Max, I have not read any of Plimers books.
I was just applying the logic he proposed;
Add one molecule to 80,000 others, what affect ?
That is the ratio we are applying.
This is the unresolved argument about the sensitivity to co2.
Just calm down and stop applying your theories to the wrong activities.

Dear Bazz,

Dear God mate, why are you still dribbling out Plimer rubbish when it has been so thoroughly debunked?

That box of atmosphere with 80,000 CO2 molecules in 1970 now has over 100,000 molecules of CO2, a significant green house gas, and Plimer is trying to con you into thinking it has no impact?

How on earth can you be so gullible about the misinformation from a person who sits on the boards of numerous fossil fuel companies?

Stop being their mouth piece and think for your bloody self.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Yes the tide is turning and people now have the concrete evidence in the current environmental crisis in Australia to convince them of the consequences of burning fossil fuels over the past 240 years.

It's interesting to note the attention these fires are getting overseas. It's making people around the world more aware of the impacts of global warming. Today it's a fiery Australia, tomorrow it will be no sea ice in the Artic, no glaciers in Greenland and Antartica, and no Himalayan melt water for the peoples of Asia to grow rice to feed themselves.

I said early last year that I believed Australia had passed through a tipping point and that the lengthy dry hot climate we are now experiencing will be the new norm. This is it folks, this is what we get each and every year from now on. Get used to it because you are just going to need to adapt to it.

And if this is the case then we are going to have to admit that a population of 25 million is unsustainable. Unfortunately our politicians' means of keeping our economy afloat is increasing the numbers of cashed up Chinese in the country. All the Chinese are doing is putting further pressure on our fragile environment. They demand a First World lifestyle which requires continued burning of fossil fuels to maintain. It's a rabid dog chasing its own tail. And our politicians, bureaucrats and business community are too out of touch with the big picture to understand what it all means.

As an environmental sociologist I am starting to become interested in studying how Australia's youth are reacting to this environmental crisis. I see a lot of young people joining the movement begun by young Greta Thunberg, all anxious to turn 18 so that they can cast their votes against the ScuMos of the world whom they are now seeing as being responsible for the environmental crises that will affect their lives and aspirations.

I wonder how much damage this current environmental crisis has done to ScuMo's political career. He seems to be laying low and not showing his face in public. Do you think he might have got the message.

PS If he's looking for something to do he could always phone the head of the AFP and ask how their investigation into Angus Taylor is going.

Dear BAZZ,
you are so wrong about what has caused these catastrophic fires as to be laughed out of court.

1. Liberal govts have cut funding to National Parks and fire services so much that they can't backburn as much as they might need to.

2. The fire chiefs are saying it was too friggin dangerous to burn off even in the heart of winter. Why? This extreme drought made it almost as dry and dangerous then as it is now. Why? In hindsight, when the statistical averages are all in, we'll probably see this as part of a climate trend.

All we know on the 'weather' front is that this has broken all records.

The KNOWN physics of CO2 says what this is.
The KNOWN paleoclimate says warming like this is dangerous.
The carefully and constantly updated computer models of Climate Sensitivity show how dangerous this is.

I really hope there's some freaky, overlooked natural phenomenon that rescues us from climate change. I really do! But for the life of me I can't see what that is.

I ALMOST thought I had it when I saw how much Mt Pinotubo cooled the atmosphere. That was amazing! We can mimic that. We can dump particulates 20km up, costing maybe $5 to $10 billion a year, and COOL THE ENTIRE PLANET! (Ironically particulates causing "Global Dimming" where what that "Ice age cometh" scientist was trying to model in the 70's, and he admitted he was wrong within 3 years.)

In other words, for a tiny fraction of the price of dealing with the source of climate change, we could negate it's effects. Big Oil would pay a tiny tax like that in a heartbeat to make all this go away?

Too good to be true? You bet! Because if we rely on that, we'll have to dump more and more as more CO2 is released. Eventually we'll shut down the Indian monsoon and a BILLION people will go without water. So which is worse, climate change, or particulate Global Dimming? It's serious when the cure is as bad as the disease.

Oh Garwd, take a Bex and have a nice lie down.