Sorry Aidan, not trying to be unpleasant, but if you don't know who the elites are, you are too thick for me to try to explain it to you.

Bazz all you say is very true, but if you have sufficient math, & follow the absorbance equations it is totally obvious that poor innocent CO2 can not do even a few percent of what the warmists claim. There must be thousands of scientific academics who know this as a fact, but are keeping their traps shut.

If I wanted to give myself a head ache I might try to figure out their angle. Obviously the finance industry are using it to make big money, just as the pharmaceutical industry is deep into ripping us all off with the Covid money tree.

Perhaps it has always been such, & I was too busy chasing my bucket list to notice, but sit for a few minutes with eyes & brain open, & it all comes into focus.

If green activism achieves its aims, the Third World will remain in poverty. Western countries will become impoverished an even more reliant on China which uses climate change as a weapon against the West.

Activists and politicians want to destroy economies based on a 0.8° temperature rise over the last century and a SPECULATED rise of 2° over the next century.

Since 2000, Australia's debt has increased by 200%, more than any other country in the world.

It amazes me that climate denialists don't think twice about "slip, slop, slap" behaviour when they venture outside.

They can't accept that dumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere over a couple of centuries will have no global effect but a few decades of using spray cans has punched a hole in the ozone layer and exposed us to rising skin cancer rates.

One version of the same science is "not settled" but the other is totally accepted without question.

Is it because the industry (chemical) that created the problem also provided the solution so there was no huge financial penalty involved and that they don't have pockets as deep as the global fossil fuel industry?

They ignore the official science but latch onto some obscure theory that apparently all the scientists in the world have missed.

It's really not surprising since there are increasing numbers of people who believe the world is flat, or hollow or that crystals and fairies provide miracle solutions. Some even think that the Morrison government is performing well.

I agree rache.

We are witness to the same old strategies adopted by the pro-smoking lobby and cigarette companies. The movie "Thank you for smoking" springs to mind.

What also amazes me is how quickly we forget (or develop wilful blindness) to the atmospheric problems facing London in the 1950's. The place had become so filthy and dirty due in great part to long term effects of coal burning fires in the city that the Great Smog of 1952 caused considerable disruption and injured 100,000 and killed 4,000 (1952 government estimate.) 4 years latter the government passed the Clean Air Act and the air Londoners breathe today and the city buildings are much cleaner as a result.

The only explanation I can come up with for why the deniers persist is that air is invisible, whereas water is not. Perhaps that's why the Clean Rivers Project has been so widely embraced by even the most strident anti-pollution deniers.

If being able to see the damage burning fossil fuels does makes me an 'elite' subscribing to some absurd conspiracy plot, too thick to understand, then so be it. Hasbeen can't or won't explain what an 'elite' is. "... but if you don't know who the elites are, you are too thick for me to try to explain it to you."

Dear Bazz,

Mate, still flogging this poor old horse?

As I always ask but never get an answer: what physical property of CO2 do you want me to ignore in order to believe that increasing the contribution by 50% of the second most significant green house gas doesn't impact global temperatures?