Jedimaster,

great link you have provided. Just the sort of article I should have used via a link to support my points.

>> We have no choice but to adapt, CO2 activists are wasting an opportunity to move to adapting. <<

Like in your other postings, Amicus.

Terrific, but you have no idea how to adapt, let alone fund it.

All we get from naysayers is just that - negativity, opposition and delay ... ii other words, business as usual.

bonmot .. I just offer an opinion, why do I have to offer solutions?

That's your straw man argument, you don't like the message, so then raise the straw man, that I have offered no solution and attack that .. I'm surprised I have to explain your own logic to you, but I guess in your passion and anger, you have trouble seeing this.

Don't worry, most intolerant fanatics exhibit similar characteristics, so you're not alone.

Chris Lewis is trying to start a debate .. he says so, and I note you have not castigated him for not offering solutions, why is that?

Or is it only opinions that differ that attract our bile?

Hey, here's a thought, simple and off the cuff though it is .. use the billions of $ spent trying to prove CO2 is bad for us and all the money spent on propaganda by activist groups and governments.

So simple really .. occams razor.

If a Party bows to pressure from the minority Greens and

Contractor Garnaut's messianic advice that party will be voted out next election.

Pete

Reality has demonstrated that a lot of nonsense is talked about greenhouse gases.

The criminal activity in the AGW debate is the attempted demonising of carbon dioxide.

There is no justification for talk about “lowering emissions”. This is puerile nonsense.

If we need to pay attention to carbon dioxide it is to increase its proportion of the atmosphere, not lower it.

Millions of acres of sand, previously desert, are now green and productive, because CO2 not only boosts plant growth, but has the effect that plants need less water.

Why lower emissions?

The increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere over the last century has not resulted in a warming of the globe. There is no evidence that warming, if it occurred is other than beneficial.

Ban Kimoon’s apocalyptic talk at the Bali hot air fest was not evidence of any danger of global warming, but evidence of his pathetic mendacity. Al Gore is now recognised as a liar and a fraud.

During the past 15 years there has been no warming. There may have been cooling, but if so, the fraudulent activities of the Climategate group of IPCC scientists have disguised it.

This constant refrain of “lowering emissions”, has no justification. The only emissions which should be lowered are the emissions of pro AGW fraud hot air.

An article like this, Chris, should start with an acknowledgement that AGW is a pernicious myth.

bonmot, the fraudbackers are the naysayers, denying that the cycles of warming and cooling are natural cycles, unaffected in any but a negligible way by human emissions. You have been invited numerous times to produce any science which says otherwise, and you fail to do so.

Ok Amicus, let me put it this way: Chris says the

"Main focus of article, however, was to argue that carbon tax by itself will achieve very little as gains made in wealthy naitons from cuts to emissions will be more than offset by higher emissions in developing nations."

This is what the UNFCCC has been 'debating' for yonks, it is not new (although you and Chris may argue otherwise). All countries know there is a need to adapt to a changing climate, and most also want to pursue a mix of alternative energy sources - but adapting and mitigating comes at a cost.

This is where the ugly side of politics (especially in western democracies) encroaches, as we have seen here and in the US.

So sure, let's have a 'debate'. However, it is extremely difficult to have a rational debate when there is a concerted effort by ideologues to maintain the status quo, no matter what the long term consequences of that may be.