Given the shenanigans going on in the Liberal (sic) party over AGW, that is based on offsets. Their argument is about action V no action.
My concerns are with the ETS, bacause it's based on off-sets.
this exert give a fair representation of the problem.....

"Carbon offsetting and carbon markets haven't really delivered the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions they claimed and in many ways have just made the problem worse,' they explained.
'These schemes have often just provided an incentive for big polluting companies to continue emitting greenhouse gases rather than to change their ways.
'Often, carbon offsetting schemes have very negative effects on local communities and eco-systems in developing countries.'
The book contributes to a growing field of critics of carbon markets by highlighting several up-to-date examples of where the system has failed and often led to negative social, economic and environmental impacts in deprived countries.
'Carbon markets simply don't address the underlying and root causes of climate change, which is an over-consumption of finite fossil fuels,' added Dr Böhm and Mr Dabhi. 'We are addicted to oil, gas, coal and a whole range of other fossil fuels, which, when burned for heating, electricity generation or other usages, release greenhouse gases. It is now time to make up for the lost decade since Kyoto and start to deal with our underlying reliance on fossil fuels.'
They also warn that companies claiming to be 'carbon neutral' due to carbon offsetting, need to be careful as the schemes they are supporting may not be as green as they think."
<http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/11/091127124225.htm>.

What do you think?

NB. this post isn't about the if AGW exists or not it assumes We need to do something but what

I think what's wrong with it is that nobody really understands it in any detail.

There hasn't been any serious public discussion except for scaremongering from both sides, some exaggerated but mostly irrational and aggressive.

Rudd should have engaged the public earlier and perhaps splashed out with a multi-million dollar "eduction campaign" (as per Howard's GST) and maybe thrown in a fridge magnet ot two.

Assuming that the public was smart enough to decide for itself has apparently fallen short and turned what should have been a serious global matter into a political sideshow.

The Libs are just as guilty - they had ample opportunity to make their views clearly known a couple of years ago and not just wait till a political opportunity to cash in presented itself.

A simpler method would be for everybody to pay a flat levy on pre-determined items with no compensation or upper limit. Rationing fuel and electricity would be a good option too but policially unpalatable - hence this version of the ETS.

Another option is to ignore it and face the inevitable tariff barriers that would be thrown up against us by other compliant nations in the years ahead.

Good question Examinator.

I won’t attempt to answer it in this post. I just want to say that I find it absolutely incredible that with all the Liberal Party kerfuffle about Turnbull’s support for Rudd’s ETS, just about no one seems interested in the actual ETS or the concessions won by the Libs.

Turnbull has said that his concessions will save thousands of jobs and make the ETS more effective. And yet I haven’t seen or heard any elaboration on this.

All the media reports about the Libs leadership and the unrest that is happening as a result of Turnbull supporting Rudd seem to have completely bypassed any discussion on the veracity of the ETS or of Turnbull’s assertion that he has won improvements to it.

I think that people within the shadow government, within the broader party membership and indeed within the whole community, are supporting Turnbull, Hockey, Abbott or Minchin without knowing anything about the ETS at the centre of the row.

The media just doesn’t seem interested and neither do the public!! The actual ETS seems to be vastly less important than the leadership contest. It can apparently wait til later.

And yet surely people need to know in order to have an informed opinion.

Once the leadership issue has been settled, the vast majority of people who are now interested, who are expressing their opinions and voting in polls, will have lost interest and won’t give two hoots about the detail of the ETS!

This is really quite bizarre and rather depressing.

whats wrong is...its based on fraud...modeling and altered facts...and media silence...and govt complicity..into treason



see/the collapse of capitalism...its tortally/totally/broke

the banker's... been calling the tune...you should allready know...
were under the terms of bankruptcy..thus govt has become subverted...the system is broke

the new tax is only to try and push a broken system..
into its next bubble...regradless of its cost...

they are in total/global control..there is a better way...we dont/need the buirdon...they need this bailout[the..carbon/tax]

but its bound to fail...un-employed dont spend much..so here is the new deal

we pass..the tax..IMMEDIATLY...but with a sunset-clause...for a full reviuw...in 2012...with the true/numbers



this..gets us out of..the immediate meltdown...that will force our best leaders..into treason...in copenhagen

...BUT THE SUNSET CLAUSE...must be set in stone
'business'..gets/what they want....immediatly...to test their way...BUT we/HAVE A FULL YEAR,..TO REVIEUW...this gloobal warming deception...put it all on trial...in 2 year's...it is bound to fail...because its based..on lies

http://www.prisonplanet.com/momentum-grows-for-copenhagen-climate-deal.html

http://www.infowars.com/hot-climategate-debate-scientists-clash-live-on-rt/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-master-criminal-phil-jones-collected-22-6-million-in-grants.html

http://www.infowars.com/gore-says-supercomputing-can-be-killer-app-in-climate-change/

Climate change:..this is the worst scientific/scandal of our generation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Scientists..at the University of East Anglia..(UEA)..have admitted..throwing away..much of the raw temperature data..on which their predictions of global warming..are based.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-spells-end-to-the-false-science-of-climate-change.html

Climategate:..The Silence is Deafening..from the Corporate Media
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-the-silence-is-deafening-from-the-corporate-media.html

By now..most of us..in the alternative media.are aware of the some 61 megabytes..of global warming research data of emails,..documents,..and computer code..released by whistleblowers

that have exposed/climate scientists,..at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain,..as the frauds..they’ve proven themselves to be.

“Climategate”..surpasses..“Global Warming”.on Google
http://www.prisonplanet.com/%e2%80%9cclimategate%e2%80%9d-surpasses-%e2%80%9cglobal-warming%e2%80%9d-on-google.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-for-dummies.html

Lord Monckton:..Shut Down The UN,..Arrest Al Gore
http://www.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckton-shut-down-the-un-arrest-the-warmist-criminals.html

Appearing..on The Alex Jones-Show..yesterday,..Lord Christopher Monckton..went further than ever before..in his vehement opposition to..the elitists..running the climate change..scam,

http://www.prisonplanet.com/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story.html

UN scientists..turn on each other:..UN Scientist..Declares Climategate colleagues Mann,Jones and Rahmstorf..’should be barred from the IPCC process’..They are..‘not credible/..any more’

http://climatedepot.com/a/4100/UN-scientists-turn-on-each-other-UN-Scientist-Declares-Climategate-colleagues-Mann-Jones-and-Rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-IPCC-process--They-are-not-credible-any-more

A UN scientist..is declaring..that his three fellow UN climate/panel colleagues..“should be barred..from the IPCC process.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-great-climate-change-science-scandal.html

lots of key-word links
http://www.prisonplanet.com/un-scientists-turn-on-each-other-un-scientist-declares-climategate-colleagues-mann-jones-and-rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-ipcc-process-they-are-not-credible-any-more.htm

Ludwig,
I'm not sure if to admire your optimism or be dismayed by your political bias, to the exclusion of meaningful policy.

