"""
That for some truth matters.
"""

And what truth would that be?

By how much will Australia's Carbon Tax reduce the worlds temperature?

Particularly considering China is going to increase its coal fired power by 600 gigawatts by 2030. Double what America's total capacity is now! These new power stations will be burning """our""" coal!

I suppose you clean up your backyard by throwing the trash over your neighbours fence do you belly? And then feel good that you keep a clean house!

Gillard and all the other warmists are a paragon of scammers and you know it!

RawMustard, just wanted to say thanks for that link to the podcast by Murry Salby. Someone else had told me about the talk earlier in the day, but didn't have the link. I've done a blog post here http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/08/03/note-to-gillard-stop-talking-crap/.

I might also note that EclipseNow is not a climatologist and links to Wikipedia do not constitute rebuttal.

And I also think the knee-jerk reaction by another poster above to try to dismiss Salby as being politically motivated because he spoke at the Sydney Institute is disgraceful. He is a professor of climatology and has written one of the text books on atmospheric physics.

No wonder scientists are a bit bashful in putting information out in public when they are likely to be villified by the anonymous mob because it disagrees with their prejudice as to what should be happening.

Dear Graham,

I assume that your reference to the "disgraceful" -
comments made by - "another poster,"
is referring to my earlier post to Raw Mustard.
I wish to politely point out to you that nowhere did
I mention Professor Murry Salby - or attempt to
demean him in any way. I am familiar with his work
and his books. I merely pointed out that
the Sydney Institute is a conservative think tank,
which is privately funded by business interests
and therefore they will naturally present speakers
who will put forward what suits their interests.
You owe me an apology Sir.

This debate has fallen into the 'my science is better than your science' position.

Even if the position is accepted that humans are contributing more to climate change than the natural cycle of change (the extent is still in debate), the question should be about the efficacy of a Carbon Tax.

It is hypocritical to argue Australia reduce it's emissions while we export tonnes of fossil fuel overseas and support projects that will affect the evironment and do long term damge to the water table (eg.fraccing in the Liverpool Plain). It is a pointless exercise unless the rest of the world commits to reducing pollution. While our individual 'footprint' might be larger (mainly due to long distances between inhabited areas), from a global perspective our smaller population is a sparrow's fart in terms of contribution to global warming.

I consider myself to be keen environmentalist as much as the connotation is usually used in a negative context, but it is one of the few areas I am in disagreement with the Greens. And climate change is not the only environmental issue. Climate change has in some ways reduced the Green's attention from other pressing issues.

Other issues are being completely ignored in the climate change debate including the effect of:

- population growth (resource pressure)
- lack of governance (particularly developing world)
- corruption
- impact of growth economics and consumerism
- deforestation

The former Minister for Agriculture allowed old growth and native forests to be encroached by logging and mining interests thus reducing the importance of forests in the climate change debate. While it is rare for governments to choose saving a forest over other interests, the decision makes the government's stance on climate change somewhat shaky.

Is the Carbon Tax just another of what Lindsay Tanner writes as "look like you are doing something".

Until the problems of pollution, food and fuel security, growthism, population and environmental protection are treated whollistically (as all contributing) rather than a ragged piecemeal approach the rhetoric is just spin and will have little effect on the global environment.

Pelican,
well said. I agree with all those concerns as well. There are answers, but it's going to be a close call!

GrahamY,
It's not about me, it's about how anyone with a basic grasp of English comprehension can see that Dr David Evans and his Denialist friends are simply not being honest. They're experts in the Cherry-Picking Straw-Man attack. They pluck what they want, when they want, and don't respond to the peer-review process. Did Dr Evan's respond to Professor Brook? No. Why not? Because empirical data was getting in the way and he was caught out.

And I'm sick and tired of the money accusation when people like Ian Plimer don't get their books approved by due process but instead sell to a gullible public. There's a BIG market for climate Denialism. People are afraid of global warming or government responses to it.

Not only that, but:

<<The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[4][37]>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

<<EXXONMOBIL’S FUNDING OF THINK TANKS hardly compares with its lobbying expenditures—$55 million over the past six years, according to the Center for Public Integrity. And neither figure takes much of a bite out of the company’s net earnings—$25.3 billion last year. Nevertheless, “ideas lobbying” can have a powerful public policy effect.>>
http://motherjones.com/environment/2005/05/some-it-hot

Thanks forever to our threads starter.
And may I clearly say this, it is my view firmly honestly held, this thread highlights a very real problem.
I am no scientist, unlike arjay, I claim no special understanding.
I believe in man made climate change.
For some, arjay for a start[ what has my union back ground got to do with my right to an opinion?] beleiving this makes me subject to hate/much more.
Watch this space! Europe is trying to reduce Labor will be removed from power because of it and other things.
Deniers slander us, being conservative is no reason, nore LABOR, FOR VERBAL WARFARE ON SUCH AN ISSUE.
I think we in this generation are dividing our own country's Australia and America on lines of politics, on issues too important not to look at
Lexi, I see no wrong in your post, have seen here in OLO thoughts much worse pure hate, from conservative contributors who say we should be deported/imprisoned and even shamed, for voting Labor.
IF ONE side mine or the other is purely using this matter for political gain, if it is about that not a threat to humanity.
We are not currently evolving as human beings but going back wards.
Is this subject one we are free to debate all sides of?
Arjay, please consider your growing anger because your views are not mine it shows.