biggest producer of co2 is not coal, page-35

Every argument has to be taken on it's own merit Berretta. You know, you have some posters here saying NASA is infiltrated by funding sources who demand their own agenda and then in the next post roll out a NASA article as credible????? Which is it? As far as the IPCC goes, I'm hardly going to disregard everything from that source just because of an over-hyped scandal. Besides most of their sources are external anyway, and it is fairly easy to cross reference these things. Obviously, IMO, IPCC peer reviewed data sources are far more credible than the psuedo-science from crackpot internet bloggers that seem to get rolled out here perpetually.

But keep your mind open and you might learn something. I was an AGW sceptic until about 7 years ago when I got my hands on raw data. I have also learnt the odd scientific fact from stuff posted here by the deluded.

Berreta, I'm missing your point about what limiting the aspects to Australia has to do with it? The issue is global. I'm not really that interested in Australian AGW politics, considering I haven't lived there for quite some time. And IMO, the carbon tax is a stupid idea.