The issue in the Libs has nothing to do with the ETS. The two issues are about conservatism V Liberalism as in Menzies, And the Conservatives FLAT REJECTION of AGW (full stop). Howard guillotined public discussion on the two options. But in recognition of the Conservatives in the party he pushed no response to AGW required.

The two options floated were a flat carbon Tax or an ETS. The business sector wanted an ETS because it offered the least hit to their bottom line (or biggest cushion from reality).

I believe that most fair minded Aussies have no problem paying a little extra on bills if it is going to genuinely help the environment. Even the most gullible Green knows that this tax is about putting funds into the hands of corrupt African and third world leaders just so Mr Rudd's ego can be stroked. If the Australian public really knew what this scam was about Rudd would be tossed out at the next election despite the pathetically divided opposition. Thankfully a few members of the opposition were had enough integrity to be a voice of reason among the deceitfulness of the 'experts' and spin merchants. The national broadcasters are sounding more pathetic each day as they have promoted this indefensible money grab after making such a fuss over the GST. At least Mr Howard was honest about what he was doing with the money. The States have all benefited from the GST. Corruption will be the winner if the ETS is agreed to. It certainly won't help the environment.

“I'm not sure if to admire your optimism or be dismayed by your political bias, to the exclusion of meaningful policy.”

Sorry Examinator, I don’t understand what you mean.

“The issue in the Libs has nothing to do with the ETS.”

Yes it does. You see, that’s the really depressing thing about this – that many people do actually think that the policy position that Turnbull and Rudd have agreed upon has got nothing to do with the leadership debacle!

It is not a matter the Libs’ infighting being seen as more important than the ETS agreement, it is a matter of….’um, what ETS? Oh, that ETS. Oh, I’d forgotten all about that insignificant detail!!’

The flat rejection of AGW in the conservative ranks of the Libs has led them to be outraged by Turnbull agreeing to a Ruddite ETS. So you can hardly say that the ETS has nothing to do with the situation.

I am biased.
In favor of what I believe to be true and honest.
Not a political party including the one I am a member of.
I know we will pay for this, pay too much.
I am angry we stopped the solar rebate, think it is a fraud to do so.
Am truly concerned that we those who are not rich but not poor, will pay an unfair amount for this.
But I truly think we have no choice, we must reduce our outputs and improve our management of the planet.
For the first time in his leadership roll Turnbull has looked statesman like, yes he went too far, insulted too many.
But he was telling the truth, every word he has uttered was true.
Tomorrow Hockey will lead, he takes a death sentence for his trouble, he can not repair this shredded mess, he should not have to, in time he would have made it, not now but his party needs him.
But it needs to see the end of fools who put their rat bag ideas the ETS is a left wing conspiracy in front of their party behind them.
They are never going to live this down.
OUG your ramblings seem to make since compared to some offered by anti Turnbull forces, stretching it a bit but nearly true.

Examinator, you can't just say a post is not about if AGW exists, & expect to get away with it. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of math, physics, & chemistry, knows it doesn't, & that's where the problem lies.

People with the wrong education have just believed the "scientists", despite the Petition Project, signed by 31,000 US scientists, including 9000 PHDs, stating it was not true. You have been very poorly served by our ABC, & other greenie loving media on this.

Talk about the goings on in the Libs, why not try the goings on in Global Warming central, [sorry climate change now]. These blokes have been caught with their pants down, their fingers in the pie, & the emperors clocloths missing, all at once. Some will probably end up in the clink, & you still believe it, wow.

No one who had really looked at all the evidence could have believed it, unless it suited their ideology to do so. Now, even the greenie media are starting to back away, but most reluctantly.

Thank god some libs have the guts to put their future on the line, for a bit of truth. Pity none of the labor blokes, many who know how thick the BS has been spread, don't have the same guts.

It's a pity that Hockey is probably not smart enough to know what's what. Where's bomber Beasley, when we need him.

In a couple of years time, people will be changing their names to get some of the Global Warming dirt, off their records. Pity about the kids, who have had this cr4p fed into them by silly little girl school teachers. It may take a while for them to sort themselves out.

Interesting KRuddy & co are backing away from their double dissolution election. They know what else may shortly surface, with the scam, & know damn well, none of it would survive the harsh spotlight of a tough election campaign, with many of the public all ready waking up.

Communism, Y2K, Global Warming. I wonder what the next big con will be?

Examinator, you pose two questions. “What’s wrong with the ETS?” and “What do we do about it?”

I guess we need to be confident about the “question” before we can evaluate the answer. If the question was how do we reduce our carbon emissions? Then many will ask, How DOES the ETS reduce carbon emissions? And the answer is? I don’t know. Do you?

At this stage (according to a recent Galaxy Poll) I am in the 82% majority who can’t answer that question. I assume that if the government taxes us to the tune of $11bn a year, some will go to bureaucracy, some will go to legal compliance, some to carbon inspectors, some will go to compensation (at least in the short term), some will go to “new” green industries and some will go to the UN to create a fund to “help” developing nations. Since this tax will all go into general revenue, who knows what will go towards what it is intended, that is carbon reduction. How much and to what effect?

To answer to the first part of your question “What’s wrong with the ETS?”, we can’t give you an answer because we don’t understand it, therefore it doesn’t matter if it is good, bad, big, little or hoorayuktifah.

What to do with it? Defer it until the government is willing or able to explain “it”, that is the only answer at this stage.

Please note that, as per your “assumption close” I have not challenged AGW. That, my dear Sir, is another difficult question that has yet to be answered.

Perhaps your question should have been "why do we need an ETS?"

What is wrong with the ETS is that it is particularly bad for
small business, in particular those reliant on exports or those
competing with imports. Take agriculture, virtually every
input on a farm, has an electricity cost component, the same with
downstream processing of agricultural products. Whack up
electricity prices by 30%, costs, inflation will rise.

