Who watched the MM last night on the 7.30 report?
Who watched Pyne's job application on Late line?

Any question that the EST was not just a vector to Liberal Party power and a Political spoiler(party power politics, forget the people)
'We will have a comprehensive climate change policy in the new year' MM said.

*What is the bet it will be so pro big business the entire weight will be put on the Tax payer?*
He want's to bring back the Liberal natural instincts (?)....to oppose and oppose again no real commitment to anything and the party comes first.

He went on to admit that an ETS will probably be part of Liberal policy. He admitted that it was important to enhance the PM's importance on the world stage. He even said we'd follow the US anyway

So much for the conservative point of principal....watch their spin from here in. Changing what they have said.

'We don't see that we need to rush it through now and tie ourselves to..unfair international competition'. Even though it wouldn't have come into play untill 2011.
Who is he kidding? only the ignorant, those people who don't understand the process. If it was passed today, which it wont be, it wouldn't be presented for assent untill after Copenhagen, anyway.
Rudd is a lot of things but not stupid. If Copenhagen fell over the bill would just sit and never become law. To do otherwise would be political suicide.


Sterns made the point also that any sensible system would involve both a tax and an ETS.

One of the things that have disturbed me about Tony Abbott is the often repeated mantra that we don't want to pass the ETS just so Rudd can look good in Copenhagen.

Given Abbott's well documented hatred of Rudd one can't help but think it this emnity, as much as his conviction, that has been driving his actions over the part fortnight.

The issue is too important for parties to be settling scores.

Tony Abbott's rhetoric on climate change policy appears to be a bit garbled at the moment.

When asked on radio this morning why he has turned around on the government's mandate to introduce an ETS, he replied, "That's what front benchers do". - adding that "mandates expire".

He stated that his party is committed to coming up with a climate policy, "...in the context of an overall global scheme sometime in the future".

He's pledged to "give the planet the benefit of the doubt", although he's dubious about the science. This leads one to doubt that an effective and resilient climate change policy can be drawn up by people who ignore or question the accuracy of the data they are using to draw their conclusions.

I doubt that integrity is going to feature very much in this exercise at all. Mr Abbott, it appears, has already decided on his method of attack, by steering the debate away from climate change and framing it within the context of "The Great Big New Tax".

‘Integruity’.

Good word. Something in between integrity and incongruity.

Describes Mad Monk and the Libs rather well actually!

Abbott and the Libs have already demonstrated the integrity we've become accustomed to from them, by reneging on the agreement that they had made with the Government to pass the ETS.

Expect much more of that kind of 'integrity'.

There was only one thought crossed my mind as KRudd drove the ETS wedge hard into the Liberals. "Be careful what you wish for".

As public interest peaks for an ETS, as cost reality seeps in, as interest rates rise and questioning of the "need" for an ETS grows, we may yet be singing the old sixties song. "A penulum swings like a pendulum do, bobbies on bicicles two by two" Is it gloating I sense, couldn't be that old sinking feeling could it?

Dear Examinator,

You've summed things up beautifully.

I sat and watched events unravel yesterday on
TV from early morning - I simply couldn't believe
what was happening. It just wasn't logical.
How out of touch are these people?
And of course the scheme that the party is going
to come up with - further down the track will
be all for giving big business the rights to
get whatever it wants - and slogging the tax payer
with greater taxes.

The sad truth is that condemnation
of others - is the only language these guys understand.
They're not concerned about doing what's right - they
brook no interference and allow for no moral judgements.
Total neanderthals - the lot!

Foxy, Google "Climate Gate, UK", & do some reading, before you make a bigger fool of yourself, than you all ready have.

Any thought of emissions trading will be dead by february.

Dear Hasbeen,

Thank You for your concern about me.
I do appreciate it. However,
even Mr Abbott says that the Liberal
Party will have a scheme in place next
year - so it doesn't seem that the scheme is
going to die any time soon, as you
suggest. And thank you for your link.
I did read it.

However, for those who are convinced
that humans are not responsible for polluting
the rivers, oceans, land, atmosphere and
deforestation and to choose to ignore the fact
that the world population is approaching nine billion,
and that one quarter of the world's mammal species are
threatened by extinction, and don't believe
that temperatures will increase by 1.4 degrees C.
to 5.8 degrees C. over the next 100 years...

I offer these alternatives:

1) The earth's axis is tilting and melting the ice.
2) The earth is on an eliptical orbit around the sun
varying the distance from the sun thus affecting the
climate.
3) The gravitational force of the sun is slowly
sucking the earth into oblivion.

Therefore there's no point in doing anything...

When the rest of the world expects Australia to set an
example, certain anti- climate change hardliners
prefer to find excuses and defend their
delay tactics because they are so convinced of their
"all-knowingness" that no proposition is so outrageous
or implausible to them.

I can't believe those who are so full of their own self importance. Australia produces so little of the world's Green house gases and people say things like 'the world is watching us'. Most have not even heard of Australia and certainly has better things to do than watch us. The corrupt leaders in third world countries might be counting how much money they can rip out of the Australian taxpayer. They are probably the only ones watching Australia. Those Abbot haters (now they can't vent hate towards Howard) have not said a word about Obama's complete failure to introduce any worthwhile policy to reduce green house gases. The same Abbot haters will cheer all the hypocrites flying off the CopenHagen in their private jets.

Foxy trust me, remember just before the election?
I told you the out come and you feared I may be wrong?
I am no smarter than anyone, maybe less so but trust me.
It is those who think, if that is what you call it, like hasbeen who now control the Liberal/National party's.
For a time, not long, they will see a lift in the polls, no not a giant one but a noticeable one.
After Copenhagen they will look just a bit silly, to you me, and thinkers they look far worse than that now.
Abbott will claim he was right to wait.
Say we now know our direction, like a flower in the wind petals will start to fall of, splits within splits.
After a landslide victory to Labor, those splits with expand.
The Conservatives must find a way of getting rid of the rats in their ranks.
No easy task, 50% plus 1 seem to be their number.
Turnbull will go, leave the house his seat too.
We will get ETS and Abbott will not be in Parliament by the following election.
It is remarkable, truly, more damage has been done to conservatives by their own hand, and by folk like hasbeen, than by Labor.

Dear Belly,

Thanks for that.

Your words always cheer me up.

I needed to hear them this time around,
as the news is so bleak at the moment.
I know you're right - and I can at least
find comfort in the fact that the majority
of Australians won't buy into the divisive
tactics of a small minority - who simply
prefer inaction and complacency to actually
achieving something worthwhile. They don't
seem to realise that the ETS is a stop-gap
solution to limit the production of carbon
pollution - raising funds to develop more
efficient systems of energy production, and
encouraging industries to take that course of
action.

I watched Lateline last night and Barnaby Joyce -
when interviewed couldn't answer the question -
"How are you guys planning to pay for an ETS scheme
as part of the policy that you'll be putting forward
prior to the next election?"

"Won't a tax be part of that equation?"

All Joyce could do was look uncomfortable ...

As I said in my earlier post - neanderthals - the lot
of them!

There is an enquiry by the East Anglia University into the Climategate
controversy. Professor Phillip Jones has stood down to allow the
enquiry to proceed. A complaint has been made to the police.
There is to be a US enquiry as some of the scientists involved are US citizens.

It is going to be sometime before all this is sorted out and the bill
should not be put into Parliament until there is a enquiry result.

For those who have not seen Christopher Monckton's document here is
the link;

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

It is time to take a deep breadth and wait to see what happens.

