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”.