Copenhagen, its nearly over, just maybe the debate should have started now, or after it.
No not saying Abbott's mob got it right, but in just hours we will see egg on many faces, as some weak but working plan emerges.
That claim, come its headlines all over the world, a super tax will do nothing for Climate change.
It is so very clear if we do anything, at all, it will be funded by cash.
Tax is the source of any governments income.
Focused on tax ignoring the facts is blind stupidity.
But in review taking voters for granted did not work.
We hear of conspiracy's, left and right and just maybe we are seeing signs it may be right.
If, and I believe it is, Global warming exists, many humans are going to die, who cares, truly some do not.
If man has affected Global warming, and I firmly think we have, what will we destroy next in the name of cash and progress?
It will cost to fix this problem, we will and must pay, is politics diverting us from truly looking at it?

If man has affected Global warming, and I firmly think we have, what will we destroy next in the name of cash and progress?
Belly,
Mankind, the guilty & as per usual the innocent too, that's who will cop it.

Dear Belly,

As Thomas L. Friedman tells us in his book,
"Hot, Flat, and Crowded,":

"The big challenge we have today in energizing a
real green revolution is that the people most
affected by any climate change are not likely
to be "us." The people who are likely to be most
affected by energy and natural resources supply
and demand, petrodictatorship, climate change,
energy poverty, and biodiversity loss don't get to
vote - because they haven't been born yet..."

This climate change issue pits the present versus
the future - today's generation versus its kids and
grandchildren. In our model of democracy, policy
is the product of the clash of interest groups.
When disasters hit our shores,
when severe droughts ravage our country, then
perhaps climate change will become the biggest
interest group in history - but by then it could be
too late.

We need a change in our outlook. We need to come
together on this issue. An unusual situation like this
calls for that ethic of stewardship: what parents do
for their kids - looking over the horizon, thinking
about the long term, so they can have a better future.

Of course its much easier to say - I'm looking after my
interests now - and not worry about society.

Our parents and their generation mobilized to face down
a threat to our way of life in World War II. They applied
all their economic resources and human effort in solving
the problem, and they did not stop until they'd won,
because they understood that their way of life was at
stake. Everyone sacrificed and everyone participated.

We need a similar mobilization to launch a real Clean Energy
System - and we have to prevent disaster that we think will
happen rather than respond to one when it does.

It's not easy - but it is about the obligation to make sure
that there is a stable planet for all species - and an
opportunity for all of us to renew and regenerate.

Dear Belly,
After seeing how they hoped to divy up the tax pie at Copenhagen I would guess the people who want population control will get their way as food production is scaled down in the developed world and drought and hunger take their toll on the poor nations.
It is terrible to watch cattle starving to death so how much more your family.
Unless we get the devil out of the detail it will continue to be survival of the fittest in a world controled by him. Without God you can't bind the strongman. Merry Xmas and a prosperous New Year and remember Jesus is the reason for the season.
The Blessing of God on you and yours.
Richie

A thread was started here from people who know far more than I ever will about GW.
I posted saying I was enjoying it, but a key player, two in fact left.
So I tipped toed out of that thread.
It is well beyond my knowledge.
But another end of the debate exists, people who should know much better say it is only about tax's, others do actually say it is not me why should I care.
Foxy you and I care, many millions do, but the outcome of Copenhagen is weak and gutless.
I see now we Australia have lost the chance, truly, to contribute as much as we should.
In retrospect, sorry C J Morgan, the Greens, intent on ONLY AN EXTREME program, come out no better than Abbott.
2 Liberals voted with us, had the greens done so?
As Barnaby Joyce searches for seats by confrontation with his bed fellows the Green may find winning new senate seats is not as easy as they think.
Bob Brown in my view is not an inch better than any Conservative, his stance is hurting true conservation issues.

Belly,
Glad you raised this topic because I really want to ask you if you actually believe in human induced climate change, or are you just following the Labor line?

