the simple thing is legislate that poluters pay for polution,..if your found to have poluted a river..anywhere in the world there is no safe place...SIMPLY>>apply the rules we allready have..its that simple

i have heard people paid to enforce the rules..get a rough time when they simply try to do the job..their paid to do...

as i wrote at other posts the carbon tax/shrills are simply being used/conned by the nuclear/wind/solar industries..needing to sell their product

it is noticable that many spokes-people are economists...their spiel is its cheaper to start now...lol..[what their really saying is we want the trillion dollar income now...to do more polution..

to create the new green bubble...to start trading ever reducing carbon credits...and get our big bonus on the limited..[and reducing..capped carbon permits..[dispensations to keep poluting

as i said before..if carbon credits were a real solution...we all would get a fair share of allocated carbon credits..[globally]...

and people who dont use theirs could sell them..[think of the poor of the world able to sell their carbon/shares..to eat..or by medicine or school/educate/cloth..their kids

how it should go..is every person in the world..gets a new carbon/credit card..[just for carbon credits componant..of a new gst type tax,..that when you run out of credit you THEN pay..[buy more...but no..its a tax..we get put on everything...from when it becomes compulsory..day 1

worse..a tax govt gives to the biggest poluters..who then get the proffit ..from selling them to their mate..[al gore]...who has allready set up the carbon trading bank..lol...no wonder he is selling franchises...

we been conned again..[to lobby..for nice clean nuke power..lol...[or nice expensive wind..or solar cells..[that need to be cleaned by a special solvent..1000 times worse than carbon]...yes..special intrests are at it..with fear mongering..yet again...

so the wealthy..take the govt/created-credits..onto the global/carbon commodities trading-floor..to sell to the highest poluters..

even taxing the poorest of the poor..[who never get any credit..[nor food..but will get the tax...lol

Under One God - please explain -

If this is all simply about raising new taxes then why are all those governments who consider such actions so keen on committing collective electoral suicide?

Where are the extra votes in further penalising people and economies already in the grip of a financial crisis?

The politicians who introduce such measures will have been long gone before any financial "benefit" flows into government coffers.

What of the non-democratic countries who don't need to win the support of voters - why are they even talking about it?

If this is just a baseless scam, it would be politically better to just ignore it until it goes away or come out strongly against it.

It doesn't matter what Fielding or the rest of the "unrepresentative swill" think - I doubt he'll still be around after the next Senate election - but when is Turnbull going to make a stand and declare himself a born-again denier?

Like far too many threads this one has gone to the Gods.
Yes all of them, religions and even nature gets its followers.
Fact is this senator is a dill, watch this space he is telling science it is wrong.
Do we truly think temperatures are not rising.
We humanity, must soon understand its us not God not anything but us who must be accountable for our actions and damage to the planet.
In the name not of the many Gods, yes yours too, but humanity look at the issue not your religious beliefs.
Worth searching the story this morning in Punch, see a link at the Sydney tele, the bloke is a few marbles short of bag a joke in fact.

Belly, "Do we truly think temperatures are not rising?": The IPCC estimates that global temperature has warmed by less than a degree over the past 150 years. IPCC says there's a 90% certainty that CO2 is a "significant factor" (not the single or necessarily principal factor). Some sceptics point to the Urban Heat Island Effect, which suggests that the temperature measuring stations in some places are measuring heat from energy caused by urbanisation, infrastructure development, etc. The counterpoint to this view is that the Heat Island Effect is accounted for in the computer models as an assumption. The sceptics then respond by saying this is unreliable, too, as no actual scientific surveys of the stations has been undertaken on behalf of the IPCC.

And on it goes.... It's called a debate. It happens when things aren't settled.

Then there's another layer: Okay, yes, the planet is warming over 150 years BUT is this potentially catastrophic? No scientific consensus here at all, just competing views. The computer models can be useful but nothing trumps observation and theory in science.

But, let's assume that global warming is potentially catastrophic. What next? Well, there's another unresolved scientific issue: is CO2 really the principal driver of the warming?

But, hey, it gets more complicated. Let's assume the above is true, then the next question is: what to do about it?! Scientists are no better on this one than the rest of us. Nuclear is an obvious solution if the concern is CO2. In fact, it was at the behest of the nuclear industry, against the coal industry and uinons, that Margaret Thatcher first made 'global warming' an international issue back in 1979 or 1980.

Questions questions questions! Doubts doubts doubts. Anything else strikes me as essentially religious and dogmatic, on either side; though it is the greenies who display the greater dogmatism by far. This is because, contrary to impressions, they are backed by political power and an extremely sympathetic mainstream media.

The chance of my house burning down is relatively small, yet I choose to take out insurance - just in case.

The chance of me winning Lotto is astronomically small, yet I believe every ticket I buy may win.

The chance that those Global Warming predictions are correct are better than the odds of either of the two incidents above but I'm not ready to "bet the whole planet" that they are wrong.

There are people who insist that the Nazi Holocaust never happened and some really believe the Moon landing was a hoax.

Some say that there could not have been a US Government conspiracy involved in 911 but blindly accept a global conspiracy on Global Warming.

In truth nobody KNOWS for sure, although there is significant consensus in one direction. It comes down to what people are prepared to accept or willing to reject.

Rache, You say you're not willing to bet the 'whole planet' on the chance that "those Global Warming predictions" are incorrect.

A problem with this is that the IPCC does not make predictions. It deals with scenarios that are computer-modelled. Nothing wrong with that - except when the scenarios aren't matching observed data. What are the 'predictions' you speak of? What is the scientific consensus behind them? IPCC concludes that in the worst scenario, sea levels will rise by 59 cms, if we take no action. Yet Al Gore reckons sea levels could rise by 100 metres!

The difference is between a scenario, backed by a scientific consensus through the IPCC, that points to an entirely manageable 'worst outcome', on one hand, and a scenario that lacks any scientific consensus whatsoever but which makes for an effective and successful Hollywood movie/doco, on the other. Fifty-nine centimetres requires an adaptive response rather than one that would put scores of thousands of workers out of work in Australia alone, and reduce energy consumption (standard of living) through higher energy costs. It's the poor who will suffer most.

This one example - and I could systematically go through others - shows how the risk is not the future of the whole planet at all - not if you follow the IPCC instead of Al Gore.

A genuine sceptic could never believe the Holocaust didn't happen, or that the Moon landing was a hoax, because scpeticism is about intellectual rebellion, about questioning authority and received wisdom rather than accepting it just because it comes from authority (be that authority the state, or a religious leader, or an Academy of Science).

I share your view on one point, though: sceptics who imply that there is some kind of conspiracy among the thousands of scientists who take an alarmist stance on global warming are wrong and do their cause no credit on that point. Having worked in the research field as an academic, however, I also know how individuals and research centres become dependent on funding and career advancement and end up toeing a self-perpetuating line.