Further to Graham's argument--came across this interesting piece when reading about other issues:

“ Ice core data suggest that from about 30,000 year ago until the last glacial maximum about 18,000 years ago, the Earth’s climate fluctuated wildly, sometimes within the space of decades.”
National Geographic -October 2008 (The Last of the Neanderthal)

Some what sobering when viewed against some of the predictions being made on the basis of short-term temperate changes!

Graham, we can agree to disagree and I must conclude that you are not concerned over climate change and wish to maintain the status quo.

The status quo allows industry to violate the legislated Environmental Protection Act 24/7 - 365 days/year with impunity. The Act was legislated some forty years ago (and ignored) and included in the objectives were:

“All reasonable and practicable measures should be taken to minimise the generation of waste and its discharge into the environment

“A person who intentionally or with criminal negligence causes pollution; or

"Allows pollution to be caused commits an offence.” etc etc

The environmentally destructive activities of pollutant industries continues and their criminal activities have destroyed ecosystems, polluted air, soils, water and are responsible for massive human illnesses and mortalities.

Since it appears that you are opposed to an ETS, please offer your solutions on how we can take action to prevent these crimes against humanity which are being perpetrated by Australian based pollutant industries and encouraged by successive corrupt governments:

1. ENVIRONMENT-CHILE: Activists Try to Block Start of (Barrick Gold’s) Pascua Lama Mine to mine at 4,000 metres altitude in the Andes mountains:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46895

2. “Newmont Mining Corporation agreed Thursday to pay $30 million to Indonesia in a settlement of a civil lawsuit in which the government argued that the company had polluted a bay with arsenic and mercury.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/international/asia/17indonesia.html?_r=1

3. MINING giant Barrick Gold were fined only a 'pittance' for spilling 4.5 million litres of toxic waste, toxicologists and Kalgoorlie residents say.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24071770-5017009,00.html

4. Villagers sue BHP Billiton for $5billion

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/09/2620966.htm

5. BHP Billiton faces shareholder concern over irresponsible conduct across four continents

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=517

6. Second delay in (Alcoa’s) Wagerup refinery dust case appalling, says magistrate

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=146&ContentID=137804

7. THE upper limit of airborne lead allowed in the mining state of Queensland is now 10 times higher than permissible levels in the US

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24613205-23289,00.html

8. Barrick’s operations have destroyed livelihoods and the environment around the world. Communities from Argentina to Papua New Guinea protest:

http://protestbarrick.net/downloads/barrick_report.pdf

Are you with these eoc-terrorists or agin them? Please advise.

Protagoras, the thread was about the separation of church and state. I suggest if you want to discuss the issues you have just raised instead of hijacking this thread you start your own.

And if you are asking me whether I support companies breaking the law, then I don't. Emitting CO2 doesn't constitute breaking the law, or we'd all be run in for breathing, and I'm not sure how you link your previous comment to the discussion we were having.

So, can I ask you to start your own thread and then we can take it from there?

"Emitting CO2 doesn't constitute breaking the law,"

Sorry Graham it does.

Prior to commencing my own thread, why not take a crash course in environmental toxicology?

You may then understand that CO2 is the progeny of several hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds - not least the "regulated" benzene - a category 1 carcinogen or essentially, the BTEX group - benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene which burn to carbon dioxide.

Another example, carbon monoxide elevates ground level ozone and methane prior to oxidizing to carbon dioxide and so on.

Then you have the "regulated" mining emissions of particulate matter, dioxins, chromium, lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, nickel etc etc.

I trust the information is helpful particularly in view of the rampant emissions of these chemicals from the self-regulated industries to which I have referred.

Protagoras, why is it that the lesser well-informed are always advising others to get an education? You can copy and paste all you like, but CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it there would be no intelligent carbon-based life on earth.

The fact that it can be used to produce harmful chemicals is neither here nor there. So can many, if not most, molecules. Are you going to label oxygen and water as pollutants too because they can also be used to create harmful chemicals?

I'm waiting to approve your pollution thread. Enough trolling on this one.

"Protagoras, why is it that the lesser well-informed are always advising others to get an education? You can copy and paste all you like, but CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it there would be no intelligent carbon-based life on earth."

Graham - I keep trying to escape but you keep distorting the science so it is not I who is trolling.

For instance, while benzene (which burns to CO2) is released from forest fires and volcanoes, it is miniscule compared to industrial emissions.

I don't usually "cut and paste" since being a member of a government appointed advisory committee on the issue of hazardous industrial emissions, where I was provided with all the scientific literature necessary, there has been no need.

But since you deny the science, I have taken the trouble to find you a couple of "cut and pastes" as I don't know how to download hard copies.

You see Graham, anyone can challenge another's suppositions but they need to provide firm evidence if they want to challenge a science which happens to be basic chemistry and where there is consensus among all scientific communities - that's elementary my dear Graham:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/physical_science/chemistry/carbon_monoxide.html&edu=high

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:WYViR8lV0z4J:www.slideshare.net/crispassinato/sandrogreco-chapt06+benzene+burns+to+CO2&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Cheers