My prediction is that now the carbon tax is gone, confidence, especially in business, will sky rocket and we will all reap the benefits. Your thoughts!

No doubt about that.

LOL

More likely the whole world will turn on us. Business will rip us off even harder and the populations despair will get even worse.

The upcoming drought will see a perverse reawakening of the publics desire to do something about climate change and rabbott has no where to go and will dig in his heels until he too loses his seat like johnny coward did.

Gunna be fun to watch.

P.S. To all people in bushfire prone areas start collecting evidence now. If you lose your house/life you may have a good case against the lieberals for reckless endangerment. They have been warned time and time again what will happen if something is not done but they continue to deny the possibility and refuse to take simple steps to insure against harm for the Australian public.
GUILTY!

"My prediction is that now the carbon tax is gone, confidence, especially in business, will sky rocket and we will all reap the benefits. Your thoughts!

My thoughts: you've butchered it.

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/07/australia-scraps-carbon-tax

Ar mikk, now there's a laugh!

So you are suggesting that the removal of the carbon tax will promote bush fires.

So, that would also suggest that had the tax been in place say, twenty years ago, billions of dollars in houses and infrastructure would have been saved.not to mention preventable deaths.

May I suggest that if you are looking to point the finger of blame, you look no further than the green movement, as it is they who have allowed the natural fuels to accumulate and it is they who have stopped much needed controlled burning and selective clearing for fire breaks in many bust fire prone areas.

Then, once you have dealt with the greens, (and good luck with that),perhaps you could turn your focus on the town planners, you know, the ones who allow stupid people to build houses in stupid places.

It would be quite funny if we didn't all have to wear the cost of many of the AVOIDABLE tragedies.

Please, read what you write before you post.

No flesher I am saying that by refusing to do anything the lieberals have made it more likely that Australia will suffer more catastrophic heatwaves and the bushfires that follow them.
If scientists told us there was a giant asteroid headed for Earth and we could deflect it but our governments ignored them and tragedy happened wouldnt our leaders be culpable?
Whats the difference?
Dont you insure your house/business?
The risks of climate change and the destruction it will wreak are worth insuring against.

....If scientists told us there was a giant asteroid headed for Earth and we could deflect it but our governments ignored them and tragedy happened wouldnt our leaders be culpable?
Whats the difference?

The difference would be that it was headed for the world as a hole and the world AS A HOLE would act. Huge difference.

.....Dont you insure your house/business?
Yes, but not the rest of the world's, and that's the difference here.

....The risks of climate change and the destruction it will wreak are worth insuring
against.

Agree, all that is needed is for the world to take steps to insure against this problem, not us alone.

Can anyone who is not still trying to use the global warming fraud to promote one world government, or simply following the lefty script, still actually believe CO2 is a danger to life on earth?

The promoters & particularly the UN have used so many lies, distortions & tricks to try to keep their world government push using it alive, any idiot could see it, if they looked.

Hell they even changed it's name to climate change, as they knew, just as well as all thinking people, that the planet is cooling, & would get colder under the influence of a slow phase in the sun, evidenced by fewer sun spots.

It is not rocket science. That it is, is only claimed by those who don't want too many to understand. Understanding is the real enemy of the warmist crowd. Understanding makes their theory untenable, & destroys the attempt to move us back to the dark ages, & the feudal system of that time.

George W Bush a 'leftie', Hasbeen?

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

Carbon Tax gone now Welfare to big business to clean up
So how much do we pay
Will the states need to Raise GST because tony is paying his mates

Aussieoy, how is Tony paying his mates?

As I see it, at best, all he's doing is giving back what was taken away. Besides, the billions taken away, once re injected, could generate jobs because after all, money spent on taxes like this don't create jobs, except for the pen pushers.

For a business to prosper, the most important thing they need is cash flow. This move will provide just that, not to mention a huge boost to business confidence.

Watch this space I say.