To All,
The Copenhagen draft report is about initiating a world government.Any country that signs the treaty cede power to a UN body
responsible for implementing the treaty.
The roles for this new world government are considerable.There are many clauses that set out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia must pay an"Adaptation debt" to developing countries.
Clause 33 on page 39 says by 2020 the scale of financial flows to developing countries must be at least $Us 67 billion but preferably in the range of $US 70 to $US 140 billion. Politicians must be aware of the provisions of this treaty and is puzzling why they havn't informed the people who will pay the bill and take a hell of a cut in lifestyle saddling the future generation of Australians with the responsibility of paying the piper. I have found 20 countries listed on the developed countries list and as they do not include the most populous countries the cost per person will be very high. I trust you all explain to your children why you are putting their future in bondage to the UN with no guarantees for a better managed planet or future. In my humble opinion when someone wants a free lunch I look look a little deeper then my pocket and his want.

runner: "I can't believe those who are so full of their own self importance."

Don't feel alone runner. Some of us have just as much trouble with those full of God's importance.

As for the Liberals - talk about wedge politics. I only learnt what is was a year or two ago, and now I have seen the wedge of climate change just about split the Liberal party in two.

Hasbeen: "Any thought of emissions trading will be dead by february."

To be precise, it will be dead after Labour gets there amended bill rejected twice next year. That way they can get the amended bill passed by a joint sitting of parliament after the double dissolution, which I presume will happen in the latter half of next year. Then you will see the ETS rise like a pheonix, probably from the ashes of the Liberal Party. I can't say I look forward to it. We voters are far better served when there are roughly equal numbers from both sides sitting. I do hope Labour doesn't get control of both houses.

Foxy; The population increase is a big problem, but energy depletion
will fix that anyway. Won't be pretty but then nature does not negotiate.

There is significant doubt about the temperature increase.
The temperature was higher than the projected increase 1000 years ago.
This what Climategate is about. The article shows how the UEA CRU
suppressed the middle ages warm period by fudging the numbers.
If you are truly computer literate the lines of source code are there
for you to see. I have had a look and it does seem to do what Monckton says.
It is a bit deeper than that though but I am certain it is being
trawled through very thoroughly.

So before you continue berating people I suggest waiting until more
detailed reports appear. There has only been one so far and I was
surprised that such a detailed document could appear so quick but
then I think he knew about it all some while back.

If it ends up in the courts, and yes it is that serious, it could take
some years to get settled.

Bazz: "There is significant doubt about the temperature increase."

No Bazz, there isn't. Some do doubt it is due to CO2, and some doubt that it will continue to rise. But doubting it has happened is an extreme position that runs contrary to fairly convincing evidence - like the disappearing Arctic ice sheet, and the rapid disappearance of just about every glacier on the planet.

Bazz: "There has only been one so far and I was surprised that such a detailed document could appear so quick"

The author of the document, Christopher Monckton, qualifications are a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism, only. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton I imagine he is rather good dredging through piles of junk and cranking out the odd word or two about it when it suits him. He does nonetheless have one paper published by the American Physical Society, criticising the IPCC's conclusions. Sadly for him, the Society saw fit to prefix it with: "its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."

The guy who runs the site that report appeared on receives funding from Exxon. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_(Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute) I could be leaping to conclusions, but I imagine he is paid to dredge this sort of flak up. (I am using the word flak in this sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Flak )

Can someone tell me how the Greens voted in the Senate?

Boys and Girls,
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.htmlhttp:
This address is by a Prof David Archer of climatology it is infact the first semester int the topic at Uni lecture by lecture. I'm halfway through the series. It is designed for individuals who aren't scientists
Author of "Global Warming, understanding the forecasts" (how it works in simple terms and 'The Big Thaw'Pros and cons of the science ...brilliant.
P.s he also recommends a book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by Thomas Freedman ...it explains what are the options. (I'm looking for a copy now).

http://www.realclimate.org/
Is an authoritative site on climatology and related fields.
It is by climatologists for anyone with a brain although it does get a bit tech at times but the point is clear. David Archer and others contribute the list is stunning as are the references.

they aren't involved in climategate but talk about the reality of what it all means to the end results.

//www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/
Is the best general science site I've read its articles are clear concise and referenced so if you want to go on a hunt you can read as deeply as you want.

Once you have read and done these you'll know more than me.
Now, you know what I do to 'chill out', and get some of my information, reading and research. Oh yes computer Jigsaws.

The greens voted to do nothing, twice , intent on a scheme that WILL NEVER be put in place they voted with conservatives, against ETS.
Richie ten, you mate are a fraud, I truely think just that.
You sell yourself as Christian, but act as a bigot.
In time Bazz and not much of it, you will wish you could retract your words.
See most of developing country's are having an ETS, we will have one, those who inherit leaders rolls in conservative party's in Australia will support one.
Want to bet I am wrong?a hobby of mine is compiling a book of strange statements , keeping them, like posts on this subject.
In time they bring belly laughs
Real laughter , I have your posts in that file.
Global warming is a fact, surely even you can calculate the growth in world population over 50 years.
Surely motors cars and engines have only been around not much more than 100 years why look back further to see if mans impact is getting worse.

Belly,
Love is a decision not a feeling and there is none so blind as he who choses not to see. There are 2 senarios
1. The truth will set us free and it is not time for the end. or
2. Hell on earth as it is time for the one world government, only God and you Belly know that time as we other mere mortals are not privaliged with that imformation.

As you may know Richie ten, I once was a believer.
Born to a mother who was very much Christian, I looked for salvation in that Creed.
Not your brand of Christianity.
Not a weird mix of conspiracy madness and entrenched wish to make God do your bidding.
I thought for a while God was in command, he was not a sales man for the right or Left, he did not rule one nation evil another ok.
Well yes Jews are his people read your book.
But in time you, well ten thousand like you, showed me many, too many Christians, want to be puppet master for their non existent Gods.
Judge not less you be judged bloke.
If you ever open your eyes, ever see we are in control you may be unable to live without your props but remember it is you not me, who is unable to live in the real world.

Belly,
Seeing as how you have read the book you would know that in the last days men whould close their eyes to the truth and rather believe a lie. Read the draft treaty of the Copenhagen conference before you put put pen to paper. If you have already, then you know what is in it and there is no point in attacking me
Jesus is not a creed he is a living person, he is the door to the kingdom of God and if you try any other door,creed, religious denomination,or belief system you end up at a diferent destination.
God is a jealous God and Will Not share the glory. K Rudd and M Turnbull confess christianity and also evolution which makes them double minded and unstable in all their ways. Not a good quality in a
leader. The mad monk got the job because of his single mindedness and it is a start. All ways remember Belly God resists the proud and gives grace {undeserved favour} to the humble and I would rather live under grace in Jesus than under the Law for but for the grace of God we would all be subject to the penalty of the law for none of us are perfect only Jesus.

Rstuart said:
Bazz: "There is significant doubt about the temperature increase."

>No Bazz, there isn't. Some do doubt it is due to CO2, and some doubt
>that it will continue to rise.

No,there is doubt about the temperature rise.
The temperature has been down since 1998.
Even Tim O'Flannery now admits that it is down.
He even admitted it on the ABC to Tony Jones of all people.

This one of the parameters that the UEA CRU are accused of fiddling.
The other one is the middle ages warm period which was warmer than
the UEA CRU said. This is the tree ring fiddle of which they are accused.
They refused the raw data to other researchers, saying that they were
not allowed to pass it on which turned out to be incorrect.