Given that you are a practical bloke, with common sense, would you not agree that there are many things we have little or no influence over? Like our orbit, earthquakes, volcanos, tides,etc. why then do you think we have any influence over the worlds climate? AGW is not proven, it is theory, and is my expert any better than yours, or vicy versa. There is no proof of CO2 causing temperatures to rise and in fact the natural proportion of CO2 is many, many times that produced by human activity. (I've forgotten the propotions)

So you support government action, at great cost to taxpayers, in effort to reduce a small propotion of CO2, which has not been proven to effect us in any way? That does not seem practical.

On another thread, I said

I reckon Aussies recognize that AGW is not proven and is a religion to some. Most are sceptical about it, as I am, and want proof before doing anything. The government has made no effort to explain the ETS, or how it would reduce our CO2 emmissions. In addition it is a tax and will cost us plenty and doubt that our efforts will make any difference to the world. That is what Aussies think about AGW and the ETS.

That pretty well sums up my attitude. I just hate the exageration and misinformation put out by those with religious fevor on AGW.

A little while back, our PM cited a couple of hot days in Adelaide as proof of AGW, yet a few days later there were record snowfalls and record earliest snowfalls over vast areas of North America. So how do you reconcile that one event is proof of AGW and the other is just weather?

Dear Belly,

The problem is huge.

We're living at a hinge of history that's
going to determine just which way this
Energy-Climate Era will swing. If we're
going to manage what's already unavoidable
and avoid what will really be unmanageable,
we need to make sure everything we do from
here on helps to build a real, sustainable,
scalable solution.

But how do we walk the line between a
can-do optimism and a keen awareness that the
hour is late and the scale of the problems
overwhelming?

Belly, I don't have the answers - I can only
hope that someone else does.

*A little while back, our PM cited a couple of hot days in Adelaide as proof of AGW,*

That is exactly why I think the whole thing is being turned into
a bit of a religion.

If we look at the historical data, back as far as records go,
there have always been droughts, floods, heatwaves, fires etc.

Not just here, but in Africa and other parts of the world.

The Victorian fires were commonly blamed on climate change. Never
mind that years of fuel had built up and nobody had bothered to
reduce the fireloads. It must be climate change!

Every drought in Africa is now blamed on climate change, with the
hint that they should be paid billions in compensation by the evil
West who are seemingly to blame.

Now Kevie has seemingly joined the same bandwagon, to try and make
his case for an ETS.

Sounds just like a new religion to me.

We've previously been told here in SW Western Australia, that
our region is seemingly the worst region affected by climate change
in Australia. For some years the rainfall did in fact decrease, yet
in the last three years we have had some of the best seasons ever.

So I remain a bit of skeptic, given that the true believers are
blaming everything on climate change, which is clearly not the case.

Dear Belly,

Climate-change deniers remind me of the person
who goes to the doctor for a diagnosis, and
when the doctor tells them, "If you don't
stop smoking, there's a 90% chance you'll die
of lung cancer." the patient replies,
"Oh, doctor, you mean you're not 100% sure?
Then I'll keep on smoking!"

Foxy,
100 reasons for you not to be afraid:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

Hi Belly - the reason the Greens rightly opposed the final form of the ETS is that it had been compromised to the point of being worse than useless. That's why the denialists could correctly claim that it would be little more than a "Green Tax".

However, the big difference between the Greens and the denialist Opposition on this issue is that the Greens recognise that AGW is probably the most important issue facing all of humanity today. With the Tories, on the other hand, slightly over half of them are in complete denial about the issue, while the rest want to be seen to be doing something about it - so long as it doesn't cost too much and as long as somebody else acts first.

A bit like Copenhagen, really.

Dear Herman,

In exchange, I want you to get hold of the book
by Thomas L. Friedman, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded,"
from your local library and read it - OK?

Anyway, while I've got your attention -
here's wishing you and your family
all the Joys of Christmas and a truly great 2010!

