BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Should Australia postpone climate scheme?

11:38 UK time, Tuesday, 27 April 2010

The Australian government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will not start until 2013 at the earliest following rejection by the Senate. Has the right decision been made?

Australia has some of the highest per capita emissions of developed nations. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had hoped the scheme would cut the country's carbon emissions by up to 25% from 2000 levels by 2020, by requiring industrial polluters to buy licences to emit carbon.

However, some politicians questioned the scientific case for global warming and claimed that the emissions trading scheme would damage Australia's economy.
The scheme had already been rejected twice by the Senate, where Kevin Rudd's government does not have a majority.

Does the decision by the Rudd government reflect changing attitudes towards climate change in Australia? Is slow global progress on emissions cuts to blame for the plan's delay?

Click here if you have any other story ideas

This debate has now closed. Thank you for all your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 4

  • Comment number 1.

    Australia is right to question CPRS. Global warming is a myth.

    Furthermore, it would have one of the highest per capita emissions - it is highly developed but has a relatively small population.

    However, it along with all other developed and developing nations should look seriously at the real issues: waste and toxic pollution.

  • Comment number 2.

    This is unfortunate Australia is one of the worlds biggest polluters. This shows that politicians the world over will cave in on hard decisions when their power is at stake.

    Too bad polticians are unable to sell the benefits to their population. Too bad for the population that they are too gullible or apathetic to fight to save the planet.

  • Comment number 3.

    I don't trust Carbon trading.

    Cutting emmisions makes sense.

    Not cutting emissions but planting a few trees or funding third world eco-projects to compensate just seems like a cop out, trying to have your cake & eat eat it.

  • Comment number 4.

    “Global warming” (as it used to be known) is really running out of steam now. The Australian government are facing up to the fact that we have to deal with a world of reality, rather than a theory that is discredited and becoming some sort of new-age religion. Time for something new to be scared of, folks!

  • Comment number 5.

    If there is no definitive scientific backing for the "theory" of global warming and climate change, then the Australians are right to put the future of their economy ahead of making cuts that might not be necessary at all. There are more important issues like pollution, waste and over-population that need to be addressed far more urgently than something with only a loose connection to reality.

  • Comment number 6.

    Yes the correct decision has been made, this paranoia about CO2 has got to stop, far more carbon is released naturally and the largest human contributer (cement manufacture) is never mentioned.

  • Comment number 7.

    Presumably the Australian Senate have decided, on the weight of the evidence presented by the IPCC and its supporters, that it would be pointless to apply this constraint to the Australian economy unilaterally while at the same time their major industrial competitors in the area studiously do otherwise.

    Of course, they also have to consider the likely political repercussions of degrading their economy in this cause, a worry which does not seem to concern the IPCC.

    Presumably the Australian senate also does not have a vested financial interest in carbon trading, unlike a certain Mr Albert Arnold Gore, the leading protagonist for this type of Ponzi scheme.

  • Comment number 8.

    Aah! a vote for extinction. Well done cobbers. Austrailia would benefit from an extra 10% in the summer would it not? Want to come back to the 'motherland', tough!

  • Comment number 9.

    It's a hare-brained scheme and they are correct to reject it.

    Even if you think carbon emissions are a problem, it's silly. You want to reduce them, not charge for them - Mother Earth is not sitting there with her hand out wanting money. She wants to be cherished and looked after responsibly, in a sustainable manner... she wants that whatever your opinions on climate change might happen to be.

  • Comment number 10.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 11.

    Australia is right.

    'Global Warming' or whatever you want to call it became an issue when it was realised that nations such as India and China are catching up economically.

    The only way to attempt to keep them in their place without force is to invent a notion that they are going to ruin the planet.

  • Comment number 12.

    This is not a problem only in Australia,it is a global problem which effects all the inhabitants of the Earth. However, we live in a material world, so the economy comes first, of course. Nothing is more important then money, so why would we care in what state we are leaving the planet for our children. Maybe they will evolve to superior life forms capable to live without ozone.

  • Comment number 13.

    Global warming is a myth perpetuated by those incapable of independent thought!

  • Comment number 14.

    Australia, the mucky country.

  • Comment number 15.

    "#2. At 12:03pm on 27 Apr 2010, DibbySpot wrote:
    This is unfortunate Australia is one of the worlds biggest polluters. This shows that politicians the world over will cave in on hard decisions when their power is at stake.
    Too bad polticians are unable to sell the benefits to their population. Too bad for the population that they are too gullible or apathetic to fight to save the planet."

    Australia - one of the worlds biggest polluters? do you understand the meaning of the words per capita?

    Yes, despite the death of so many cartoon pets on the TV, and every flood/tornado and volcano being linked to 4x4 use, they still can't 'sell' the idea.

    Just because the scientists refuse to cooperate with anyone who disagrees with them, cherry-pick their stats, ignore inconvenient evidence and compare apples and oranges to 'prove' their point; for some CRAZY reason we don't trust them and spot it as an excuse to tax and make millions through 'carbon trading'.

    One last point 'the planet' will be just fine, what humans should do is spend their time and resources on working out how we can best adapt to the completely natural warming that will happen regardless of the IPCC's scaremongering and money making scams.

  • Comment number 16.

    Australia should do what Australia thinks best. The rest of the World should butt out.

  • Comment number 17.

    A staggering example of short-term self-interest by politicians. Always a drought-prone nation, Australia is likely to be one of the first developed nations to suffer severe impacts from climate change, with a real prospect that large parts of the country will become vitually uninhabitable within our lifetimes. The guilty politicians will by then probably have retired to somewhere cooler and wetter - New Zealand, perhaps?
    Given their country's appalling record on CO2 emissions, it would be easy to say that Australian voters will get what they deserve, but by the time they realise their mistake it may be too late to prevent the rest of us suffering the same fate.

  • Comment number 18.

