You see? You just did it again! Rinse and Repeat, and move onto yet more myths. You won't read these, you guys never do. That's in the Top 10 Commandments of a Denialist Spam Swarm.

But you're not even keeping up with your myths, let alone the science. It's moved from a 'claim' of 30,000 to 31,000. Try to keep up!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

Let's take care of David Bell.
Water vapour?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Urban heat island?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

It's cooling... last decade wasn't hottest on record?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

Warming stopped in 1998? (Even Denialists at the Heartland institute are starting to warn their flocks of conspiracy believers that this one is getting a bit dangerous to your side).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Now, just remember Steps 2 and 3.

2. (Quietly: always ignore those sources when ever reminded of them.)

3. After completely ignoring those sources — even when reminded of them — info dump a bunch of other Denialist myths. There's 165 to choose from.

Eclipse Now you are full of it.The basis of your arguments are adhominem and attempted character assassination.The AGW theory has lost momentum because the imperical evidence is not there.So move and find another religion to cling to.Perhaps you could start up a new religion on flat earth science.

Come the next election Labor and the Greens will be decimated.Enjoy your brief respite.

Thanks for your comments Sonofgloin.My detractors on this theme have now convinced me to take off Tuesday 16th August and go to the Canberra anti- Carbon tax protest.Come the next election Labor will suffer the worst defeat in their history.

Perhaps it is time for a new major political party that is not influenced by corporate interests and Green communists.

Arjay, I still don’t understand why you are so irate about the carbon tax and see it as the pressing issue of the moment.

Could you possibly explain why you are so concerned about it and what would be so significantly different if it was abandoned?

I think this is central to your thread. We really need to understand this.

I’d love to get your response to these previous comments of mine:

< I don’t get it. It [the carbon tax] is so piffling. Economic growth will continue just the same. The effects will be minimal. Basically I reckon that the big-business pro-growth-forever lobby has had a huge win with this carbon tax thing. >

< I would have thought that your camp would be very happy with the outcome, Arjay >

With respect (a lot of respect after more than five years of amicable exchanges with you on this forum), I can’t help but still see your big interest in hydrogen energy as being highly contradictory to your vehement opposition to the carbon tax. I find it most strange that you are strongly supporting hydrogen technology, and presumably various other renewable energy technologies, but are dead against a strategy to encourage the development of these.

You addressed this point but I didn’t get anything out of your answer. Everything you said strongly supports the development of hydrogen energy, which is surely something that should be supported by the carbon tax. A strategy that favours renewable energies like this should surely be supported by you Arjay.

I guess hydrogen won’t be a part of renewable energy programs funded from the carbon tax, as fuel is exempt from it and therefore hydrogen as an additive or alternative fuel to petrol/diesel is not going to be funded? I don’t know. But it certainly should be!

Incidentally, you wrote:

<<Hydrogen can be free energy from your tap >>

But hydrogen is far from free energy. Doesn’t it take a lot of energy to refine it, via the electrolysis of water or whatever means? And it is problematic to store and work with safely?

Ludwig currently the carbon combustion engine is very inefficient.We can use this excess energy plus the positives of hydrogen to save money ,fuel and clean emissions.If yiu pa=id attention i said that just a small amount of hydrogen increases the octane levels of petrol thus increaseing efficiency and reducing emitions.This technology for some reason has been ignored by our car companies.If the waseted heat energy in our cars is used to produce hydrogen,I think hydrogen produced from water can cut our fuel bills in half.

The carbon tax will destroy our economy.If our competitors don't introduce it then industry will move off shore.Even if you believe the CO2 is a problem and I don't ,there is no logic in its' introduction.It will not lessen perceived Co2 pollution one iota.The ETS is another deriivate scam of Al Gore and Wall St.Internationally the Rothscilds are big financiers of the green movement.This whole CO2 polution is a lie and a scam.I am now convinced of that.

Arjay, hydrogen is a difficult fuel to deal with. It doen't compress much without being kept very cold, leaks from metal tanks even with the best welds and doesn't have a very high energy density compared to gasoline liquid fuels fractions. As for "raisng the octane level", what it really does is ignite very fast, meaning that it's difficult to couple a hydrogen-powered piston to a rotating crank efficiently. There is a lot of impulse, but it's applied over too short a time. Engines do a lot of tricks to make petroleum fractions burn less rapidly so that the piston is effectively powered for longer of the crankshaft's rotation and hence less energy is wasted as simple heat or expansion of the combustion chamber/flex of the crank.

I think your heart is in the right place, but you really do need to get a better grasp of the physical processes underlying what you're advocating.

I agree with you that there is a lot of wasted energy around our cars in the form of heat, but how do you propose this low-grade energy could be usefully recovered? A Stirling cycle engine running a compressor is one way, but that's heavy, cumbersome and not very efficient. there may be some useful advances in polymer technology around this subject, but I'd not count on it.

There are really three problems around this

1. minimise the waste heat at the source. This means more efficient combustion and this is being driven hard by the manufacturers.
2. Collect the waste heat that escapes the engine. We already do that with radiators, but there is a lot more than the radiator captures. It gets hard to gather that last. There's also a point of diminishing returns - a cold combustion chamber doesn't combust efficiently because too much heat is removed from the reaction to heat the chamber.
3. Reuse the heat collected. I'm at a loss as to how to do this usefully, except through a turbo charger or similar heat pump. Even if we could collect it all, how do we use it?