"For a business to prosper, the most important thing they need is cash flow. This move will provide just that, not to mention a huge boost to business confidence."

Precisely what was happening with investment in renewable energy technology.

Solar thermal in Australia? Not if 'King Coal' has its way.

David, research and development is something that attests healthy tax incentives, in the orderof 125% right off. Much better to use generated incomes to research than taxes collected in my view, as taxes don't generate anything. In fact, they have the opp effect as they curb cash flows. Besides, don't you think research dollars would be better spent finding a way to deal with carbon, because reducing it will cost jobs.

Now for all those hel bent on renewables, not one of you can answer one very simple, hugely important, question. Where will the replacement jobs come from if and when you shut down the coal business?

It's no good just heading down a path that will knowingly distroy jobs, without having a contingency plan to find replacement jobs for those lost. Otherwise, we all loose.

I'll believe that we will benefit is ANY way when I see the government doing something serious about the absolutely ludicrous levels of executive remuneration and bonuses, and the ridiculous levels of commercial welfare, we're paying billions to industries that are making huge profits, while at the same time they are off-shoring our jobs and the government is punishing the unemployed for losing said jobs!

Rehctub
Quote
“Now for all those hel bent on renewables, not one of you can answer one very simple, hugely important, question. Where will the replacement jobs come from if and when you shut down the coal business?”

http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1AVNC_enAU562AU562&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=do+renewables+create+more+jobs+than+coal&spell=1

The facts are renwables generate 3 times as many jobs as coal fired power plants. It is also true that coal based generators are continually reducing their work force by the use of more automated equipment.

The other issue you are mistaken about is whether taxes create jobs the answer is yes particularly when it comes to infrastructure. For example the snowy mountains hydro scheme created a great many new jobs

Sorry the link above does not work either copy the link and insert an s after http or simply google "do renewables create more jobs than coal"

Butcher, you miss the point.

Coal will be around for a long time yet.

Coal is getting millions in subsidies every year.

Sooner or later we will have to reduce our dependence of fossil fuels (whether you believe in AGW or not).

Good leadership plans for the future (not just the next election cycle).

It would be prudent to invest in renewable technologies - it makes economic sense and not only benefits jobs, but the environment.

David, I don't have a problem with investing in research, it's the tax I have a problem with, because if we ignite business, then the taxes will flow, so too will jobs.

The other issue I would remind you lot of, is that whether you call it 'global warming' or 'climate change' it's a global issue and should be addressed accordingly.

Going it alone, especially when our costs here are so high was ridiculous as it make our already anti competitiveness even worse.

If we wish to address climate change, it must be done together.Common sense has prevailed.

Rehctub
Quote
“If we wish to address climate change, it must be done together. Common sense has prevailed.”

The fact is if something needs to be done somebody has to lead. Australia can well afford to lead, especially as we are one the worst polluters per head of population instead we have decided to run away.

Warmair, Australia CAN'T afford to lead, and Australia's overall contribution to so called climate change is MINISCULE. Unless the world acts one, it would financially cripple Australia to act, and that's why the previous incompetent government was dismissed by the Australian voters. Universities are here to educate you, and I'd suggest you desperately need to enroll to gain an education in economics. Believe it or not, education is good for you.

In the previous post it should have read "Unless the world acts as one.....".

Yes RIR, while it may be great to feel all warm amd fuzzy, dollars and cents are what drives an economy, not ones feelings and, without a strong economy, (going forward not what's happened) we don't stand a chance because as the world economies tighten up, those countries with litte regard for human rights will not take it sitting down because unlike us, they will simply say to their people, either you work for this much, or you will starve. It truly is that simple.

Do we really want to be in that position holding the climate change banner on our own, because survival in a failing world economy, which could happen as energy prices become unaffordable, will be hard enough as it is.

Besides, the reason we are such high generators per capita is because we supply so much of the worlds demands, only nowadays those exports are relied upon simply to keep the wheels turning as we have so many noses in the trough. Can you imagine life without our exports!