To All,
The answer Is SOOOOOOOOOO simple. Put God First and love one another then we will tend Gods great garden and stop abusing it and one another, For Jesus is the reason for the season. There is ALL WAYS a BETTER WAY. But when we put self, money and greed first there can be no unity. Imposible for man but possible with God. LOVE covers a multitude of sins,

Foxy,
Did you know that Obama invited Tom Friedman to a five hour game of golf at Andrews Air Force Base on 20 Sept 2009?
I'm guessing it was to thank Friedman for all the NYT support during Obama's presidential election campaign.
Friedman probably used the opportunity to pitch for a bailout of the troubled Grey Lady.
A reasonable quid pro quo, I'm sure you will agree.
Some would argue that a government media bailout would cast doubt on the integrity of news reporting,
but in the case of the NYT I doubt it would be noticeable.
I've commented before on this web-site about how slanted the NYT is.
I believe you've even suggested that they can be bought (by Duke University).
I'm surprised you would even read, let alone recommend, a book by Thomas Friedman.
There's got to be something fishy about someone that pally with Obama.

Now now Foxy, your smoking reminder was a particularly poor
example :)

It would be more like, the doctor claiming, that if people in
India and China keep increasing their amount of smoking, it
might be possible that somebody's children one day might
die of cancer.

I remind you, you are free to stop producing green house
gases. No more car, no more electricity, no more OLO :)
it won't make a scrap of difference.

Banjo, thanks for your question, it highlights just why I started this thread.
See I have questions, honest ones, I have none about Global warming, I believe in it.
I look for evidence mankind is responsible for it, but think he is.
I wounder if man can do anything about it, doubt we can unite to undertake that task but await answers.
In retrospect, even with oppositions yes/no answers, I still think we should have got an ETS across the line.
But Banjo, in your posts I see definates, you definitely believe not in science that opposes your ideas, in truth my school pass in waste management, burning rubbish in the school incinerator, is no less value than any ones on this subject.
CJ Morgan, your mob are from my side of center, to some extent refugees from my team.
I may be wrong, but with every bit of my instinct think they have set too radical a target.
And know it, dreaming of refugees continuing to come but by being as bad as conservatives may yet send some back to Labor.
Politics is about compromises.

Belly,

I suspect you are being a little negative. Copenhagen is struggling with one of the many legacies left by George Bush. Look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2009.png

See that red bit in the graph? Well that red bit emits about 40% of the worlds total GHG's. Here on OLO posts repeatedly say "there is no point in Australia implementing an ETS if the rest of the world doesn't". There is some sense in that. We all have to do this or it won't work. Everybody Copenhagen knows it. And despite all the political bluster here and elsewhere about how it "must happen" you can bet your sweet booties no one is going to sign on the dotted line to commit themselves to a whole pile of pain when the elephant in the room is just thumbing their at the entire process. Fix that red bit in the graph, and I guarantee you things will move quickly.

And you know what? Despite claims like "what about China, or how about Russia", that graph shows that isn't where the divide lies. This isn't west versus east, democracy versus socialism, or white versus yellow. This is the USA versus the rest of the planet. It doesn't matter whether the country was communist, democratic or tin pot dictatorship, they all signed on. The only country of any consequence that didn't is George Bush's fiefdom, the USA.

The great white hope we all have in all of this is it ain't George Bush's USA any more. The times, they are a changing.

CJ Morgan: "the Greens rightly opposed the final form of the ETS is that it had been compromised to the point of being worse than useless."

Yes, it was compromised. But the Greens were wrong to refuse to sign it.

An ETS has no chance of getting up is if it isn't a net gain for business. If it isn't, they bash the political will to implement it to death with money. This by definition means it will be worse than useless when passed. That is exactly has it started in Europe, and it remained that way for 7 years. I guess the 7 years seemed so far away business didn't care. Care or not, it can't be rolled back and is now beginning to bite. Unlike the rest of the world emissions in Europe are dropping, even though the credits were handed out free. In 2013 if the polluters haven't cleaned up their act, it is going to cost them real money. Up till now they just made money by selling over-abundant credits.

Our proposed ETS is exactly the same. The sooner we pass it, the sooner we get through this seemingly mandatory "worse than useless" phase, the sooner we start to get our emissions down. You would think the Greens would realise that - but no, rather than being part of the solution they choose to be part of the problem.