    Rejection in the Australian Senate was to be expected. Prime Minster Kevin Rudd's government doesn't hold majority here.
    Even so, in answer to your question, I just-plain do not know if this is the right decision.
    The waters (or rather the air) has been so muddied by
    - the scientific case for global warming,
    - the scientific case against global warming,
    - lack of commitment to global action,
    - lack of clarity on whether CPRS would really work…
    I believe that muddying may have been the goal – Get people in such a position that on the topic of global warming, they don't know their left foot from their right foot and certainly don't know where to stand.
    When you have people in this position, you can test weather-altering equipment. People will be so confused anyway that they'll take for granted that the weather is really 'THE WEATHER".
    You can make earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, hurricanes…anything to bring fear, create chaos, and decrease that every-increasing surplus population…And people will blame global warming, divine wrath, who knows?
    So, for whatever reason the Australian Senate blocked carbon trading in Australia, it may prove the correct decision WHEN the real culprit comes to light with its equipment of mass destruction.
    I have come to believe that the weather weapon is finished and being tested. The weather-weapon is called HAARP. It is a product of the Uniuted States of America.
    By the way, I do not believe in CAP AND TRADE. Cap and Trade is a simple a way for rich countries to buy their "forgiveness" for all the carbon they emit without actually doing anything.

  • Comment number 19.

    Australia should do as it pleases, it's none of our business

  • Comment number 20.

    Why Australia, the economy-driven world nations are looking askance at the climate change. Never trust politicians - they talk through their hats. While economy is important it cannot do so at the expense of climate change. You cannot play tricks with the bounties of nature as some day it is bound to rebound and return to slay you. Adding to pollution is a ungrateful habit that needs to be detested and penalised. Delaying and denying the 'must' is a shameful act of the Australian Senate that needs to be condemned by all conscientious people.

  • Comment number 21.

    There is evidence that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels have rocketed since the industrial evolution when measured against thousands of years worth of data. There is also evidence that double bonded molecules, such as CO2 gas and indeed atmospheric water vapour trap infrared solar radiation creating a "greenhouse effect". Ignore the scientists at your peril, they know more than most and have no reason to scare-monger.

  • Comment number 22.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 23.

    Carbon pollution and many other aspects of pollution and poisoning of the environment, is created by the human species?

    However, we must not be distracted only by the 'global warming' argument, whether you believe it or not?

    The crisis of clean and sufficient water supplies and sustainable farming practice and food supplies are already with us? Polluting industries and deforestation thousands of miles away will not be cured by 'carbon trading'?

    Ask yourself everyday - 'do I need this new handbag, new car, new gadget, new gemstone mined etc., etc?

    The human industrialised society has 'advanced' relentlessly since the 19th century with two world wars in between?

    Yes, money and business makes the world go round - BUT NOT ALL HUMAN ADVANCEMENT IS PROGRESS? We seem to be running on a tread-mills to buy stuff - is that right - or does that make sense?

    Don't know - our family like nice stuff too, just worried and re-thinking and focusing on how and where the stuff in shops come from and how? Yes, we are buying less stuff made of plastic; not upgrading our mobile 'phones - saying no to our grandchildren - which helps as their parents are saying no too!

    NO, we are SO NOT vegetarians; need and use a car; don't buy bottled water because it's over-priced in plastic, but love affordable imported clothes? Go figure? Just keep in your mind how much pollution or exploitation your purchase caused? Have a look at BBC3 'Blood, sweat and Luxuries' - the first episode shocked us!


  • Comment number 24.

    Maledicti you are incredibly naive. "There is no scientific evidence" is not an argument for ignoring action to reduce emissions. There is no scientific evidence of a god, but that doesn't stop billions of people from worshipping. Would they stop worshipping because science has failed to demonstrate that god exists? Stop being lazy and help your fellow human beings care for the planet.

  • Comment number 25.

    I'm sorry but Global Warming is NOT a myth. Temperatures are gradually rising.

    Whether this is part of a natural, unavoidable cycle or due to Man's influence has yet to be proved to satisfaction and even I'm sitting on the fence on this.

    The question we should be asking is this.

    Should humanity do something about pollution in the environment so we have a better place to live regardles of the global warming argument?

    If you think we should something about it, then the decision is wrong.

    But only sort of.... We've got to take ecconomics in to account but ultimately something has to be done.

  • Comment number 26.

    Pollution should be the term used. Whether it is called CO2 emissions, global warming or whatever, it is pollution.

    Life rely's on a few things:-

    Air

    Water

    Food

    Warmth/shelter

    The first 3 we pollute without any 2nd thoughts but without them we die, the 4th is essential as also in the extremes without it we also die. Most people it seems are quite happy to ignore this, we are becomming complacent about an issue that affects all of us and is now spiraling out of control due to greed of money.

    Every year the air and sea pollution is worse, our food chain is produced through using chemicals in plants and drugs in animals so that production can be increased.

  • Comment number 27.

    Here's a quiz for all those "experts" out there who strongly believe or disbelieve in man-made climate change:

    1. Would you know how calculate the approximate temperature of 1 mole of gas occupying a volume of a few metres cubed at atmospheric pressure?

    2. Can you state all the laws of thermodynamics?

    3. Can you calculate the energy of one photon of light at 500 nm wavelength?


    I am not an expert on global warming, the science is just too complicated for me to follow without spending a lot more time studying it. But I can answer the above questions, as can most high school students with a decent understanding of A-level physics. The science of global warming is much more complex, and so I cannot claim to be an expert, but if you can't do the above questions, you haven't got a starting hope of understanding how energy is deposited in the earth by the sun, and how that contributes to temperature.

    I suspect that there are a lot of people out there who express a strong opinion on climate change (in both directions) but can't even answer the above questions. I'm fed up them and the disrespect that they show to genuine scientific debate.

    So what do I believe starting from my unqualified foundation? I believe that we should try to limit our use of fossil fuels because they are a finite resource and will eventually run out if we use them frivolously. Its not just fuel that we use them for, there are materials such as plastics too. We will eventually have to find alternative energy sources, might as well do it sooner rather than later. This is independent of the climate change debate.

  • Comment number 28.

    You picked a good name! someone needs to swat you! Talk about cheek! 99% of deny'ers of GW spout cliche's left right and centre, why? You know the answer to that, all by yourself! Try researching for yourself, if you know what that means, there is visual evidence out there not mearly heresay!
    P.S. change your pseudonym to King Canute, much more apt!

  • Comment number 29.

    The arrogance of the idea that in the face of Climate Change (whether natural or manmade depending on you views) that we as mankind are still able to control nature is highly amusing. When Gaia heads into an ice age man is not going to be able to stop it, the same applies when Gaia heats up. It is as arrogant as suggesting that man could control the movement of the continental plates to suit his residential requirements. Having respect for its only domicile is what is required by Humanity, rather than treating Gaia like we want the planet to die. Mankind is engaged in a mass suicide pact.

  • Comment number 30.

