Poirot>> John O'Sullivan appears to be somewhat on the dodgy side.<<

He certainly does from that link.

In a backhanded way it defines the debate...P there are shonks aplently on both sides of the fence pushing their own agenda's and we read their words and their data and try to rationalize an answer.

Do you recall my Fort Dennison tide thread? It showed no change in the high tide mark in Sydney harbour in the past ten years. Why wouldn’t I gather info that I can qualify as reliable and make a value judgment rather than the feed from the two academic camps?

But I still stand by the mathematicians that proved the "hockey stick" was sheisser because like physics there are absolutes that defy opinions.

individual
They introduce the Carbon Tax. I thought the purpose was to reduce global warming ? How can you reduce this when you don't reduce it ?
______________________________________________________________________

The point of the carbon tax is not to repair the damage we have already done, but not to make the problem worse. It s like sticking your hand in a flame the sooner you remove it the less damage you are going to do yourself.

The Carbon tax has definitely helped to lower our emissions of CO2 from electricity production which declined by 2.9% over the first quarter since it was introduced, also emissions from industry declined by some 5% over the last 12 months ending September 2012. The tax is doing exactly what is meant to do.

So what is Abbott going to do about the tax and pensioner compensation which has been and will be handed out. I am sure the pensioners will be thrilled when they learn that their pensioners are going to be reduced by some $500 a year. Personally the carbon tax has had no impact on my electric bills, my gas bill has gone up by $1 a week, food Etc has possibly increase by $1.50 a week but my compensation has gone up by about $10 a week. I am ahead on the tax and CO2 emissions have been reduced. Looks like a win win to me, but liberals want to scrap this and replace it with a lose lose proposition. The sooner the public wakes up to the fact that removing the tax is a dumb idea the better.

Warmair>> also emissions from industry declined by some 5% over the last 12 months ending September 2012.<<

To be fair you can't claim that as a result of the carbon tax....Labors other policies have also helped wind down business.

warmair,
Again I shall ask the question I have asked so many times here, what difference will a reduced Australian emission make on a global scale ? I'm not arguing about repairing the past or the future, I'm simply offering a very basic mathematic view. 22 million vs 6.8 billion.

sonofgloin has hit the nail on the head with the apparent recent decline in emission here.
If Labor had not increased the public service numbers to such insane levels the Liberals wouldn't have to deal with so much incompetent bureaucrats either when they take office.
The Labor orientated cronies will be the Liberals heaviest millstone around their economic neck. No matter which angle one chooses to look at the situation all the woes now invariably all fall back into the lap of Labor management. The sad part is that 50% of Australians are obviously in favour of that. How would these people feel if the manufacturing plants in Asia producing our goods were to suddenly ship the manufacturing waste/pollution back to Australia with the goods ?

qanda,

<<The Australian government (not sure about the Opposition under Tony ‘it’s crap’ Abbott) and most (if not all) member states of the UNFCCC, and all scientific academies and institutions on the planet, and the vast majority of scientists that understand the science – have made their position on climate change known ... we have to adapt to a warmer and wetter world>>.

“The Australian government”? Would this be the same Australian government that is now proposing to close the Department of Climate Change?

“Opposition under Tony ‘it’s crap’ Abbott”? Would this be the same Tony Abbott that will scrap the CO2 tax and close/merge a number of Climate Change and Green departments in addition to taking back whatever is left of the $10 billion renewables fund?

“Most (if not all) member states of the UNFCCC”? Would these be the same 117 member states that declined to sign up for and extension to Kyoto to prevent it from lapsing on December 31, 2012?

“All scientific academies and institutions on the planet, and the vast majority of scientists that understand the science”?

Would these by any chance include The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), The RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values). Rajendra Pashauri, IPCC no warming for 17 years, Professor Phil Jones CRU, IPCC’s climate “science” panel has admitted there has been no global warming for 17 years, London Met Office admits no warming for 17 years and James Hansen, NASA’s GISS who is in agreement Hadley Centre/CRU findings?

It seems that if you want to fix global warming you might need a global agreement like Kyoto, you might need global emissions trading markets and you might need a viable global renewables industry because you will have to reduce fossil fuel use.

How about this for an idea, why don’t you get all your best science, scientists and institutions together and get them to convince governments to replace all the things you once had to save the world?

Just a thought?

Individual quote
Again I shall ask the question I have asked so many times here, what difference will a reduced Australian emission make on a global scale ? I'm not arguing about repairing the past or the future, I'm simply offering a very basic mathematic view. 22 million vs 6.8 billion.
_____________________________________________________________________

First of all the average emissions per Australian is a staggering 24.4 tonnes as compared to a world wide average of around 7.2 tonnes per person. For A country like Germany that has a high standard of living the figure is less than 10 tones per person. This suggests we are one of the biggest wasters when it comes to emissions, so I would suggest that maybe it would not be a bad thing simply for the economic point of view to get our emissions down.

From the point of the climate just because others are polluting does not mean that we should therefore go all out to see if we can pollute even faster than others. As for our efforts at this stage having no measurable effect I would agree, but every journey starts with a single step, and the sooner we get started the better, because it will cost us much more in the future if we don't get a move on. Anyway it is not a valid argument that just because others are helping to create a problem that we should not bother to stop. How are supposed to get other nations on board trying to reduce emissions if we are not prepared to put in an effort in ourselves?