And the thing that really gets me is the Greens could have done what the opposition did. They could of sided with the government got the thing passed, but instead of insisting on amendments that watered the thing down as the Libs did, they could have strengthened it and made the real cuts come in faster. But instead apparently they thought a bit of noisy grandstanding would yield far better results for Green party. I don't know - maybe it did. And maybe I am just being downright unrealistic to think they shouldn't set aside their founding principles for a bit of cheap political opportunism. Maybe that is why I will never be a politician.

None of us can be sure why we think as we do, I try, gee I do, to be balanced in my views, to say what I think.
I think, but can not prove man has played a roll in GW.
I think in time we will fix it,but not until it gets much worse.
One day the claim coal is a major cause will not need to be made, we will have moved on to other fuels, in part fixing the problem.
I do you know, truly, think governments, all of them, are not truly yet interested in new fuels new power.
Fear of letting go advantages like our income from coal, middle eastern income , western too from petroleum , stops progress.
Bazz know this, my ALP does not drive me, surely my posts scream just that?
I will till I die regard Simon Crean, a bloke who let his fathers name down, with no more regard than Latham, mate that is none.
My grub in festered NSW mob shame me, give me one honest rough nut like Eddy Ward, long dead never forgotten, and you can have the rest.
Again questions that I can not answer but will give an honest view.
Is GW real
Did man play a role
Can we fix it
Should we fix it
Do we care about Islands about to die?
Never perfect never sure but in my view yes to every question.
I however can be wrong.

Dear Herman,

I think you're reading too much into
the Obama Friedman "connection."

I got hold of Friedman's book at the
recommendation of a friend. But prior
to doing so - I of course did some
research on the author.

Thomas L.
Friedman is a three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning
author. His books are international bestsellers.
Among them are, "From Beirut to Jerusalem,"
(winner of the National Book Award for non-fiction
and the Overseas Press Club Award): "The Lexus and
the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalisation," (also
winner of the Overseas Press Club Award);
"Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After
September 11," and "The World is Flat: A Brief History
of the Twenty-First Century," (winner of the first
Financial Times: Goldman Sachs Business Book of The
Year Award).

Friedman also has an OBE from Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

I suggest that you actually read some of Friedman's work -
and then make up your mind about him. Surely you're
not of that sort of narrow mentality that thinks,
"I never read a book first before reviewing it as
it prejudices one so?" (giggle).

As for there being something fishy about the author being
pally with Obama? Perhaps Obama simply wants to pick
the author's brain ?

You should realize that the
book I'm recommending to you was published a year
prior to Obama being inaugurated as President - and it
of course was written years earlier before Obama ever
appeared on the scene - however, it's now very topical
and an excellent read on Climate Change issues.
Undoubtedly the US President read the book - (and with
Copenhagen) - wanted to meet the author.

I must comment on Bob Browns comments today, rstewart has got it right, I think I have too.
Let us be realistic, Brown said the old party's, trying to paint his as innovative and new.
Todays Greens are hardly that, 40% cuts by 2020, just consider how could we do that?
Who, on any side would support it?
I can not cut in my mind the idea todays idiot protest in Newcastle, strapping them selves to bridges and trains, is from Greens.
What ever we do, even if it is nothing, the unrealistic wishes of the greens are no better than the Abbott plans.
What ever is done it will in the end have to be a compromise, a vote for the Greens[ strange but tell me I am wrong] in the next election is a vote to do nothing.