    Man-Made Global Warming is a LIE based on Junk Science and Anti Capitalist rhetoric. I am so tired of these constant Global Warming HYS's and all the Media hype and Propaganda on this issue.
    Quite simply, Prove it or Shut up.

  • Comment number 31.

    rogerredhat; Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

  • Comment number 32.

    Global warming is not a myth. The cause of it might well be as most of the evidence is circumstantial. The Earth has been getting warmer since the middle ages but its rate of increase has accelerated of late. The science surrounding the topic has become somewhat hysterical and any challenge to the accepted thinking is treated much the same as mediaeval heresy.

  • Comment number 33.

    Well done Australia!

    The climate has been changing for billions of years. If the climate hadn't changed we wouldn't be here and there would probably still be dinosaurs walking the Earth.

    The environmental fascists bang on all the time about "Saving the Planet" when what they really mean is “Saving humans”. The planet has been just fine for about 13 billion years so I expect it'll manage to struggle on for a bit longer! Humankind, however, will die and after a period of regeneration we will be replaced by....who knows?

    When the planet has had enough of us we'll have to go; but it will be the planet’s decision and no amount of carbon trading or long-life lightbulbs will make the slightest bit of difference.

  • Comment number 34.

    This is a disaster.

    It's depressing to read so many comments that are in denial about the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and to realize how successful the pseudoscientists and the oil companies have been in deceiving the public.

    There *is* no scientific controversy over climate change: the science is in and the theory is solid. The sole controversy is a political one manufactured by those with short-term interests. As much can be discovered by anyone who picks up a copy of New Scientist or Scientific American: it really is not so difficult to find out the true state of the science. Of course, if people are so lazy that they'd prefer to destroy their kids' and their grandkids' future rather than make that very small effort . . .

    Easier to slump in front of Big Brother, eh? Pass the popcorn.

  • Comment number 35.

    The ignorance of those who claim global warming (and, for that matter, evolution) is false is utterly astounding. It demonstrates a complete lack of respect and even understanding in the scientific process.

    That said, cap and trade is a half-baked hedge to cutting emissions. The only solid way to throttle carbon emissions would be a carbon tax. Tax coal the highest, oil next, gas the least, and wind/solar/nuclear not at all. Dial up the tax a bit every year, without fail, and the economy will smoothly shift toward other energy sources.

    Unfortunately, an effective carbon tax scheme will never pass legislature. Business and individuals hate any and every tax and governments are incapable of thinking past the next election cycle.

  • Comment number 36.

    Albert Einstein's paper on Relativity was published in 1911. 11 years later, in 1922, his theory was proven beyond doubt. It would have been proven sooner but for the intervention of WW I.

    The idea of global warming has 2 elements.
    1. Global temperature is increasing.
    2. Human beings are causing the temperature increase

    Neither assertion has been proven after being talked about for 30 years, despite our having much greater technology than existed in 1922.

    Science is not "Blah, blah, blah". Science is proof. There is NO proof for global warming. Just a bunch of scientists heaping ivenctive on other scientists who disagree with them.

    Global warming? Blah, blah, blah.

  • Comment number 37.

    I want to destroy the earth. Can I buy a license for that?

  • Comment number 38.

    @one-sick-puppy

    You say: "Quite simply, Prove it or Shut up."

    It has been proven, as you'd find out if you read the science sources rather than the Daily Mail.

    In that light, could *you* shut up?

  • Comment number 39.

    Australian premier, a PRC aficionado has to face the facts: Australia is no threatened by an alleged global warming, but but the very real Chinese freighters.

  • Comment number 40.

    HOW TO DESTROY THE EARTH WITH TOWELS!

    I went to a motel & in the bathroom was a sign that said:
    SAVE THE EARTH!
    MANY PEOPLE USE A TOWEL ONCE AND PUT IT ON THE FLOOR TO BE LAUNDERED.
    YOU CAN HELP SAVE THE PLANET BY NOT WASTING WATER. IF YOU USE A TOWEL ONCE YOU CAN HANG IT UP TO DRY AND REUSE.

    So here is a plot for a science fiction movie:
    Aliens come to earth intent on destroying the planet. Millions of them check into hotels, use a towel once, then put it on the floor to be laundered. In short order all the water on the planet disappears. We all die. THE END!

    The environmental movement becomes more ridiculous each year.

    PS - I'm not a conservative. I'm also not an idiot.

  • Comment number 41.

    Lord Monckton's challanged Al Gore to debate this for several years now.
    Gore has made hundreds of million promoting this theory.
    Al Gore says this is settled science.
    I site last year's worldwide brutal winter and normal polar ice caps, as proof it is not settled science.
    So lets have that debate.
    Why don't all you "believers" pressure Al Gore to debate us, with all this scientific proof you supposedly have, Gore should be easily able to silence all us deniers and even make us look silly.

  • Comment number 42.

    Excellent news. One of the best national traits of our Australian friends is common sense. Except for the lone shining star of President Klaus in the Czech Republic, Australia's is the first set of politicians in the industrialized world to show common sense on this issue. As anyone who has ever bothered to read real, statistically-accurate and unbiased research knows,the idea that human activity is responsible for a potentially disastrous climate change is utter nonsense. Obama and the rest: wake up.

  • Comment number 43.

    30. At 1:49pm on 27 Apr 2010, ONE-SICK-PUPPY wrote:
    Man-Made Global Warming is a LIE based on Junk Science and Anti Capitalist rhetoric. I am so tired of these constant Global Warming HYS's and all the Media hype and Propaganda on this issue.
    Quite simply, Prove it or Shut up.

    ----------------------

    Increasing the amount of greenhouse gas within a closed planetary system raises the temperature. That "junk science" you're referring to is basic physics. You're paranoid anti-science denial is based simply on fear of upsetting the status quo.

  • Comment number 44.

    "rather than a theory that is discredited"
    "global warming is a myth"
    "There is no scientific evidence"

    Actually there's plenty of scientific evidence. Unfortunately people like you are far too ready to believe media hype than actually look deeply at the evidence yourself and come to an educated conclusion rather than arguing from a position of complete and utter ignorance.

    "'Global Warming' or whatever you want to call it became an issue when it was realised that nations such as India and China are catching up economically.

    The only way to attempt to keep them in their place without force is to invent a notion that they are going to ruin the planet."

    Yea, there's a global Illuminati-driven conspiracy at hand here, isn't there?! Sheesh!!!!

