Business making record profits are gong to pass the bill for climate change to everyday people like you and me?
The cost of living is going to increase enormously.
The price of stuff is gona go thru the roof...
global warming[climate change] also causes global cooling.
and a bullet fired at a persons head from a high powered rifle causes death and also causes increase in life expectancy.
Did you only just work that out?
One of the basic realities here on planet Earth is that any charge or increase in charge is ALWAYS passsed on down the line and settles on the poor sucker who can't pass it down any further.
Guess who that is? uuummmmm,...
Yes! It's YOU! 
Worse than that, any charge is passed on down the line with a percentage profit added to it. So if the original charge is $1.00 and it passes through 3 middle men, they all add an honest %50, and by the time it gets to the end of the line (i.e. YOU, ) it's %150 more than the original charge.
So all the sheep who are bleating for "strong action on climate change" might want to be careful. You might just get it. And the justification for it will then be that you asked for it.
It was all much simpler a few hundred years ago. We could just sacrifice a few virgins and get on with life. But apparently that's out of fashion these days. Not sure why. Probably ran out of virgins. 
It was all much simpler a few hundred years ago. We could just sacrifice a few virgins and get on with life. But apparently that's out of fashion these days. Not sure why. Probably ran out of virgins.
Watched a bit on late line last night, interview was with top lad from NASA Climate change group. Very logical viewpoint that he raised
And his solution was "NO CARBON TRADING SCHEME!!!"
His recomendation was a tax on carbon producing products. Once the main playing governments started to do this, then reinvesting the tax with the population(that's the weak point of his argument
), then the smaller economy's would follow suit, unless they wanted the big groups to tax their goods as they went over the import boarders, which isn't a good way to do it for the smaller groups. Better to tax yourselves and keep the coin in the Country of origin.
Only hassle is working out what level of tax each has so its a level playing field and no protectionism involved. 
One thing that bothers me with Carbon Dioxide and climate change and wanting to to reduce it.... well what causes the bubbles in fizzy drinks, beer, and if bread is made with yeast it rises with fermentation.
Will the wine industry stop making wine as this also generates Carbon Dioxide?
Simply put - think of the carbon emissions tax as similar to the current taxes on-
-pokies
-cigarettes
-alcohol
Now, the government is raking in a HUUUUGE revenue on these taxes at the moment, so they're not discouraging gambling, smoking or drinking... because basically it would mean a reduction in revenue!
Carbon emissions tax just equals more money if they can maintain the emissions...and better for revenue if the emissions increase! [}:)]
There you have it. Russia has a democracy, Britain and the rest of the EU countries don't.
It could even be argued that China is more democratic than the EU countries.
Turncoat Turnbull says he will cross the floor to Labour on the ETS issue.
Thank God for Tony Abbott saving us from being signed up to this evil "Copenhagen Agreement".
Don't relax though folks. The New World Order sickos have come very close this time and will use whatever dirty tricks they can to achieve their aims.
The way some folks have been talking on this forum makes me wonder if the NWO sickos have had a few of their goons infiltrate the forum.
No doubt somebody will weigh in on that and say "Get real cisco. You are paranoid; you have a persecution complex; you are schizophrenic and conspiracy theory whacko."
I can handle that. My skin has gotten fairly thick over the years, some might say as thick as my brain.
Ridicule is the lowest form of wit after all. It is just a pity the paltry pollies in Canberra use it so much. Rudd seems to use it more than any and it is a reflection of the quality (or lack of) of the Labour leadership in Australia. So much for being the people's party.
NSW Labour is in a shambles, Qld Labour has the most unpopular Premier of all time of any party and many of us in Qld remember when Rudd was Wayne Gough's chief hatchet man.
What runs does Rudd have on the board. He will be remembered for plungeing Australia into more debt than even Whitlam did.
Keep the faith Brothers and Sisters.
Who will pay for it? Most probably those who can least afford it.
Firstly if climate change is happing and the Earth's climate is getting warmer, the people who jet off to St Moritz for a skiing holiday may be affected a bit, due to less snow but that gives them more time for drinking and whoring.
On the other hand poor people will die.
I guess a few questions need to be asked....
What temperature should the Earth's climate have?