Was Copenhagen.an impossible dream? Rising affluence of the poorer nations, and demands on the World resources from the extra 2.8 billion souls in the next 40 years ( U.N. figures), an increase of one third, will have a huge impact,the size of which is just emerging. So long as the poorer nations set fire to the forest when all they wanted was to clear a small plot for a few chickens and some rice and cassava and have lots of children.
So long as there are strikes of lightning to start bushfires, 80 of them in NSW this week, burning through forest lands that consumed hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO2 every year of growth and now discharged it all back into the atmosphere in as many hours.
So long as political vision remains self serving , the time is nigh for nuclear power, re afforestation, on farm water conservation and bold legislation to phase out the mining of coal for our energy needs until a better use is found for it..
It makes more sense to compensate the shareholders than hand outs of $billions to poorer nations to cope with climate change rather than teaching them how to cope with it.
It makes more sense to process uranium ores to the fuel stage in Australia in the quiet confidence of a vision that this is our 24/7 clean energy future into the 22nd Century and beyond. Would the dissenters have a practical understanding of their dissent? or must we continue to be assailed year after year by the tortuous reasoning of theorists? and politicians who do not have the courage to legislate a practical vision for the community beyond their own tenure. My 13 year old says the earth is in an elliptical orbit round the Sun and closest for the next few years since 640 AD and will continue to melt the ice caps until it ranges out and the poles freeze up again.

Strange post that, well in my view it is.
Most of it seemed to point to man playing a roll in GW, population, poverty, removing trees to grow food, all things I would agree with.
Then while we , well most of us are looking for causes, you tell us your 13 year old child as the answer and its none of the above.
This mornings maybe leaks maybe lies about tax reform include new tax's for cars ext in city's, well if public transport was not a farce yes but until then its punishment for those who must go to work in own transport.
Things like Nuclear power are an alternative, we just have to convince true conservationists, not those who falsely wear a brand while in truth being nothing like it.

I can never be called a fan of any media outlet that is in Fox's owners hands.
But if we intend to debate this subject each of us, should read today Mondays editorial in the online edition of the Australian.
Read with an open heart and mind, I know if we nit pick roll it over look for things that support us we will find it.
And we can find things that we do not like too.
But while it hurts to hurt CJ Morgan and Bronwyn, so many who share many of my views, this story highlights extremism is a danger.
We could have had a scheme in place, maybe that would have helped others, we will get a scheme, maybe not the one on the table.
But whatever it is we will pay for it, Rudd's task is not to fuel the silly tax is the only issue fires by forgetting his middle of the road plans.

Belly. I think you were replying to a post I didn't make.
This is my first on this thread.

I have read a couple of articles where it is suggested that it might be
both cheaper and more effective to not try and reduce CO2 but to just
mitigate the effects as they happen.

We will not have then spent money on things that will not happen and so
have more to directly attack those things that do happen.
The Barrier Reef is an example of this. It is recovering quite well and
it could be expected to expand further south. Apparently it copes with
higher temperatures and lower PH quite well.
There is no way we can just shut down the power stations.
Nuclear will take too long and before CO2 sequestration is ready we
will be on the slope of coal depletion or the price will be too high
to make it possible.
Coal is going to get more expensive and harder to extract with peak
coal occurring around 2025 at present prices plus a bit.
Richard Heinberg has written on this problem and I am expecting to be
able to read his book Blackout soon.
Those that bleet renewables have no idea what they are talking about
and even if we could get the government to spend a fortune on a super
grid to cover the whole country, so as to take advantage of the
geographical spread it could not provide base load.
Geothermal is a hope but it is a fair way off yet, if ever.

It may all change when the sunspot count rises again, it is in single
digits at present and I have never seen it so low.
The upper atmosphere, the ionosphere, is really in a bad way.
It would be surprising if it had no effect on climate.
HF radio conditions are just non existent at present.

Bazz: "The Barrier Reef ... copes with higher temperatures and lower PH quite well."

Hmmm. I understood it was the reverse. If you are right that would be good news indeed. Got a link?

"CAIRNS residents will have to cope with more intense and frequent extreme weather events because of the failure of world leaders to do more about climate change.

The warning comes from James Cook University disaster expert Prof Jon Nott.

The professor of physical geography said extreme weather such as floods, cyclones, erosion, landslides, king tides and droughts would hit the Far North harder than the southern states.

"We will see an increase in the magnitude and size of these extreme events," Prof Nott said.

"These natural hazards are going to affect us most, whereas southern Australia will see an increase in average temperature and decrease in rainfall, which will exacerbate drought and bushfires."

Australia should also prepare to receive refugees from low-lying Pacific island nations, which will face sea level rises, he said."