    Having said all that, carbon trading is nothing more than a revenue generation scheme and does nothing for the environment; in terms of total CO2, it's a zero-sum equation.

  • Comment number 45.

    "However, some politicians questioned the scientific case for global warming and claimed that the emissions trading scheme would damage Australia's economy."

    Many commentators state Australia's approach to global warming is Australia's business only.

    Fair enough.

    Yet, many of the very same people would immediately jump up and protest at India's and China's increasing emissions. They would also be the ones quick to criticize chopping up of the Amazon by Brazilians.

    Seems like a bit of a double standard.

    Just as much as politicians claiming to be "experts" in science. I wonder though, as a scientist myself, if people would be just as willing to accept scientists claiming to be experts in political policy making too....

  • Comment number 46.

    I live in Australia and am 19 years old. I've grown up with all the talk about the O-Zone layer, the Green House Effect and now Global Warming. All I can say is that they are all almost sound the same but every few years they change the name and change the cause of damage to the Earth.

    The Australian Senate is divided pretty evenly between government and opposition, and then there are 5 Greens, and 2 independents, it was this 7 where their vote was important and yes even the Greens didn't vote for the ETS and CPRS that was proposed. These guys look at the facts and ask a million questions about it. This ETS wont save the planet "if man made Global Warming is real" and that's the view most Australian's hold, especially as we know that if most other nations still don't have a plan, who would want to possibly lose their job by having higher costs of living to pay for carbon (which even isn't the worst type of Pollution).

    Australia Made the right choice for Australia, most the rest of the world doesn't care about. We tried at that conference but nothing came out of it.

  • Comment number 47.

    30. At 1:49pm on 27 Apr 2010, ONE-SICK-PUPPY wrote:
    Man-Made Global Warming is a LIE based on Junk Science and Anti Capitalist rhetoric. I am so tired of these constant Global Warming HYS's and all the Media hype and Propaganda on this issue.
    Quite simply, Prove it or Shut up.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    Good luck finding those reds under the bed.


  • Comment number 48.

    All right, go ahead. Maybe when another devastating fire comes Australians will think different. It is not a question of evidence of global warming it´s just the huge influence of coal mining lobbyists. Country that has so much sunshine can produce all energy it needs from solar panels and still has enough to export. If the Australians do not realise this there is something wrong with their mental capacity.

  • Comment number 49.

    Regarding Post #1.

    KarenZ - come back online - your post at No.1 gets too much prominence...

    Tell us why "Global warming is a myth"?
    Are you a scientist?
    Do you know something the science community doesn't?

  • Comment number 50.

    "Global warming is a myth"
    "'Global warming' (as it used to be known) is really running out of steam now"

    Meanwhile, outside your little fantasy world, the arctic is on course to be ice-free during summer within three years. A majority of serious science, doing lots of serious science, agree that warming is real and happening. The signs are everywhere. The accumulated evidence overwhelms quibbles about what may or may not have been said in the "ClimateGate" emails. Have you read anything beyond the ramblings of conspiracy websites?

    Lots of people are determined to deny the evidence to escape any moral responsibility to act, or to support action. Sticking our heads into dark orifices won't change the facts, however.

  • Comment number 51.

    ''However, some politicians questioned the scientific case for global warming and claimed that the emissions trading scheme would damage Australia's economy''

    Actually, some scientists question the data and the way that it has been manipulated by researchers in the way in which they model the data.
    This scepticism has be reinforced by the scandals involving a UK university and some e-mails.
    Obviously, the Australian Senate are more concerned with that country's economy than the inconclusive science about man made global warming.

  • Comment number 52.

    ''19. At 12:57pm on 27 Apr 2010, quirkyspider wrote:
    Australia should do as it pleases, it's none of our business''

    Now that's what I'm talking about. The arrogance of other nations should be ignored by Australia.
    Too many politicians have got on this tax raising bandwagon as a way of digging their wasteful governments out of financial black holes. After all if this man made global warming myth was proved to be something which mankind had nothing to do with, then how would politicians be able to raise taxes on the back of it?
    That said, they would find a way, but no way as easy as the bandwagon they already have hitched a ride on.

  • Comment number 53.

    Carbon trading is a man-made scam and has no effect upon climate change, whatever its causes.

    I am not convinced by the AGW hysteria and some of the 'science' seems rooted in vested interests but real solutions like recycling more and diversifying our energy sources make sense whatever the reasons for our constantly changing climate.

    Australia is right to reject the carbon trading nonsense but wrong if it does nothing at all.

  • Comment number 54.

    35. At 2:08pm on 27 Apr 2010, Charles wrote:

    The ignorance of those who claim global warming (and, for that matter, evolution) is false is utterly astounding. It demonstrates a complete lack of respect and even understanding in the scientific process.

    That said, cap and trade is a half-baked hedge to cutting emissions. The only solid way to throttle carbon emissions would be a carbon tax. Tax coal the highest, oil next, gas the least, and wind/solar/nuclear not at all. Dial up the tax a bit every year, without fail, and the economy will smoothly shift toward other energy sources.

    Unfortunately, an effective carbon tax scheme will never pass legislature. Business and individuals hate any and every tax and governments are incapable of thinking past the next election cycle.

    ----------------------------

    Reported today- co2 models may again be wrong as the assumption made for fungus churning out more co2 has been shown to be wrong. Co2 output is increased for a short time and then the fungus starts dying which lowers the co2 output. This is one of the greatest co2 contributers in the model and shown to be wrong.

    I enjoy reading impartial sites as well as pro/con. The impartial and con agree plenty but the pro site is on its own, often showing incomplete facts or our right lies.

    It is accepted the earth is warming but there is no proof (so far) proving it to be wrong. We are coming out of an ice age still. The temperatures now are well below the medevil period but a lot of proof and solid data is thrown out by the pro lobby. Only the con and impartial groups look at all the data and look at real science.

    MMCC is possible but we wont know until the co2 theorists shut up or produce results from real science

  • Comment number 55.

    REALTHOG I am calling you out Sir/Madem
    This is your posting concerning us "deniers".
    34. At 2:05pm on 27 Apr 2010, realthog wrote:
    This is a disaster. It's depressing to read so many comments that are in denial about the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and to realize how successful the pseudoscientists and the oil companies have been in deceiving the public.

