Oh dear, Hasbeen:

>> We all know that CO2 is plant food, & that is in low supply in the atmosphere at present, compared to much of the planets history. <<

CO2 concentration for the last 10,000 years has been stable at about 280 ppm

In the last 200 years it has escalated to about 400 ppm

An increase of nearly 40% in only 200 years, Hasbeen.

The trend is getting worse Hasbeen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

What I can't understand Hasbeen, is the attitude of the 'blind, deaf and dumb' - metaphorically speaking of course.

Hasbeen, can you explain why 2010/2011 'matched' 1998 record high when:

1998 was an extreme hot El Nino year
2010/11 was an extreme cold La Nina year

Hint: ain't the Sun hun.

Indeed, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Suggest you then go to the advanced (black diamond) explanation tab, you know maths, right?

Jayb, we should show our appreciation for such as GetUp, WWF and ACF. After their last press conference they have demonstrated just what a corrosive element they are for Julia.

All we need now is some of the reality emerging from the rest of the world to hit our media and it will all go belly up for them.

The Welsh are revolting, sorry, let me put that another way, the Welsh are in revolt and threatening to secede over the wind farm infrastructure destroying their countryside.

The US has pulled their funding from the EAU/CRU and the IPCC, they have also blocked their own EPA from legislating on carbon pollution.

Al Gores beloved Chicago Climate Exchange collapsed in December 2010.

The EU Energy Commissioner has rejected call for the EU RET to be lifted to 30% with the comment “industry emits, we need industry”.

The Netherlands in January has withdrawn from the EU RET and is going nuclear and coal.

The UK has legislated to allow green energy tariffs to fund nuclear as part of their renewables target.

The UK recognizes that more conventional power generation has to be built to provide “spinning reserve” for wind farms than that needed to meet demand growth.

The EU Carbon Exchange has lost Kroner 40Bn in fraudulent transactions and is operating at 20%.

Windfarms average output is 25% of capacity and is 20 times more costly.

Denmark gives away most of its wind generated power because it is produced when not needed.

Isn’t it great that our media has made this “news” available in time for our debate? (Not)

Dear spindoc,

You should really get more up to date information.
For a start why don't you Google a list of countries
that already have a carbon tax? Finland, 1990, Sweden, 1991,
UK - 2001, Several states in the US, Canada since 2007.
Check out Norway. With a similar abundance of diggable wealth
Norway has invested much of its surplus wealth to renewable
energy. When students learned about the Greenhouse effect in the
1980s Norway was about to instate the Petroleum Fund (like
Australia's Future Fund, but drawn from the
surplus wealth created by the extraction of
fossil fuels in Norway). Despite having
one of the largest exploitable coal reserves on earth, Norway's
domestic electricity supply comes almost exclusively from hydro
and wind. Norway's various wind projects are estimated to supply
anywhere from 20% to 50% of all European electricity imports in the
future. This country, despite being ABLE to rest on its coal,
natural gas and oil reserves, as Australia does has invested in
the FUTURE of global energy. At the same time bearing it's load of
global emission-reduction (30% of 1990 levels by 2020
- more ambitious than any developed economy).

Over the next 30 years, more and more countries will
discover how to reduce global emissions.
Australia is already lagging.
We need to catch up or we will become
a wasteland if we don't.

Someone asked how much effect the tax will have.
On Andrew Bolt's blog today there is an answer;

But we can actually put a figure on it, thanks to a peer-reviewed
paper published in Nature in 2009 by researchers led by Professor
Damon Matthews, of Concordia University’s Department of Geography,
Planning and the Environment.

As Matthews reported: “The new research shows that ... each emission
of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase,
regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs.

“These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of
carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global
temperature change.”

Yesterday Gillard again boasted: “What I want to do is reduce carbon
pollution by 160 million tonnes in 2020.”

Let’s assume Gillard will in fact manage that cut, which will involve
spending more than she’s announced so far. Let’s assume that the
relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature is as strong as
global warming theory claims.

Now multiply that 160 million tonnes Gillard claims she will save by .0000000000015.

Answer: 0.00024 degrees.

Yes, Gillard’s tax-and-spend package - her gamble with the entire
Australian economy - will at best save one-4000th of a degree of
warming by 2020.

Think that’s worth it?
->
Hmmm well we keep hearing AGW promoters asking for peer reviewed
info so here is some.
It just feels about right to me from a purely guessemetrics point of view.

Lexi: Norway's domestic electricity supply comes almost exclusively from hydro and wind.

I have absolutly no doubt that the above statement is correct.
But... & it's a big BUT! Topagraphicly Australia & Norway have nothing in common. Er... well except large amounts of Coal. However, Norway abundent reserves of Ice & snow melt combined with high steep, very steep mountains means they have an abundent supply of harvestable water without large dams. Then they have a coastline that is nothing but very high steep wind blown mountains & unpopulated. Of course they can have ideal wind farms & Hydro Electricty generation at full potential all the time.
Where in heavens name are you going to get that in Australia. Australia is a hot dry, flat Continent. Or haven't you noticed. Maybe you spend your time playing Virtual Reality Games on you Iphone. I don't know.
Con't over_

Hmm... Let's play Virtual Reality.
Let's put a large wind farm at Marybrough. Oh, wait a minute. That's been tried or they tried to do that. The Greenies stopped that project. it would kill the little birds & stop the cows from giving milk. ditto for most other places a wind farm has been propesed. OK, so winds out. Nasty wind turbines anyway. Base load Hydro Generating plant. Er, where are you going to put that. Firstly you are going to need a massive supply of permanently flowing water. Hmmm... most of Australia is in serious drought most of the time. So we'll have to put in some massive damms. Opps, Dams... Dams. No! the greenies won't allow that. It destroys the environment & all the little turtles & Lung fish will die. No, Damms are out. So, no Hydro. Hmmm.... Solar Farms. Still in the experimental stage, but it shows promise. There's a bit of a town in Queensland using a Solar Farm, well, part of one, seeing it was never completed. The greenise stopped it. Something to do with causing Heat storms. Well the Greenies ARE insisting in renewable energy, but not in my back yard. Beats me!
Really the least expensive way would be for the Government to give every household in Australia a free 2.4kW Solar System for their roof from the money they are going to collect from the Carbon tax. Every industrial building & highrise office block can off set their Carbon Tax by installing a hugh Solar System system on their all their buildings. I could see that going some way towards reducing the Coal Powered Generating Stations & Co2 emmissions. Speaking of which...