Who will benefit? Well it won't make a scrap of difference to
climate. The Govt will benefit, as it will have huge amounts
of money to use for pork barrelling, to buy votes at the next
elections.

"What's wrong with the ETS?"

It's based off junk, fraudulent science and is a sinister tax based on said science!

"What do we do about it?"

Stop wasting electrons and creating more pollution talking about it.
Bury it deep in landfill where it belongs. So deep as never to be found by another corrupt, greedy, loony poly-tick ever agian.

To speak/write anymore about it should be a crime against humanity, punishable by death!

Part of what is wrong with ETS is that it set out to be a comprehensive system that would try and do something about all emissions. The problem here is that some emissions are a lot harder and/or more costly to fix than others. Because of this, at any given "price on carbon" there will be many emissions for which it will make more commercial sense to accept the price increase and do nothing about the emissions. To try and reduce the damage done by these unproductive price increases the government has effectively excluded many emissions from the scheme by the use of compensation, free credits etc. In effect, CPRS is an "exclude by exception" system.
However, it may make more sense to take the opposite approach and "include by exception". This means focusing on a very limited number of emissions at any one time and only adding extra action if it will reduce the average cost per tonne of reduction.

examinator

I share your concerns about carbon offsetting and for all the same reasons. As you've pointed out, it just allows the big carbon emitters to continue on polluting as usual. It does nothing to encourage them to change their ways and lower their emissions. The European experience is already revealing many problems for the poorer nations doing the offsetting, especially for the locals directly affected.

Another problem with the ETS is the number of free permits that have been handed out. Again, it's business as usual for all these big winners, with little incentive to encourage them to switch to new energy sources.

I originally went along with Rudd's proposal, even though the targets were pitifully inadequate, thinking that any scheme was better than none. But I've since changed my mind and decided that we really do need to start again.

Because this scheme would lock us into low targets, when they were increased further down the track which they would obviously have to be, those companies affected by the changes would then be entitled to compensation. So, not only would our taxes have funded all these free permits in the first place, but we'd also be up for huge payouts as the targets were increased.

So, frustrating as it is, with all the time wasted already, and all the opportunites lost, particularly with Howard's ten years of denial, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that this scheme is so badly flawed that proceeding with it would be next to useless.

I think a carbon tax would more likely facilitate the switch to new energy sources we so urgently need. The money raised could then be fed into developing renewable energy sources, improving public transport, setting up feed-in solar tarriffs, fostering sustainable industries and green jobs and subsiding household energy efficiencies.

The one good that could emerge from the likely implosion of the Opposition is a massive shift of support to the Greens, who really are the true opposition when it comes to climate change. They're the ones who've been keeping abreast of this debate for decades now.

Ludwig,

It seems to clear to everyone involved that the issue is about control Power of the Liberal party. I've clearly made my point on other topics.

In my experience/opinion politicians real motives are rarely as they state.

the ETS is arguably not the primary objective here it is merely the rallying point (excuse).

There maybe a few who are voting on that as a principal but I'll bet that isn't so with the main protagonists, Minchin,Robb and co.

This is not about the politics, it's about looking at the ETS as an method to reduce AGW, pollution etc.

Hasbeen,
The existence of AGW in not under question here, it's trying to have a discussion of what are the flaws IN the ETS as a solution, NOT SHOULD WE HAVE ONE.

I do wish, you and others would read the QUOTE I posted. Then read the whole article and follow them up before posting. YOU ARE ANSWERING THE WRONG QUESTION. You are simply expressing your prejudice again.

Spindoc,
I wish you would read the quote, and then the web site posted. Then you would understand the question I'm asking.
I'm assuming that sooner or later we are going to get one, simply look at what the US, Europe and the Chinese are doing.

As a previous poster put it, we haven't had a good public discussion about the merits of a ETS, as opposed to a carbon tax etc. We have allowed our politicians, IMO, to be swayed by Big polluters, to go the route that is best for their short term bottom line, not necessarily for us in the long run.

It strikes me as common sense to understand that if, as it seems, AGW is real, and that we have some input in what is going to be enacted on our behalf. It makes no sense, putting all our eggs into the "no we don't believe in AGW basket". We are doing our selves a disservice by not understanding all the options needed or not.

By the end of 2010 the ETS will be nearly a world wide thing.
By the last sitting of this senate it will be law in Australia.
In months we will see Liberals, well most of them, ask was it worth destroying the party?
I answer for them now, no!
Greens? Bronwyn sure you understand?
Even now their radicalism is extreme, and wasteful.
Remember they want a scheme that is truly Nation destroying.
Look closely at what they ask for.
NEVER let them of the hook, they have a scheme on the wish list that if implemented would kill our economy.
And if EVER a vote for them is a wasted one it is now, Hockey may well marginals them by passing back log of bills in the upper house, he has to be smart enough to know his interests lay in highlighting the extremes of greens.
ETS? never mind time and the written word hold OLO climate change skeptics accountable forever

How the BBC funds climate change ‘revolutionaries’

At least Futerra can take comfort from the fact that its clients, the BBC, have done their best to play down Climategate

http://www.prisonplanet.com/how-the-bbc-funds-climate-change-revolutionaries.html

Attention Lawyers! Make Millions Off Of Climategate Crooks!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/attention-lawyers-make-millions-off-of-climategate-crooks.html

“There’s gold in them thar hills!” Lawyers need to get off their butts, and realize what a financial bonanza the Climategate criminal scam represents. The possibilities for financial remuneration are mind boggling.

Search Engines Censoring ClimateGate?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/search-engines-censoring-climategate.html

A fantastic article written by Christopher Brooker of the London Telegraph exposing the climate change fraud rocketed to the very top of a Google News search for “global warming,” only to disappear hours later.

David Archibald on Climategate
http://www.prisonplanet.com/david-archibald-on-climategate.html

The only thing that the Climategate emails tell us about the peer review process is that it was used as a gate-keeping exercise to keep sceptical papers out of the system.