The above is from Cairns Post 21/12/09. Does this make the impact personal enough to get everyone's attention? Do you really want to risk it?

Besides....what would be so wrong with having a nice, clean, green peaceful world? Even if you don't believe in GW, and are against the ETS (which by the way, in Rudd's version, I am) why not still take the opportunity to be the best in the world using our abundant solar, wind and geothermal blessings and have everyone benefit?

Rstuart:
Bazz: "The Barrier Reef ... copes with higher temperatures and lower
PH quite well."

I knew as soon as I wrote that you would ask me for a link.
I read it only two or three days ago. It was written by somebody that
has been doing work on the Great Barrier Reef. I don't think it was
somebody at Townsville Uni, but he was an academic.
It being so recent a Googling might find it. He had an odd name.

I will see if I can find it.

Rstuart;
Here it is;
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-04-23-voa9-68784577.html

The Googly Barrier Reef recovery gives a number of results.
This is not the one I read but some of the wording is similar.
It gives the name of the scientist and the Barrier Reef Authority.
So you should be able to get a lot more info.

This whole AGW hoax need to come to a head, these shysters are robbing us blind and there's too many useful-idiots helping them!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

dibbsy,
Noted your post referring to sea levels rising.

Here is some info that may interest posters.

Question. Which expert knows best? this one or the bloke from Cairns?

Even the threats of rising sea levels have been rejected by one of the world’s foremost sea-rise experts, Nils-Axel Morner, the leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, who wrote in October to Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed telling him that the results of extensive testing of the sea levels in the Maldives over several decades showed “overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years”.The same goes for Tuvalu and the other island nations claiming to be threatened by calamitous sea rise, he said. Very emotive, but a fraud.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Bazz seems like we have something in common radio.
As a full call ham I am aware of the sunspot cycle, it is not as you know fixed at 11 years but can be much longer or shorter.
Like to see raw mustard give some examples of the fraud, evidence not words.
Nuclear is the first answer, it has to be, already is for a great deal of the world.
Other fuels/power sources can only be developed when all politicians care more about the planet than petroleum owners/power interests, unlikely in my lifetime.
Few fail to understand whatever we do will cost money and fewer still think that it will not be us, the average consumer who ends up paying, not sure about that post Bazz, was it in this thread or the one I quoted you in about house prices?

Just had to share this!
Global warming explained?
900 million women worldwide are in the early stages of menopause and experiencing what is commonly known as “hot flashes” according to a report by Professor of Meteorology Dr. Cyrill Sanders at a convention of environmental experts in Osaka, Japan. Dr Saunders suggests a correlation between the number of women entering menopause over the past 25 years and increasing global temperatures, but concedes the contribution from each individual woman is minuscule (less than 0.0000000023 degrees F each year. Dr Saunders argued that when the Earth's population was small, the effect was barely noticeable, thus attributing part of the problem to the growth in the worldwide population of perimenopausal women. Not all at the conference were entirely convinced. Dr Brigitta Watson, a 49-year-old British scientist was quoted as saying "It's well-known that the burning of fossil fuels is the prime cause of global warning. To lay the blame at the doorstep of menopausal women is the act of a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal." Before anyone gets too hot under the collar, it its worth noting that the original source for this story was the US newspaper Weekly World News. Other stories covered by this prestigious tabloid include recent sighting of Elvis Presley, the discovery of a mutant “bat boy” living in a cave in New Mexico, and an incident involving an ice-skating circus bear that killed one person and injured another during rehearsals. Interpret with caution …

Banjo: "Question. Which expert knows best? this one or the bloke from Cairns?"

