Continued:

India has formally announced that it will no longer base policy on the IPCC. The UK government is planning to remove the exclusion of Nuclear power generation from their ROC system. The German Chancellor has announced that the planned closure of it’s nineteen Nuclear power stations will be cancelled and that the new build coal fired power stations will burn “lignite” (with some thermal efficiency improvement of course). Saudi Arabia has budgeted $10Bn for Nuclear Power to sell electricity, desalinate water and produce hydrogen.

We now know that the much vaunted Danish Wind farms do not produce 20% of their electricity as stated by the ABC, nationally it is 13%, with some four fifths of this electricity supplied to neighboring countries at nil cost as it is produced when not needed. The Swedes now use some of this power to pump water back into their Hydro Schemes, at a cost to the Danish public of DDK 1.5Bn.

We can evidence the decline in financial investment and the increase in fraudulent activity within the green finance sector. The end of the Chicago Climate Exchange with the announcement on Oct. 21, 2010 that it will be ending carbon trading, the EU trading scheme is still only “partially” operating, that 88% of green trading in Copenhagen has been fraudulent and has now been valued at a cost of DDK 42.2bn.

In Australia, after the PM’s announcement in September, Transfield CEO has now announced the suspension of two wind farms worth $1.5bn due to? Yes you guessed it, lack of green investments.

Continued:

Continued:

The skeptical science community, who were previously asleep at the wheel, is now challenging “experts” such as Garnaut, Flannery and Karoly. Every aspect of AGW is now being scientifically challenged with copies to MP’s, the media and academia. The biggest and most voluminous challenges have been against the IPCC’s reports.

It has long been the case that the MSM in general and our public broadcasters in particular have become the “gatekeepers” of news and current affairs that might otherwise inform public debate. This is easy to confirm by the absence of many of the issues mentioned here from the public forum.

We might well ask why, if such powerful scientific challenges are being comprehensively documented with copies to all our MP’s, MSM, the ABC and academia, is all this not in the public domain?

There are clearly some significant political changes occurring, most seem to relate to a shift from low carbon policies to energy security policies. Taking Copenhagen and Cancun as a back drop, it appears that the UN’s efforts to obtain binding commitments are like “herding cats”.

As an economist, you would be well aware of Kepner Tregoe, Enterprise Mapping and Entity Relationship Analysis. You might be interested to know that the AGW phenomenon fails each and every one of these tests. Even Ross Garnaut’s reports all fail as first base.

As we have discussed with you previously, when you can answer some of the very contentious “why” public concerns identified here, then you might reasonably address some of the “what” issues, otherwise you may be a target for the great “dollops” of egg being prepared for dispatch to a face near you any time soon.

one under god

Go back and look at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Clearly the two important gases are methane and CO2.. the remainder, the shrapnel, collectively account for well under a quarter of radiative forcing. Of those the most important are the CFC gases, which also stopped increasing some years back, thanks to substantial efforts to reduce production of them. N2O concentrations are still increasing but the contribution of that gas is tiny.

I dealt with both methane and CO2 quite fairly in both previous posts. clearly the gases are not behaving according to forecasts, as I pointed out. As I also poointed out that more extreme forecasts rely on water vapour, not these gases

Leave it with you.

Taswegian writes … “if China and India don't put in a matching effort on carbon mitigation we will have to put a carbon tariff on their products.” …

Now that is a really insightful comment.

Appropriate use of a carbon tariff on imports would certainly limit the over-vaunted risk of Australian emitters moving off-shore where they are free to pollute, rather than pay a carbon tax.

It would also, as pointed out by Taswegian, protect Australian industry from cheaper imports produced by countries which do not take steps to reduce their greenhouse emissions.

I raised the question of adopting carbon tariffs as a protection against unfair competition in submissions to the first Garnaut Review – not a proposition accepted by the Rudd Government. Taswegian reminds us that it is a valuable tool which might well be embodied in government proposals for a carbon tax.

comeogen i suggest you read the tables
at your link
not just look at the pretty spin

here are the numbers
from your own link

4% is contributed
by the 15 minor halogenated gases.

these have MORE than TRIPPLED

0.031 to 0.103

cfc11 has near doubled
cfc12 0.092 to 0.170
n20 0.099 to 0.173
ch4 0.410 to 0.502

its no use arguing with a closed mind

get real
and tax them all

dont come with a closed mind
and simply repeat the link

read what its saying

all of it
not just the bits you agree with

the number speak for themselves

TAX all* the greenhouse gas's
or none

economists want a new tax
thwey can spin the numbers as they like
ALL THE GREENHOUSE GAS NUMBERS HAVE GONE UP

carbon is the least danger
but your deaf

your one track mind
wants a simple tax on carbon
why do you pretend the OTHER GREENHOUSE gas's are so guiltfree

please explain how this gas co2..is guilty..TAX it
and those ..'other' gas's ar'nt....thus dont tax them

share the guilt and the shame
co2 ALONE is not to blame

Like I said, sometimes you wish some people just weren't on your side ...