True,a carbon tax does have a certain beauty compared to that decrepit mangy dog,the CPRS.

But we won't be getting that either short of a near mass awakening of the sheep in their comfortable folds aka electorates.Not going to happen between now and the next election.

We are on the road to perdition - enjoy the ride.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Everyone should be forced to wear sack-cloth and ashes. Civilisation, and human life itself, is wicked and rotten to the core. Human beings are a plague, a cancer, a noxious pest. Only by purging our bodies of our desires can we merit salvation. The world has enough for everyones's need, but not everyone's greed. Consumption is morally evil. Tread lightly on the earth. Take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints. Reproduction is a sin. You can't have infinite growth on a finite base. Ein folk, ein ecosystem, ein Fuhrer. We're going to hell in a handbasket. The only way out of this mess is unconditional obedience to absolute and arbitrary political power. People have no right to exist - it's wounding the earth.

Penny Wong is just stooge of Chairman Rudd who controls all. Be glad that the ETS is kaput (for the time) but realise that the Chairman is in charge of everything - except illegal entry, which comes under the 'portfolio' of people smugglers and the UN.

Perhaps the most annoying thing about the whole global warming catastrophe is the fact that these dills, like this bloke, who don't have enough math to know what they are talking about, but still do, are all on our payroll.

Why is it that the very dumbest all appear to be economists, or are at the ANU, or both?

Must be a PHD to be had there, somewhere.

Who is aware of the actual levels of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere and how these compare with the projections set out by the IPCC in 2000? See the Special Report on Emission Scenarios on the IPCC site. If you compare the actual concentrations for both CO2 and methane in the atmosphere with the projections, given in ppm and ppb in an attachment to the 2001 IPCC report, you will find the projections for methane are hopelessly wrong. Methane concentrations levelled off around the turn of the century - no-one knows why. The CO2 concentrations are well below mid-point of the projections. Yet policy makers still seem to be using the top end of the projections for both gases in setting (ineffectual)limits..

Curmudgeon

Perhaps this time we're on the same wave, but perhaps not :)

The SRES is long overdue for an update. However, you do need to understand the different scenarios, I'm not sure you do.

Nevertheless, it is true that econometricians had much input into modeling the scenarios - NOT climate scientists. It is also my opinion that the econometricians didn't do such a good job, but the 'sceptics' still want to blame 'climate scientists', as they do.

What is indisputable? [CO2] is increasing and until the big emitters change their ways (yeah, right) we can expect a '2 degrees C' on average increase by 2100.

But hey, no one can predict the future - another meteor could hit, or all the world's volcanoes could sing in unison.

Check out this site for carbon related info:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#trace