That's the risk of a go it alone carbon tax that was only ever going to increase.

Butcher, many people don't understand, or don't want to understand, the 'tax' leading into an ETS.

The 'tax' was a government revenue stream imposed on the top 500 major emitters of GHG's.

Simply put: 50% was reimbursed to low/middle income earners for the flow on effects, 50% re-invested into 'research'. The latter of which included over a billion dollars a year in subsidies to the coal industry.

Of course, it is more nuanced than that. However, we have now lost that revenue stream. Not only that, every taxpayer will be paying to subsidise not only the coal industry for things like CC&S, but also every other major emitter, not just the top 500.

Not only that, the government will not be replacing that tax revenue stream. Not only that, investing in renewables for products, services and jobs is an opportunity cost - a big one.

"The other issue I would remind you lot of, is that whether you call it 'global warming' or 'climate change' it's a global issue and should be addressed accordingly."

'You lot' - ok, whatever.

Yes, it is a global issue butcher - and many other countries, states and tiers of government and progressive big-businesses are addressing the issues 'accordingly'. We should be a part of that.

Australia is now seen as retrograde laggards.

Butch,
I am no real fan of Abbott but Shorten has just given the LNP the next election. The LNP won the last election on two big issues.
1. Stopping the boats.
2. Repeal of the carbon Tax.

Hard to believe that Shorten now comes out and states that Labor will reintroduce a carbon tax when they gain government. Good lord, the government just won an election on this very issue. The people have spoken!

What does Labor not understand from their loss last time?

It is all very fine for some posters here to have a religious bent about human induced climate change, but the fact is there is no proof of AGW and the wheels have fallen off the AGW wagon. People no longer believe that it is human induced and that something has to be done.

The lack of belief by most people is simply because there has been no warming for 17 years and because of exaggerated claims and predictions by the warmists. The warmists have been proven wrong.

Does Labor and Shorten really believe voters are going to see the need to vote for a another tax next election? I don't think so

Banjo, it seems you are making the same mistake as many here on OLO.

i.e.

Not understanding the difference between a "Tax," (which it wasn't),

A "carbon price" (which it was),

or even an ETS, where countries like China, USA, NZ and many others are heading towards.

Banjo, can you prove 'the sun will rise tomorrow'? (tip: not even scientists can prove that).

.

Lester
I was a 'small L' Liberal voter (centre right)
Now I'm a 'small L' Labor voter (centre left)
Ergo: a swinging voter

IOW:
there are so many nutters out there that think this 'debate' is all about left/right, science/religion, right/wrong, black/white, up/down, in/out, etc - it's not.

Guess what, the issues are too serious to leave it up to political extremists, the likes of which Abbott, the T-partyesque, the uninformed or uneducated (intentionally or not) so vehemently display.

By the way, Banjo.

Warming has not ceased, most of it is now going into the oceans.

This exacerbates extreme weather events, some regions more than others are experiencing that - have you would noticed?

Ocean/atmospheric/terrestrial biosphere physics 101.

DavidK,
You can call it what you like, it is still a tax and the consumers end up paying. We would simply be penalising ourselves. Haven't heard much about Europe's ETS for quite a while and it was not going too good. Gillard's plan was to give most of the money raised to other countries, so no benefit to us.

What you warmists don't understand is that there are some things humans have no influence over, like the tides, continental drift, earthquakes, volcanos and more. World climate is another, mother nature controls that. AGW is a religion now to a few gullible fools who believe without proof.

Warmists have come up with this crap about the ocean now absorbing the warmth. When did that start to happen? Warming and cooling has been around for a while, but you blokes come up with a new theory.

I am sure Tim and big Al will let us know if and when AGW is proven and in the meantime we should just carry on.

Shorten is a dill if he thinks he can win an election while advocating a carbon tax.

Careful there DavidK, your arrogance is showing.