    I want to know specifically from you, what evidence have you seen that makes you so all fire certain in your belief of this?
    What one scientific fact can you site linking man to any change in this planets temperature?
    Can you show me a single instance of Oil Company scientists being as disingenous as the lies and cover up we know were perpetrated at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit?
    I'm waiting we are all waiting...

  • Comment number 56.

    I suspect that the Australian Senates position is that they are divided on the subject of MMGW or climate change or whatever it's name is this week. There will be those who believe it as fact and those who do not believe. Even if they were in total agreement with each other the fact remains that it is not a local problem, it is global and as such needs a global response. There is currently no global response and frankly I can't see that there ever will be.
    Why should we expect Australia to put its own economy into decline when realistically the global gains by them doing so are virtually insignificant.

  • Comment number 57.

    Given that anthropogenic global warming is now widely known to be a scientific fraud akin to the Piltdown Man or the Cardiff Giant, it should be "delayed" forever.

  • Comment number 58.

    34. At 2:05pm on 27 Apr 2010, realthog wrote:

    This is a disaster.

    It's depressing to read so many comments that are in denial about the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and to realize how successful the pseudoscientists and the oil companies have been in deceiving the public.

    There *is* no scientific controversy over climate change: the science is in and the theory is solid. The sole controversy is a political one manufactured by those with short-term interests. As much can be discovered by anyone who picks up a copy of New Scientist or Scientific American: it really is not so difficult to find out the true state of the science. Of course, if people are so lazy that they'd prefer to destroy their kids' and their grandkids' future rather than make that very small effort . . .

    Easier to slump in front of Big Brother, eh? Pass the popcorn.

    ----------------------------

    While you watch big brother I will inform you that co2 is a theory of warming. As the top theory is taking a lot of questions from scientific communities. The problem is that the co2 theories are only half baked and based on half the real data.

    If co2 is the cause we wont really know it until the pro co2 MMCC lobby back off and do some real science. The whole lobby (not just scientists) have been proven as lies, half truths and very selective data. A lot of evidence contradicting co2 MMCC was thrown out because the data didnt give the result they wanted! That is not science, thats religion.

    Well done to australia. There is much real pollution to clean without tackling harmless gasses

  • Comment number 59.

    OK. Everyone! Let's accept we do not agree on global warming and/or reasons for/or against? BUT WE SHOULD BE COMPLAINING more about POLLUTION clean water, sustainable food supplies and the health of our families?

    Carbon trading is just another hedge fund - not designed to help you and me or the the planet - but simply another future paper collapse buying a hedge fund manager a pristine private island and a private chopper?

    This HYS debate will be full of the usual suspects banging on about global warming conspiracies? Fair enough. I bang on about the danger of carbon trading? We all need to get real - fighting divides?

    Are there any HYS posters out their, globally, who are remotely concerned about the quality of their air, water and food?

    Personally, our family believe in progress, but not duplication of pollution from one country to another? YES - pollution of our basic human needs is more dangerous than global warming?

  • Comment number 60.

    "Global warming is a myth"
    "'Global warming' (as it used to be known) is really running out of steam now"

    Meanwhile, outside the sceptics' fantasy world, the arctic is on course to be ice-free during summer within three years. A majority of serious science, doing lots of serious science, agree that warming is real and happening. The signs are everywhere. The accumulated evidence overwhelms quibbles about what may or may not have been said in the "ClimateGate" emails. Have most "sceptics" read anything beyond the ramblings of conspiracy websites? How many people are genuinely qualified to engage in a debate on climate science?

    Lots of people are determined to deny the evidence to escape any moral responsibility to act, or to support action. Nevertheless, for ordinary voters who do not happen to be climate scientists, the only honest course is to accept the consensus view.

  • Comment number 61.

    The former leader of Canada's main opposition party had proposed something similar and got trounced at the polls.

    Why create another bureaucracy when stricter regulations and fines, especially for major polluters, would be far simpler and more effective. The regulations and fines should also have 'teeth'. A $50,000 fine to billion dollar corporation is peanuts. A $50-million fine on the other hand might get their attention.

  • Comment number 62.

    24. At 1:17pm on 27 Apr 2010, rogerredhat wrote:

    Maledicti you are incredibly naive. "There is no scientific evidence" is not an argument for ignoring action to reduce emissions. There is no scientific evidence of a god, but that doesn't stop billions of people from worshipping. Would they stop worshipping because science has failed to demonstrate that god exists? Stop being lazy and help your fellow human beings care for the planet.

    -------------------------------------

    So you say reduce emmissions. Co2 output reduces but we still warm as co2 may not be the cause. We lose valuble time to look for the real problem if one exists. We put financial hardship on many people, people without food, water or homes. Nothing achieved but death and destruction to make you feel like your doing something.

    Or do we find the real problem if one exists. until then concentrate on real pollution having bad effects. This would help many more people and probably cause less damage to the earth

  • Comment number 63.

    Furthermore, until ALL government departments AND ALL elected politicians and ALL their staff declare their full power useage, paid for by the taxpayer, then don't tell the taxpayer what to do with their over-taxed earnings and purchases?

  • Comment number 64.

    The notion of Climate change is still a young science: it is based on data which is microseconds compared to the length of time Earth has existed!

  • Comment number 65.

    #38 as Shakespeare said "I am but a fool to reason with a fool"

  • Comment number 66.

    co2 isn't pollution

  • Comment number 67.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 68.

    Most people I've met who deny 'climate change' and/or 'global warming' seem to be right-wing god-fearing folk (they'll believe in a god for whom there is absolutely no evidence and yet deny what they can see happening all around them) go figure! Those people have to be written off as a lost cause since most of them will deny until it's too late to ameliorate the situation. And then you have those who say, 'sure the planet's obviously warming but it's done that repeatedly over the last four billion years or so'. To those I say, 'yeah, but when it was at it's warmest in the past, there was no human life living on the planet - such conditions simply don't tolerate species such as ours'. To propose that we don't have to do anything because the warming is natural is about as smart as saying that we should only fight forest fires that were started by humans and let those which were started naturally burn until the forest is burnt.

    No matter the cause, the remedy is the same and if we wish our species to survive, we'd better get off our collective arses and immediately and drastically reduce the amount of crap that we're putting into our environment.

    Roducam (from Canada, world's 4th largest CO2 emitter per capita)

  • Comment number 69.

    'It has been proven, as you'd find out if you read the science sources rather than the Daily Mail.

    In that light, could *you* shut up?'