Is it right for humans to attempt to stabilise the Earth's climate when the historical and scientific record shows the Earth's climate varies and sometimes varies very quickly.
How will something like an Emission Trading Scheme reduce the affects of human induced climate change?
Recent history has shown doubling the price of petrol in a short period of time did not reduce the consumption of petrol. I guess an economist would say the demand is inelastic, that is people will consume petrol no matter what the cost is.
Electricity would be a similar situation where prices could double and demand would probably reduce very little. So the analogy to the sin taxes I believe is appropriate. The proposed taxes on carbon dioxide emissions would be just a new source of revenue for government and will be a source of income for financial traders.
The revenue will be raised from the hoi poloi and the benefits will go to the elites, who ironically are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. It would interesting for a scientist to work out the greenhouse emissions created by the Copenhagen conference.
cisco... makes me think some NWO goons have infiltrated this forum.
scary stuff, as of tomorrow i might start believing that global warming does in fact cause global cooling.
that a black smoke fire does melt steel, causing not 2 but 3 wtc superstructures to fall in free/fall speed for the first time in history.
that a black smoke fire does leave pools of molten steel no less than 6 weeks after the event.
you know what they say,tell a lie often enough people will start believing it.
ok.. got to get back into the matrix quick.
tell myself this a thousand times before the nights out i should be ok, thats back in the matrix again.
yes the gov is telling the whole truth about this global warming and yes a boogie man who lives in a cave in afghanistan did orchestrate the controlled demolitions of the twin towers and building 7.
only 999 more times to go and be cured of my delusions.
LOL
I'm with you. Yes, a double standard.
If somebody wants to talk windsurfing the general forum is probably not the best place for it.
Did you actually take the photo of your avatar? I would love to have been there.
finding out about this NWO hidden masterplan is way,way better than my very best day of sailing.
what else is as enjoyable as finding out what is really going on.
ok, away for pizza now and...
Who will pay for it? Most probably those who can least afford it.
100 percent correct moby....
"I think you'll find that what will happen, is this guy will go to Copenhagen and get torn several new ones. There are more holes in his argument than a sieve."
Subjective claptrap Shintaro.
Nice first post, how many login names do you have now?
Im impressed with you cartoon collection Laurie, you seem to have the apropiate one every time
did anyone watch lateline during the week..... tony jones interviewed an expert climatolgist. Dr James Hansen, who researches radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites for NASA.
they discusses the Copenhagen climate conference and his views on government action,( which he thinks is not enough and in the wrong direction) and climate data facts.
video of interview plus entire interview transcript is here. www.abc.net.au/lateline/climate-scientist-discusses-copenhagen-summit/1173562
extract.
TONY JONES: Can we talk about the science of global warming and climate change now, because as we've gotten closer to Copenhagen, the sceptics have become much louder. There's been a fierce backlash against the science. What do you think is going on here?
JAMES HANSEN: Well, the science, as you know, has become very clear. The evidence for climate change around the world is widespread. The Arctic Sea ice melting, glaciers receding all around the world, climate zones are shifting, the subtropics are expanding, and that's affecting Australia, by the way, as well as the south-west United States and the Mediterranean region, and that's a reason why we have more extremes, including heatwaves and fires.
But also, when we have rain, it is heavier, because warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour. We see the climate change all over the planet, there's no question about that.
TONY JONES: But why do you think there's been a revival of scepticism against the science? You must have been disturbed yourself recently by the leaked email exchanges between your fellow scientists at Britain's climate research unit.
Now sceptics are using these emails to support their case that scientists are trying to hoodwink us, that scientists are falsifying data or hiding away evidence that disproves their arguments.
JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, these are very desperate efforts by the contrarians and those who are supporting the business community that wants to continue business as usual. But, you know, the data that is used to determine the temperature change over the last century or so, that data is available to everybody.
If there was anything wrong with the analyses that showed the magnitude of this warming, don't you think that these contrarians would quickly show, do their own analysis and show that there really wasn't any warming? Of course not because they know very well.
You know, they've tried to examine or data and they did find one flaw, which turned out to be 3/100ths of a degree and was an easily explained mistake, but that's the kind of thing, they're looking for nitpicking. They try to find small things and then they question the integrity of the scientists.
