Dear SPQR,

You claim; "That is exactly what we hear almost daily from the warmist sources. I could not count the number of documentaries the ABC or SBS has run which say exactly that, and present it as a first time happening –and solid evidence of AGW.This is I believe, the point Jay was trying to get across to you."

If that was indeed the point JayB was trying to get across then I probably would have agreed with him. I, on more than a few occasions, warned my more environmentally minded friends about the dangers of so completely tying the GW argument to the drought because when it finally rained people would have a good excuse to disregard it. It is why Flannery ticked me off so much.

But this wasn’t JayB’s point at all rather he claimed "It's all just about a new tax isn't it!!". He was looking to discredit the entire notion of AGW and you just can’t. Whether people shift their personal stance on the matter doesn’t impact on the great mass of extra CO2 we have shot up into the atmosphere, physics rules that roost.

What it does impact on is the degree to which the CO2 concentration will continue to grow. Australia’s effort by itself will have virtually zero impact but the message we can send out to the rest of the world about a highly polluting nation taking responsibility for its emissions may well allow a more collective action to be taken.

Dear JayB,

You still here?

You really do need to just apologize properly to those assembled and say ’I will see you in another thread’.

What you don't get to do after serving up that piece of claptrap is to demand I spend time examining another one of your offerings on this thread.

Here is the deal, if you move on then I undertake never to mention what went down here and if we meet again I will take your arguments as they come.

Your choice.

How can lil' 'ol Oz affect AGW by its carbon tax? By setting a moral example, of course, as csteele says, for the rest of the world to follow.

While at it, we are transitioning, sooner rather than later, to a cleaner future which will ultimately involve base load power from hydrogen produced by artificial photosynthesis well before the depletion of fossil fuels.

To those who are so absolutely, positively sure AGW is a complete and utter crock (sorry you're wrong), then at least acknowledge the transition to something better for our children is worthwhile as well as the broadening of the tax base the carbon tax brings with it. I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with these benefits.

I am amazed the Gov't has not highlighted this. The Coalition has had free air with it's "big new tax" campaign while barely having to acknowledge compensatory income tax cuts, one-off fixed income rises to cover inflationary impacts, and aid to exporters to maintain global competitiveness.

The inability of the Gov't to effectively sound its own trumpet on its achievements suggests it may be happy to leave history to judge it well after the electorate punishes it for its foresight. As long as it makes an ommelette that can not be unscrambled by a government that follows, it will have achieved its goal.

It would have been jolly indeed to see the Mad Monk negotiating his way through minority government while carrying through reforms of the magnitude this Gov't will have achieved by its end. Perhaps, oh just perhaps, Australia will wake up to to the value of the reforms when presented with its choices at the next election, despite a murderously rabid press and the ravenous negativity it projects in cahoots with the Mad Monk and his motley, muck-raking band of muchachos.

Abbott's unstatesman-like performance following the budget and his lynch-mob approach in parliament over Slipper and Thomson must surely make even the most devout conservative blush to think this dishonest hypocrite could be the next prime-minister of Australia

Lucerferase,
I am one of the majority who thinks that AGW is a complete crock, driven by faith not fact.

The wheels have fallen off the AGW wagon and the believers are now stumbling around desperately trying for a foothold.

The present government is doomed and the carbon tax will play a big part in that, not to mention complete incompedence of the government. They need the revenue from the carbon tax because of billions squandered, that is the real reason for it.

You are fooling yourself if you think that legislation passed cannot be negated.

Time will tell and for those few that still believe in AGW, you must have a very high opinion of human importance in the natural scheme of things if you think our actions can alter the world climate.

UK kids not knowing what snow is, indeed! Some people are gullible.

Loudmouth Joe,well highest rain fall in ten years still gets a run.
England had its drought,we all could benefit from haveing followed that,I did.
Followed by floods, like us.
It is hard,knowing the cycles have always been around and always will be.
But not as hard as watching the under informed refuse to even consider if growth from about half a billion humans,to 7 billion, and the beginning of oil use changed anything.
If it did not? show me the rivers and streams we have not changed.
The forests gone forever.
One thing, as I said in my first post,this thread is huge,and changes nothing.
Banjo? wheels fall off? no mate not a chance!

CSteele,

It never ceases to impress, how you big hearted guys are ever willing sign any number of blank cheques on our behalf.
And what is almost as impressive is your faith that the rest of the world will follow your lead.

You probably can't remember that in a bout of moral fervor --much akin to what many are expressing about the carbon tax--we went out on a limb and were among the first to sign the Refugee Convention.
That was some six or more decades ago – we are still waiting on the bulk of Asia to follow our lead.
Though it has to be admitted that we are reaping the "benefits" of being early adopters in the field , by the boat load.
And it will be the same with your carbon tax.

The whole of idea of basing culpability of per capita output is a con.
It is designed to entrap the more affluent into bankrolling the more fertile.
It won’t stop climate change. All it will do is create a sense of entitlement; a belief that we owe the rest of the world a living.
See here:

"If something nasty happens - meteorologically and climatically - in the developing world today, a cacophony of voices invariably insists it is the developed world's fault. Most delegates at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) seventeenth annual meeting of its Conference of the Parties (COP-17) in Durban, South Africa, agreed with this alleged causal connection."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13002

cSteel: this wasn’t JayB’s point at all rather he claimed "It's all just about a new tax isn't it!!".

No, that was just one point & you choose to pick that one. Now if it comes to making a fool of yourself then by you record,we should never hear from you again.

Jayb: CSteel I have never heard any comment on http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html, or is that something you choose to ignore, as it shows variation of world climate patterns over a long period of time. In fact no one has mentioned it. Strange.

So you refuse to look at an arguement that may prove you wrong. Rather "head in the sand" stuff, isn't it. It's from University Scientists so it must be true.

cSteel: Here is the deal, if you move on then I undertake never to mention what went down here.

Sorry I can't. I'm having too much fun with a bigot.