Operation: Arrest the Crimatologists
http://www.prisonplanet.com/operation-arrest-the-crimatologists.html

The millions of people who are following the twists and turns of the unfolding climategate scandal online are increasingly asking themselves the same question: if a scientific theory falls in the forest and there’s no reporter willing to cover it, does it make a sound?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-scandal-demonstrates-intellectual-protectionism-of-modern-scientists.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-hoax.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/who-funds-the-warmists.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-change-data-dumped.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-medieval-warm-period-%e2%80%93-a-global-phenomenon-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/vincent-gray-on-climategate-%e2%80%98there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along%e2%80%99.html

Examiner;
The ETS is in detail an unknown to many of us.
A simple tax would have much more appeal to the general public.
The credit system has a reputation of failure and not be effective in
reducing CO2 emissions.
The credits have a smell of the church's Indulgences of the middle ages.
Martin Luther, where are you ?
The Russians cleaned up at the expense of the Europeans.
The financial people are already to go with their futures trading in
CO2 credits and derivitaves. Does all this ring any bells ?

Then on top of it all we have the so called *Climategate*

Whats wrong with ETS?

It is simply a tax that may not be required. One that will cost us plenty and do nothing about reducing emmisions, as the big polluters are let off.

'Climategate' will continue to expose the rorts and deceits that have occured in the CRU and IPCC and as the world is cooling, immediate action is not required. The theory of AGW is now crumbling.

Each day more and more is exposed and more scientists and the media are taking up the story of the fudging of figures, etc.

Likely now the US and UK will hold inquiry into the climate frauds, which involve billions of dollars, so let us wait on that outcome.

It will be hard for most climate evangelists to accept that the world is not warming, but they have been gullible in accepting false data for years. Time for a reality check.

I challenge all thinking Australians to declare they have a considered opinion on the problems of climate chamge.Any voter in a Democracy has no responsibility to study the science.All members of Parliament HAVE!

The present Government should be trusted to have done so and come to a Policy position.The Opposition should have studied the subject independently and put up amendments they support as a party.

The latest reversal of this process, ending in another change of leadership and disregarding the reasons they may have had, 42 versus 41 of the opposition have said "Lets go back on the gains we made, welsh on the deal with the Government and our shadow Minister and Leader".

Australians are not ashamed to act or weak enough to hesitate and wait to see what other countries do first.Abbott, Minchin,Tuckey will go down in political history as names of weak skeptics who lost

Those who think the ETS is doing something positive for the planet might as well believe in Santa Claus.

There are a number of options for acting on climate change. These include comprehensive systems based on putting a price on carbon such as CPRS and carbon taxes as well as more direct action plans that focus on a limited number of options for reducing emissions. They all have the potential to reduce emissions by well over 50% using technologies that are already commercially available.
Penny Wong has done a good job of identifying the potential problem with any ETS system and proposing solutions to these problems. Carbon taxes avoid some of the uncertainty, speculator profits and administration costs associated with ETS. However, much of the complexity required for a workable ETS system will still be required for a carbon tax. There will be a need for exceptions, compensation etc to avoid sudden disruption of the economy.
Direct action plans that don't put a price on carbon avoid most of the complexity of comprehensive systems since action is restricted to emissions for commercially fixes are available and price increases only ramp up in line with increased costs.
It will take until well after the next election for CPRS to have any real effect. Before committing to CPRS it would make sense to conduct a detailed comparison of the alternatives to CPRS before the final commitment.

We will have an ETS Liberals re entered the cave today in ruins, we will see them battle after this for years.
Work choices harmed them, this may yet kill them.
A bounce for Abbott if it comes will only last a short time its end will see him fall below both his past leaders, Hockey is not done yet but Liberals are.

Well, as always, my question is "what is the rush"?

Why not wait until Copenagen and see what the rest of the world, the 'real CO2 generators' are doing, then we will be better informed about the whole thing. Otherwise, we will simply be placing yet another hurdel in front of our business traders.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no trophy on offer for being the first in this race.

Diploman

I would suggest under your argument we will get the politician we deserve not need.

I would also suggest that when it comes to the three evil that threaten us at the moment we are obliged to be relatively knowledgeable about the facts not necessarily the number crunching details of the science.

Sadly many poster don't have a real clue, so how can they knowledgeably put pressure on our governments or assess when the or if what is being done in their name is remotely appropriate.

I do agree that politician should be there are at least competent to make proper decisions.

*Why not wait until Copenagen and see what the rest of the world, the 'real CO2 generators' are doing*

Because Kevie wants to strutt the world stage and pretend he's
a global leader who matters. Slugging the economy with 120 billion
$ of taxes, pork barreling some to buy votes for the next elections
would have been handy too.

In the end it seems, Turnbull got done over by Labor's strategy here
and it cost him his job.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Malcolm-Turnbull-ETS-Rudd-Government-Liberal-pd20091201-YARLS?OpenDocument&src=ea&ir=4

.

If the government does not go for a double dissolution then we are
backto square one.
We can now put into the IPCC's climate modelling computer program the
uncorrupted temperature data as well as the expected depletion in oil
consumption.
I understand that the climate researches either did not believe in oil
production (or consumption) reduction, at present around 2%, or they
may have thought it would produce an unwanted result.
This is consistent with their attitude to other unwelcome data.

If it was in the IPCC program, in 10 years the oil consumption could
be down by 30% to 40%. Also by then peak coal will be imminent.

These additional parameters could change the output significantly.

Examinator, I like your style. It must be very hard for you to “Soar like an Eagle when you are grounded with the Turkeys”. That’s why you resort to patronizing self intellectualization and “shouting”.

<<Spindoc,
I wish you would read the quote, and then the web site posted. Then you would understand the question I'm asking. I'm assuming that sooner or later we are going to get one, simply look at what the US, Europe and the Chinese are doing.>> (what are they doing bye the way? Other than making uncommitted noises about “maybe’s)

You made two assumption closes, firstly that AGW exists and secondly, that an ETS (of some description) is inevitable when you said <<I'm assuming that sooner or later we are going to get one>>.

The second assumption you made was on the basis that the first was a given. I’m glad you’re not running any business of mine!

I suggested that your question should have been “Why do we need an ETS?” Your position was about what type of ETS rather that what genuine alternatives are there?

Well, we could use lots of renewables, unfortunately for you the protest industry is in NIMBY mode and Dams are out, wind farms kill birds and Nuclear power will kill us all quicker than coal. Were it not for these minor issues we could have been developing a low carbon society for 50 years.

Lets me say it again examinator, “what we seek to avoid, we create”. The protest industry and the warmers have sought to “avoid” a dirty planet, in doing so they have “created” one.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal and The Australian, a quote from a programmer of the CRU’s climate data base.

“I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight…We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

You wish to debate it? then stop avoiding it! You remind me of Emperor Nero.