But in fact, there's the evidence for climate change, and the analyses is very strong. It's true that in some of these email exchanges that some of the scientists did some things which I think they probably regret.
For example, we should always make our input data available to the community, to anybody, so that they can check our analysis. But, in fact, we've been doing that for many years, and as I say, nobody can find anything that disproves proves our analysis.
TONY JONES: Okay well one of the published emails we're talking about goes to the key part of the sceptics argument that since 1998, the hottest year on record, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere kept going up, but the temperature didn't keep going up with it.
Now you've been bombarded, I understand, with scores of messages along those lines from people who want you to repent and admit that global warming is a hoax. So how do you respond to them?
JAMES HANSEN: You know, if you look at this global temperature curve and smooth it over a few years you'll see that it's continued to increase over the last decade. And in fact, it's not true that 1998 was the warmest year. 2005 was the warmest year.
The British analysis shows 1998 as the warmest year because they exclude polar regions, because there are no weather stations there or very few. But there are other ways to estimate the temperature in the polar regions and in fact, because of the decreased sea ice in the Arctic it has been warmer and warmer in the Arctic.
And when you include these polar regions, it turns out that 2005 was the warmest year. And when you average over a few years you'll find that the temperature curve has continued up. And besides, you don't expect the temperature to go up every year.
There's a lot of natural variability in the system primarily due to the tropical El Nino/La Nina cycle. And now we are moving into the El Nino phase, so it's a pretty good bet that, first of all, this year is going to be one of the warmest years, 2009, and 2010 will probably be the warmest year on the record.
TONY JONES: Is there already evidence for that? I mean are you seeing early data from your global temperature recordings?
JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, we see the data up to now, and we know that the global temperature tends to lag a few months behind the tropical temperature. So it's because the El Nino started a few months ago, it's likely to have its greatest effect on 2010, but it's already having an effect this year making this year some place between the second and the fifth warmest, it depends on the November and December data, which we don't have yet.
TONY JONES: Okay, can you tell us how the Goddard Institute takes and adjusts these global temperatures because sceptics claim that urban heat centres make a huge difference; that they distort global temperatures and they make it appear hotter that it really is.
So do you adjust, in your figures, for the urban heat zone effects?
JAMES HANSEN: We get data from three different sources and we now, in order to avoid criticisms from contrarians, we no longer make an adjustment. Even if we see there are eight stations in Alaska and seven of them have temperatures in the minus 30s and one of them says plus 35, which pretty obvious what happens, someone didn't put the minus sign there, we just, we don't correct that.
Instead we send an email or letter or a letter to the organisation that produces the data and say, you'd better check the Alaska temperatures, because we don't want to be blamed for changing anything. But as far as adjusting for urban effects, we have a very simple procedure.
We exclude urban locations, use rural locations to establish a trend, and that does eliminate - though urban stations do have more warming than the rural stations, and so we eliminate that effect simply by eliminating those stations, but it's very clear that the warming that we see is not urban, it's largest in Siberia, and in the Arctic and the Antarctic, and there aren't any cities there, and there's warming over the oceans, there are no cities there. So it's not urban warming that's just nonsense.
TONY JONES: Well if I understand you correctly your biggest fear now is that these built in temperature rises will trigger what you call feedback mechanisms. Can you explaining how they work, and what are the implications of them?
JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, well that's what makes climate a really dangerous situation, because of the inertia of the system. It takes the ocean a long time to warm up, it's four kilometres deep, and it takes icesheets a long time to get started to move, they're very thick and have a lot of inertia.
The problem is that as these changes begin to occur, and they are beginning to occur - Greenland is losing ice faster and faster and Antarctica is beginning to lose ice at a rate of about 150 cubic kilometres per year - as you get to a certain point, you can get to a point where the dynamics of the system begins to take over.
If the icesheets begin to collapse, by that time it's too late. You've passed the tipping point and the icesheet is going to end up in the ocean. So, that's one of the tipping points. Another one is methane hydrates. We're beginning to see methane bubble out of the tundra as it's melting.
There's a lot more methane hydrates on continental shelves. As the ocean warms that methane hydrate can also begin to release methane, which is a very strong greenhouse gas and can cause amplifying feedback which makes the global warming much larger.