Now I don't have the knowledge or the data to resolve these points,
although it does seem that anyone with the data and the software
could plot it for themselves. There might be more to it than that
but there can't be much more to producing simple graphs of temperature.

The problem seems to be that they were able to get the world wide
surface figures from various governments etc and grind them up to
produce first the infamous hockey stick of Al Gore fame and then
more recently limited the height of the historical plot and pushed
up the recent temperatures.

For years when questions were raised the answer would be that the
Uni of East Anglia CRU have proved this and that.
They were the font of expert knowledge on world temperatures.
Now suddenly they are being said to be just another climate research
group. Not all that important.
Rubbish they were involved in selection of papers for the IPCC
publications. If proven, they have corrupted the whole process.

Put crudely that is what they are being accused of so its no wonder
that people like me who were fence sitters are really p*#&d off !

Bazz: "Even Tim O'Flannery now admits that it is down."

O'Flannery says the person who make this claim, Andrew Bolt, is being a charlatan. You can hear O'Flannery's response to Bolt here: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/12/bst_20091203_0741.mp3 Given O'Flannery was Australian of the Year and is a professor at Macquarie University, I'll take his word on what his said over Bolts. Truth be known, I'd take just about anybodies word over Bolt's, so that isn't saying much.

Bazz: "but there can't be much more to producing simple graphs of temperature."

If you really believe that, I suggest you look up the "Heat Island Effect". But I think the odds are you are well aware the Heat Island Effect and other measurement anomalies have to be accounted for. Thus you are reducing the level of debate to where Bolt operates at. Bolt dropped below gutter level some time ago, and is now mixing with the sewage.

Bazz: "Rubbish they were involved in selection of papers for the IPCC publications."

Sadly, this is unsubstantiated rubbish from you Bazz. Papers for the IPCC were not "selected". The IPCC tries to summarise the views presented in all peer reviewed papers. There are stuff all peer reviewed papers that disagree with the AGW hypothesis, so naturally that view isn't presented.

This isn't because of some conspiracy at the CRU. It could not be. There are but a handful of climate scientists at the CRU whereas the number of published climate scientists number in the 1000's. If a handful of scientists tried to miss represent the views of so many, all hell would break loose. In fact, it appears the reverse had happened. The climate scientists have lined up behind the IPCC report almost to the man.

Bazz: "no wonder that people like me who were fence sitters"

Odd. You never gave me the impression of being a fence sitter.

RStuart,baz and others,
In my last post I gave sites that are authoritative about both the *excess* CO2 and the real effect on the efficacy of AGW science conclusions.
The quickest is http://www.realclimate.org/.

One of the *recipients* of one of "those emails" makes some telling points on a BB4...in that none of the people asked to actually altered anything.

Jones' 'alleged' misconduct is cherry picking, out of context and can't be shown to have altered anything.

"It is more than coincidental that the 'hacked' emails happened now, weeks out from Copenhagen".

Almost all the data 'allegedly' potentially affected by these information were available from other sources anyway. *This has been confirmed by a number of sources*.

Of more importance here, is the dubious over exaggeration of the Shadow minister for GW assertions on Lateline last night. He based his assertion on his 20 year old thesis. What he hasn't acknowledged is that the amount of existing 'green carbon' (by his definition) needed, will have been immeasurably increased. Given that deforestation, population etc. has and continues to increase well beyond the figures in his thesis.

If, as the denialist's maintain, the current science is unreliable, then logically, 20 yo science and figures would be even more so, given the advancement in scientific measurement and methodology over those 2 decades.

Simply put, his basis for his assertion is *well out of date and inaccurate for today*, therefore, *relatively speaking* irrelevant.

The argument for 100% renewals for power generation alone,from the UK perspective, has got issues see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8388669.stm.

One can assume that the Aust Opposition's shadow minister will need to address the same issues and then some. Neither does he understand that his solution is exceedingly long term....in the meantime? we suffer on regardless as the book 'Hot,Flat and Crowded' points out.

Gawd, you did get stirred up.
You said;
Truth be known, I'd take just about anybodies word over Bolt's, so
that isn't saying much.

Well I saw the interview and frankly Flannery was putting a bit of
spin on his comment in the Fran Kelly interview.
I went to the ABC and read the text. It was like I remembered it.
So he did say
Quote; sure for the last few years we have gone through a slight
cooling trend unquote.

Now you have joined the "Abusers of sceptics" bandwagon.
It is all very sad really, especially since it all won't matter a fig.
The IPCC model thinks that fossil fuels will continue being burnt
at the business as usual increasing rate till lord knows when.

Oil depletion would change everything if it was a realistic input
to the ipcc's model.
AS I have said before you are worrying about the wrong problem.

Dear Examinator,

Thanks for the book reference by
Thomas Friedman, "Hot, Flat and Crowded."
I've read a couple of reviews on it.
Sounds interesting, so I've reserved a copy
at my local library. It's currently out on
loan until 9th Dec. (which is another good
sign).

Baz and others

Me stirred up nah, I do get frustrated with people who go off topic to avoid the question. The original question was about the integrity of MM and the Liberal party, yet all the so called 'sceptics' insist on obfuscation.

The question is clear.

ETS asside, MM's history doesn't gel with what he wants us to believe now.

What does the Liberals really stand for now? How does that gel with what they have done in the past?

How else can we assess them ? Are we in for hidden agendas, like core and non core promises etc?

They seem to be saying, we're here for opposition's sake and we'll change our integrity in accordance with that principal.

They intent on negativity, rather than showing the government up with better ideas and therefore demonstrating that they are a better government in waiting. All this proves is they are just the lessor of two evils...whoopee...a second rate government in waiting.

What's their pay off then? Lower expectations? Soften us up for their turn of trough wallowing?

Just because Labor does it doesn't make it correct. A pox on Labor for that attitude too.

Given the Liberals unholy trinity's past behaviour, why should we believe them now?.

Spin it all they want, if it swims in fresh water, looks like a fish and has teeth that doesn't mean its a dolphin...or does it ensure it isn't a piranha.

If they want us to swim with them in their river, I'm damn sure I want to know, which they are.

It seems to me no Liberal or "climate sceptic" wants to have that examined.

Deniers, I can understand, they'll support anything that agrees with their fixed position, regardless of contrary evidence, which is a definition of prejudices.

I say to all sceptics, if you don't want to be labelled a denier, then debate the topic not peripheral issues that indicate you're really a denier. You can't find something without looking for it. Sceptics look for truth not avoid it.

Bazz: "Gawd, you did get stirred up."

Yeah, but didn't stop me from looking to see if I could get something a little clearer than that O'Flannery / Bolt fight card. I came across this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

That link agrees with you and Bolt. It says warming has plateaued for now, and the models didn't predict it. I apologise. It gives several plausible explanations for why the weather might not be following the models, but I don't have a clue whether they are realistic. The main thrust of them seems to be "its the weather stupid - it does unpredictable things".

I took other things from the article. Right now the scientists haven't given up on the current models, preferring other explanations. But it is clear some are slightly uncomfortable. They put limits on how long this can go on. If things haven't changed by 2020, its all over. I imagine you will start to see movement in published peer reviewed papers well before then. In other words, the scientific process is working as it should.

This confirms my confidence in the scientific process to produce the best prediction of what will happen to the climate in the future. It isn't perfect, it may end up being wrong, but it is the best we have. If it is wrong, we will know as soon as they do. However, your attitude to the CRU leak makes it sounds like you believe all climate science on the planet is hopelessly compromised. To put it bluntly, this is absurd. A fairly balanced write up of the implications of the leak appears here: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/climate-docs-lead-to-investigations-at-cru-penn-state.ars

Regarding peak oil. What is good AGW for it is good it, as a carbon tax of some sort will accelerate a move away from oil. It will also help pay for things like upgrading of our rail system. So even if AGW is wrong, is isn't bad. Unlike you I don't think arrival of peak oil won't stop AGW, unless it brings down our civilisation. Instead coal consumption will go up to compensate. There is no shortage of coal.

