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?