You talk of the "uninformed or uneducated", obviously considering yourself one of the educated.

What you show with this is that rather than educated, you were merely indoctrinated, & accept all your indoctrinators tell you.

Some of us rejected that indoctrination, started thinking for ourselves, & saw the flaws in what our would be betters were telling us, & found the impossibility of the whole theory.

Perhaps you too will grow up some day, & see the scam for what it is

Banjo
Quote
“Warmists have come up with this crap about the ocean now absorbing the warmth. When did that start to happen? Warming and cooling has been around for a while, but you blokes come up with a new theory.”

At least since 1970

The ocean covers 70% of the world’s surface, it is on average 4 kilometers deep, and has a much higher heat capacity than air. This means it can absorb larger amounts of heat with only a small increase in temperature. Sunlight heats the surface water, but over time this mixes with deeper water which is much colder. It also means that while the ocean is heating we don’t necessarily see any changes in surface temperatures for a number of years. It is the best indicator of whether climate change is happening.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-content-increases-update/

You are all wrong !
There will not be a boom in business, and it will not be a disaster.
We will continue as we are with no slack in the system at all and
it will continue like this for the next three to five years.
If interest rates rise it will be more like two to four years.

Then from that point you can expect almost anything to happen in the
financial field, almost certainly a bigger and better GFC.
Of course something like last time might just save us, but that last
time was to make the source rocks available. Once they cannot keep up
or the interest rates rise, then it is all over.
There is nothing else except the long slope down.

Start digging up your backyard.

Warmair, you have to explain why the Ocean has suddenly, 17 years ago,
started diverting the heat to itself ?

Bazz to Warmair,

"you have to explain why the Ocean has suddenly, 17 years ago,
started diverting the heat to itself?"

Bazz, I don't think Warmair fully understands 'ocean-atmosphere coupling'.

Neither do you understand the laws of thermodynamics.

DavidK
Bazz, I don't think Warmair fully understands 'ocean-atmosphere coupling'.

I doubt if there are many people who can claim they do, at best it would only be those who are fully qualified climate scientists.
Nevertheless I can’t see anything fundamentally wrong with my dumbed down version of what is going on.

Bazz
Quote
“Warmair, you have to explain why the Ocean has suddenly, 17 years ago,
started diverting the heat to itself ?”

The ocean is not at a nice even temperature everywhere in fact quite the opposite vertically it can go from over 30 Deg C to around 3 Deg C at great depth. The average temperature of the ocean is in fact 3.9 Deg C but the last average global sea surface temperature I can find quoted is 16.4 Deg C. The climate systems while constrained inside certain limits is chaotic so there is no need to assume that the extra heat absorbed by the planet is all going to remain obediently at the surface. Most of the ocean mixing occurs in the top 700 meters but there is evidence to suggest that some of it is getting down as far as 3000 meters.

The problem is that the extra heat will almost certainly reappear at the surface at some time in the future and anyway the system is still accumulating heat. The confirmation is the oceans continue to rise

Warmair, isn't the pause in warming blamed on the ocean taking the heat ?
I might have that wrong, but I thought people were putting that forward
to explain the pause in temperature.
If that is so, my question was what caused the change in the heat flow ?

Bazz
Yes the pause in warming is usually blamed on the ocean taking the heat. There are other factors which may have contributed such as increased levels of aerosols from volcanoes and Asian pollution. It is also still debatable as to whether there is any real reduction in the rate of warming.

As to what caused the change in the heat flow ?
If I could answer that question I would be in line for a Nobel prize.
There is no simple answer to your question as far as I know, but observations clearly show long term patterns of oscillations emerging in sea surface temperatures, superimposed on a long term warming trend.
Some examples are the example Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and a number of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole

On top of this we have a world wide system of ocean currents which may well reflect conditions decades or even centuries ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

Thanks Warmair for the comments.
Oh well, it doesn't matter anyway, AGW is least problem we have.
I try to avoid the discussions on AGW, but my busybodyness pulls me in sometimes.