Examinator,
I would like to know if you deliberately lie or do you make things up as you go. In your first post, Dec 2 09 you said, quoting Abbott:-

"'We don't see that we need to rush it through now and tie ourselves to..unfair international competition'. Even though it wouldn't have come into play untill 2011.
Who is he kidding? only the ignorant, those people who don't understand the process. If it was passed today, which it wont be, it wouldn't be presented for assent untill after Copenhagen, anyway".

It is you who don't understand the process or are ignorant or lieing.

Bills are taken by Senate staff, after passing both houses, by Com car (a short drive) to Government House for signing (assent). For urgent Bills the staff member has to wait while it is signed and then taken back to Parliament House. So the ETS Bill, if passed on Wednesday, could easily have assent by that same afternoon. I have just had this confirmed by a former Senate staffer.

What you stated above is a lot of hogwash. Then you have the hide to question the integrity of others.

Dear Banjo,
The concesus view is that all is fair in politics so why are you surprised when they who follow the chief deceiver have the same character.Climate change is a political discusion as the science was peer reviewed in 2004 and was proven to be junk. It has always been about who controls the world since the begining. Have a good day.

Richie

Dear Bazz,
The science is fixed there has been peer revieu completed in 2004 and carbon is not to blame for climate change. The sun is the cause of all the heat. Try googling up "ecobob.com.nz the sinister frightening Copenhagen treaty" Where the science is explained in terms that even I can understand. I have found in life the Real b/s artists take a position so far above the rest of us mere mortals that we cannot understand what they are saying and I am not to ashamed to ask "please explain" which is not a question that they will or can answer. The Copenhagen Treaty is not about saving the planet but about who is in power, " God or satin" and the question never changes and the answer is settled.

Ritchie 10;
Well I don't think anyone can say that;
>The science is fixed there has been peer revieu completed in 2004 and
>carbon is not to blame for climate change.

Otherwise we would not be arguing the point here.
That is the one good thing to come out of climategate, I have not heard
a single "The science is settled".

Rstuart;
The second link you gave had an interesting bit of info.
The call to the subroutine of the source code used to fudge the data
had been remmed out so that it was inoperative.
All that means that it could have been used and then disabled.
As the call would have been somewhere else in the program, it means
someone is going through the program to see what goes on.

I think the economic effects of post peak oil will mean that the
resources will just not be there to be able to afford the ETS.
With rising unemployment, falling government revenue, and the miriad
different effects on a contracting economy will mean the electricity
generation and oil burning will start to fall faster than any
business as usual ETS environment.
When ? Probably before 2020, perhaps as soon as 2014.
It is expected China will have an oil supply problem in 2010.

Belly; Log the above comment and you can pull me up on it in 2015.

Dear Bazz,
Did you look up Ecobob.com.nz?

Bazz: "As the call would have been somewhere else in the program"

Being a computer programmer myself I can assure you the call doesn't have to appear at all. The reality is, if you don't have the original source code and raw data, then compile the source, run the resulting program over the raw data, then verify the output matches the published results, you can't have any confidence as to whether the source you are looking at is even vaguely related to the program that produced the published results. It would be different if they are using a source code control system and were disciplined about version numbering and releases, but enforcing such disciplines is almost unheard of outside of my profession.

For what its worth, computer code written by scientists is usually horrible looking stuff. For us who do it all the time, what it looks like is a matter of pride. This isn't just because we are pendants. It is because computer code is typically read many more times than it is written. The implication of that is not something you really understand when you start out. It happens when you look at code you wrote 10 years ago, spend a day trying to figure just what the hell you were thinking at the time and start to genuinely wonder whether you wrote it after a big night or worse.

The scientists don't write enough code to get to that stage. To them it is just a means to an end. Worse, they peers won't be judging them by what it looks like - they are scientists at heart, not computer programmers. So after a while the code starts to look like a archaeological dig through abandoned scientific ideas. They don't actually delete anything as it might prove useful later. I am not kidding - it really is terrible. Terrible, but entirely typical.

Rstuart;
Reading between the lines they may well be looking at the
right version as the program names were mentioned in the emails and
even if they were not rigorous on version tracking they should be able
work back from email dates, run it and see what comes out.
In any case I think somewhere along the line the right data and
program will be found. Actually both should be in the hands of IPCC.
Surely they would not go so far out on a limb without it, would they ?
The Uni should be able to demand the right version.
Alternatively the police might use a search warrent.
Seems outlandish, but there is $trillions hanging on this.

They appeared to have employed programmers at UEA CRU.

Richie 10, no it came back server not found.

rstuart,

I am a scientist who more and more regularly writes (perl) programs and agree that scientists can write some really ratty code. The worst tend to be those that still have a uni student programming mentality.

However, from what I've seen of many of my colleagues, being true scientists and having a degree of personal pride, they nevertheless tend to get their programs to work, however ratty they may look.

Personally, I've found that the "elegance" of my programs improves as I mull over them and research and find more apt techniques. Using a modern programming language like perl can help considerably too especially with the ability to Google just about anything related to the language.

There's always potential for problems when lots of program versions are being churned out. However, as many scientist programmers tend to work solo (and not part of an R&D team as such) they effectively keep tabs on what versions they've run. (NB: the lack of people looking at one's code explains why it can be so ratty.)

I imagine some of the climate change programmers would be very professional, but I'm not an insider and could be wrong.

Banjo,
Not so! 5 years in the business, some are taken usually tax bills etc the rest are at the mercy of the govt. There are a number of passed legislation that has been withdrawn/ or allowed to lapse before assent. You need more research.
Likewise the legislation was not due to start untill 2011. Plenty of time to repeal it, pass amendments.

Richie 10,
You really never let the fact get in the way of a rant do you.
Take 10 minutes out and read this site, listen to the 2.5 minute discussion and think about it all of what is said has and is provable
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8396035.stm BTW this is the 7th different and credible source I have posted on this silly topic.

Examinator, I have no problem with you "fiddling whilst Rome burns", but for goodness sake, change the godforsaken tune! You are quoting ancient links to a demolished past like the past two weeks has never hapenned. You are sounding more and more like Kerry O'Brien.

Foxy, you seem to be so nice it can't be true. Is it?

Spindoc,

Which links? I don't understand what you are referring too.All the sites I've referred to this week are dated this week.
'fiddle while Rome burns' has me flummoxed I have no idea what you are referring too.
Would you be so kind at to explain?

Examinator,
It was you who made the claim that the ETS Bill, even if passed last Wednesday, could not be given assent until after Copenhagen. That is blatantly incorrect. There was plenty of time for assent if the government desired.

You have been caught out lieing and, as you now claim 5 years experience, the lie has to be deliberate. Was your argument disparaging Abbott so weak that you have to resort to lies to bolster your contentions.

The only reason the Government wanted the Bill passed last week is so the PM could brag about it at Copenhagen. Not a good reason to pass legislation.

I am no fan of Abbotts, but I think he read the issue of the ETS correctly. My dislike for Abbott also has to do with integruity, but I doubt you would unserstand that.

From here on in, anything you say will be treated as sus. Incredible that you start a thread about integruity.

Dear Spindoc,

Me nice?

