Maqqa wrote on Aug 6^th, 2011 at 11:10am:

freediver why are we discussing the mechanics of a cap & trade vs a carbon tax this is like discussing between lethal injection vs electrocution ie by discussing it we are resigned to the death sentence why are we not fighting the death sentence? an Australian Carbon Tax or an Australian Cap & Trade will not do one difference to global temperature if humans contributes only 1% to total global carbon emissions then how would reducing any part of that 1% reduce global temperature?

Maqqa the answers to your questions on the science are easily accessible. You just need to look for yourself rather than constantly asking others to look for you. It would be a lot easier that way. The reason we are discussing the mechanism to reduce emissions rather than the justification is because we are much further along that debate.

freediver wrote on Aug 8^th, 2011 at 1:59am:

Maqqa the answers to your questions on the science are easily accessible. You just need to look for yourself rather than constantly asking others to look for you. It would be a lot easier that way. The reason we are discussing the mechanism to reduce emissions rather than the justification is because we are much further along that debate.

You say that because you can't answer it

As researched as you are on these topics you can't either

NO ONE can - it does not exist because they Climate Scientists do not want that one out of the bag

it's as simple as that

Last but not least - just because Gillard tells you that the debate is further along does not mean it is.

I just can't be bothered Maqqa. It's got nothing to do with what Gillard says or thinks. I was promoting carbon taxes a decade before her.

You contradict yourself at every turn. You suggest there is an answer then construct and absurd conspiracy to explain why no-one will tell you what it is. Has it ever occurred to you to figure it out for yourself?

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2011 at 5:30pm:

I just can't be bothered Maqqa. It's got nothing to do with what Gillard says or thinks. I was promoting carbon taxes a decade before her. You contradict yourself at every turn. You suggest there is an answer then construct and absurd conspiracy to explain why no-one will tell you what it is. Has it ever occurred to you to figure it out for yourself?

Conspiracy?

I didn't come up with the claim that carbon dioxide is solely responsible for global warming

It was the left that came up with this theory then called demonised anyone who questioned them

Once again - you cannot answer my question even though you claim there are plenty of ways to get the answer

If so - it should be quiet easy for you to do so

You won't admit it because it means you will have to admit the basis of AGW is all circumstantial evidence

And your "I just can't be bothered" answer is a cop out

I am not surprised that you have not asked why would my answer be relevant to the AGW discussion!

If you did then I will have to expose this fraud even further

People are acting based on moral obligation rather than scientific evidence

Can you be bothered trying to figure it out for yourself?

If you can't, why should anyone else?

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2011 at 8:21am:

Can you be bothered trying to figure it out for yourself? If you can't, why should anyone else?

Of course

That's why I asked because I know the fundamental answer was never investigated

Lets look at the analogy of poison. You have 99 10mL bottles of a poison called C - I have 1 10mL bottle of the same C poison

If you and I empty the whole 100 bottles into a swimming pool - who is more culpable?

If you had empty 99 of your bottles into the pools and I didn't would that stop the poison

Likewise - if humans contribute 1% of the Carbon emissions then how does reducing any part of that 1% will do any difference?

So that fundamental question was never investigated - of course you are claiming there are plenty of info out there about it. So lets see it freediver

So you have bothered to investigate which is why you asked because no-one has ever investigated?

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

So you have bothered to investigate which is why you asked because no-one has ever investigated?

I have tried to verify the fundamentals of the AGW claims and found it wanting at the very basic level

How is that related to your question? You would be able to get an answer to your question pretty easily based on the predictions in the IPCC reports without needing to understand the fundamentals. Are you merely trying to change the topic? Am I supposed to now try to explain the basics of climate science to you instead?

It was the left that came up with this theory then called demonised anyone who questioned them


::) ::) ::) ::)

Maqqa wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:38pm:

I didn't come up with the claim that carbon dioxide is solely responsible for global warming It was the left that came up with this theory then called demonised anyone who questioned them

That's right. The CSIRO have been long entrenched in parties like the Socialist Alliance, the CPA (Marxist-Leninist) and the hard left faction of the ALP.

It's time the relationship between the scientists and fringe leftist elements finally came to light.

I'm concerned about having to buy carbon credits from overseas markets  - especially from markets which don't currently exist or are corrupt.

How is that going to help us reduce emissions? Admittedly this article is from a Liberal website - but they have a point?

Why does our money have to go overseas to the unknown?


Quote:

Just six weeks ago, the World Bank reported that the international market in carbon credits has suffered a debilitating collapse and expressed doubt about the ongoing viability of global markets. According to the World Bank, trading in credits commenced after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 2005, and about $25 billion was generated over the years to 2009. However, that market collapsed to $1.5 billion last year, due to ongoing concerns about the commitment of nations after the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. The United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in March 2001 and has indicated it will not commit to any replacement treaty, while Russia, Japan and Canada have all stated recently that they will not continue with the Protocol after it expires. On 28 December 2010, the European law enforcement agency EuroPol issued a media release about extensive defrauding of the European Union emissions trading system. EuroPol reported that it had raided several hundred offices throughout Europe and had arrested more than 100 people. http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/07/20/Carbon-offsets-have-already-run-out-of-credit.aspx

A propos homework:

Q. Hey, kids, how do you know if an Asian has burglared your house?

A. When you come home, your homework is done, your dog's missing and the burglar is still trying to reverse out of the driveway.

mantra wrote on Aug 26^th, 2011 at 8:51am:

