GrahamY, so now you are accusing Media Watch of lying? Don't you think that if they did Peiser would have called them on it? And if Peiser really does maintain that there is more than one abstract that denies the consensus, how come you can't tell us what they are?

David Latimer “Carbon Trading….

Hey OLO! Lets move this debate forward.
We got some BIG decisions to make!”

OK you can start by explaining to us how you intend to ratify the mathematical integrity of carbon production, on which to base “certified carbon trades”.

When Australian carbon is emitted it does not carry a label which say “Aussie made”, so how do you distinguish it from New Zealand or Indonesian Carbon emissions?

I do not accept the notion that “periodic estimates of carbon output” are an acceptable method of “accounting” when the outcome of such calculations is going to effect the transfer of a significant part of GNP (or GDP) value between sovereign nations.

An old accountancy expression “If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it”.
With all the will in the world, sufficiently timely, accurate and reliable measurement of carbon emissions does not exist.

Therefore, whilst an assumption of total carbon emissions might be possible as a basis for "pseudo-science computer modeling"; as a basis for assuming Australia will pay (say) India for carbon credits, or vice-versa, such physical measurement to support or ratify the integrity for actual exchange remains non-existent.

Furthermore, If the games and tricks of dodgy trading in the European (EU) olive oil, butter and other "physically measurable" markets (distinct from etheral cabon emmissions), by Mafia and other less reputable nation states (ex Eastern Europe) is anything to go by, the whole house of cards of carbon-trading will be a cesspool of corruption within a year of opening.

Now, I may not have the "scientific" credentials of some on this OLO thread but I an not completely devoid of "reasoning skills" plus I have a intuitive sense to know when something stinks.
Carbon trading, regardless what the scientists of academia might dream about, will not work and any attempt to make it work will end in disaster.

So David Latimer, what BIG decision do you intend to make for “Carbon Trading” which guarantees some shonky Russian Mafia scam will not mess with Australia’s “Carbon Trading Account”?

"Bolt is wrong"

I know. That is the reason this thread exists. Discussions about the proven incompetence of Peiser are irrelevant.

Bolt gets more right than does scientist Lambert.

Response to Col Rouge:

I appreciate that you take a view on carbon trading, and whether it would work or not. You make some decent points. Obviously, a carbon trading scheme requires thorough accountability and that is difficult to achieve, especially internationally.

I listed a whole lot of discussion points. And would not be shy about discussing a carbon tax. Such a tax could be revenue neutral. For example a state govt could abolish payroll taxes. All taxes act as brake on the economy. Replace taxes on employment with a tax on pollution. Isn't that why industry prefers automation to skilled workers anyway?

OLO: There is plenty to discuss. Can we have a few articles on these points please?

Carbon tax is as much useful as taxing the sunset observers for a sunset occurrence, David Latimer.

If Col.Rouge was right in something, this is his attitude towards the predominantly technically illiterate money-greedy so-called Australian universities' theoretics inherited their posts in colonial academia.