Well, as my sons will tell you, "Mum's not perfect,
but she's working on it!" (giggle).

To quote Goldie Hawn from her book, "A lotus
grows in the mud" :-

"... I don't have the answers to
the big questions in life. I'm still on my own
road to discovery. And, yes, I've been incredibly
lucky. But everything is relative, everything has
its story; and everyone has obstacles to overcome.
They are our greatest teachers. Each of us goes
through transitions and transformations. The
important thing is that we acknowledge them and learn
from them."

Like most people however, when the right buttons are
pushed - I do react.

Baz,

You really want to get at me don't you even to the level of misinterpreting what I said.

I indicated that the starting date of the legislation was 2011.
I also pointed out, that in response to your claims *specifically* that there are many examples of delayed assent. I also said that even if assented to there was time to amend or repeal said legislation.

FYI. I worked for a publisher whose job it was to report to Lawyers, accountants etc. on assented legislation. I suggest you do some research, which is available, about the dates passed and dates assented and then enacted. The difference between the three is often significant.

So while Rudd could claim a bill was passed it doesn't mean its enacted/proclaimed.

This would have given Rudd options.
E.g. if our major trading partners had poo poo an ETS at Copenhagen then I'd bet that the ETS would have been repealed before its starting date in 2011. He's not that stupid.

True some bills are rushed through 'likerty split' but not all.
Your claims were binary, my answers merely showed that it wasn't necessarily a done deal and god help us.

There is a limit to how much info I can give out, as it is many poster see me as lecturing. I'm not an expert or do I claim to but, but experience plus reading gives me some insight into the *system*.

It seems to me you are trying to side track.

My argument is simply questioning if leopards *can* change spots. As Aristotle said 'we are what we consistently do (not what we say)'

I have also said the same applies to Rudd but we need objective and consider the system which constrains their actions.

IMO the Libs are being oppositional and opportunist.

errr, Examiner, what are you on about ?
I never said anything about assent date times, when anything might be
repealed or anything like that.
Fancy repealing the ETS act if had got through, wow what a climb down
that would be. Oh well it won't happen now anyway.

Dear mud-dwelling lotus (growing in the OLO mud-puddle?)

Let's all hope that Mad Monk, ahh I mean, the Honourable Mr Tony Abbott, can prove to be such a lotus.

To me as a botanist, he currently seems more like a horrible Cabomba and a beautiful Nelumbo.

Time will tell whether he proves to bomb out or break through and blossom.

Cheers

[Cabomba caroliniana (one of our worst invasive aquatic weeds): http://www.weeds.gov.au/publications/guidelines/wons/c-caroliniana.html, http://buyonline24.net/images/Cabomba%20aquatica.jpg ]

[Nelumbo nucifera - Lotus:
http://www.floraphoto.com.au/images/Nelumbo%20nucifera%203,%20Fogg%20Dam,%20NT%20-%20enhanced.jpg ]

Baz,

I've really confused the protagonist here. Sorry sir,
When I re read the comments they should have been directed to BANJO
A thousand+ one apologies.
I should always re-check the person I'm addressing...bad memory, sloppy again please accept my apologies.

Banjo,
My previous comments were meant to address you.

YOOHOO FOXY
I've just sat through another Lecture or two on GW by Prof David Archer.

In the absence of a computer being able to cope with big down loads, read his book 'Global Warming understanding the forecast'. His lectures are base on this book.

The key points he makes is that:
-GW is a continuoum not a series of steps. the so called tipping point is a point beyond which life will be radically changed.
- Also that the longer the delay the harder it will be to level out the Greenhouse effect.
- He explains how and what the IPCC working groups do WG3 is just the sexiest (most dramatic).

He refers to a book "Six Degrees our life on a hotter planet" by Mark Inus . In this book it goes though the *speculation* on what will happen degree by degree.

The book you and I are waiting for, explains the practical mitigation (limiting or avoiding) AGW. He spends time on the differences between Carbon tax and Cap and Trade (ETS), both he and ARCHER say that the ETS is better, but as Usual, the devil is in the detail.
The key point of an ETS is that it values the environmental damage outside the simplistic CO2 release

You might also want to research Amory Lovins -efficiency guru. Apparently he has ideas that won't cost as much as ETS but isn't the entire answer either.

If you could arrange a neutral address for you, I could send you a couple of DVs of the lectures( 40 minutes each 340 MB), that are the most interesting and perspective generating. IMHO Well worth the effort.

Foxy, you gave an open and honest response to my cheeky probe, thank you. You seem a little out of place in this forum and no, i'm not going to be the one to "yank the tigers tail". Some of us do tend to let the side down a bit, lack of self control I guess?

Dear Ludwig,

Thanks for the flower sites.
Much appreciated. And,
Love your sense of humour, as always.

Dear Examinator,

Thank you for all your references.
You're a great teacher! :-)
I don't have a neutral address.
But, Thanks for the offer.

Dear Spindoc,

All I can do is send you a big
hug and also Thank You for your
kind words.
You're a gentleman!

Thanks Foxy

I’m so disgusted by the missing word syndrome and small but infuriating typos syndrome, which plague me to death on this forum, that I’m going to put up that post again, with corrections!

Dear mud-dwelling lotus blossom (growing in the OLO mud-puddle?)

Let's all hope that Mad Monk, ahh I mean, the Honourable Mr Tony Abbott, can prove to be such a luvly lotus.

To me as a botanist, he currently seems more like a horrible Cabomba than a beautiful Nelumbo.

Time will tell whether he bombs out or breaks through and blossoms.

Cheers

[Cabomba caroliniana (one of our worst invasive aquatic weeds): http://www.weeds.gov.au/publications/guidelines/wons/c-caroliniana.html
http://buyonline24.net/images/Cabomba%20aquatica.jpg ]

[Nelumbo nucifera - Lotus:
http://www.floraphoto.com.au/images/Nelumbo%20nucifera%203,%20Fogg%20Dam,%20NT%20-%20enhanced.jpg ]

Dear Ludwig,

Abbott is definitely not a beautiful Nelumbo (Lotus).
But I'm not sure that I'd give him that much
credit as to be a Cabomba either. He's not that
talented.

To me Abbott strikes me more like the American
tumbleweed. Goes which ever way the wind blows.

Anyway, Thank You so much for the beautiful Lotus.
It's made my evening!

“…more like the American tumbleweed. Goes which ever way the wind blows.”

Yes. I can’t disagree with that. ( :> )

Examinator, I realize you’re half way through studying GW and I accept you have a significant investment in this and have access to heaps of links to support your opinion.

You have always presented your case based upon for key pillars. These are “Scientific Consensus”, “Computer Modeling”, “Peer Reviewed Process” and “Data Integrity”.

These are no longer available to you; they are at best tainted and at worst non existent.

I have just posted on another thread, “Those who believe in the UN have every right to feel angry. For the believers, this will manifest as mitigation, ignore the facts, trivialize, increase the alarmism and crank up the vilification. This will happen because fundamentalism is based upon ideology and has nowhere else to go other than to hit rock bottom and start digging.”

When I likened you to “Emperor Nero, fiddling whilst Rome burned”, I was referring to your increase in supporting opinion links and desparate attempts to breathe life back into the AGW case. What has happened in the past two weeks is “reality”, not in the sense that one side or the other is seen to be right or wrong. What IS significant is that the process by which the conclusions have been promoted is “flawed”, perhaps fatally. Business as usual is no longer an option for any side of this debate.

This also corrupts the need for an ETS as an answer because we don’t understand the question. Many will say they “believe” they understand the question but belief in no longer good enough.