And this is not idle speculation, because we can look at the history of the earth. And in past global warming events we have seen those kind of amplifying feedbacks which then make the change extremely large.
TONY JONES: Okay, well you're talking about what you find from the examination of ice core data. Is there a comparable period in history, the history of the planet that is, where warming accelerates due to these feedback mechanisms, and do you get much more rapid sea level rises during that period?
JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, well, in the relatively recent paleoclimate, coming from the last ice age to the present interglacial period that we've been living in for 10,000 years, when that icesheet, the big icesheet on North America began to disintegrate, sea level went up five metres per century. That's one meter every 20 years for several centuries. So once an icesheet begins to melt and begins to disintegrate, things can move very rapidly.
TONY JONES: Okay let's go quickly through a couple of the other key arguments put forward by the sceptics. Why worry about carbon dioxide when water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas and actually occurs naturally?
JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, that's the screwiest argument which keeps being made again and again and again. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by the atmosphere's temperature, everyone should know that. Look at the difference between winter and summer.
As you go to a warmer climate the atmosphere holds more water vapour because at the places where the humidity reaches 100 per cent the water vapour falls out as water or snow. And therefore, as the planet becomes warmer, the atmosphere holds more water vapour.
That's why we get heavier rain falls as the planet gets warmer. So this water vapour is an amplifying feedback. It makes the greenhouse effect much stronger. But it's not something that just changes on its own accord; it changes in response to the temperature changes.
TONY JONES: Okay, if I understand it correctly your argument is that climate change is not only about droughts, but that effect you're talking about will cause much more frequent and much more severe storms; is that correct?
JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, the, both extremes of the hydrologic cycle must increase, become more intense as the planet becomes warmer. At the times and places where it's dry, the increased heating of the surface makes it hotter and drier.
On the other hand, the oceans, the places where you have water, the increased heating evaporates more water, so the atmosphere holds more water vapour and at the times when you get rainfall you will get heavier rainfall and greater floods, so the extremes of the climate increase, the extremes of the hydrologic cycle.
Now as far as storms are concerned, the storms that are driven by latent heat - that means thunderstorms, tornados, tropical storms - the strongest ones will get stronger because there's more fuel. The water vapour provides the fuel for those types of storms.
Not all of them will be stronger, but the strongest ones will be stronger than the strongest ones now. But in addition to that, and one thing I talk about in my book, Storms of my Grandchildren, I'm talking about the mid-latitude storms, the fact that as the icesheets on Greenland and Antarctica begin to melt more rapidly than they are now, they will discharge ice fast enough that it will cool the surface of the ocean, nearby ocean, in the North Atlantic and in the circum Antarctic Ocean.
That will cause the temperature gradient between low latitudes and high latitudes to increase, so the storms that are driven by horizontal temperature gradients will become stronger, and these can be very damaging storms, this is like the storms that hit the Netherlands and England in the 1950.
They can do enormous damage. So, yes, it's true that all the storms that we can think of will become stronger as the climate becomes warmer.
TONY JONES: James Hansen, one final question: what's your estimate; how long do we have before the planet reaches one of those tipping points that you're talking about and global warming is irreversible? And if that happens, what are the consequences?
JAMES HANSEN: Well, you know, we are probably, we're already into the dangerous level of carbon dioxide and it's going to increase more. If we would phase out the coal emissions over the next 20 years, then CO2 would peak at something like 425ppm.
Doesn't look like we're starting to phase out coal though, so it may go higher than that. We're going to go well into the dangerous zone, and some things are going to happen out of our control. But that doesn't mean we should give up, because whether we get a sea level rise of one metre, or 25 metres makes a huge difference.
What we will need to do once people really see what's happening, is we're going to need to restore the planet's energy balance, or make it negative, and you do that by reducing the amount of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and so the planet begins to cool off a bit.
And then, even though we're going to get some icesheet disintegration anyhow and we're going to lose some species because we're already pushing some of them, we're putting a lot of stress on many species, but we don't, that doesn't mean we should give up and decide we're willing to give up all of them.
TONY JONES: James Hansen, we're going to have to leave it there. We thank you very much for coming to join us right on the eve of the Copenhagen conference.
JAMES HANSEN: Thank you for listening. Thanks.
