Some who have posted here for a very long time seem ,truly, to think it is an Australian problem.
SM? well why bother as firm as a concrete road he has not intention of letting truth get him stranded.
BUT tell me this is not true, EVERY WORD.
CURRENT coalition policy is to reduce carbon by the very same amount as Labor.
AGAIN TELL ME I AM WRONG! every living Federal coalition leader, bar Abbott wanted the trading scheme the tax becomes in what 2015?
Truth dies when t5hose who value personal views more than it, but only for them.
Not Fraser, he may well however want it too, after all Abbott is no measure of leadership.

It appears that Hasbeen's report on the AGC, to invent an acronym
is now all over the media in Europe but appears to be a secret amongst
our media.
Here is a link to the Express newspaper in the UK.

http://tinyurl.com/bw9sjf5

Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory

Of course one swallow doesn't make a winter, but there may
well be some truth to the matter if you remember our conversation on
the Maunder minimum & sunspots recently.

I have got to admit I would relish the red faces that would be all
around if it turns out to be correct.

Hasbeen,

If the Northern Hemisphere is moving towards an ice-age, then I imagine the recycling of plastic is set to be a growth industry, and the price of oil and gas to skyrocket - as Russia and others get set to cover their massive wheat and grain fields with plastic sheeting;
while coal becomes more valuable than gold - as the major freely available fuel source to heat homes, greenhouses and all those wheat and grain fields.
(Though particulate pollution from burning coal would present major problems for health, unless 'scrubbing' mechanisms were also freely available.)

Unless:
a) Billions are allowed to starve or freeze; or
b) Solar PV and Solar Thermal technologies are rolled-out on a massive scale (all home, greenhouse and broad-acre fields roofed with solar panels); or
c) Technology X is developed to combat Climate Change? (To re-heat the planet?); or
d) Humanity can undertake a mass nomadic diaspora, ever-chasing warmer climes and diminishing food sources; or
e) Humanity can live under the sea, farming fish, etc; or
f) Humanity moves underground to live on mushrooms and other fungi - fertilized by poo (and limited by ever-diminishing returns), plus eking out consumption of ever-diminishing edible life-forms hunted and gathered; or
g) Combinations of the above possibilities; or
h) Nuclear Energy can save the day?

You appear to scoff at AGW, yet suggest Climate Change may be a reality.
The conclusion presents, that climate will change through the operation of natural systems, irrespective of what humanity may or may not do?
You may be right. So, where to from here?

Can carbon taxation and the concurrent subsidization of energy-intensive industry, mining and exploration (for mining purposes) have any net impact on maintenance of a balmy planetary environment? How so?
Or, may we need to find a truly effective alternative?
Or, shall we just accept that we are powerless to achieve long term sustainability and just start writing humanity's obituary to the fallen masses?
Labor's or Humanity's vision or folly - or mere political posturing?

'Sustainability' deserves a more realistic and innovative long-range global plan.

A squirming, writhing "fail" as my kids would say, SM. Best wishes as you continue to go about your porky perpetrations.

LF,

So after all this you have nothing, except an ad hominem. How pathetic.

http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=862681
Why do we see story's like this link every day?
Has the media been hood winked.
Can we agree one of the extremes, is wrong on this issue.
What impacts has Climate Change had to truthful understanding of science?