You must also stop invoking the expression “tipping point”. We now know this to be part of the UN’s Charter to invoke the “Precautionary Principle”. It’s an arbitrary, non-scientific and political threshold to invoke UN intervention. It has absolutely nothing to do with climatology.

We now have an all Australian “Precautionary Principle”. The MM

spindoc: You have always presented your case based upon for key pillars. These are “Scientific Consensus”, “Computer Modeling”, “Peer Reviewed Process” and “Data Integrity”. These are no longer available to you; they are at best tainted and at worst non existent.

On the contrary, all of them remain fairly solid today.

Scientific Consensus: The number of published climate scientists numbered is the 1000's. Around 5% disagree with AGW. The number working at the CRU is the 10's. Removal of those 10's from the 1000's has very little statistical effect on the consensus.

Computer Modeling: Computer Modeling is tainted?

Peer Reviewed Process: The emails were not peer reviewed. No one has shown the peer reviewed papers are wrong. If they are badly flawed it should not be hard to show it, as it turns out 95% of the raw data they were based is available publicly, ie can be downloaded form the CRU's web site. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/climate-docs-lead-to-investigations-at-cru-penn-state.ars

Data Integrity: see above. 95% of the data used is available. The remaining 5% is apparently commercial in confidence or something equally odious from the peer review point of view, but overall it hardly matters.

The only thing that is going against climate science right now is the temperature has plateaued over the last 3 years or so. Unfortunately that isn't long enough to tell us if the models are wrong as they predict climate, not weather.

Rstuart & examiner,
I have to support spindoc in this.
The CRU is so tightly connected to the IPCC that it looks to me that
they have had undue influence. They appear to have had a deliberate
policy of denigrating those that have different opinions.
The whole thing now smells to high heaven and no matter what
confidence has been lost.

Programmers are now taking apart the programs and data and this one
has an explanation of what was meant by the decline. It was not as
many presumed the decline since 1998.
See this url; http://tinyurl.com/y9p4xn4

Tony Abbot says he can meet the percentage required by the government
for $50 billion instead of Kevin's $120 billion.
They are both having themselves on; by that time we will be well into
oil decline and gas won't be that far behind.
There just won't be the money available.
It will all be going into alternative transport energy.
Coal to Liquid plants will be coming on line and UGTL will also be
big business.

Examinator,
You are a joke. You now claim I misrepresented you.
Take a look at your first post on this thread, on Wednesday 2nd Dec.

"If it was passed today, which it wont be, it wouldn't be presented for assent untill after Copenhagen, anyway".

They are your words and blatantly incorrect. The Bill could have easily be given assent before the end of the week.

You simply lie to bolster your contentions.

Bazz: "The CRU is so tightly connected to the IPCC that it looks to me that they have had undue influence. They appear to have had a deliberate policy of denigrating those that have different opinions. The whole thing now smells to high heaven and no matter what confidence has been lost."

Bazz, the only thing you could possibly have cause to loose confidence in is the IPCC reports. Oddly the reports were the one thing that weren't in spindoc's list. Unlike the IPCC reports, the scientific process is far too robust to be corrupted by such a small number of individuals, but it was that spindoc was targeting.

As for your link: you are allowing yourself to be seduced by spin. What is more is it old spin, dressed up in CRU leak clothing in an attempt to make it look fresh. Why do we know that? Because 95% of the data the CRU used was publicly available. And as your link points out, it is old data. The likes of Stephen McIntyre have already pulled it apart with a find tooth comb suggesting alternate interpretations - and in some cases forced corrections. That was the entire basis of the hockey stick controversy. But if the Wikipedia summation on the state of play of the hockey stick and is accurate, the majority of practising climate scientists think McIntyre got it wrong and CRU was right.

I think the most telling parts of your link wasn't the data or logic presented, but quotes like:

"a UN investigation into the matter, which will no doubt be no less corrupt than those being investigated"

"co-conspirators move to Copenhagen for tomorrow’s UN climate meeting"

So it is another tribal vent from the American right, it seems. I strongly doubt his main interest in rights and wrongs of climate science. If you want anything like impartial commentary on the state of play, look elsewhere.

This may be of some interest to people:

The Five Stages of Innovation:

1) People deny that the innovation is required.

2) People deny that the innovation will be
effective.

3) People deny that the innovation is important.

4) People deny that the innovation will justify
the effort required to adopt it.

5) People accept and adopt the innovation, enjoy
its benefits, atribute it to people other than
the innovator, and deny the existence
of stages 1-4.

True, Foxy.

Another thing you can add to the list is that because skeptics can be so trenchant, they force innovators to redouble their efforts to prove the skeptics wrong. If the innovators are good enough that is!

The skeptics act as a filter to get rid of the wannabe and dodgy innovators as well. So skeptics still serve a useful purpose in the societal ecosystem.

Dear RobP,

I was referring to the naysaying way in
which traditionalists greet any sort of
innovation.

A good response to any sceptics is:
"We have to figure out how to get it done
or someone else will."

Todays Saturdays editorial in the Australian said a lot for me.
Hardly a Labor leaning paper it highlighted concerns at the direction Abbott's party has taken, hard blind right.
Another well written story, same paper highlighted just how unlikely it is, he can even hold his current position in the next election.
All in all remarkable, that some find reason to rejoice in his election, and hope of electoral success.
And that so very many, fail to understand the true catastrophic damage he has already done by just winning.
Barnaby Joyce, what can be said, once it looked clear his stance was just showing the difference between his party and Liberals.
Grabbing any straw to stop the decline and eventual death of his party.
Driven even to openly abandon his grass roots membership he now seeks a spot in extremist territory.
How could he or anyone, at all? could say Queensland, could even America defaulting, if he thought it , and surely he doesn't, he being who he is should never have said it.
2007 remember they said Labor was not able to handle the economy, would you trust this fool?
Barnaby, Mr Joyce, Sir, we have long ago stopped rewarding babblers such as Joe the peanut farmer, please consider.

<< …so very many, fail to understand the true catastrophic damage he [Abbott] has already done by just winning >>

Belly, the most catastrophic damage that Abbott has done, or I should say; that the Libs have done in electing him, is to make sure that Krudd wins the next election.

The Krudd government is catastrophic. The Libs have enormous opportunities to become a real Opposition with very different core policies that would stop the rot forced upon us by Ruddy Kevin and that would resonate with the votership.

But out of Turnbull, Hockey and Abbott, they picked the most conservative and least likely leader to realise and foster this, IMO.

<< Barnaby Joyce, what can be said…>>

Now, good on old barnstorming Barnaby. As Laurie Oakes said about him today - ‘ratbag statements will always get a better run in the media than sensible ones’.

Ratbag statements about the US and Queensland defaulting on their debts, that is. ‘Çept I don’t think they are ratbag at all!

He’s being torn to shreds for his statements, but I think he raises a very interesting point - that the US and Queensland, and various other states and countries, have huge ongoing debts, that have just kept getting bigger, despite economic boom times. Now that times are getting tougher, how the hell are these debts ever going to be repaid….or even kept from getting ever-bigger??

Ultimately, default seems like the only outcome.

Please tell you see it differently Belly….or anyone!

AAAAArrrghh!!

Please tell MEEEE you see it differently Belly.....or anyone!!

Belly Ludwig is right, the US has a really big financial problem.
They won't default on bonds but they will buy them back by printing
money. I think, from what I have read that many in the financial
world understand this and are trying to ease away from the the US
dollar into gold and other currencies.
They don't won't to just dump the US$ as it will cause a collapse.
There is a big display of everything is coming good in the US but
there is a distinct nervous feeling about it all.

