Ho, Ho Ho...Hasbeen.

Gawd! - he's onto me....(egad!)

Just for the record - no I'm not the founder and President of CSWAOIIFTM.....(Climate Scientists Who Are Only In It For The Money)

It's fascinating that it's beyond your mentality to assume that scientists working in the disciplines associated with climate, work to the same ethics as scientists in other fields.

No wonder psychologists are having a field day investigating the processes involved in denialism.

Considering that the title of the thread is

"Will Climate change impact on the election?"

We are going into an election where the activists were warning of deadly droughts. This was followed by 3 years of the highest rainfall for years. Irrespective of the science, the scare campaign run by the activists has failed, and the only salient points in the voters' minds is the increase in cost of living, and Gillard's lie.

WA,

Well done on your research, however, the electrolysis is not the only power consumed in the factory, and there are emissions preparing the smelt. The total power consumption is closer to 18kWhrs.

With the carbon tax adding about 2.4c/kWhr this comes to 43c per kg. Considering that the international commodity price is about $2 per kg, this alone adds more than 20% to the cost.

As for the biggest producers, all would make up any additional power demand with fossil fuel, the majority ie China and India, would use coal. Net decrease in emissions is just about zero.

Sorry Poirot, completely the wrong word to use and I in no way meant that you are slimey. So far I have found your posts well informed and well spoken. I meant 'slippery', in the sense that it's easy to play dodge ball with a lot of these sorts of statements. Similarly the notion of how long a pause in the warming needs to be before we might re-evaluate the AGW idea, or the "98% of scientists" claim. Misleading and open to all sorts of evasion. Which again takes us to my central position.

As to whether I am skeptic or "skeptic", well I don't know. Personally I don't care but seeing as how it means something to you, what's your definition? I guess you're having a shot at me, but again it doesn't really matter I spose.

Graeme,

Just quickly, as I'm on my way out....

"skeptics" (in inverted comments), I tend to assign to people who consider climate scientists to be involved in a huge and intricate fraud. No matter what evidence you show them, they dismiss it - usually with a kicker that anyone who gives veracity to climate scientists must be on the payroll.

A good example is Hasbeen's latest post to me.

A "real" skeptic is one who realises that climate is a complicated system, and the vast majority of scientists are working with the ethics they were taught to work out what is going on. They're not always accurate, but they give it their best shot.

My example of a real skeptic is Richard Muller. My example of a fake skeptic is Anthony Watts.

...before Muller's BEST findings:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

After...well we all know what happened when a real skeptic found his investigations concurred with the majority of findings by climate scientists on AGW. Muller swiftly became persona non grata within the skeptic community.

Well I too read a lot and if only!
If only I and poirot could return to these pages in 50 years.
Do we all know? that one side is quite wrong?
I rather think we are all victims, my side of half wits who talked junk and had e mails picked up, to flog them with their own stupidity.
And the self interested, coal miners and a host more, petroleum sellers, creating a bait, the thought our fears are some ones invention.
And note the concentration on our country, its tree hugger,s, its tax.
And the ignorance!
Yes right word, to the actions of so many country,s, even the EU.
The inventiveness of putting the thought it is an Australian thought/invention!
Inventiveness too, saying most of the worlds scientist, in this AREA CLIMATE,are with deliberate forethought lieing to us!
Poirot remind this mob for me, please if you make it,it will not be 50 years, in fact this thread may be proved to have reason to ask its question answered soon.

whether climate change will impact the election is unknown. Thankfully the election however will impact the gravy train and get rid of many dud jobs. Hopefully they will be sent to pick up rubbish which will prove a lot more useful than flying off to religous (oops sorry scientific love fests) in order to dream up the latest scare. A campaign to stop people acting like pigs in littering highways would be useful.