Spindoc,

Caps to me are emphasis, if OLO had italics, I would have used them.
Not shouting.

As for what form ETS.
I said originally, The topic was about what's wrong with the ETS as opposed to other methodologies. Not if it was needed i.e. is global warming is real based conversation.?
The post was about the weaknesses of an ETS as our probable solution. Sorry if it wasn't clear, I thought it was.

Did you watch MM on 7.30 report and Sterns on late line? MM said an ETS was on the cards, we'd follow the US and they're going down that route.
NB in a new topic I indicate why IMO the 'not now' argument is a faux one.

My desire to talk about the ETS was because I still believe that it will happen if only because of other nations influence on us.

I *admit* I do get frustrated with some who don't seem to either understand what is written and only want to respond to an entirely different topic i.e. Rehashing yet again to is AGW real?

Has been does have a tendency to get into a mind set ignoring a slightly different approach or in fact a different topic. This topic is is a point in fact.

Any business that doesn't plan for other(opposing )high possibilities runs a greater risk of being caught 'with their pants down'. Being prepared is fore armed.

You didn't seem to be able to get past it's 'not needed' mind set. I thought the intention was clear. It was based on , what I thought was a reasonable premise i.e. assuming that we are going to get an ETS what are its problems.?

If it wasn't clear, I'm sorry.
PS the 'arrogance' in my writing is a flaw of written ability, not necessarily a reflection of my attitudes.

Examinator, OK you were not shouting, so you must be patient with the Turkeys like me and less obtuse.

Next question, did I watch the 7:30 report? Certainly not! Like the BBC in the UK, the ABC gave up any semblance of impartiality a long time ago. I hate censorship of news, especially from a public broadcaster. They should close down the ABC news/current affairs unit. This from the UK Telegraph 27/11/09:

“in the past few days, as the ripples have spread around the globe, "Climategate" has become a white hot political issue which has been seized upon by global warming skeptics and now threatens to overshadow next month's crucial climate change conference in Copenhagen”. White hot? Really, well it hasn’t spread to our ABC’s end of the globe yet?

I see an ETS of any description as outrageous because their primary focuses are NOT on carbon reduction, its on government income. I suspect that many of the proponents of AGW and the ETS are beginning to realize their culpability and want a “quick fix”. It’s bit like saying sorry. Feels good but does sod all for indigenous Australians, but hey! It’s off my plate, we said sorry.

IMO, it’s not too late to start alternative and nuclear power industries. They could certainly be reducing carbon emissions decades before an ETS will. We would however, need to rid ourselves of the protest industry rat bags, much of the public sector media, academics, the intelligentsia and internet based pseudo scientists. The French got it right with Madame La Guillotine.

As I said in my previous post if “You wish to debate it? Then stop avoiding it!”

What do you want? If it’s a debate lets go for it, or would you prefer us to say, there, there diddums, if you want to play ETS with your friends we’ll make sure they play nicely with you.

Get some meat in it examinator, stop bleating and put up your “Dukes”.

Whats wrong with the ETS ?
It is redundant, that is what is wrong.
Global warming is over, it is a none event now.

This is probably the first information where the data has been examined
in detail since the emails were published.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html

I would expect that there will be many more developments like this.
Towards the end the New Zealand data is shown to have been fiddled.
The original unadjusted data is still available and shows that New
Zealand has not warmed for 100 years.

Oh well what will we argue about now ? Peak Oil, Hi !

the fast collapsing farce...continues to unravel...im figuring maybe they lied about tha dangers of nuke power...[HALF THE PRICE OF COAL?]

seems to me a nuke station rounds off...arround a billion...one years income from the tax...could build 120 of the sukkers...and we get half price power..for a quater of a centuray

those wind mills..arnt reliable...no wind..no power...solar cells will need replacement...[after gradually declining..after as little as ten years...but no sun...no power...it seems to me that 5 nuke stations...in the latrobe...coulds gradually shut down them dirty/[but cheap]..coal fired stations

think...we only need to make steam...from nuke...pipe it into the current generators...heaps of jobs in that one...then take the coal/nuke.. conversion globally....further all the radioactive stuff gets put..from where it was mined from...in the first place

the ets...is a huge tax...and nothing comes close to coal..[except for nuke]...new gen from china..dont even need..heavey water...it has these baseball looking black balls...that arnt radio active

we have to reduce...co2...
well for less than the bailout/handout...
we can build them beside the coal stations...using the same egsistant/infastructure...and get cheaper electricity...

lol...and who needs ya new tax
heck lets build 120 of em...
from one year of what the tax..would have been...and sell off hydrogen

http://www.infowars.com/climategate-deniers-in-denial/

the Guardian and its ilk,..conveniently,..remain completely silent.

The leaked emails from the Hadley centre..reveal that..(now former)..CRU chief Phil Jones has received 55 endowments..since 1990 from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy..to NATO,..worth a total of £13,718,547,..or approximately $22.6 million.

$19 million..alone came..between the years 2000 and 2006.

Massaging the scientific data,..hiding a decline in temperatures,..hijacking the peer-review system and blackballing dissenting scientific opinion..does not look good for Jones..in the context of such financial gain.

Another document leaked from the CRU,..titled potential-funding.doc,
http://ukginger.net/FOI2009/FOIA/documents/potential-funding.doc

..lists sources of potential funding and shows that the scientists..considered pressing..“energy agencies”..that specifically deal in new technology to reduce carbon emissions.

Three agencies..listed as potential sources of funding..are UK based Carbon Trust,..the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust...Renewables North West,..an American company promoting the expansion of solar,..wind, and geothermal energy,..is listed as a fourth potential benefactor.

Of course.. all these potential financial backers..have a vested interest in maintaining the conception..that human-induced global warming is a reality..backed by science.

In an article entitled Climategate:..Follow the Money,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html

..columnist Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal..points out that the funding of climate skeptics..is a drop in the ocean compared to the huge industry..that human-driven climate change science has spawned.
http://www.infowars.com/climategate-exposes-huge-climate-fear-industry/

al gore...first carbon billionare
http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-set-to-become-first-carbon-billionaire.html

http://www.infowars.com/climategate-outrage-explodes-as-carbon-tax-agenda-collapses/

http://www.infowars.com/carbon-cops-on-the-sundance-channel/

http://www.infowars.com/flashback-greenpeace-leader-admits-arctic-ice-exaggeration/

http://www.infowars.com/gore-says-supercomputing-can-be-killer-app-in-climate-change/

http://www.infowars.com/gm-crop-skeptics-emotional-government-food-watchdog-report-claims/

http://www.infowars.com/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate/

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-prestige-on-the-line-in-copenhagen-with-climate-deal-far-from-certain/

http://www.infowars.com/inhofe-requests-hearings-on-climategate/

UOG, I think too many of your links are to the ratbag end of the
commentary scale.