What you have to remember Bazz is that these new ocean currents just happened to coincide with a reduction in sun activity, evidenced by the reduction in sun spots.

Amazingly they must have started previously just in time to coincide with the slow sun activity also evidenced by a reduction in sunspots known as the Maunder Minimum.

Can you guess that also just happened to lead into the little ice age.

Of course we know that temperature on earth has nothing to do with the output of the sun, people like Michael Mann have told us so, others tell us that heat MUST be hiding in the ocean, & fools like warmair believe them, because it is what they want to believe.

Hell they even tried to change the historical record to hide the little ice age, when they could not find a CO2 or sports utility vehicle signature causing such past flatirons. Fortunately too many people had it on records, & that barefaced lie failed.

Remember Bazz, if it sounds like bulldust, looks like bulldust, it probably is crap, & the greenies are full of it.

Well Hasbeen, I know about sunspots, or rather the lack of them.
My friends and myself have been complaining about lousy propergation
for some years.
We had hoped this last cycle would have been a good one.
It is confirmed looking at the IPS.

Bazz
In the 1960s I read an article in new sceintist claiming that we would run out of fossil fuels within a decade. I told my farther about it and he laughed and said they have been saying that since the 1930s and he did not believe it. I have seen articles making the same claim ever since and it just has not happened.

Yes it is true that we have made big inroads into the easaily available oil sources but the higher the price the more becomes economically available. The need for oil is based around transport fuels but that does not prevent us from using solid fuels or gas as a substitute.
The EroEI is not really all that useful if you don’t care how much fossil fuels you burn so what if need 10 tons of coal to make one ton of liquid fuels as long as you can sell the liquid fuel at a profit. To put this in perspective brown coal is a lousy fuel as it wet and has a low thermal output so it is generally only used on site to make electricity. The Victorian government charges 50 cents a tonne to the power companies.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/50m-for-brown-coal-projects-20140515-38cwl.html

The facts are we have the ability to provide liquid fuels from fossil hydrocarbons until such time as all the oil, coal, gas and unconventional fossil sources are used up. If we do that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will end up in the 1000s of parts per million and that we are told will be disastrous

No Warmair, the eroei does matter because the energy whether from coal
or oil or gas costs near enough the same and if you put almost as much
or even more than you get out you are going backwards very fast.
If one was a lot cheaper than the other it would be the only one used.
Once the cost of energy reaches 4% of GDP the economy goes into recession.

Sorry Hasbeen the Suns output has been in decline since about 1970, but temperatures still continued to increase. I don't have a problem with heat been hidden temporarily but I do have a problem when heat appears out of nowhere as you seem to think is possible.

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/sun_is_not_to_blame.as

Gotta say warmair,

You're banging your head against people who are delusional, good luck.

Bazz
Burning 1 tonne of black coal generates 29.39 gigajoules or 8.14 megawatt hours

1 tonne of black coal is equivalent to the energy obtained from burning
5.2 barrels (700 kilograms) of oil
890 cubic meters of natural gas. ( =27.8 million Btu)
4 tonnes of brown coal.

1 tonne of black coal costs $77
5.2 barrels of oil costs $520
890 cubic meters of natural costs $107
4 tonnes of brown coal costs $2 in Victoria

So the energy equivalent has no relation to price. In theory if you use less than 260 tonnes of brown coal to make 1 tonne of oil you are ahead on costs. In practice of course they are many other cost factors , but it demonstrates the point that provided we don’t care about emissions then we can easily produce all the liquid fuels we need. By the way Victoria has the largest deposits of brown coal in the world

DavidK
I do not expect to change the opinion of anyone here, but I find it entertaining to analyze what is being said on these sorts of forums. It is also much easier to learn from other people’s misunderstandings and mistakes. I have a strong interest in climate and how it works, I am too old to sit down and do a serious course on the subject but this way I am gradually improving my knowledge on the subject.