It is a bit of a misleading way to ask the question Banjo. Here is a few other ways you could have asked it:

- would you believe our guy in Cairns, or some guy from Stockholm who also happens to believe in dowsing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner#Views_on_dowsing

- would you believe the measurements from one guy in Stockholm, or the measurements taken by Geoscientific Australia and our Bureau of Meteorology? http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/reports_yearly.shtml

- would you believe a guy that only every cites his own data which he arrives at by "coring, levelling, sampling and carbon dating", but not ever direct measurement of the sea level by tide gauges or satellite data? http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/the_australians_war_on_science_24.php

- would you believe a guy who published papers about the sea level in the Maldives were were directly refuted by multiple other studes done by his peers. Quote from Church, White and Hunter, 2006 Global and Planetary Change: In the Indian Ocean, the tide-gauge records at the Maldives indicate large rates of relative sea-level rise in agreement with Singh et al. (2001) and Woodworth (2005), and in disagreement with Morner et al. (2004) ... has also been shown to be inconsistent with geological data (Woodroffe, 2005;Kench et al., 2005).

See Banjo, it is so easy to get the answer you want by just asking the question a little differently.

That said, unlike many other names passed off here as "sceptical experts" Nils-Axel Mörner is the real deal - a genuine scientist who has spent a lot of time studying the area he is commenting on. The only point I really want to make is it not just some guy in Cairns that disagrees with him - it is in fact the vast majority of his peers. In other words, the way you spun it was downright deceptive.

Belly wrote:
"Like to see raw mustard give some examples of the fraud, evidence not words."

Did you read the article?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

Here, knock yourself out.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://joannenova.com.au/

Now show me one paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming? Just one!

What a depresssing thread. I've been too busy to contribute until now, and after reading through the mostly ignorantly triumphant posts from the climate delusionist brigade, I'm just going to respond to the specific points made by Belly and rstuart.

I'm no spokesperson for the Greens, but as I understand it they oppose the ETS as proposed because to do otherwise would be hypocritical. You say the 40% target proposed by the Greens is unrealistic when compared with Rudd's 5% - I think it all depends on what you think is realistic.

My own view is that 'business as usual' is unrealistic, because all the available evidence indicates that if we don't reduce greenhouse emissions significantly and rapidly, it will 'cost' us and our children much more ultimately, in terms of sustainability. I think we're stuffed - humans are too driven by self-interest to be able to agree co-operatively on the kinds of large-scale action that is needed.

At least the Greens stick to their principles, and are still inviting negotiation with the Government on climate change - which is much more than can be said for the Opposition.

Sorry C J Morgan I have a great deal of respect for you but we differ here totally.
Oh except the thread is much as you say it is, can it be Minchin Abbott Wilson Tucky came from good breeding stock?
40% is unachievable, now and in our lifetime.
5% is uncharitable, we know Rudd said it was the bottom not the top of his target.
Fact is if greens had voted twice for change not against it, I could believe they are not hunting new senate seats more than green outcomes.
Tell me compromise is not the back bone of politics.
My second preference is forever lost to the greens, rather not support an Abbott like outcome.
RW have thought your challenge from every side, came up with the view it is not worth while debating such a closed mind.

Belly wrote:
"RW have thought your challenge from every side, came up with the view it is not worth while debating such a closed mind."

Of course not, it is the typical response in the hand book of carbon cultists for dummies.

My offer stands though, provide me with one paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming, just one.
That’s major warming, not minor and that’s empirical by observation, not by simulation.

Remember it's not us skeptics that want to rob all the good people of Australia of their hard earned money, it's your poly-tick mates. If they want us to cough up, they they had better provide unquestionable proof, not fake graphs thrown around by the Fat controller with vested, questionable business dealings!

Raw Mustard as you know I give no value to your debating style.
And have no intention of talking to you.
But look again at your post, re read the insulting words.
Do you understand the concept of sticks and stones?
Have you ever won a fight with words? do you think verbal warfare is manly?
No mate this is not warfare it is about truth
I started this thread, and did not follow my own intentions, to see if we could talk about our reasons for thinking as we do.
My first post, this believer in GW, this follower of Rudd, highlighted my view he should have waited.
Started the debate after Copenhagen, I even took the stick to the backs of my fellow travelers from left of center the greens, for what I see as stupidity.
I do not share you self confidence, think it is miss placed.
But thanks for your rant, it wins my point, based on nothing but rage and false theory's you land here evidence to me much of the hot air is coming from people unable to understand the issue.