actually, perseus, a fair number of very rich people are worried about climate change and co2 emissions. more importantly, as 'governator' put it: 98% of climatologists are worried so he's worried.

are you in fact a climate scholar? if your own research, not so far published, supports your argument, let's read about it in 'nature'. or are you basing your argument on the other 2%? this is not a matter where bank balances count for much, perseus, is that a source of concern?

Carbon trading the answer to "fighting" climate change.

Are these people serious, at all? Their only answer is a tax? This is what economists do. Think about money, as do our current and possible "leaders".

Tax will fix the climate. Money is the anser to everything. Tripe.

Perseus, I applaud your approach and most of what you have written here. Carbon trading will be the second biggest fraud, behind religion, of all time. Making profits is the ONLY purpose of any trading scheme. Don't people understand that yet? Profit. Nothing to do with anything but money. Think about it. Money is a tool man created to allow trading of resources, mainly man's labour. Money is fool's gold to use a monetary analogy.

When are the media and these mindless politicians and economists going to stop this drivel? Yes, I know. Never.

Fight climate change? You might as well you know what into the wind. We, mere humans, cannot "fight" the climate. It's an insane notion to even consider this as an option.

What we can, should and must do though is adapt to the changing climate. Adapt, not fight. Start now, not when it's 150 degrees and water is only found in other countries or the ocean.

Build those pipelines now from the north to the south. Build the infrastructure to cope with the changes, not this mindless rubbish about fighting it.

As an example of how ridiculous this line is will someone please tell me how we fight a cyclone? Do we shoot it, nuke it or just attack it with our bare hands? Do you get it yet? These politicians and self proclaimed experts have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Perhaps we could shadow box with the sun? Might as well, it's equally as stupid an idea.

Eddy

you would be suprised that people are listening even though not labor.

They labor and the liberal party's are both on a collision course of enviromental vandalism.

They know that uranium is dangerous, but the major fact is waste.

Maybe they have a deal to bury the waste here in australia maybe not.

The Australian Peoples Party is for no new uranium mines and also uranium powered reators.

even though 10 years is a long time i believe that will be when we start to see the new generation of power technology.

Also regarding labors loan, what a joke.

I have already worked out that the cost of the individual househoder will be 4 thousand dollars interest free.
The government will pitch the rest.
This will also include jobs.

This in all will take till 2013 to have this fully rolled out.
not bad.

The goverment has been using rebates for a while so lets use it for worthwhile use, also the money being wasted will be funned for real use not just advertising.

But who am i knowbody.

You all have made you choice.

www.tapp.org.au

Carbon Trading and Carbon Credits on their own are not going to be enough to change the system but they are a start and they can be made more effective.

An approach is to invent another currency backed by regular currencies but where the currency can only be "redeemed" for regular currencies if you spend the currency on greenhouse reduction infrastructure.

Thus whenever carbon credits are purchased the buyer deposits the amount of money required into a "Currency holding account" and pays the seller in this currency. The currency has limitations on how it can be redeemed for regular currencies. The limitations are that it must be spent on greenhouse savings infrastructure or projects be they research into techniques, windmills, insulation for houses, solar cells etc.

Even if the carbon trading scheme is compromised the money will still be spent on ways to reduce greenhouse gases and perverting the spending of money on "real things" is harder to abuse than spending money on invented commodities like carbon credits.

Carbon Trading;
It seems like a goldern opertunity for the international
fraudsters who normally operate in the international monetary fraud area.

It would be very difficult to prove that emmissions were still reduced
after the certificate had ben issued. It has proven almost impossible
to stop interlectual property fraud in Asia, so what makes anyonyone
think the same "wide boys" won't be right onto the bag of gold known
as carbon trading ?

ChrisC

If the IPCC documentation is so infallible as you seem to suggest,then tell me why it is that on Page 4/18 of the WG1 they show Figure SPM 2 "Radiative Forcing Ccomponents"and clearly indicate the Level of Scientific Understanding (LOSU),and the error bars for each of the sources of forcing.

For instance, for "Total Aerosols" including clouds, they are saying we actually know bugger all about it, but by the estimated size of the forcings involved, aerosols alone would cancel it all out.

It would certainly make any mathematical models based upon this data, highly dubious, if not comletely unreliable.

But then only gullible warmers, and the CSIRO, would have us believe that one can predict with some reliability what is likely to happen in 100 years time based upon models that have had their parametric elements tweeked, so that there is a force fit to current data. But when one is tweeking for elements they admit not knowing much about it is quite farcical.

As for the flaws in the econometric modelling the comment by Ainsley Kellow is relevant It is quite wilful for the IPCC to persist with abolute nonsense despite it being pointed out by the reviewers.

"There is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication no matter how flawed it might be."

All in all, not the sort of stufuf one would bet the Treasury on, is it.