I think the rabble that passes for a Federal Opposition should seal their fate by having their Mad Monk leader appoint the Loopy Accountant to the position of Shadow Treasurer.

Ludwig you are right about the loan defaults by the US.The US Fed a cartel of 12 private banks own the US currency.They have become so powerful now they determine who the next president will be and where the next war will be fought over resources,drugs and energy.

The US is defaulting by the creation of money through debt.By devaluing their currency they reduce their debt obligations.Anyone holding US $ or debt will lose.The people who really get hurt are the ordinary US citizens.

They say the derivative bubble is worth $150 trillion.This is 150 times our GDP and when that bubble bursts,the whole planet is in trouble.The bubble was created by excessive money created by the Fed and the deregulation of the financial markets.

This is a must see, "Fall of the Republic" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

Several points need debate, Ludwig, never will I agree with your views on Rudd.
Nore will most voters, I truly think you want a privately owned personal Prime Minister, one that does your bidding.
No such beast exists, for any of us, look at the other side, understand in areas that concern you no difference exists, both sides are uninterested in population control.
Yes Rudd is home, he always was, but the election of Abbott has lifted the rights mood in his party, and frightened the rest, internal war may yet destroy conservatives for a while.
America, money, yes greed lack of laws to police banks bought us close to horror.
We are on the road to recovery but house prices WILL explode then bottom out one day, trouble ahead.
America will not default, will not change its currency, will survive much as Britain did after ww11.
Rest arjay, grab reality with both hands, the sky is not falling, oh expert on Abbott's clowns, what a shame Costello went.

Barnaby Joyce may have spoken the unspeakable but that is what worries me.
It has an unsettling similarity to what is not said by our pollies
about our future oil supplies.
Wayne Swanne also has said nothing about the US financial position.
Minister Ferguson also has said nothing about our future energy supplies.
Tony Abbot did not even know what peak oil meant. He was asked about
his policy on it and he waffled about petrol competition.
He had to refer the question to someone else.

Do as I have, and ask three politicians about peak oil and you get
either a blank look or a shuffling of their feet. Those that are
aware are most uncomfortable about the question and divert their
reply to reducing hydrocarbons for global warming.

So at least Barnaby is telling it as he sees it.

Bit of a shock isn't it ?

Belly, you know why I call the Krudd government catastrophic. But for other readers, I’ll reiterate:

He raised immigration to a new record high, well above Howard’s level which was a record rate. He did this as soon as he got into power and without giving any hint of it in the election campaign and consequently having absolutely no mandate to do it. This was grossly antidemocratic. There is a great deal of concern in the general community about the massive immigration rate.

He also boosted the baby bonus and prattled on about a big Australia.

This is so totally the opposite of what we need in Australia. We need to head towards a stable population and a regime of sustainability.

He’s making it absolutely impossible for Australia to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by facilitating a very rapid increase in the number of polluters. He is being utterly duplicitous in his apparent concern about climate change.

Even if everything else that Krudd was doing was really good, his massive growth policy direction would still be bad enough for me to call him catastrophic. It will be catastrophic if it is allowed to continue.

Cracks are appearing. Concerns about population stabilisation and sustainability are emerging. Labor MP Kelvin Thomson is right onto this. Liberal frontbencher Kevin Andrews has just expressed real concerns about high immigration. The Greens have come out of thier complacency about it, to some extent. The media are interested. There is a lot of debate happening.

I think and dearly hope that there is a real possibility of Abbott and the Opposition realising their huge opportunity here – to embrace genuine sustainability in their political philosophy and to set themselves up as a very different and very attractive alternative to rapid never-ending continuous-growth antisustainability Rudd madness.

How can you possibly support Rudd, Belly? What is he doing that’s got you so hooked?

Thanks Arjay. Yeah the whole caboodle is about as robust as house of cards. Except that it probably won’t just collapse one day, it will be steadily whittled away, card by card, at least for a while yet.

The value of money in the US will just continue to be diluted. For the ordinary person, their buying power will just diminish and diminish to the point that confidence drops right out of the system.

There’s no way that the US can pay back its debts, so it is virtually hooked in to just creating more and more money and hence devaluing it.

Very scary stuff.

Wow, that’s some video you referred us to. 2 hours 24 minutes long. I only watched a minute or so and was already feeling as though my week was ruined, by 7.30 on a Monday morning (:>(

----

<< Barnaby Joyce may have spoken the unspeakable but that is what worries me. >>

Yes Bazz, it is not what he said, but the reaction that is the most concern. Just about everyone who deigned to comment was boring it up him for simply daring to say something about the magnitude of debt.

This is very sinister. The blindness or fear of saying unpalatable things in the ranks of our pollies is of much more concern than free-speaking Barnaby, as is the intolerance in the media of pollies who speak outside of the square.

In fact, the likes of Swan, Abbott and just about every other politician, are virtually tied into the madness of continuous rapid growth economics because they are sh!t-scared of saying anything outside of that paradigm. And if they can’t say anything, why would they even think it? They tie themselves into a narrowly defined course of action. They are a million miles away from taking a holistic approach or from embracing the vital changes that our society has got to have.

Thank goodness for people like Barnaby Joyce, Kelvin Thomson and even Wilson Tuckey, for saying things that get on peoples’ goat, and consequently broaden our horizons a little.

Ludwig my Friend.
Yes you seem to be a good bloke I like good blokes.
Do you understand thoughts and ideas, claims and statements we each make are forever?
That one of us is quite wrong.
And having set our ideas in print we must face facts, they having been put out there are not disposable.
We if proven wrong should understand that, fully, we got it wrong, no going back we got it wrong.
Is it you? in a post above who says Abbott may win an election?
You got that wrong mate.
In fact one day , say 3 years, looking back one of us got quite a lot wrong.
Polls currently point to you being that one, I know it is you who eat the humble pie , but take this on board.
Rudd has not conned those who vote for him, so very many are refugees from a lost Liberal party, and Abbott will never win them back.
No government, ever can please us all, no opposition has ever pleased so few on the conservative side.
Why Ludwig are you so different than most? few dislike Rudd with such Passion, most look at the polls love the bloke warts and all, he has them but he has something Abbott will never have.
Watch conservatives self destruct in these three years hope mate for all our sakes they can rebuild after the election, no easy task but Australia needs a lost far right leader like a hole in the head.

With respect Belly, you haven’t answered my question – you haven’t said what it is about Rudd that appeals to you so much. That is; what is so good about him that you think it is more important than the negative aspects that I mentioned. And you haven’t tried to counter my criticisms of him.

<< Rudd has not conned those who vote for him >>

Yes he has inasmuch as he has imposed a policy of very high population growth upon us with absolutely no mandate to do so. That’s a con Belly. He’s supposed to democratically represent the people, but polls have shown that the majority want immigration to be reduced. He didn’t mention this in the election campaign but then he implemented it as soon as he won power. That’s extremely suspicious. Such an important policy decision and he didn’t talk about it before the election. In my opinion, that makes him a very disingenuous and quite sinister person, who absolutely doesn’t deserve to be our PM.

This policy of extremely high immigration, along with a boosted birthrate, is of the utmost importance. We’re not talking about some minor policy area here.


<< …most look at the polls love the bloke warts and all… >>

The polls indicate which out of Mad Monk and Krudd people prefer. They don’t indicate whether people actually like Rudd. And unfortunately most people don’t realise that they don’t have to choose either – that it is perfectly legitimate to say that they don’t like either of them or their dinosaur pro-expansionist parties and won’t vote for either.

