# The Copenhagen Agreement - Australia to lose sovereignty?



## Fishbulb (2 November 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5zoeA8bXI

Hmm, world government? Here we go. Apparantly it's all on and the conspiracy nuts had it right


----------



## white_goodman (2 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

a new era of global socialism I fear...

Global warming is not man made, ask anyone in the scientific community.
These world leaders need to... "help themselves to a goddamn science book cos they're talking like f'n retards"


----------



## Fishbulb (2 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

I think it's scary. A govt. that supercedes any local democracy by act of treaty. This is a world govt. and it's in the making. Global Warming as man-made phenomena was simply the foot in the door.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (3 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

Alan Jones at 2gb interviewed the opposition leader on the issue. I am unimpressed with the opposition. 


> Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:13:00
> Malcolm Turnbull in the studio: http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41


----------



## LM (3 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Fishbulb said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5zoeA8bXI
> 
> Hmm, world government? Here we go. Apparantly it's all on and the conspiracy nuts had it right




Hmm, yeah they are "nuts" and everyone else really knows what's going on.


----------



## Ato (3 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

I seem to remember reading that Obama wasnt going to Copenhagen now. Is that correct, or are my hallucinations getting worse?


----------



## awg (3 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Alan Jones at 2gb interviewed the opposition leader on the issue. I am unimpressed with the opposition.




Totally unimpressed, opp is resorting to the most base political stance.

Ony heard a snippet of IV.

Turnbull responds to Jones harangue about opp having no policy by saying 
" thats just stupid".

Gave me a laugh, sounded like Cartman in the playground..dont be stupid, p!ss off fatso:

On a more serious note, I think Oz will agree to some cuts, meaning an opportunity for some investment decisions/positions, especially in the energy sector


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

I expect Australia will agree to some cuts. Actually implementing them is another matter as it will be for most countries.


----------



## justjohn (3 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Alan Jones at 2gb interviewed the opposition leader on the issue. I am unimpressed with the opposition.




Sorry to say snake ,when it comes to Turnbull there is no opposition


----------



## Julia (3 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Ato said:


> I seem to remember reading that Obama wasnt going to Copenhagen now. Is that correct, or are my hallucinations getting worse?



I read the same thing, Ato.   Seems like an indication of how seriously the USA is taking the vexed question of so called climate change.


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Julia said:


> I read the same thing, Ato.   Seems like an indication of how seriously the USA is taking the vexed question of so called climate change.




Indeed, the very climate surrounding the vexed question of climate change seems to be changing!

Maybe after the Copenhagen Farce is over it will become known in retrospect as "The Great Copenhagen Dis-Agreement" that changed the world for never.


----------



## Fishbulb (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Aussiejeff said:


> Indeed, the very climate surrounding the vexed question of climate change seems to be changing!
> 
> Maybe after the Copenhagen Farce is over it will become known in retrospect as "The Great Copenhagen Dis-Agreement" that changed the world for never.




If that's the case, the world's better off as a result. The CA would've dissolved to a degree, sovereignty for individual countries.


----------



## Calliope (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Ato said:


> I seem to remember reading that Obama wasnt going to Copenhagen now. Is that correct, or are my hallucinations getting worse?




Obama will be in Stockholm receiving his Peace prize on 10 December. The Copenhagen talk-fest is 7-18 December.


----------



## wayneL (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Fishbulb said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5zoeA8bXI
> 
> Hmm, world government? Here we go. Apparantly it's all on and the conspiracy nuts had it right




Well Europa is now a reality as the Lisbon treaty has been ratified by all 27 member nations, p!ssing away their sovereignty in the process.

I'm happy to be leaving Europe now.


----------



## Buddy (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

I posted this link on another thread. This is what "they" (UNFCC) want nations to sign up to:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf

waynL, if you are worried about giving up your nation's sovereignty, then you have plenty to worry about in that document.


And if you want to get really worried, go to this site to see how the Copenhagen bureaucrats, NGOs, IGOs, and other hangers on are SPENDING YOUR MONEY:-
http://unfccc.int

Talk about an industry. This is the absolute epitome of "snouts in the trough".


----------



## Boggo (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun sums it up, scary stuff by Mrs Krudds little boy Kevvy 

Worth a read...


*Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, November 04, 2009 at 07:20am*


_NEXT month Kevin Rudd flies to Copenhagen to help seal a United Nations deal to cut the world’s emissions - and to make Australia hand over part of its wealth

So keen is the Prime Minister to get this new global-warming treaty signed that he’s been appointed a “friend of the chairman” to tie up loose ends.

So here’s the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty that could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority?

Yes, that’s $7 billion, or about $330 from every man, woman and child. Every year. To be passed on to countries such as China and Bangladesh, and the sticky-fingered in-between.

And a second question, perhaps even more important: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty which also gives that unelected authority the power to fine us billions of dollars more if it doesn’t like our green policies?

It is incredible that these questions have not been debated by either the Rudd Government or the Opposition, whose hapless leader, Malcolm Turnbull, on Monday admitted he did not even have a copy of this treaty.

Australia’s wealth and sovereign rights may soon be signed away, so why hasn’t the public at least been informed?

In case you think what I’m saying is just too incredible - too far-fetched - to be true, let me quote this draft treaty.

