Belly: Braidwood Times: 29.1 in Sydney.

I was in Sydney when the Newcastle Earthquake struck. It was 46 that day at Taronga Zoo. Come to think of it, The hottest I've ever seen it in Townsville was 41 one Christmas day. It never normally gets anywhere near that.

Belly: Poirot at least has green blood and not sure about csteel.

cSteel? Green. It's called Phlegm. ;-) Poor child, I do love her.

Jayb says "I see James Lovelock has revoked "some" (my quotes) of his original findings from his book"

Yes Jayb, "some", meaning he took the most pessimistic view of the projections which he now retreats from, such as an 8 degree rise in average temperature of temperate regions. He still believes we're heading in the wrong direction. From the same article :-

[He told BBC Today Programme in 2010 that the idea of trying to save the planet "is a lot of nonsense".

"We can't do it," he said at the time. "If it's going to be saved, it will save itself... The sensible thing to do is to enjoy life while you can."]

Sorry Jayb, you may be happy to live it up while you can, along with Lovelock who doesn't seem to care about future generations (has he got kids?) nor has much time left to care. I, however, am not so fatalistic and want my DNA to last forever (like the organism I am) so I do what I can to head off the probabilities identified by the IPCC.

Austin P., I've said all I care to on politicians and lies at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5110#137659
Dishonest hypocrisy is a tool in every politicians shed. What I emphasize on Abbott is his sickening unstatesman-like, rabid and unbalanced attack-dog style, born of frustration and annoyance at not getting the lolly after the last election. The Mad Monk is an accident waiting to happen, again I might add or has everyone forgotten his larks in governments of yore? For these reasons he's not even loved by your side of politics, and absolutely detested by mine (or at least my current one, I started out as a Democrat I'm ashamed to admit). The guy is a bumbling, stuttering mess without a script, barely able to utter anything that is not a mantra. I can barely believe he could be our next prime-minister

CSteele,

<< [It’s] certainly a leap of faith on my behalf, but we live in hope>>

If all you were doing was testing a CO2 abatement strategy I wouldn't mind. But the side you are cheer squadding for is doing a darn side more than that.

They are in effect kneecapping OZ industry. If you impose a (STARTING rate of ) $23/tonne carbon tax on an OZ factory but zero on its Indonesian competitor, what do you think will be the result?
Hint : look at what happened to much of our manufacturing industry when China offered lower costs.

-“Australian manufacturing has been in retreat for several years, with the cheap labour, manufacturing facilities and tax breaks of other Asian economies enticing companies to move their operations offshore,”
http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/news/demand-for-industrial-property-at-risk-as-manufacturers-consider-offshore/2011071450810

And the joke is, it wont change CO2 output, just reallocate its source.

But wait there is worse to come: your dream team –the one that believes in AGW and wants to implement an OZ carbon taxes, climate reparations, and a world parliament-- are telling anyone who wants to listen that anytime there is a storm, flood, drought or famine it’s all due to AGW. And that AGW was caused by the big bad West.(think I’m exaggerating, read some of the Bob Brown’s comments about the QLD floods or the text of Ban Ki Moons speech recently made at the University of Sydney).

CSteele,

Now to your CO2 conundrum:

There are a couple of points. The tie up between CO2 and climate change is not as clear cut as you have been lead to believe--see here:
"changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

But for the sake of argument let’s assume that climate change is being driven by CO2 emissions. It does not follow that if we oppose the carbon tax it means we will not develop alternatives to fossil fuels.

You seem to have this fantasy that if we don’t have the carbon tax we will all be stuck in a time loop where we’ll all be driving 1950s style gas guzzlers
(at the behest of “Big Oil”) , and probably all smoking cigars (supplied by “Big Tobacco” ) – it isn’t even half credible.

Opposing the carbon tax (and the AGW bandwagon) does not mean that we lock into a circling pattern over fossil fuels.Technology will develop. And it will probably develop quicker and further WITHOUT the carbon tax.

You may have been too busy reading your leftwing rags to notice but substantial progress has been made towards the development alternative energy sources.The Mark Zuckerberg of the solar power will not be nurtured by the carbon tax on Alcoa or BHP.

For the automobile to replace the horse & buggy didn’t require a hay tax.The automobile triumphed because it offered a better product.

For the automobile to replace the horse & buggy didn’t require a hay tax.The automobile triumphed because it offered a better product.

should read:

For the automobile to replace the horse & buggy didn’t require a MANURE tax.The automobile triumphed because it offered a better product.

I agree climate change is, and will continue happening as it always has been. Change is the only certainty. This being significantly accelerated by human activity I do not believe. If this were the case our government would not be promoting population increase by offering payments for having babies in conjunction with the carbon tax. It seems these two would cancel each other out.
This is evidence government is using this issue to increase revenue while solving the ageing population problem by inflating the cost of living and reducing retirement funds at the same time.