    If it had been proven, there wouldn't be any debate, would there? The fact is the debate on climate change is the biggest controvesy in science - ever. It's no good accusing people of reading the Daily Mail just because you don't agree with their political views.

  • Comment number 70.

    "The Aussies' have it right, dont' worry just use smoke free charcoal on the B.B.Q.

  • Comment number 71.

    Global warming—sorry, "climate change"—is another in a never-ending series of crackpot, guilt-inducing, anti-industry, nonsensical (and inevitably disproven) notions. Australia is right to say "no." Other countries will eventually follow; the only real question is whether they will do it before they squander billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

  • Comment number 72.

    It might be time to listen to the Russian Academy of Science who say: "effree budy moust by furr coats!" Do they know something Al Gore doesn't?

  • Comment number 73.

    From the point of view of my camp, which is scientific and has been following the decline in the environment and the impacts of Life on this planet the discussions have moved past the question of "is it or isn't it" to what can be done in the changing world we now life in. What seems certain to me, at age 62, is that the next 62 years will be dramatically different than the last. Rather than living in an ascending, more complex and opportunity-laden world the next generations will be sorting through the trash, so to speak. We need to relearn the arts of growing food, living more locally, moving around less and enduring the changes that the planet is already beginning to experience.

    In the 62 years I write of most of the precious fuel that we use to drive our civilization, fuel which took millions upon millions of years to create, will have been squandered in two hundred years. We will no longer have the chance to alter the great engines of climate that have been set in motion and there is a chance that Life will return to being short, brutal and desperate. That is, unless we can harness this concept of growth at all costs, based on the manipulation of resources and a consumer society. These are concepts of not small business but the large corporations that exist for the replication of money. Their powers are such that they now purchase the vote with impunity and sway policies to allow the continuation of their process. Humanity suffers greatly as this occurs.

  • Comment number 74.

    Before we save the planet, shouldn't we be running around in hysterical circles wondering about how to save the little children? And the puppies? And the old ladies? And the single mothers? And then, when we've saved the single mothers and the old ladies and the puppies, will it not be time to save the children again?

    What with the terrorists and the drug dealers and the knife crime on every corner and the evil russians up to goodness knows what kind of evil plan to kill all our children and our puppies and the rape the old ladies and the single mothers, I'm not entirely sure we have enough time to save the planet as well.

    But in any case, we surely don;t have the economic resources to save the planet, so stop worrying about it.

    In case you folks hadn't noticed those who still work in the private economy are being taxed into the ground to provide wages for the army of uniformed government saviours who are protecting the children, the puppies, the old ladies and the single mothers.

    I hate to say this, but sooner or later we are going to have to make some hard, hard choices.

    Either we give up and accept that children will use recreational drugs, or we accept that old ladies get frightened by shadows, or we accept that single mothers have a hard life, or we accept that psychotic arabs flying planes into buildings every 20 years is not the end of the world and a threat to western civilization.

    I lament, because there is nothing I like more than working and being taxed so that some glorious saviour wearing a government uniform can save me from my own fear, and of course save the children and save the puppies and the old ladies and the single mothers.

    Why, if it wasn't for all those uniformed government employees doing such great work, I think I might almost be forced to confront my own mortality, and accept that one day I am going to die and that it isn't going to be pretty.

    But as it happens, there is an election on just now, and I feel a massive urge to go see who the bankers and the corporate owners have selected for me to select from. I'll bet their all more or less the same, but I take solace in the fact that these good people, with their honesty and their fiscal sharp wits, will protect me from fear itself.

  • Comment number 75.

    Its a political fact that taxed emissions are far less harmful than the same amount of untaxed emissions.

  • Comment number 76.

    40. At 2:34pm on 27 Apr 2010, gt0808 wrote:

    HOW TO DESTROY THE EARTH WITH TOWELS!

    I went to a motel & in the bathroom was a sign that said:
    SAVE THE EARTH!
    MANY PEOPLE USE A TOWEL ONCE AND PUT IT ON THE FLOOR TO BE LAUNDERED.
    YOU CAN HELP SAVE THE PLANET BY NOT WASTING WATER. IF YOU USE A TOWEL ONCE YOU CAN HANG IT UP TO DRY AND REUSE.

    So here is a plot for a science fiction movie:
    Aliens come to earth intent on destroying the planet. Millions of them check into hotels, use a towel once, then put it on the floor to be laundered. In short order all the water on the planet disappears. We all die. THE END!

    The environmental movement becomes more ridiculous each year.

    PS - I'm not a conservative. I'm also not an idiot.

    ============

    No, no. Idiot seems about right. What, are you really stupid enough to think we have a limitless amount of freshwater on this planet? That water is produced by your tap by magic? I can only assume the only reason you have that attitude is because you've never been abroad and had to rely on a limited supply of bottled water! Yes, if everyone left all their taps turned on at once, our supplies would run dry worryingly fast.

    Besides, I'm afraid you're a little late with your movie idea, "Space Balls" already did it ages ago. Ok, so that was about stealing the oxygen, and they did it with a gigantic vacuum cleaner, but it'd be the same basic plot.

    I'll agree on one point though - it's not the planet that needs to be saved. The planet, and a fair number of the lifeforms on it, will do just fine. It's those frail, carbon-based lifeforms, which rely on oxygen in the atmosphere to breathe, rely on fresh water to drink, and rely on other lifeforms for food, which are going to be in very serious trouble indeed. As others have said, it's starting to look like a mass suicide pact.

  • Comment number 77.

    I don't care.

  • Comment number 78.

    Carbon trading isn't really the best solution to this problem, investment in low carbon technologies funded exclusively from a carbon tax would allow Australia to set up 'green' industries and become the world leader. Then it negates the issues of climate change not being real (which it is) and instead can be promoted as a champion for Australia having control over it's energy supplies (which when oil is controlled by unstable states, coal is dominated by China and India, and gas by the Russians), Australia could watch on as the rest of the world struggles. But no, the science-deniers prevail and we're all going nowhere.

  • Comment number 79.

    Despite the tenacity of Mankind to evolve we will yield to the force of Gaia. The conditions in which we as a species can exist is within a narrow range. For example in its current climatic state humans cannot exist ideally at the poles of the planet and even a relatively tiny alteration in tilt and orbit transforms great swathes of the planet from winter to summer. When the difference between these limits becomes enough to cause dramatic changes to the environment Civilisation in its current status is doomed. Why there is such a stubborn refusal to adapt perhaps points to the laziness of the 21st Century inhabitant of Gaia, a being which would rather continue to destroy Gaia than lift a finger to improve its situation. Viva Gaia!!!

