Scott,

Please check your facts more closely and be careful of distortion in your presentation.

A quick check of carbon dioxide and temperature since 1998 would have revealed no apparent correlation, just as historical data from ice cores has shown. The basis for the Kyoto Protocol is looking very uncertain and it will probably have far less impact on the environment than the Montreal Protocol which sought to ban CFCs and other pollutants.

I can find nothing about the EPA and Dubbo council, save for an award presented to the council for managing its stormwater. A mention of your source(s) would have been helpful.

You claim correctly that in EPA v Waight (2001) there were mitigating factors and yet the fine was $180,000.

You've ignored the point that Waight received fill material to build his dam and received $275,000 from tipping fees.

In the summary on page 6 of the PDF document at http://www.claytonutz.com/downloads/Environ_SEPT_2001.pdf we are not told of Waight's costs of receiving that material but we are told that his fines and penalties were estimated to be $225,000.

If his legal fees and other costs used up the rest of the $275,000 then I don't think he's been treated too badly at all, not when the maximum penalty on two charges could have been as high as $500,000.

cheers

Scott,

"environmental damage is almost always irreversible. All the remorse in the world cannot fix the damage that’s been done."

Is this an argument for not signing Kyoto because we cannot reverse the damage done by emissions.

Try to be consistent mate

t.u.

Dear Snowman,

really, people who hide behind the coward's cloak of anonymity should think twice before using such an arrogant tone to others. And how hypocritical to chide Scott for not referencing material when you are not even prepared to let us know who you are!

It's extremely telling that the only consistent climate sceptic on this forum goes by an alias.

Ben Pearson
(real name)

Dry up Ben,

I've had snowman as a name for a while and I am not about to go through the rigmarole of changing it just for the likes of you.

The lack of logic in your implication is amazing. People who use genuine names are totally honest? I don't think so at all!

I don't give a damn what people call themselves because using a genuine name or an OO alias means absolutely nothing if the writer's argument doesn't stand up and they can't produce the facts to support it.

There are several climate change sceptics in these forums. Perhaps some of the others have eased back because they tired of battling people who are often ill-informed and reluctant to look at the facts.

If you ever doubt what I say don't be afraid to ask me for further references and wherever possible I will point you at the rawest data available. Can you say the same thing?

cheers

The Kyoto protocol is an EU-third world con that seems to have fooled most of the world. If we burn a kilo of coal, we get the blame (fair enough). If someone in Japan burns a kilo of coal they have imported from us, we still get the blame (crazy). If the japanese burn a kilo of coal they have imported from South Africa, no-one gets the blame (just as crazy). If we were forced by international pressure to cut our emission level, all we would have to do is shut down our coal export industry, and tell the japs to buy from South Africa. Not a molecule less of CO2 would be generated, but the emission figures would look great. As the only major energy exporting nation in Annex One of the protocol, we are particularly disadvantaged by this con, which has ben perpetrated by the EU, authors of the common agricultural policy, which has done more to damage the third world than anything else.

Snowman, last year was the eighth hottest year on record. Most of the hottest years on record have been in the last decade. Regards, Grant.