Simon Bedak add yourself to my previous list and .... oh farmers still belong in the private sector ... they haven't yet been nationalised... unless you know something I don't.
And Simon I'm a sailor whot catches and eats fish, de-salinates my own water and buys veges. Where does that leave me in your estimation?
Oh and I often launch into the ocean, I know not quite the cosmos but I think you'll get my drift... so to speak. My vessel is the yacht 'Sunshine' not quite the B Ark but close.

And as for taxes well ... go figure.

Examinator. You're on that list too. Sub prime ... haha you ain't seen nothing yet. Nothing is going to bail out the organisations that lent to the next level up. Not the jerks who had no credit rating, no income and no assets but the next level idiots who had a good credit rating but insufficient income and no assets. A huge part of the so called Prime these days apparently! The credit rating wasn't the only difference between them and the Sub Prime jerks. The period of time before the real interest rates repayments and repaying the principal kicked in wasn't 3 years(as in the subprime) but 5 years. (Oh and they parcelled and sold those to bank F...heads all over the world ... as prime lending). Hold onto your properties at your peril for the worst is yet to come.

Kipp you're on the list too.

Chade ditto.

Thylacine take a bow, you too.

Oh dear CJ I thought better of you ... once.

"Btw Taswegian CO2 is colourless and ordourless and has absolutely no impact on the smog in the olympic city of Shuking"

Keith, I don't know of one environmental toxicologist on the planet who would agree with you. The smog to which you refer IS anthropogenic and is a result of carbon emissions, resulting from chemical reactions in the pollutants emitted from industrial processes.

Ozone (O3) is the component of smog that is of the highest concern in polluted areas. Ozone's a secondary pollutant, formed as a result of reactions between fossil fuel combustion by-products and sunlight, having harmful health effects. This low-level ozone pollution is known as "tropospheric ozone" and at ground level, ozone is a caustic gas, creating smog and damaging body tissues.

Think London Keith. The London smog of the 50s, a result of coal burning (a fossil fuel = carbon.) The colder it became the more coal was burnt by London's inhabitants. Citizens could not see in front of them for several days and many thousands died as a subsequence.

Please do not peddle the propaganda that CO2 is benign. All carbon based chemicals, when burnt, convert to carbon dioxide. Many carbon based chemicals are among the most hazardous known to man and his environment.

In addition, chemical reactions, formed from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, are also responsible for the formation of dioxins.

Similarly, carbon monoxide which elevates ozone and methane in the atmosphere, also converts to CO2 etc.

Professor Flint et al conveniently and consistently fail to debate industrial carbon dioxide independently of climate change. This self-interested cabal is exploiting the small element of doubt correlating A/CO2 to climate.

These gentlemen need to perform a reality check and witness the desecration of the planet's eco-systems, systems violated from carbon-based industrial emissions - not least Australia's.

Industrial CO2 emissions will continue to choke the life from this planet - irrespective of climate change.

And senior bureaucrats, from the EPA and departments of environment in Australia will remain the lap dogs of the out-of-control, major polluters and we are paying dearly for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_ozone

Dear Keith

You invited me to let you know where you sit in my estimation.

You're fine by me sport. There's a bunch I don't get about climate-change too.

Like, for instance, it's bloody cold here on the farm tonight and I'm burning wood from a tree that died here years ago to keep my family warm. I don't think it's wrong because we own the land and look after it and produce food to feed people from it. Plus, as mentioned it's bloody cold.

Nowadays, lots of meeja types will tell me it's bad to burn the wood because it's throwing carbon into the atmosphere. But I'm thinking, didn't the tree on our land which has been in the family for many generations, already off-set (for eighty or so years as a yellow-box gum)those less desirable elements given off in warming my family during the course of its life here on our farm before it died?

And, without wanting to sound like the hippy I'm possibly not worthy of being, isn't the burning of dead wood returning energy to the eco-system which was received from the sun in the first place to benefit & foster life?

Buggered if I know. Anyway, I envy your lifestyle Keith. Reckon the sea would be warmer than here tonight. Hope the weather where you are holds.

Warm regards

Simon Bedak
Wagga Wagga

I'm still waiting for the the AGW Cultists to explain why the new ice core data of 2003 reveals that CO2 follows GW by 800 yrs.Now this is a very simple proposition.Dr David Evans once believed that CO2 rose in ppm first thus causing temp increases or GW.Now the new undisputed science reveals that the reverse is true!

This is the whole basis upon which Al Gore and the majority of scientists who were once were true believers in AGW Theory,continue to perpetuate this notion of CO2 causing AGW.Now the whole premise upon which they have based their theory has fallen asunder!

Would some true believer on OLO come to the fore and argue the facts?The silence is deafening.

"Now the whole premise upon which they have based their theory has fallen asunder!"

Not at all Arjay. The denial industry (including Andrew Bolt) continue in their endeavours to influence readers into believing something that is simply not true. They try to muddy the waters so that people are confused and therefore restrained from lobbying governments and leaders to take responsible and correct action (whilst they continue to rake in record profits).

One needs to read the facts first.

The following links may be helpful. I can offer additional links if you require more clarification.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/10/bolty-sprung_07.html

As if you can point out where I "personally attack" David Flint, keith. I said the article is complete trash - which it is. It does his side of the coin no favours whatsoever.

Furthermore, lulz @ "list".