A few simple points.
That there is sufficient statements in the emails alone to justify an enquiry.
It appears that the University has started an enquiry as Prof Jones
has stood down from his position.
A complaint has been made to the police of fraud with government funds.
A US senator has called for a US enquiry as some US scientists may be
involved.

Certain scientists had their papers refused for what appears to be
no good reasons, except they did not agree with the CRU policy.
They should be invited to resubmit.

It will take a considerable time for others to analyse the data and
produce reports. Also others will have to go back to square one and
produce reports not using any data from the UEA.

In my opinion, there is sufficient doubt for a cessation in very
large expenditure. Expenditure in energy saving especially of
petroleum products should continue as they will be needed anyway
no matter what the upshot of all this is.

That could take more than a year.
The Copenhagen conference will not discuss this matter except over coffee.
They are going to discuss spending Trillions with this cloud hanging
over their heads. I think they are too far down the road to turn
around no matter what evidence shows up.
The political scandal would collapse governments if Monckton is right.
He must be confident as he could be sued for what he has written.

we don't have all that time..to sift through the emails.

So here are a couple of video..overviews...
1. www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTSDK3QpMHQ (many emails covered!
2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=20dCzCp9qxM (one email covered
3. www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9IUcps8MfE (various quotes..in relation to.."Climategate"

As having a scientific background and learning..I'm absolutely shocked at these...I'm even more shocked at the response..by certain politicians in power..and the BBC..to do as much as they can to twist and downplay..the revealing of this fraud..the Global Warming Scam.

Looking at the first,..it shows the involvement/with paybacks from Big Oil../..the Oil Companies..to show Global Warming,..where there was in fact a slight decline..in global temperature..(in context,

As was already known.. it is the Oil Companies and the investors in and creditors of Oil Companies..that are the largest investors in and creditors..to Green Companies and other upstarts.

So this is not surprising that the Oil Companies..and those who have interest in them..are putting themselves in the position/to gain from the artificial..and fictitious/Carbon Credit Unit..trading system that is under..the existing banks' control..in the corporate-commercial system.

"The fact is..that..we can't account..for the lack of warming at the moment..and it is a travesty that we can't...The CERES data published in the August BAMS/09 supplement..on 2008.shows there should be even more warming:..but the data are surely wrong...Our observing&#65279; system is inadequate."

1089318616.txt.."I can't see either of these&#65279;..papers being in the next IPCC report..Kevin and I will keep them out somehow..even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is..!/Cheers Phil"

1048799107.txt.."To all Peoples of the Earth,..Earth has long been waiting for a truly global/governing body..based on universal values, human rights,..global concepts and democracy.&#65279;..Earth Government might as well be created now,..there is no longer any reason to wait...We are the Earth Community,..and..we..will form the Earth Government. ..."

0962818260.txt/0968691929.txt..show that Shell.(big oil/energy)..is funding CRU. ..They gain from benefiting..from the new Carbon Credit Unit/trading system..imposed on everyone in the global corporate-commercial system

and from the investments..they are making in the new Green/Companies that are going to get huge subsidies..."Had a very good meeting..with Shell yesterday...Only a minor part of..the agenda,"

0926947295.txt..Discussing favoring..CONSISTENT simulations over&#65279;..REALISTIC simulations;.."It's a political decision"

the connections..of CRU..with the Oil/Company..Shell,..the BBC continued to deny..the Global-Warming Scam/..and called the Global Warming.."skeptics"..and.."deniers"..conspiracy theorists,..ridiculing them...
1. www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2vwumRA6oY
2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_rXAYiJmX8

...they use a number of.."logical-fallacies"..to ridicule/those..who oppose..the Global Warming alarmists'..agenda

The BBC's attitude..to covering this up/..and misdirecting..to continue the Global Warming/Scam..is absolutely appalling...Now..they are pretending..the revealing leaked CRU..emails show nothing,..complete denial!

Now..they are..the.."Global Warming Scam"..deniers.

On/..some of the real-data..and real science/out there..given in professional presentations...

Professor Bob Carter...
1. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
3. www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
4. www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

Lord Christopher Monckton...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

http://www.prisonplanet.com/momentum-grows-for-copenhagen-climate-deal.html

http://www.infowars.com/hot-climategate/hot-climategate-debate-scientists-clash-live-on-rt/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-master-criminal-phil-jones-collected-22-6-million-in-grants.html

http://www.infowars.com/gore-says-supercomputing-can-be-killer-app-in-climate-change/

Climate change:..this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Scientists..at the University of East Anglia..(UEA)..have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature/dat.. on which their predictions of global-warming..are based.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-spells-end-to-the-false-science-of-climate-change.html

Climategate: The Silence..is Deafening from the Corporate Media
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-the-silence-is-deafening-from-the-corporate-media.html

By now most of us..in the alternative media/are aware of the some 61 megabytes of global warming research data..of.emails,..documents,..and computer code released/by whistleblowers..(or hackers),..that have exposed climate scientists,..as the frauds they’ve proven..themselves to be.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/%e2%80%9cclimategate%e2%80%9d-surpasses-%e2%80%9cglobal-warming%e2%80%9d-on-google.html

We’ve had the term..“global warming”..in the lexicon..since well before the Internet...became a household tool,/certainly well before Google itself.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-for-dummies.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Lord Monckton: Shut Down The UN, Arrest Al Gore

Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday,..Lord Christopher Monckton went..further than ever/before..in his vehement opposition to the elitists..running the climate change..scam,

calling for the UN..to be shut down..and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming/propaganda..like Al Gore to be arrested..and criminally prosecuted.

