Well need i say that i find this whole war on carbon emissions a top shelf derangement and a joke of cosmic proportions if it wasn't so tragic. This AGW is a paradox. It has no chance of even getting past its first assumption of catastrophic warming because of earth's one-way cooling bias. Its second assumption of depleting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is a bizarre, anti life bias with no hope of success.

Because we don't even have the beginnings of plausibility to this global warming racket this pandemic of lying just continues to have a "life" of its own. Just what is the agenda then? Even wildly speculating that CO2 emissions were the sole factor affecting surface temperature, then human CO2 sinfulness could only have been responsible for less than 0.01 deg C of warming over one hundred years. For the Rudd government to contemplate betting our future on odds like this, is an exercise in useless, reckless and senseless speculation.

Even if Australia theoretically stopped all its CO2 emissions to the atmosphere in response to this alarmist AGW, our ability to affect the growth in temperature over the next century is limited to something like 0.0028% of whatever warming takes place, or, put simply, nothing at all. It's a ridiculous notion and to give jokers like carbon bankers any platform or credibility is monumental foolishness. Somehow i don't see China as quite so foolish and anti life.

It is not possible to absolutely prove Global Warming until it happens, like wise it is not possible to prove a person will die if shot, until one shoots him.
Then it is too late.
To claim that the extremely well researched computer models which accurately predicted Hurricane Catarina, - the fist hurricane ever to occur in the Southern Atlantic, and even to it's track, are "dodgy" is not crazy, just plain ignorant.
It is also the case that China is ramping up it's renewables big time, with 200 gigawatts just of wind farms plannrd by the end of the decade.
Their announced goal is to go completely renewable in the long term, I would not be surprised if they put strong carbon controls in place in due time, - meanwhile it would be best to clean up our own backyard, leading by example is probably the only effective option.
Geoff Thomas, Kuranda

THE 85 trillion dollar tax
that dosnt change any polution but adds to the cost we will pay

See it for what it will become [the ultimate public trough] where mates serve mates ,dealers get the margins ,the full burdon put on the little people.

Destroy a rainforrst to plant a pine plantation, where we give clean Coal dreamers[sceamers]credit or cash , to rebuild that they destroyed ,

Its so crass
we will be paying for all the lunatic scemes the think tanks can sell to those who failed to do the right thing thusget paid to fix the problem their greed produced.

we are led by the same nutcase green lobby [now taken over] by multinationals and the new world order
[if big buisness isnt concerned why should we be?]

The media has beat up this while being silent on medicine that is killing us ,while our assets were sold off to the highest bidder ,

while govt declares wars on its own people , while lawyers made laws aimed at getting ever more cash from the people [ taxpayers]

who gets the big bonus ?[not factory workers but the lawyers creating these scemes ,the brokers dealing them out,

this reverse scam, set up between the twoparty farce, john dont like it so kevin the good guy can save us [its the same2party money machine think-tanks running it all behind the scenes

If its real> user pays ,
put the real carbon tax on everything

[if the bannana came from townsville by truck to sydney then went back to townsvill the banana bears the cost [in time the banana will stay to be eaten in townsville [just playing games to tax us more?]

the factory pays for its cost
the truckie his cost
the consumer their cost

Prove its not revenue raising give each our proper legal alocation [equal credit of carbon tax to everyone] world wide

[the poor can buy their food with the tax offsets they sell to the rollsroyce owner
+a luxury tax componant to be fair .

In response to Geoff Post's comments - sorry Geoff, but that business about predicting hurricanes ect is all complete fantasy. If you look back at your source, you'll find that its activist invention. Or they are confusing the global circulation models with the Hurricane prediction models which are quite different and may well, finally, be be able to claim some success. The various IPCC projections are now mostly wrong - temperatures have been falling, not rising.
It is not a matter of proving beyond doubt, but producing a scrap of proof that industrial gases are changing temperatures. The whole debate has degenerated into lunacy. Leave it with you.

No this is not crazy! This is sheer MADNESS! Australia can reduce its emissions to zero without making an iota of difference to the climate! In China, India and US, billions of people are increasing their emissions on a daily basis. Russia is hoping for climate change to exploit the arctic seabed and develop Siberia.

Australia is rushing in to be the first ‘over the top’. The introduction of emissions trading will result in a serious lowering of living standards. You do not have to take my word for it_ the Governor of the Reserve Bank was very explicit about this in a speech given some weeks ago. It will be the battlers, the elderly, pensioners and low income workers who will be worse off_ the rich will be able to continue to afford to live the way they want. In the meantime Government members, climate change experts and all those on the ‘Climate Change Bandwagon’ will continue jet-setting generating carbon emissions at the expense of every one else.

The Government’s decisions are based on the belief that ‘the scientists must be right’ because they have based their conclusions on the basis of ‘complex scientific computer models’. No scientist in the ‘soft sciences’ (climate, economics etc.) has ever been able to predict outcomes fifty years into the future with any degree of certainty. The fact that climate change experts keep revising their forecasts every few months is the simplest proof of this. In contrast, astronomers can, for example, predict when a particular comet will pass us by hundreds of years into the future and with certainty. Similarly for physicists, engineers and so on.

It will take an experienced modeler very little effort to get any of the climate change models to generate any desired prediction, simply by changing a few of the structural relationships and underlying assumptions etc.

The folly of proposed policies will take some time before the underlying madness becomes obvious. In the meantime, climate change _ if it is really happening, will carry on regardless, possibly spelling disaster to some and opportunity to others.

Tes Lato, the computer models have been well and truly discredited.
Its just that those who believe have not been willing to hear it yet.
They were asked for the source code by the critics but they were
refused access. In something as important as this I would have thought
it should have been released by government legislation if necessary.
After all $trillions will be spent and we should know if we are
subject to a programming error.
One school of thought by modelling experts is that it is very
presumptuous of the IPCC to think that they can model the weather that
far into the future.

I was at meeting the other day and there was a real strong believer
there and I asked him, if all that he was saying was correct why has
the temperature over the last 10 years done more than a slight rise
and then fall back to where it was.

I immediately got the mantra that the science is settled and 99.9% of
scientists say so. When I contradicted him that it was not all settled
and that there was significant scientific argument going on, he did
not want to discuss it further and walked off.

The similarity of the belief and the tone of the argument has echoes
of religious argument so carbon credits can truly be labeled as
indulgences, ie an amount you pay to be permitted to sin.