Bye the way if they abuse you on these forums it means you have won the argument.

Thanks warmair, who ever you are.

Having post-grad qualifications in a particular 'climate science' and having 30+ years research and working in the field, I am so sick and tired of "peanuts" (like OLO's 'hasbeen' who obviously doesn't have a clue what he's talking about) spout nonsense, and tell experts in the 'science' that they don't know what they're talking about.

You will find people like 'hasbeen' believe what they want to believe - regardless of the facts, regardless what the scientific evidence, method, and concomitant observations present.

Indeed, they remind me of the religious zealots at the time of the Spanish Inquisition - wanting to burn scientists at the stake.

Galileo should think himself lucky!

Learn, have fun while you can.

Well well DavidK has admitted to being one of the scammers, with a very real vested interest in keeping it going.

Picked him in one.

Just to advise you David & warmair, that warm wet feeling down your leg is what you get when you pee in each others pockets.

Perhaps you already knew, you do it so often you should understand the experience.

Hasbeen
See last line of my previous post.

warmair and Davidk,
I reiterate
What you warmists don't understand is that there are some things humans have no influence over, like the tides, continental drift, earthquakes, volcanos and more. World climate is another, mother nature controls that. AGW is a religion now to a few gullible fools who believe without proof.

I am sure Tim and big Al will let us know if and when AGW is proven and in the meantime we should just carry on.

Shorten is a dill if he thinks he can win an election while advocating a carbon tax.

The wheels have fallen off the global warming machine because of gross exaggeration and corruption of data. Do not expect it to be reserected.

Banjo
What you don’t understand is this, we have altered the composition of the atmosphere as a result the climate will respond in some way. Co2 is like a catalyst while the quantities are small they have a dramatic effect on the ability of the earth to cool quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

It is impossible to make any sense of climate change in the past without taking into the effects of greenhouse gases.

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx

Quote
“Shorten is a dill if he thinks he can win an election while advocating a carbon tax.”

The reason the carbon tax issue was able to gain traction was because it allowed the liberals to claim Julia lied. Now Abbott has given the Labour party enough issues to claim the Liberals lied to keep them in business for the next decade. Anyway far too many people have got the rough end of the deal with the last budget. Shorten already has enough wining material to get him across the line. If the liberals persist in pursuing polices which the public perceives as unfair even the drover’s dog could win the next election for labour.

It is so hard warmair to know if any of you people still actually believe this tripe. Many of us did, when we still trusted our academics. Then a few things opened our eyes, we did a bit of reading, & then did a bit of math. That was when we realised it was a con job.

I must admit I find it very hard to believe anyone other than lady kindergarten teachers & their pupils, believe the crap. Oh & arts graduates probably do, but they are so gullible they will believe anything.

So please do stop kidding you believe it. Yes it was a good fraud, & almost got the UN what it wanted, one world government. It really was nasty of the planet to make such fools of you wasn't it. Perhaps it has a sense of humor, or even believes in justice & truth, so couldn't let you get away with it. However, like your mate on the ship of fools, it is time for you to bail out now.

Too many lies, too much data tampering, & too many emails have ruined your little game. It's over, give it a rest, & David, time to start retraining. If you have been working in the field, a name change would probably help your future employment prospects.

Warmair, it is not just that the co2 has increased, the real crux of
the matter is just where on the logarithmic curve the current value of
the co2 lays.
The last graph I saw on this the curve was almost flat.
A doubling of co2 now only makes a small difference in temperature.

For those who are not aware of this I heard it described like so;

Someone expressed it as laying on extra blankets, from one to two has a
greater effect than going from two to three etc etc, eventually putting
on another blanket makes no noticeable difference.
I suspect that is where the real scientific argument lies.

Bazz
Actually the one thing we have is a good handle on is the direct effect of CO2. A doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures by 1 Deg C give or take 0.2 Degs C. The problems arise when we try to estimate the feedbacks, the most obvious is a 1 deg C increase causes a 17% increase in water vapour, but this in turn may cause an increase in cloud cover whose effect we are not able to estimate very accurately.

Numerous approaches have been tried to get a good answer either by doing a straight calculation based on physics to reviewing past climate and its relation to CO2 levels. The most likely result lies around 3 Deg C for a doubling of CO2.

Hasbeen
Tell me do you simply dismiss the greenhouse effect and if so why?

Banjo,
Not even real 'sceptics' doubt the impact of GHG's.
Corollary: You don't want to believe the facts if it goes against your (political) beliefs.

Hasbeen,
If you did do a 'bit of math' you wouldn't be saying what you're saying.
Corollary: You haven't done the 'math'.

Bazz'
What makes you think CO2 is saturated?
Corollary: you don't understand the 'math' either.

Bye for now.

DavidK; just the graphs I have seen. Do not know if their baseline is
correct but the principle I believe is correct and I understand that
it is a critical arguing point.

Can you refer me to other graphs you may think are correct ?

Bazz,

The graphs you have seen are correct ONLY IF the atmosphere is saturated with CO2.

It isn't (Earth is not Venus).

So, it is NOT a critical arguing point - despite some people saying/thinking it is.

You want graphs?

Just search: "greenhouse effect" or "Earth's radiative imbalance" or "top of atmosphere" or "radiation budget" or etc.

If one has really done the 'math', one would know that the mathematics is correct.

Well, I stick to my beliefs that confidence will increase, along with business confidence now that they monkey is off their backs.

Add to this the huge boost about to hit QLD with the CSG industry going into production phase, and things will turn around.

.....Yes, it is a global issue butcher - and many other countries, states and tiers of government and progressive big-businesses are addressing the issues 'accordingly'. We should be a part of that.

Agree David, but you don't be a part of something by introducing the worlds largest carbon tax.

......Tell me do you simply dismiss the greenhouse effect and if so why?

For what it's worth warmair, I do think climate change is real, but, it's a global problem, not just an Australian problem, which according to the recent election, appears to be a position shared by the majority of voters and as has been said, how dumb is Bill Shorten in stating he will reintroduce a carbon tax if he wins government. And he's apparently the best they've got. That's scary!

My last on the matter. You people made a fetish of "peer review", then so scammed the process that it became meaningless.

Even so, the latest peer reviewed research says;

Doubling atmosphere CO2 can increase temperature by no more than 1 C degree.

CO2 displaces water vapor in the upper atmosphere, CO2 must thus be a cooling agent.

Billions of dollars have been spent on trying to prove CO2 is a problem, with not a single bit of evidence. If evidence existed, your lot would be screaming about it, not hiding the frauds you have committed.

The greatest concentration of CO2 is over forests, not industrial areas.

Every report by the IPCC has had to step back from previous forecasts, but still tell porkies.

All IPCC reports are political documents, written by politicians, not scientists, bearing little resemblance to their own scientific papers.

If you are a scientists, grow a backbone, & expose the fraud for what it is.

So called scientists who still subscribe to the theory are either stupid or disgusting frauds.

I am looking forward to our power bills returning to a more realistic rate. This quarter my partner and I were at home for four weeks of it. Our house mate (who does week long road haulage), also home very rarely. Yet our bill for a basically empty house went up $150. More than when the three of us were there constantly. Amazing!

Butcher, before I give you the benefit of the doubt, what do you mean by this:

"Tell me do you simply dismiss the greenhouse effect and if so why?"

.

jodelie

Are you blaming the carbon tax (9%) or the price hike for 'gold plated' power company's infrastructure hikes for your 'complaint' - with dividends going back to the government?

There is a difference you know.

Ok Butcher, you asked (3 days ago):

"Tell me do you simply dismiss the greenhouse effect and if so why?

Not at all, perhaps you missed this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6492#193362