  • Comment number 80.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 81.

    Regarding Post #49.

    KarenZ - come back online - your post at No.1 gets too much prominence...

    Tell us why "Global warming is a myth"?
    Are you a scientist?
    Do you know something the science community doesn't?

    How about "the temperature is not going up" for starters................

  • Comment number 82.

    Anyone seen a Volcano erupt, how about you put a price on it too.

    What a Joke.

    soon you wouldn't be able to burp, fart or sneeze without some kinda cost attached to it.
    The honorable minister for Burp Fart Sneeze...

    Taxes like these open the flood gates for just about everything

  • Comment number 83.

    Australia has some of the highest per capita emissions of developed nations....

    It also has wild climate swings and a few disasters like forest fires. Flood and drought follow each other un predictably. It also has some pretty depleted water tables. Whether a reduction on emissions would alter things is anyone's guess, and it sees to be a bit of a guess at the mo.

    But like it or not, sea levels are actually rising threatening some of the poshest costal property in Australia.

    = = = = = = = =

    However, some politicians questioned the scientific case for global warming and claimed that the emissions trading scheme would damage Australia's economy.

    Ahhhh...profit. Of course. When it comes to profit you can't caution people to prudence just in case. I mean, great, enjoy the economy now but if the science does happen to be right it could be at the expense of a world that supports humanity. Still, the dinosaurs were here for a long while then suddenly...gone.



  • Comment number 84.

    gt0808 wrote:

    "I went to a motel & in the bathroom was a sign that said:
    SAVE THE EARTH!
    MANY PEOPLE USE A TOWEL ONCE AND PUT IT ON THE FLOOR TO BE LAUNDERED.
    YOU CAN HELP SAVE THE PLANET BY NOT WASTING WATER. IF YOU USE A TOWEL ONCE YOU CAN HANG IT UP TO DRY AND REUSE."

    I'll translate that for you :

    The management of this hotel has spotted the fact that sending towels to the laundry costs us money and so reduces our profit. If you make out that not sending so many towels to the laundry will somehow save the world then we can actually save ourselves a laundry bill and increase our profit. But, we also think that our guests are so stupid that they will fall for it, but keep that one under your hat. Trebles all round !

  • Comment number 85.

    Although the Austrailian senate are doing it for the wrong reasons, thay are correct to halt carbon trading. It is just a scam to allow the polluters to go on polluting. Regardless of what many sceptics opinion of global warming is, they cannot deny that pollution is bad. The Earth is a finite resource. There is only so much rubbish you can fit into a bin before it is full.

  • Comment number 86.

    Here's a question :

    How come, when we have a cold winter and someone says "Well, what about global warming then ?" the MMGW lobby reply with "You are confusing weather with climate".

    But, when we get a hot summer, the MMGW lobby always say "See, hot summer, that's evidence of global warming".

    Anyone would thing they are picking and choosing what events to look at - surely not, I mean, being selective on what data they use to prove their case, impossible !

  • Comment number 87.

    Carbon trading is the biggest fraud since the selling of indulgences. However there is a case for the conservation of the planet's resources, unfortunately this has been lost in the smog created by the Polytech profs adapting base data for their own ends.

  • Comment number 88.

    Quite right Winddom Earl (no.48). Just a few square miles of mirrors and they would be able to boil up enough steam to turn many turbine generators. They could easily produce all the electricity they require. If they stuck it near the sea they could desalinate and produce drinking water at the same time. Then all their coal would go as export. It is a win win situation. Why haven't they done it? Oh thats right, they rely on politicians to make the decisions.

  • Comment number 89.

    As man made climate change is just a belief, like religions, and not a fact why do some politicians think they can influence it with laws?

  • Comment number 90.

    Since I was quite young I have heard stories,rather like "man made global warming"that the Oil companies have bought up inventions that can run an internal combustion engine without using neither petrol nor diesel!So lets make sure that they were nor just stories and get UNO to award an enormous prize to the inventor who comes up with an alternative,cheap method of propulsion using the Internal combustion engine...Simples?

  • Comment number 91.

    JUST FORGET 'CLIMATE CHANGE' EVERYONE AND HEDGE-FUND TOADS 'BANKING' ON CARBON TRADING - PLEASE?

    1) 'ONE-SICK PUPPY' ET AL ALWAYS TURN UP AND HIJACK AND MISLEAD HYS DEBATES ON ANY ISSUE RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

    2) FAMILIES, DEEP DOWN, KNOW THAT CARBON-TRADING IS NOT THE SOLUTION FOR MINING AND DEFORESTATION THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY?

    3) OUR FAMILY ARE UNDECIDED AND CARES MORE ABOUT POLLUTION THAN CLIMATE CHANGE. THEREFORE, SUGGEST WE ALL TRY AND FOCUS ON WATER AND FOOD QUALITY?

    4) IF ANY BLOGGER RESPONDER HAS A COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS BLOG CONCERNED ABOUT POLLUTION OF WATER SUPPLIES AND FOOD - THEN ???

  • Comment number 92.

    While carbon cap trading does not address the root causes of global warming and is therefore a poor strategy, Australia's decision to postpone any action, when we are already decades late in commencing necessary corrective measures to avoid catastrophic consequences that may not be rectified for thousands of years, puts Australia in the same lame, indefensible league as the ignorant, cowardly and morally reprehensible "leadership" of the USA.

    And, for those of you who casually declare global warming a "myth" or contrivance, try reading actual scientific source materials and empirical studies in top peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature and Scientific American, etc. Or read the latest IPCC report. Professional people the world over who are actually engaged in hydrology and oceanography, meteorology, glaciology, population impacts, agriculture, animal, plant and fishery biology, climate computer projection and food production studies - to a man or woman - do not share or support your doubt, blindness and uninformed opinion.

    It is sad and frightening to see the great nations of the planet so intransigent and indifferent to the welfare of their own populace and, indeed, their own survival.

  • Comment number 93.

    It really annoys me when the World doesn't take priority.

    This is not a problem you can just put off or hope goes away. It needs attention and it needs it now, there will never be a convenient time to look at how we can ensure our planet is safe and future-proofed.

  • Comment number 94.

