Geoffrey,

Further reading:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

Specifically...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html#biomass

WA,

Firstly the 6.7m is only the increased energy cost in the first 6 months which is an instantaneous increase of 0.34% which does not include increased costs from suppliers. The point of the article is that this has not been compensated for by the federal government.

As for the Aluminium smelting, whilst you are so happy to throw these employees onto the streets, the emission savings will be minimal. The excess capacity will probably be taken up by South Africa which has the lowest energy cost and massive smelters.

These smelters are powered by the vast reserves of poor quality coal, similar to our brown coal generators. NOT renewables.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-03/combet-on-climate-change-report/4607734
The link should not be confronting.
Yet it is, for those who believe no change is taking place.
Let us read it and think yet again, here in this thread!, some have expressed the view the whole thing is a Labor plot.
Few, if any, who brand believers alarmists, bother to consider Liberals, even in this link, again except the science.
The FABRICATION/LIE, that carbon tax has put power prices up by as much, for some, as 45% is laughable! but still a lie.
NSW under its Liberal government, will retrieve a BILLION dollars from its impost on power bills, not related to carbon tax.
After putting the price up, to make it easier to sell, NSW Labor sold it, and us, we are in the hands of pirates who now own power distribution.
Put , in a strange way a price on power, linking it untruly to carbon tax, makes the lie stand out.
Consider this, if the science mentioned in that link is wrong, and it is not, we are indeed in trouble.

Belly, on the matter of the science, I am sceptical. I have read a fair bit but nowhere near enough and so while I have a basic grasp of the matter, it's not deep enough to be certain one way or the other. But I am somewhat convinced that CO2 does not contribute substantially to a warming atmosphere. And I am somewhat convinced that even if it does, the feedbacks are net negative rather than positive.

Regardless, one of my major concerns regarding the whole AGW thing is how people's minds have been influenced by inaccurate or even alarmist reporting. To the extent where every minor change in climate or extreme weather event is painted as being caused by AGW. And that is most certainly the case with the report you refer to.

I see for example they claim that record high temps have been achieved recently, however I think that when we have no more than 100-150 years of recorded temps, it's a long bow to draw to imagine that recent temps are especially out of the ordinary. And I think there is evidence to support the conjecture that they are not especially out of the ordinary for even the past 100 years.

To add to this is the fact that so many young people seem to fee that we are living in a time of unusual weather or other events. For example I have seen someone claim in print that AGW causes earthquakes! To say nothing of those who point to events like Sandy or the recent Qld floods when of course none of these are outside the range of extremes previously recorded.

So I am afraid I will have to take your science with a grain of salt...

Graeme M,

"So I'm afraid I will have to take your science with a grain of salt."

Sounds like you'll fit right in on OLO.

Oh come on Poirot, you quote a propaganda site as if anything on there was likely to be anything but rubbish, then knock a bloke who has given sound & considered reasoning for his thinking, & his opinion

Time you took a few grains of salt to those sites you so love unless you like being a useful idiot.