Here is paragraph 33 of annex 1, which has already been discussed at UN meetings involving Australian negotiators in Bangkok and now Barcelona. Brackets indicate phrases which still need final agreement:

“By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least USD 67 billion] [in the range of USD 70-140 billion] per year.”

Plus, says paragraph 17 of annex III E, developed countries such as Australia should “compensate for damage” to the economies of poorer countries “and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity” allegedly caused by our gases.

And here comes the bill, in paragraph 41 of annex 1 of this extortion note: “[Financial resources of the Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include: (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country parties] ... “

In fact, deeper in the draft our bill for our “historical climate debt, including adaptation debt” climbs to at “at least [0.5-1 per cent of GDP]”.

Wow. Let’s do the sums. Australia’s GDP is about $1000 billion a year. So this demand for 0.7 per cent of our annual wealth works out to $7 billion a year, to be handed over to a new global agency of the United Nations.

That’s your money, folks. Billions to be sent to Third World governments and authoritarian regimes to allegedly deal with a warming that actually halted in 2001. And all funnelled through the UN, which brought us such fast-money wheezes as the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal.

Never have the Third World’s demands for the First World’s cash been so brazen.

But wait, there’s more. Because never has the Left’s mad goal of world government been so close, either.

This draft treaty, on which Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has worked, also calls for the creation of a new “board” of global warming bureaucrats appointed by the countries signing the Copenhagen deal.

The powers this board will have over us are astonishing. For a start, it will check our emissions, and could “impose financial penalties, at a minimum of 10 times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess”.

Work it out: if we exceed our emissions target by, say, as much as Rudd warned two years ago we’d overshoot by 2012, we’d be up for a fine of $1.4 billion even with the very lowest carbon price under Rudd’s plan.

Even more outrageously, this new world body could impose “penalties and fines on non-compliance of developed country parties” such as Australia that failed to honour “commitments to ... provide support in the form of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building”.

All this gives a remote and unelected world body a huge and unprecedented say in how we run our own economy and our foreign affairs. For instance, any Australian government that decided to keep gassy coal-fired power stations running to avoid blackouts or to save Australian jobs potentially faces huge fines from foreigners.

Likewise, if it stopped handing over technological breakthroughs to a China or some African leader it no longer trusted, it could be fined again.

But wait, there’s still more.

You’d think this draft treaty that Rudd has worked on would at least give us a say over how our billions are spent.

But no. UN bodies are already notoriously hard for any one nation to supervise or restrain. Even the United States, the biggest donor of all, could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago, and was forced to walk out in protest. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libya and Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN’s human rights bodies.

And with this new global warming body, the vote of the paying West will be overruled even more decisively by the spending rest.

Under this draft treaty, the new board’s biggest spending arm - the “adaptation fund” - will be managed by a “governing board comprising

three members from the five United Nations regional groups, two members from small island developing nations and two members from the least developed countries”.

That formula means the industrialised nations which pay most could hold just one of the nine seats on the body which will then spend their cash. Our cash.

That’s the treaty being prepared for the Copenhagen meeting. That’s the billions we risk having to hand over. That’s the power we risk losing over our own affairs.

Now ask: why hasn’t this been the subject of furious debate? Where’s the Government? Where’s the Opposition?

Well, here’s Rudd’s one response to this threat, given only this week: “At this stage there’s no global agreement as to what long-term financing arrangements should underpin a deal at Copenhagen.”

That’s a “trust me”, with no bottom line. In fact, Rudd is already reaching into his - your - wallet: “Australia, once a global agreement is shaped, would always be prepared to put forward its fair share."But how much? Seven billion dollars a year? Five? Three? Hello?

As for Turnbull ... well, it’s tragic.

Badgered by Alan Jones on 2GB on Monday on this very point, he said: “Of course the poorest countries are going to need assistance ... (But) there is no way that anything like this would be accepted without extensive debate.”

So where is that debate, Malcolm? Why aren’t you screaming from the rooftops for reassurances that our wealth won’t be squandered and our powers handed over?

Just this week the European Union said it would pay its share of an $82 billion cheque to this new body if countries such as ours come on board, too - so who’s applying the brakes?

Not our politicians, for sure.

So if you oppose this surrender of our billions and our freedom, better start saying so now, before it’s all too late. 

_


----------



## Calliope (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

I would be surprised if the Americans, who never stop yapping about their War of Independence, could give up their independence without a fight. How can any democratic party hand over such power without ratification by parliament? 

Rudd will sell us down the drain to pursue his dream of becoming a world statesman. It seems treasonous to me.


----------



## Fishbulb (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

It's worse than I thought. It's nothing short of a centralised socialist dictatorship. I sincerely hope this agreement dies a death.


----------



## noco (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Boggo said:


> Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun sums it up, scary stuff by Mrs Krudds little boy Kevvy
> 
> Worth a read...
> 
> ...




This is absolutely scandalous. Why aren't the Media giving this HEAD LINES for all to understand. 
Rudd certainly did not want this out in the open, just like lots of other  things he is keeping in the dark.


----------



## Happy (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

Another proof that our democratically elected Government is dictatorship as soon as is elected and nothing can be done until next election.

Quite scary.

Also, didn’t China make enough money already on the whole world exporting their goods?


----------



## justjohn (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Happy said:


> