"In far Nth Qld we haven't had a decent Wet for some 25 years. This season we've had about 4 days of good rain. By now we should have had a solid 6 weeks of rain."

Well that's not what the BOM data shows for places like Weipa and Laura. In both places they show way above average rainfall in each of the past three years and (in Laura) January 2013 alone had 50% of the total average annual falls.

There are two common errors here. One is to base views on recollection rather than historic data. The other is to assume there is a level of rainfall that 'should be'. Who's to say that the rainfall of 30-40years ago was normal or what should be.

You can go to the BOM site to see the rainfall data for places like the Laura Post Office:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=028000

"Contrary to popular and mistaken belief, Australia's introduction of the carbon tax (leading into an ETS) was not, and is not, to mitigate global warming."

So the CPRS had nothing to do with reducing CO2 levels blamed for causing climate change? They just wanted to reduce CO2 levels for the heck of it?

Well qanda, I think you might need a hand to move those particular goal posts.

Why can’t the AGWers win the debate?
Because their spokepersons cannot seem to see more than one step ahead at any one time!

Consider this example from Qanta.

Preface: Before you read it –forget for the moment the question as to whether or not AGW is real –and (especially for Poirot!) forget which side Qanta bats for – just consider the merit(s) of the proposition:

<< Contrary to popular and mistaken belief, Australia's ...carbon tax (leading into an ETS) was not, and is not, to mitigate global warming.

The 'carbon tax' was introduced to help transition Australia to alternative energy sources, sooner rather than later.>>

So that’s it then? It was done to “help transition” [period!]

And there was no thought/desire/FANTASY(?) that in doing so it would reduce the flow of GHGs and thereby “mitigate global warming”!

That being the case Why the urgency? Given that Oz has 100s of years worth of coal And a good number of years supply of gas.
Is it--at all-- likely that the govt was thinking hundreds of years ahead, way,way,way past the next election cycle?

Mindful of Ockham’s Razor (the simplest answer is …) it is far more likely that our “progressives” got caught up in the general hype and believed that by making carbons more expensive they'd cut emissions and thereby halt climate change, returning us to a (mythological) goldilocks era where it was never too hot and never too cold and no ill winds ever blew.

And here’s an interesting footnote:
Remember we were being told how AGW would shut down the Gulf Stream and that would lead to the freezing over of Europe. Well the February 2013 edition of Scientific American reports that they may have got it all wrong. It seems that climate & the Gulf Stream are a lot more complicated than they led themselves to believe.

Knowing that Poirot posts regular links to Scientific America (along her own guff). I was waiting,anticipating, hoping she’d soon post
a link to this article, but alas it never appeared –I guess it wasn’t the right sort of story!

mhaze, SPQR,

Here's a little help:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/transition

Tell me another way that a capitalist paradigm is going to tackle AGW?

(Apart from denying that it exists)

(Yes SP, I know you're only interested in finding little nuggets that you think conclusively rule out any scientific nous on AGW....keep up the good work. As far as denialism goes, this forum is the online chapter of "Cherry-Pickers Anonymous" :)

Here's a further critique of the guy who's the flag-bearer for denialists - and his connection with the Creationist pastor.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/02/13/climate-science-denier-lord-monckton-joins-creationist-pastor-launch-extremist-political-party?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

mhaze, SPQR....what do you make of Lord Monckton and his affiliation with this dodgy lot?

I mean this guy is regularly lauded and extolled on all the main "skeptic" sites.

The denialist movement has almost no cred at all.

I awoke this morning to a "scientist" (I didn't catch his name) from our CSIRO on ABC radio bleating on about sea level rise. He talked about glaciers melting, sea temperatures rising and the Greenland ice pack melting. He then stated that NASA satellites had identified sea level rises.

The host, a woman, asked him why there had been no rise in sea level in Sydney, as reflected in the Fort Denison daily tide measurements. This imbecile then said it is a northern hemisphere event…..I switched off….If I want to believe a lie, I will make up my own thanks. I can lie as well as them, except I am not being paid for it.