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.