    34. At 2:05pm on 27 Apr 2010, realthog wrote:

    This is a disaster.

    It's depressing to read so many comments that are in denial about the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and to realize how successful the pseudoscientists and the oil companies have been in deceiving the public.

    There *is* no scientific controversy over climate change: the science is in and the theory is solid. The sole controversy is a political one manufactured by those with short-term interests. As much can be discovered by anyone who picks up a copy of New Scientist or Scientific American: it really is not so difficult to find out the true state of the science. Of course, if people are so lazy that they'd prefer to destroy their kids' and their grandkids' future rather than make that very small effort . . .

    Easier to slump in front of Big Brother, eh? Pass the popcorn.

    My comment :

    There are many tens of thousands of you throughout the developed world who think along these lines. Every little helps, as the saying goes. We can all `do our bit`, you maintain.

    You`ll need to roll your sleeves up and hone your haranging and berating skills because you`ve got the entire population of the world to change.

    I don`t think you`ll do it.

    Why don`t you change tack and make a stab at supporting electricity production using Thorium like Canada does already? Or state of the art Nuclear like France?

    Take a look into modern Nuclear Power, you`ll be pleasantly surprised I think.

    No bomb can be made with Thorium. No CO2 is produced. What more do you want?

  • Comment number 95.

    68. At 4:07pm on 27 Apr 2010, roducam wrote:
    Most people I've met who deny 'climate change' and/or 'global warming' seem to be right-wing god-fearing folk (they'll believe in a god for whom there is absolutely no evidence and yet deny what they can see happening all around them) go figure!

    And most of the people I met pushing this rubbish are Anti Capitalist leftists who have rejected the notion of God and now have to fill the empty hole in thier hearts by latching on to Environmentalist nonsense like this and swearing it as fact, despite not having any Proof or even a coherient argument to explain it. You have merely changed a God based religion for an Earth based religion which you blindly accept without proof.

  • Comment number 96.

    Too many people have not seriously evaluated the scientific evidence. Sure, it is by far the easier option to claim that global warming does not exist or that we can't do anything about it. Shame that the overwhelming scientific consensus says that we need to do something, and we need to do it fast to ensure our own survival. Grow up and accept the facts: we must all accept responsibility and adjust our actions. The effects of pollution will not be limited by national borders, so what Australia chooses to do is an issue for us all.

  • Comment number 97.

    If the causes for Climate Change are not human made does that mean Oil Companies and industry around the world should get the green light to plough ahead? I suspect that many of those who ridicule 'environmental' minded humans have never been to a country where pollution is in full effect. The UK for example has been dramatically improved but in the not so distant past the rivers were poisoned brown sludge. Take a trip to China or India and look at the pollution, that is what it used to be like in Europe and America. This pollution is caused by industry which operates globally so the notion that 'they are the polluters' is not valid. Their problem is ours and visa versa. Gaia is a global system, a cause in one place has an effect in another.

  • Comment number 98.

    Australia should be following thru with their climate change scheme.
    In fact, all countries (esp. the US) should be very aggressive against the amount of pollution they create. Whether you believe in Climate Change or not, this planet is far too polluted. Plants and animals are disappearing at an alarming rate - and that's due to the voracious appetite of humans. Whether it's carbon emissions, water quality, mt. top removal coal mining or melting icecaps, these planetary abuse are not acceptable. This planet isn't ours to destroy for short term gain. We need to maintain it not just to preserve other species, but to preserve our quality of life. It's not just what 'we leave our children', it's the world we allow them to grow up in.

  • Comment number 99.

    66. At 3:58pm on 27 Apr 2010, California Mojo wrote:

    co2 isn't pollution


    -----------------------------------------------

    True, carbon dioxide is not itself a pollutant. In fact, it's required for photosynthesis by plants and subsequent oxygen production by them, so it is in fact, essential for almost all life on this planet.

    However, too much of anything will pollute. Too much oxygen will directly rupture red blood cells, damage heart cells and your retina; too much vitamin will poison you; and too much water will drown you; too much carbon dioxide will cause greenhouse effects, as well as acidify the oceans in addition to inhibiting respiration - but none are toxic at the correct levels.

    Monitoring and safeguarding the environment is not just qualitative, but highly quantitative too.

  • Comment number 100.

    Australia you have played a blinder because now we have the Man Made Climate Change promoter, the BBC, suddenly open for debate.

    Wikipedia informs us that Carbon Dioxide comprise 0.04% volume of the atmosphere. Nature produces 95% of the CO2 leaving man responsible for the balance, some 0.002% volume. Carbonites would have it that we are causing the whole atmosphere to warm and if we control our 0.002% volume we can control the whole. I remember that there was a King who believed that by using his divine powers he could hold back the tide. Canute was his name and I also remember that he got very wet.

    But the Carbonites shout, all our evidence has been peer reviewed by eminent bodies like the Royal Society. This is the same Royal society that used to believe that the earth was flat and if you sailed near the edge you would fall off. Anybody who said that it wasn’t was called a heretic, which is sort of reminiscent of today.

    Now let’s take some of the evidence. A report highlighted by the BBC earlier this year stated that Antarctica was experiencing warmer temperatures and this could lead to the whole continent melting. A little investigation revealed that there were only a few places where the temperatures had been measured and they then extrapolated the figures to cover the whole continent.

    Nobel prize winning Al gore in an Inconvenient Truth is unable to replicate any of the data he used because it contained inaccuracies. He also portrayed a picture of a polar bear with her cub on a small ice flow as evidence that the Artic was warming fast and polar bears had nowhere to hunt and rest. It turned out that the ice flow was just off shore and the polar bears were playing.

    We have also had Himalaya Gate, Amazon Gate and Emailgate, however the carbonites have exonerated themselves over the last one.
    As I look around I notice that there are an awful lot of people making a lot of money out of MMCC through subsidies, carbon trading and wind farms.

    Now I do not mind making energy from the wind, but it shouldn’t be subsidised and if you have to maintain a power station on standby for when the wind doesn’t blow at the right speeds then the really green thing to do is use the power station all the time.

    When you base your claims on dodgy evidence you fail to convince a lot of people. At the moment it is running at about 45% and that is a substantial body of opinion.

    Personally I think cleaning things up is a good move however I also think that global warming has something to do with that fireball in the sky that we sometimes see.

    Now I will be probably called a heretic and burnt at the stake.

 

Page 1 of 4

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.