I wish it is more practical responding to Col.Rouge redneck's posts if even a notion of my messages on trading/taxing pollutions not only similarly rejected these stupid approaches but provided suggestions sometimes incomprehensible for technically illiterate players with English, David Latimer.

That is why Australia in a few decades to become an islamist state - Anglo-racism and -arrogance disserve.

Response to Col Rouge:
All the tricks and word play which has been identified in this thread has encouraged you to think that science is not about progress, education and human achievement. It encourages you to think science is discredited and that scientists just “live in pursuit of the public purse”.

Where are these profit-hungry scientists who seek enough “public funded research to retire on”? Only in your parallel universe!

It is a parallel universe where science is misleading and profit-hungry, and where PR is balanced and idealistic. Where the public sector is rich and the private sector is struggling. This is a fictional universe which mirrors our own.

Rather than supporting Australian science, my prediction for the response has come true. Those denying anthropogenic climate change will forget the real questions, ignore the real issues and defend the fraud. They will attack the messengers.

"This inconvenient truth shall not weary them." I said.

Indeed, it is 200+ posts and you are still here getting ridiculous responses like "expedient for dissent to be silenced and we follow your pretentious edicts, like lemmings"! The only reason you feel this way is your own inertia, resisting the consistent case in support of "scientific consensus" and in support of Australian science in general. You feel like this because there your rhetorical ammunition has finished ... and each one was a blank anyway.

If effect, you have tried to discredit science in general, and because this is entirely unjustified, it follows that such an effort was doomed to be an embarrassing failure.

I do encourage OLO to get on with the debate. If John Howard said the “jury” has definitely accepted the link between human activity and climate change is real, then it is time that we get on with the debate.

Response to MichaelK:
Your posts are difficult to understand. I suggest that you use simpler English and short sentences. In English, simple and direct language is good. Complex English is a problem. If you use simple English you may be understood and feel part of the debate.

David Latimer,

Non - Anglos-es are always OUT of debate in this xenophobic racist Anglo-colony, where Col.Rouge-likes -- car-dealers and real estate agents supposed to be IT in any debate for their English-as-native-language only

David Latimer “only reason you feel this way is your own inertia, resisting the consistent case in support of "scientific consensus" and in support of Australian science in general. You feel like this because there your rhetorical ammunition has finished ... and each one was a blank anyway.”

Your entire post contained lots of judgments of me, no productive comment to Carbon Trading or any other of your list of grandiose schemes.

To my “inertia”, as you call it, I am the very opposite.

I declare the invalidity of your asinine proposals and pompous lecturing to accept, without question what you dictate as “scientific fact” but what is really “nebulous scientific theory based on dubious modeling practices”.

I am far from “Inert”. I, humbly, consider myself to be a “thorn of reason” in an otherwise moribund debate about the human fallibility of scientists. That it seems to annoy the crap out of you is merely a small bonus.

You are the one who wrote

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

Yet you lack the courage to debate “carbon credits”, in any detail and excuse debate on any topic on the basis of “thread expediency”. Doubtless, you are as shallow in real life as your post are here. I think the phrase is

“Talking the Talk but lacking what it takes to go Walking the Walk”

Btw the “ammo” is still plentiful, Reason is an inexhaustible resource, far more abundant than “dictatorial dogma”.

Inert means non-reactive... like Helium.

Inertia is the tendency to continue at the same speed and direction ... like a railway carraige.

Internet posts are all talk anyway.
I hope that clears things up.

Response to MichaelK:
I think I understand this. Do you mean?

"Non-Anglos are excluded from debate. They live in a xenophobic racist Anglo colony. People with similar views to Col Rouge are car dealers and real estate agents. They think they are superior because their first language is English."

If so, it does not correspond with my experience.

So, David Latimer, you are some chosen to be an exempt from a rule.