I'm concerned about having to buy carbon credits from overseas markets  - especially from markets which don't currently exist or are corrupt. How is that going to help us reduce emissions? Admittedly this article is from a Liberal website - but they have a point? Why does our money have to go overseas to the unknown? Quote: Just six weeks ago, the World Bank reported that the international market in carbon credits has suffered a debilitating collapse and expressed doubt about the ongoing viability of global markets. According to the World Bank, trading in credits commenced after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 2005, and about $25 billion was generated over the years to 2009. However, that market collapsed to $1.5 billion last year, due to ongoing concerns about the commitment of nations after the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. The United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in March 2001 and has indicated it will not commit to any replacement treaty, while Russia, Japan and Canada have all stated recently that they will not continue with the Protocol after it expires. On 28 December 2010, the European law enforcement agency EuroPol issued a media release about extensive defrauding of the European Union emissions trading system. EuroPol reported that it had raided several hundred offices throughout Europe and had arrested more than 100 people. http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/07/20/Carbon-offsets-have-already-run-out-of-credit.aspx

I don't see Australia participating in an international carbon trading agreement in the near future. My personal hope is that Kyoto will be replaced with some kind of international agreement on the minimum carbon tax. Such a scheme would be far less susceptible to the sort of problems you mention.

Maqqa wrote on Aug 8^th, 2011 at 6:04pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 1:59am: Maqqa the answers to your questions on the science are easily accessible. You just need to look for yourself rather than constantly asking others to look for you. It would be a lot easier that way. The reason we are discussing the mechanism to reduce emissions rather than the justification is because we are much further along that debate. You say that because you can't answer it As researched as you are on these topics you can't either NO ONE can - it does not exist because they Climate Scientists do not want that one out of the bag it's as simple as that Last but not least - just because Gillard tells you that the debate is further along does not mean it is.

Maqqa doesn't understand science!  :D :D :D :D :D

Maqqa wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:38pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 5:30pm: I just can't be bothered Maqqa. It's got nothing to do with what Gillard says or thinks. I was promoting carbon taxes a decade before her. You contradict yourself at every turn. You suggest there is an answer then construct and absurd conspiracy to explain why no-one will tell you what it is. Has it ever occurred to you to figure it out for yourself? Conspiracy? I didn't come up with the claim that carbon dioxide is solely responsible for global warming It was the left that came up with this theory then called demonised anyone who questioned them Once again - you cannot answer my question even though you claim there are plenty of ways to get the answer If so - it should be quiet easy for you to do so You won't admit it because it means you will have to admit the basis of AGW is all circumstantial evidence And your "I just can't be bothered" answer is a cop out I am not surprised that you have not asked why would my answer be relevant to the AGW discussion! If you did then I will have to expose this fraud even further People are acting based on moral obligation rather than scientific evidence

I think you'll find people talk in terms of CO2-equivalency!

Maqqa, if your ignorant that is not anyones fault but your own: you could try chewing up the internets total address space and no one would care how ignorant you are as its your problem and yo either fix it or you don't!

IT'S A CRUEL CRUEL WORLD!

 :o :o :-? 8-)

Maqqa wrote on Aug 13^th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 13th, 2011 at 8:21am: Can you be bothered trying to figure it out for yourself? If you can't, why should anyone else? Of course That's why I asked because I know the fundamental answer was never investigated Lets look at the analogy of poison. You have 99 10mL bottles of a poison called C - I have 1 10mL bottle of the same C poison If you and I empty the whole 100 bottles into a swimming pool - who is more culpable? If you had empty 99 of your bottles into the pools and I didn't would that stop the poison Likewise - if humans contribute 1% of the Carbon emissions then how does reducing any part of that 1% will do any difference? So that fundamental question was never investigated - of course you are claiming there are plenty of info out there about it. So lets see it freediver

I wonder if Maqqa is in sales?

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

mantra wrote on Aug 26^th, 2011 at 8:51am:

I'm concerned about having to buy carbon credits from overseas markets  - especially from markets which don't currently exist or are corrupt. How is that going to help us reduce emissions? Admittedly this article is from a Liberal website - but they have a point? Why does our money have to go overseas to the unknown? Quote: Just six weeks ago, the World Bank reported that the international market in carbon credits has suffered a debilitating collapse and expressed doubt about the ongoing viability of global markets. According to the World Bank, trading in credits commenced after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 2005, and about $25 billion was generated over the years to 2009. However, that market collapsed to $1.5 billion last year, due to ongoing concerns about the commitment of nations after the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. The United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in March 2001 and has indicated it will not commit to any replacement treaty, while Russia, Japan and Canada have all stated recently that they will not continue with the Protocol after it expires. On 28 December 2010, the European law enforcement agency EuroPol issued a media release about extensive defrauding of the European Union emissions trading system. EuroPol reported that it had raided several hundred offices throughout Europe and had arrested more than 100 people. http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/07/20/Carbon-offsets-have-already-run-out-of-credit.aspx

Oh yeh, the money flows are legitimate questions that need to be scrutinised!  ;) ;)

At the same time we have to ask ourselves and get proper answers to the mining boom phenomenon!!

Abbott is in dangerous economic waters if the election is on climate change and it will be as there are these turbulent economic questions that will test both leaders and I could see The Greens actually increasing their share of the vote due to general confusion and dismay at the current state of play!

I RECKON TONY ABBOTT WILL SOON BE COMING UNSTUCK AND THE GREENS WILL BE VERY HAPPY WITH THEMSELVES AS A RESULT!!!