[Deleted for abuse and poster suspended].

Hahaha

Socialism by Stealth! (Sorry Col, I got tired of waiting. I hope you don't mind)

'really examinator, crawling up to Bob Brown, like some reptilian sychophant'

Yeah I got that too. Wonderfully put Col. I have visions of a young pontificator with an apple for the teacher. A social science teacher of course, no doubt with a book case full of socialist propaganda, and a green tweed jacket.

'represents the personification of ponmpousity at its most contemptible

Yep, the pontificator is indeed in fine form.

As are you Col, though your form is of course of a different league.

Highly entertaining. 4 Stars.

Hasbeen,

I concur with your views on the mathematical requirements for the average social 'science' student. Most who tentatively attempted Statistics 101, the only thing close to a mathematical requirement for their courses, found it a traumatic experience. Most barely understood what a p-value was by the end, and none ever grasped the difference between correlation and causation. The course was dumbed down so much for this 'market' of student, that the opening 2 hour lecture was devoted to making pie and bar graphs, and a 'cheat sheet' of mathematical formulas was allowed into the final exam. I fear it would have been of no use to this lot though.

I start by saying I have great respect for Bob Brown. Even a climate change sceptic should surely see the benefits of lower carbon emissions and the other benefits of less pollution and using renewable sources that we have in abundance.

It is indeed a challenge. I am not sure about pricing pollution perse as I can see it will push up prices without the promises of reducing pollution. We may just end up paying more for being polluted and Australia's global contribution is small albeit high per capita. Will people really use less energy if it costs more (other than the very poor)? Or will they just reduce their spending in other areas?

I admit I am not sure about this side of the climate change debate (the ETS or putting a price on carbon), particularly understanding the relationship or how valid the emphasis on AGW and natural warming cycles for which we should also be proactive.

We may be better off just putting in place renewable infrastructure, better farming practices, using more natural fibres/products etc to wean ourselves of the higher polluting lifestyles.

There is no doubt we will have to reduce living standards - but our living standards are already more than adequate and excessive in comparison to many of our neighbours.

It does not matter a fig whether Bob Brown is right or wrong, nor does
it matter whether the sceptics are right or wrong.
The massive infrastructure regime needed will not be built due to the
reduction in available energy and the needed capital will not be
available in a time of zero growth.

We will be flat out making the most of what we have now.