking God or mother nature will fix every thing we break.
It is not going to happen we must fix it.
John Howard wanted just what Labor does ,Abbott once did, as did Hockey and Turnbull.
China is out spending America and Europe on measures to cut emissions.
We must stop viewing this issue as an Australian one, it never was.
I had intended to start a thread like this, would have thought more deniers would post.
But note just who turned up in Canberra hardly middle Australia.
In Port Macquarrie NSW 8 came to a planned meeting over 300 opposed them in a pro meeting.
Middle Australia has not been seen at these meetings.

belly please answer my math question[at end]

think why the debate is about poli-tricks
ie lack of numbers and name calling

the science is proved

greenhouse GASSES!..are destroying something
and lets pretend..taxing one gas will fix it

politricks makes it so that
we dont tax ALL THE GASSES
[thus the problem
[whatever it is]
*wont be fixed

..by just taxing one..!

thats all im saying belly

if we cant say...*what the problem IS
and EXPLAIN..*or know
just how much a tax [cost]..it takes to fix it

its just an excuse for a new tax
politricks 101

NOW THE MATH question

lets imagine you got a fire in ya lounge room
BUT you got no roof

tell me how manmy logs ...do you need to burn
to raise the temp ..even one degree

will it take more logs..
or less logs ..to increase the temp
[one degree]

1/..if the sky is cloudy
2/..if the ozone hole is square
3/..if the real problem isnt heat but cold

belly please explain the problem logiclly to yourself

you know no matter how much logs we burn..
the heat rises up...into outerspace

the concepts they use to con us
with science ...are tricky

because the solution they want
needs lie's ..to make a problem ..that gives them ..the tax they want

please people
help me explain it better ..to our brother

he just might be the only one ..that can save the world
by getting just one labour unionist ..to abstain
from the devision that makes taxation by fear the law..

in lue of understanding fact
we got sold a lie

[we just dont know
whats true anymore]

not polies..
not lobby..
not unions..
not parties...

no-one
media lies...
science lied..

big business wins by devision
only union unity can save us

Really there's only one comment here, or several in one group.

Carbon pricing has been to the election and voted in. Both parties put it up as an ETS and it was given a mandate. It is only Abbott that made an issue of it and only for one reason, to beat Malcolm, who will take the job back next year after Abbott embarrasses himself more and more.

If you don't unerstand how carbon pricing works then please don't make your inane comments here or anywhere. When you do it just shows you have swallowed Abbott's lines for simpletons. I won't waste my time explaining it, you'll see how it works when it comes in, as it will.

Abbott has supported this concept for all but the last year and a bit. Even them he has had many different positions on it, just oppose everything and you have his positions.

And he actually has the nerve to make a political lie an issue. The gall of that rabid, big eared loser.

Here's a tip. Try thinking while your kids can still breathe.

We meet again RobbyH, looks like you are going to be a fly by nighter.
Loaded with insults and a bravado that would leave you in real life.
Certainly no intention of other than annoying people.
I see you form of verbal graffiti as evidence you can not debate.
And in relation to your most used insult, idiots? well do you have a mirror?
Leave you too your angry ant impersonations.

hlobby quote''you'll see how it works when it comes in, as it will.""

that about says it all
he takes it on trust

thus his previous quote

"" I won't waste my time explaining it,""

proves he is just wind and bluster

[to wit
he/she/it..dont know]

to wit
didnt try to comprehend
anything to do with the topic

to wit
the halfwit thinks..
anyone who ""swallowed Abbott's lines
*for simpletons""[no matter how inteligent or dumb]
""actually has the nerve to make ..a political lie ..an issue.""

now any reasonable peron will know
BOTH PARTIES LIE..its just he drank the mindless coolaide

that thinks this quote
in anyway rebuts or informs

""The gall of that rabid,
*big eared loser""

he dont even know it
but he picked up on ju-liars overert
covert perverted ab/use of her calling ...m/r-abbit

rabid being of course..linked to big ear queerdeeerr

just as the bbbb-itch word links to www-itch wurd
thats how the two party spin gets played
repeat it..till they eat it up
as their truth[no proof]

i recall john howard being called a baby killer
i think many greens said the same about mr busche
plioitics is all about name calling
subtle insult in lue of answers

but whinging about it all
sure got the headline away
from the true topic/debait we didnt have

ie the debate we're *not being allowed..[yet again]..to have
anyhow i realise name calling is a cheap shot
over to you oak shot

it is suggested you get up to speed
READ SCIENCE FACTS MATE

dont simply swallow the
two party..*coolaide

Steve McIntyre uncovers another hockey stick trick
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/steve-mcintyre-uncovers-another-trick/
where are the academic cops?

Just when you think the bottom of the Hockey Stick rabbit hole has been reached, Steve McIntyre finds yet more evidence of misconduct by the Team.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/

The research was from Briffa and Osborn (1999) published in Science magazine and purported to show the consistency of the reconstruction of past climate using tree rings with other reconstructions including the Mann Hockey Stick. But the trick was exposed in the Climategate dossier, which also included code segments and datasets.

In the next picture, Steve shows what Briffa and Osborn did – not only did they truncate their reconstruction to hide a steep decline in the late 20th Century but also a substantial early segment from 1402-1550:

As I’ve written elsewhere,
http://futurehistoric.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/defining-research-misconduct/

this sort of truncation can be characterized as research misconduct – specifically falsification. But where are the academic cops? Any comment from Science magazine?

Steve also discusses the code underlying the plot and you can see how the truncation is a clear deliberate choice – not something that falls out of poorly understood analysis or poor programming.

http://84rules.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/the-level-of-non-disclosure-of-adverse-data-we-saw-was-perhaps-perfectly-acceptable/

No Sea Level Rise For The Past 50 Years

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/no-sea-level-rise-for-50-years/

While the IPCC and its boy
scouts present wilder and wilder
sea level predictions for the near
future..

*the real observational facts
demonstrate that sea level
has remained virtually stable for
the last 40-50 years.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paper_540.pdf

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/if-you-are-wrong-the-first-time-and-the-second-time-keep-making-the-lie-bigger-and-bigger/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/arctic-basin-full-of-thick-ice-in-2011/