Of course Rudd is well ahead in the polls, directly because of the Libs’ hopeless performance, with chronic high-publicity in-fighting, leadership spills and the rest. But this doesn’t mean that those who put him first when polled on their preference, actually support his policies to any significant extent or would support him if there was a meaningful choice.

Belly & Ludwig,
I think it is easy to see why Rudd wants a bigger
population for Australia asap.
He has been stung by the realisation that Australia does not count
on the world stage and he believes that a larger population and
economy will fix that.
In that he could be right, but is such an increase sustainable ?
But then he could be wrong, the economic axis US<->Eu<->AS is basically
built in and the southern hemisphere countries come nowhere in their
considerations.

You only need to listen to conversations overseas to realise this.
When these international politics are discussed by anybody Australia
is never mentioned. Whole articles are written in major magazines
and newspapers on all these international matters and Australia is
never mentioned or considered. Australia has more mention in just
recent times because we are increasing our lending rate.

That is it so live with it.

examinator/rstuart, you place so much faith in computer applications. You need to address the core issues of data integrity, data manipulation, coding errors, flawed database access paths and lack of integrated legacy code.

If we are to place the output of these systems as so critical to massive social, political, industrial and economic changes, the above problems render output as totally invalid.

In the real world any computer programs in production, those of your suppliers and your downstream customers are required to carry ISO 9000 (International) or AS 35XX (Australian) certification. Without such certification those applications are considered non-compliant rubbish.

The CRU applications are not ISO 9000 compliant and should be removed from production immediately. The UK Government tender conditions also mandate ISO 9000 compliance, audit and certification. How did Hadley/CRU/EAU obtain massive funding from the UK Government, via the Met Office, without mandatory quality compliance?

The answer, grants! No mandatory compliance. What a lovely stunt.

The core tools of AGW science are computer programs. AGW science is generated by the blunt force trauma of legacy code. Imagine yourself as a micro-surgeon and being satisfied with a rusty saw and a hammer. You should be ashamed and embarrassed by any association with these scientific hacks.

rstuart, your claims that “95% of the data is available” is the best example of unmitigated waffle I’ve seen in years. If you did have 100% data the applications still can’t produce a result. They are uncertified GIGO. (garbage in, garbage out) Get real for goodness sake

spindoc: "In the real world any computer programs in production, those of your suppliers and your downstream customers are required to carry ISO 9000 (International) or AS 35XX (Australian) certification. Without such certification those applications are considered non-compliant rubbish."

You try to live up to the expectations you create with your nick, don't you spindoc? You toss the first bullsh1t you think of into the ring and sees who swallows it. In this case you picked the wrong person to chuck bullsh1t about 9000/35XX at. Turns out I have been a professional programmer all my life. In fact, wouldn't you know it, I have done a post-grad course in Software Quality and actually implemented AS 3561 in programming teams.

However none of that means too much in this context. What does mean something is none of Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Linux or Apple OS/X were developed using ISO 9000 certified procedures. Which means according to you 99.99% of all PC users in the world are apparently relying on "non-compliant rubbish" to do their daily work.

spindoc: "rstuart, your claims that “95% of the data is available” is the best example of unmitigated waffle I’ve seen in years."

Waffle perhaps. But nonetheless true and relevant waffle. And despite what you say, when Steve McIntyre and his ilk analysed the 95% they got almost identical results to the 100%. Thus this huge emphasis you are putting on the 5% is just more spin.

rstuart, interesting response. Ducking the issues nicely you mention all the things that are irrelevant. But have not gone anywhere near the real issues. We not talking about PC’s were we? We were addressing core production systems running formulae based FORTRAN compilers. Not that is matters what platform is chosen because the data is crap, the app,s are crap and the output has been doctored because their ““unaudited systems” permit this.

If you have implemented AS 3561, you should know better than trot out such piffle. Next you will be telling us that you would actually fly in a passenger jet that was designed on non AS 9000 compliant systems, give me a break. If that’s the best post grad can do for you, you blew your money. Stick with programming.

Spindoc & Rstuart,
It does not matter a hoot what standards are
applied to the computer modelling program, if it does not have as one
of its input parameters the realistic fossil fuel consumption.

It does have a fossil fuel input but it is a projection forwards from
about 1990 (if I remember correctly) of linear growth.
As they say, It ain't gonna happen !

Bazz: "if it does not have as one of its input parameters the realistic fossil fuel consumption."

But is does Bazz. The current assumptions are there are approx 100Gt (giga tons) of hydrocarbons available, and 5000Gt of coal. Error bars are assumed to be a factor of 2 (ie 50..200Gt and 2500..10,000Gt).

Turns out the calculations of the effect of CO2 released on a given date only depend on the total released at that date. It does not matter if it was released suddenly at the end, or uniformly up to that point.

If you really want to be informed about this, look at that lecture series examinator posted http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html It covers this, climategate, log CO2 and I'd imagine every other question you could ask about the science. It is being discussed here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3312

Rstuart
I will go an have a read. A comment I will make now before I
read what you suggested is that the amount of fossil fuels available
seems to be the catch. At what price are those tonnages available ?
If the oil gets expensive it will not be burned and the same with
coal.
To say it is available, (at any price ?) seems to be meaningless.

Bazz: "I will go an have a read."

It isn't a read. It is a rather pleasant series of videos. But it is quite a commitment: 16 hours. I suggest keeping one eye on it while you do something else. The first 3 or 4 lectures cover the basic physics - quantum mechanics, hot bodies, temperature and the like. They have nothing to do with the climate. I found them interesting as it allowed me to re-visit old ground, but they were superfluous. Personally I think he was just padding the course out so it would fill an entire semester.

I do hope you look at it BTW. If you make it lecture 5 or so, you will be hooked.

Bazz: "To say it is available, (at any price ?) seems to be meaningless."

Actually, what they say is the 100Gt of oil will have stuff all effect regardless of when it is used, so they ignore it entirely. In other words (and I am sure you will like this bit) there is so little of it oil left using it won't effect the climate. Turns out it is only coal that matters.

The picture changes if we start using shale or CTL, of course. I think there is 500Gt of shale lying around, and we would have to use it pretty quickly because we burn huge amounts of it to get the oil out.

Rstuart.
Said;Actually, what they say is the 100Gt of oil will have stuff all
>effect regardless of when it is used, so they ignore it entirely.
> In other words (and I am sure you will like this bit) there is so
>little of it oil left using it won't effect the climate.

But, But, what is all the fuss about cars and petrol then ?
The campaigners go on about our use of cars etc etc and don't tell me
that any of them have heard of peak oil.

Something very odd there.

Downloaded the chapter about oil & coal. Its big 330 Mb.
It is MP4 but I don't seem to have a player for that.

Bazz: "But, But, what is all the fuss about cars and petrol then ?"

Buggered if I know. It isn't coming from the science. I think it comes under the same category as "turning off your TV at night saves heaps of money". It is almost a waste of time, but makes a great sound bite. So you hear this useless advice repeated over and over again on TV. Hearing it gives me the irrites.

Still, unlike the TV thing "use less oil" is a misapprehension I am more than happy to let continue. I am sure you understand the reasons.

Bazz: "Downloaded the chapter about oil & coal. Its big 330 Mb."

Yes. There is 6.6G of it in total. There are a lot of things you can do with the internet if you have the bandwidth and speed available.

Bazz: "It is MP4 but I don't seem to have a player for that."

One of these two will do the trick:
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/3ivx.htm
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/FFDshow.htm