@ 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.