Try the CLOUD1 experiment at CERN.

Gives a whole new direction to cloud formation, & the way the sun's output controls the weather via cosmic rays.

Oh, that one: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

Where the lead author (Dr Kirkby) says; “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step" and he hopes the experiment will eventually answer some questions.

There’s a good write-up about it here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

As has been said Hasbeen, many people like to believe they have special access to the truth. The reality is they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be.

For example, you find a recent paper “that has totally, & finally debunked all the rubbish climate scientists have prattled on about for so long.”

Who says Hasbeen, you?

If Dr Kirkby has indeed overturned 1000’s of other papers, and overwhelmed 1000’s of other scientists studying global warming, then he surely will get the Nobel for Physics. The sooner the better I say.

But hang-a-mo, science doesn’t work like that - especially on brand new research that will now be further tested, reviewed, critiqued and reported – in the scientific journals.

No Hasbeen, what you are displaying is classic “Confirmation Bias”, “Cognitive Dissonance” and “Motivated Reasoning” which as I have previously said, answers many of the questions you posed in your first post.

http://tinyurl.com/3ecflzo

Come on mate, get real, check it out.

R0bert, I now understand your point. Personally, if it ends up costing me a few bucks, I'll wear it for the sake of my kids and their kids. There is a point in the projections where you are a nett loser, but you need to be earning at least a miner's income!

Hasbeen, I think I get the insult, and you can keep your bridge!

The only stuff I found on climate change in "Nature" was about scientists who claim to be able to link extreme climate events specifically to global warming. Nothing supporting your incredible claim about research turning climate science on its head. The stuff about clouds is a long stretch at this stage, nothing to hang a hat on but, hey, who knows what the future may hold? What about now?

Here is a peer review:

Hasbeen has an opinion but it not supported by enough knowledge to qualify him to have anything but an emotional response. He is not across the science or the proposed legislation enough to talk sense.

Stick your insults and try to play the ball, not the man, and I'll do you the courtesy of the same.

With fond regards, your easy mark,

Luciferase,"There is a point in the projections where you are a nett loser, but you need to be earning at least a miner's income!"

I'm suspecting those projections will be like a lot of government projections. Missing most of the inconvenient bit's.

If the big emitters do reduce their emissions then the tax's they pay reduce as well but we are probably all stuck with the increased costs so the cut off point will drop over time.

If I really thought this would help I'd feel better about it but I'm not convinced that it will do anything helpful for my son and I detest the way the government is bringing it in.

R0bert

@R0bert: my guess is that all or almost all of the cost will land in the laps of middle income wage earners and low margin self employed.

There is no "cost" in absolute terms. Some things are being made more expensive, and some other things are being made comparatively less expensive. None of the money is going to the government. There is the bureaucracy to manage the thing I guess, but that is insignificant.

Yes, there is wealth re-distribution. You may not like it, but I see it as a good thing. Wealth distribution means a lower Gini coefficient. You can see the effect of having a low Gini coefficient here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

This socialistic government intervention may not agree with our politics but the evidence from the first graphic on that page is unequivocal. Your average person is far, far better off living in a country with a low Gini coefficient. That includes the middle income earners, and the low income self employed - the ones who you say will be harmed by this.

Countries only achieve a low Gini coefficient in one way. Government income redistribution. This is what Labor is doing. Under the Howard government our Gini coefficient was creeping up.

In my view a low Gini coefficient implies one other thing: a very healthy, representative democracy. In the US, 20% of the population owns 85% or its wealth. What does that tell you about how well the remaining 80% exercise their supposedly equal political power?

Finally, sealing the deal, the countries with a low Gini coefficient also have a high GDP per capita. Looking at the graphic on http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/01/04/gdp-per-capital-vs-gini-index/ that with the exception of the US, all countries with a high GDP per capita have a Gini coefficient in the bottom 3rd.

As for the carbon tax harming our economy: if that happens Australia will be the first example. In every other country that has put a price on carbon, it has had either no, or a mildly simulating effect.