Curmudgeon: Is your statement:

"...the Chinese government can say anything and have the statement believed by activists who want to push their own government into action."...

...directed into a vacuum, or is it a snide (Wiktionary:disparaging or derisive in an insinuative way)remark intended for moi, or someone else? Hmmm... reds still under the beds?

Aside from that (and many previous similar comments), the pattern that I detect in your arguments is that you draw general inferences from from specific instances, and sometimes only part of an instance. For example, your reference to Denmark "free riding" off Norway through pumped storage. Certainly not entirely untrue, but Wikipedia (got a better reference?) says "..but it is not envisaged that this would apply to a large proportion of wind energy generated" and besides, the 25% cost increase can be offset by higher time-of-use charges.

And another dot that I've joined is your previous reference to Chinese wind-generators not being connected to the grid. True again, but is it a significant proportion of the 42 GW of Chinese wind generators? And for how long will they remain disconnected? (They seem to be pretty ruthless with under-performers).

And so on.

Can you demonstrate, even on the back of an envelope (or less than 250 words) that the economy would have to be wrecked to achieve carbon reductions? Or is this another dot?

GrahamY: I demonstrated my concerns about the ABC's slackness in a previous thread. To argue that OLO is not as bad looks like a race to the bottom.

I understand (from Wiktionary) that a shelf-crowder on the internet is called a troll. It is also a mythical Danish, Swedish or Norwegian ogre- perhaps now living in their pumped storage dams? Or maybe both.

I've maxed my ration on this thread until 10 am Tuesday.

I think the view that Australian man-made carbon dioxide emmisions are causing a significant increase in global warming is just utter c.ap.

“Bad mouthing” are we Jedimaster?

Unlike you we start from the basic facts. There is no basis for the assertion that CO2 emissions should be reduced.

Warming releases CO2. CO2 does not cause warming. The assertion that it does is why Gore now has a dedicated crowd to chant “Liar” and “Fraud” whenever he appears in public.

If CO2 did cause warming, on what basis should we not wish the Earth to warm? There is no basis to assert that warming should be avoided, or that it is other than beneficial. The world warmed a little during the last century as it, thankfully, came out of the Little Ice Age.

It warmed a little over half of one degree.

These are facts, Jedimaster. You give facts about CO2 emissions, and proceed with no basis whatsoever to talk about reduction of these beneficial emissions.

Would it not make more sense to talk about how they might be increased?

Give one reason, with a scientific backing, as to why emissions should be reduced. Your proceeding on the basis that this can be taken for granted, a typical AGW backer’s ploy, and criticising sensible reasonable people, for relying on facts, is unacceptable.

There is no scientific basis for asserting that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

Your presumption of such an effect, despite having no basis for the presumption, is an attempt to get past this initial barrier to the whole AGW myth. Your adverse remarks about other OLO contributors, show your aversion to losing, and simply underline the fact that your position is unsupported and unjustifiable.

And so apparently do most of the NSW former Labor voters who didn't vote green but voted Liberal instead.

Ocean on this planet produces over 50 percent of world oxygen so there is a question that deserves an answer in any fair dinkum debate about Climate Change and carbon pricing.

Has ocean algae vegetable matter been measured and taken into account in Anthropogenic Global Warming science?

I think there is more alive and dead algae vegetable matter in the ocean than there is alive and dead vegetable matter on land.

Algae is matter. Sunlight warms algae during photosynthesis. Ocean currents move warmed algae matter from one place to another in a similar way to a small heater moving air that warms a big room. See satellite photo at:
http://agmates.ning.com/profiles/blogs/algae-killing-and-heating#comments

Surely the question should be answered. Does anybody disagree?

jf, oh no, I don't disagree. You deserve an answer.

So, what was the question again?

Does algae need or create CO2 ?

I'm not sure where you are going, but do you reckon we should tax folks to reduce CO2?

Do you think we should go to an election immediately to decide whether CO2 is a problem at all in Australian citizen's minds? This seems reasonable, since this is what the MOS, John Howard did when faced with the big question.. will the ALB have the agates you ask .. who knows?

Or do you think we'll all be bored to death by then by pompous hysterics who think anyone who disagrees should be silenced?

Mind you I think shocked silence normally follows such outbursts of sheer bad manners and rudeness when clearly they have not considered or even read the previous posts, just read who posted them and went immediately into the "zone of doom", (yet again)

But I digress .. are we narrowing down the options you were looking for?