UN scientists..turn on each other:..UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann,..Jones and Rahmstorf#..’should be barred from the IPCC process’..They are..‘not credible any more’

http://climatedepot.com/a/4100/UN-scientists-turn-on-each-other-UN-Scientist-Declares-Climategate-colleagues-Mann-Jones-and-Rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-IPCC-process--They-are-not-credible-any-more

A UN scientist..is declaring/that his three fellow UN..climate panel colleagues..“should be barred from the IPCC process.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-great-climate-change-science-scandal.html

lots of key word links

http://www.prisonplanet.com/un-scientists-turn-on-each-other-un-scientist-declares-climategate-colleagues-mann-jones-and-rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-ipcc-process-they-are-not-credible-any-more.html

Bazz,
In addition to the inquiries you mentioned into clmategate.

The Uni of Pensilvania is have an inquiry as Mann works there.

Also looks like the Danes have uncovered a HUGE scam in relation to carbon credits trading, which could also cloud the issue at Copenhagen

Almost daily more and more main stream media outlets are reporting on the issue of climategate.

Interesting times ahead!

Bazz says:

"The political scandal would collapse governments if Monckton is right."

'Should', Bazz, but not necessarily 'would'.


What makes you think similar doctoring of statistics has not occurred in other areas, notably of those having any bearing upon electoral matters?

If it has, then those in the know would be the only ones to have had, over a similar time frame, a good handle upon the true extent of electoral support for both individuals and parties in any democratic system. As this scam was always going to be dependent upon political endorsement, would not provision have been made to have unduly influenced all significant political groupings or candidacies in anticipation of its introduction?

In this context, I note with increased alarm here in Australia, the removal from public view of the Virtual Tally Room web pages as they displayed at the conclusion of the count at the 2007 Federal elections, and their replacement with reworked layouts. I have commented upon this here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3212#76523



Bazz does well to focus upon 'peak oil', or upon what, in Australia, should, first, be called 'liquid fuels supply security', and then subsequently, 'national trading advantage'. So should all Australians. Oil is a seemingly finite resource in what looks like being an increasingly energy-starved world, and Australia is well placed from a low-emissions energy resource point of view, to synthesise a tradeable substitute from its large reserves of coal.

I suspect any ETS is meant to be a subsidy to those whose raw material supply, from which they make their money, is foreseeably going to run out. If we are to be taxed in order to bring on stream low-emissions energy substitutes, then it is the Australian taxpayer that should substantially own the new substitute industry.



It would be nice to think that there existed an electable alternative to all of the usual suspects in the Australian political scene, one that was able to see the huge opportunity represented by 'peak oil', and exploit it to Australia's advantage. That's the requirement.

If it were not for the links provided by OLO'ers we would not know much about the International scandel allegations going on. I went through the American, Candian and UK newspapers and this topic is white hot. Where is the OZ media in all this? I feel sorry for Kerry O'Brien as he stuggles with the wave of reality breaking over him, he's going on as if nothing is happening.

I wonder if the ABC news has a charter, like the BBC, to censor that which is not idealogically aligned with their thinking?

There is one more thing wrong with the ETS and the IPCC treaty.
International Treaties over rule Australian legislation.
Once an International treaty is signed and then ratified by the
parliament it is set in concrete.

The clauses which will require us to make payments to undeveloped
countries will be inforcible at law. This ruling was confirmed in the
High Court many years ago, but I can't remember what it was about.

Barnaby Joyce made the comment that with our large debt we will have
to borrow, probably from the Chinese to pay the Chinese the amount
they are due because of our CO2 generation. Hmmmmm.

Looks like there will be a US Senate hearing into Climategate.
Further the promises that Obama is going to make at Copenhagen, well
he has no legal right to do so. It is another con job.

Spindoc,

In the interest of objectivity, I recommend you check this site out, where the climatologists write, and have perspective pieces on the topic "climategate" . The general conclusion ,is that it may have some effect on some careers, but as an impact on the reality of AGW science...it's irrelevant. To see why, you may like to why read some of the articles.
http://www.realclimate.org/

Examinator, why would you try to send us to a propaganda sight?

I understand you desperately want to believe their rubbish.

If, however, you actually do believe their cr4p, you are even thicker than the 2 fence posts, that thinking resembles.

Just to extend on what Hasbeen has pointed out.

Anyone with half a brain knows the that website is edited and moderated by the same scum that provided the distorted data now used to scam and scare people into believing AGW exists.

Some can be read here as to the credibility of that site, which is a big fat 0!

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1742/Climatologist-slams-RealClimateorg-for-erroneously-communicating-the-reality-of-the-how-climate-system-is-actually-behaving--Rebuts-Myths-On-Sea-Level-Oceans-and-Arctic-Ice

Woh... This mess going to take decades to fix, so many brain washed people :(

Banjo, interesting, do you have a link to the Danish info on the ETS
scam ?
I know that there was a big fiddle by the Russians that ripped mega$
out of the Europeans and collapsed the credit values. That was a few
years back though.

Anyway the trading rooms are all set up and ready to go here and now.
They are running on voluntary users at present.
One was interviewed on TV and they will have futures trading and
derivatives, the whole shooting box. They can't wait to start.

Sound familiar ?

Raw mustard,
To use your words "Anyone with half a brain" would know to quote up to date citations. Yours is dated June 09 the later and the latest reports, have agreed with Realclimate's article. Perhaps, The scientists involved knew something of the data, that has only recently been *released* publicly, not to mention the truck load since June.
If you are going to cherry pick at least chose current arguments. Also you should read their rebuttal to be objective, I did.

You may be interested in this article from George Monbiot, who was quite rightly held up by Steven as a credible source on the recent "Has the scientific establishment sunk to the level of corporate spin doctors?" thread.

No matter what his thoughts on so-called Climategate though, Monbiot has in no way altered his unswerving support for the massive amounts of scientific data and analysis pointing to the reality of human induced climate change. Unfortunately though, it seems the big corporate polluters, who've spent billions of dollars in deliberately undermining and discrediting the science, are turning the minds of the gullible, the apathetic, the stubborn and the uninformed in ever increasing numbers.

And apparently they're more than likely to be old, which of course explains why examinator and I haven't been swayed. :)

<< There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.

It certainly doesn't reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don't believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it.

The debate about global warming that is raging on the internet and in the right-wing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals. >>

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/grim-reapers-role-in-climate-change-denial-20091127-jwrh.html

Bazz,
I have seen a couple of references to the scam. This is one and if i find more i will post.

I am waiting to see updates.

http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/47643-denmark-rife-with-co2-fraud.html

Thanks Banjo, it sounds similar to the Russian scam.
I asked a question some time back about actually measuring the CO2
directly or indirectly.
The weights and measures acts require if you are selling anything by
weight or dimension the are accuracies to which you must comply.
I have a feeling that no one has addressed that problem.
I certainly never got an answer.

