Carbon is one of the commonest elements in the universe and the characteristic of life. So much so that the great division in chemistry is between those molecules that contain carbon (organic chemistry) and those that don't (inorganic chemistry).

The chemistry of life is basically long chains of carbon atoms with various other elements attached. Such joining up (reduction) reduces the number of oxygen atoms that otherwise tend to attach to the carbon atoms. In breaking up such organic molecules for example by burning them, the carbon atoms tend to combine with oxygen atoms (oxidation). So oxidation and reduction are the toing and froing of the same process viewed from opposite directions.

Industrial civilisation has been built on burning carbon-based fuels - plenty of oxidation.

Thus the advocates of carbon policies are not concerned with carbon dioxide itself, but with all carbon. What they are trying to do is to increase the amount of reduction going on in the world (eg carbon sequestration in soils) so as to balance out the increase in oxidation.

It is important to understand what the advocates of carbon policies are actually claiming: that these born-again fascists need to dictate terms to everyone in the world because they, the born-to-rule mob, are on a mission to *control the entire budget of oxidation and reduction of all the carbon in the world*.

The sheer grossness of their vanity and the false conceit of their own knowledge and competence is mind-boggling.

What a recipe for totalitarianism. What arbitrary control of human life or activity would *not* be justified by such a belief system?

It is interesting or even astounding that our teen-agers have been allowed little to say about Climate Change, as if they are too young to understand about Global Warming, etc, or rather they should understand the real facts of the matter, that the earth has felt climate change eons of times and still recovered as if it is the intention of some possible higher power not to eventually burn itself into spacial dust, but to become more and more liveable for future mankind.

However, would easily believe that while forced to keep mostly silent about GLOBAL WARMING our brighter young ones might easily have thoughts like so>

Our world has never been abused as much as from modern mankind

Our world has never suffered from an abuse like the Industrial Revolution when the axe and spade were thrown aside to make way for motorisation which while greatly helping mankind has unfortunately more and more captured modern man"s mentality in a kind of Thrill of the Chase< the thrill also causing him not to worry enough about Nature>

As a retired farmer< though I could never have voted for Kevin Rudd must agree with laurie Oakes in the Sunday Times that Rudds initial using of Keynesian economic stimulus though it should have made him a hero instead has made him an outcast letting in far poorer political thinkers>

Geoff Carmody is typical of those who undertake a course to learn new analytical techniques and then go out into the real world to concoct problems that could be allegedly 'solved' by applying those techniques.

In this particular case, Carmody is clued up on carbon pricing and becomes blinded with enthusiasm when he unquestionably accepts the assertion that anthropogenic global warming can be controlled by applying a carbon tax. The problem with this 'solution' is that there is no scientific proof that it will have any measurable controlling effect on global warming, if any, but it will do vast irreparable damage to the Australian economy.

bushbred do you honestly think that paying a million dollars for buildings worth $100,000, and burning down houses, and supplying goods that no-one would willingly pay for, creates net real wealth do you? How do you figure that theory of economics, which is 'heroic' indeed?

According to that theory, we will all become richer if we smash our own windows because it will create 'jobs' for glaziers. Better still why don't we send in the troops and burn cities to the ground? It will be a wonderful 'stimulus package' and will make us as a nation richer.

Would you embrace that theory if it was your money they were spending and you had any way of stopping them from doing it?

Better stick with your talents as clodhopper and cowherd.

Ken, if you really think the only evidence against AGW is 'one set of tree rings' then you have some serious reading ahead of you.

I suggest you start here, with the most popular climate science blog of all time:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

The current story points out that ice thickness at the North Pole is greater now than when US submarines surfaced there in 1987.

"What about the South Pole!" you cry.

Check http://tinyurl.com/d4zyt8 -- record ice levels.

No evidence against AGW? Get real.

Must say I don't get you, Peter Herd.

In fact you sound like the typical smart-arse, people us cockie's would like to meet in a back paddock.

As it seems you were not interested in the early story about progressive motorisation twisting man's mind to the point of making our earth unliveable, it must be about Rudd?

well now, it seems you have never heard of Maynard Keynes and the Great Depression, whom Rudd attempted to follow, using up borrowed money to keep people in work.

In fact, I am surprised a smart arse like you would have realised the need for Keynesianism.

In fact, Laurie Oakes writes about Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stigliz, who calls the Rudd stimulus, the best
designed stimulus package in today's world.

Finally, could reckon you could do with some mental stimulus yourself, young fella, because you certainly appear to need some mental managing anyhow


destroying man' eventually making earth unlivable for man, as