@ examinator
"Also you should read their rebuttal to be objective, I did"

And that would be found?

@ Bronwyn
"It certainly doesn't reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don't believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it."

Would they be the same journals reviewed by the same people caught out peer-reviewing their own journals? Those same people caught out fiddling the books, hiding the decline, refusing to release the raw data, deleting emails, bullying opposing views etc, etc.....

Look you guys, I've probably done more for conservation and pollution reduction than all the polly-ticks in Canberra put together!
I would love to see clean energy solutions that have merit implemented yesterday. But I'll be damned if I'll sit by and let those scum in power rob us of our money, dish it out between themselves and achieve nothing but make us poorer and send more of our jobs to other countries.

This is all about taxing us to death and nothing to do with saving the planet. That's the problem and that's why people are in droves beginning to reject their lying claims!

If they were fair dinkum and we were 1 minute to midnight before were all going to spontaneously combust as they claim. They wouldn't be paying polluters to keep polluting, they wouldn't be building new mega roads, they wouldn't be digging up more brown coal, they wouldn't be building more coal fired power plants, they wouldn't be deepening up the channels for bigger polluting ships, the lights would be off and the planes would be grounded!

The hypocrisy of the warmists just boggles the mind.

@ Bronwyn

I'd like to also add that the article you referenced by Moniboit was well before the news broke of the scandal at the CRU. Even he himself thinks the science is in question and needs to be re-checked.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/monbiot-issues-an-unprecedented-apology/

Runner mate,
Are you sniffing the holy water again? or have you been hit on the head with a stack of Hymn Books.
Rudd want's to give ETS money to African dictators? So he can have is feathers stroked?

Seriously old bean, facts not bizarre conspiracy theories please.
You don't appear to understand the ETS at all. Do you read anything that was written in this century?

Bazz,
I notice that article said the trade in carbon credits is worth 675 billion kroner (how much in Au dollars?)

No wonder Turnbull wanted the ETS passed. bet he and his merchant banker mates would like to get a slice of that kind of action.

And some fools think it is all about saving the planet. Funny thing it is the poor old working man that loses out every time.

Banjo, I don;t remember the exchange rate for the Kroner but it was
less than the A$ some years ago.

Raw Mustard, I think the government is fair dinkum in what they want
to do with the ETS. It is not I believe just a great tax grab.
There is too much conspiracy theory peddling around these days.
I don't think Turnbull was doing it for his banking mates either.

Actually, come to think of it, it is probably worse that they are
genuine about it all. Forgive them, they know not what they do.
A simple tax would be better. I see James Hanson has come out against
the ETS method and advocates a straight forward tax.

Imagine the size of the bureaucratic system needed to verify the
claims, measure the amount of carbon saved in the ETS scheme.

In any case it won't matter, as soon as oil depletion starts to bight
the ETS will be abandoned and the same result will be achieved with
petrol and diesel rationing.
rstuart et al:
As far as the AGW religion is concerned I am an agnostic because I
don't believe it will matter anyway.

RawMustard

<< I'd like to also add that the article you referenced by Moniboit was well before the news broke of the scandal at the CRU. Even he himself thinks the science is in question and needs to be re-checked. >>

Yes, you're right on the first point, my mistake, but not on the second if you're claiming Monbiot's questioning the science because he's not. He's conceded that "some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed", but he's never suggested these hacked emails in any way bring human-induced climate change into question. "They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. ... The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that."

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/

<< This is all about taxing us to death and nothing to do with saving the planet. That's the problem and that's why people are in droves beginning to reject their lying claims! >>

I'm no fan of Rudd's scheme in its current form either, but there's no way we can reduce carbon emissions without putting some sort of price or tax on carbon. Yes, I agree, the pain has to be more fairly shared around than it would be under Rudd's ETS, but running a scare campaign on tax is not going to help the situation. We've all got to make big changes and unfortunately hitting the hip pocket nerve is the only way to do it for most people.

Bazz,
What is deeply revealing is that when this story first broke, and some of us (modest, far-seeing types) suggested there should be a re-evaluation of the findings of those implicated. The response of most of our resident AGW faithful was to cry it all a beat-up, and to heap scorn on the skeptics who were trying to “hijack” their roadshow.

However, now East Anglica has apparently itself decided on a inquiry , the same people are saying it's right proper to do so.

The irony hangs over it like a London fog : the persons who claim sooo loudly to represent –science-- being sooo influenced by someone’s title or affiliations—not too far removed from, "its true because the witchdoctor said so".
OR ( Milgate-esque) "I must do it because the man in the white coat told me to turn the lever high and inflict the maximum pain"

Horus;
The UN itself is now going to investigate the CRU's operations.
They have to, it is at the fundamental basis of their policy.
The middle ages warm period is at the heart of it all.
If it was warmer then than it is now, as seems likely as Mann's work
seems suspect, then the whole theory is at risk.
That is the basis of the Copenhagen talks.
It is all now on very shakey grounds and as a taxpayer I think the
government should stop spending money on it till the various enquiries
are finished.
From what I have read these are the enquiries in process;

Uni of East Anglia
Uni of Pennslyvania
United Nations
United States Senate
New Zealand Government.
UK Police ?
A complaint has been laid re fraud & Freedom of Information Act.

Phillip Jones has stood down to allow the UEA enquiry to proceed.
It seems to me that there is a prima facia case.
That does not mean the police will act.

I just don't see how anyone can say that the AGW science is not compromised.

There's also now pressure on NASA to release data which they have refused to do. They've been given to the end of he year or face being sued.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

First the Suadis express doubts and now the Danish parliament Speaher says AGW believers are gullible.

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851820.ece

Not a good start

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I find it remarkable that people argue about an ETS or not rather then to ask where is the constitutional powers in the first place for an ETS legislation!
The commonwealth was specifically denied legislative powers as to environment.
.
the commonwealth has legislative powers as to taxation for the purpose of raising revenue and not by backdoor manner trying to legislate as to environment.
.
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
.
Let me ask again where is the constitutional powers for the Federal government to legislate for an ETS?
.
It isn’t in the constitution, and neither for example any legislative powers to declare/define the nationality of a child born in the Commonwealth of Australia, etc.
.
Neither any legislative powers to turn the Commonwealth into some republic as Section 128 referendum cannot achieve this!
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.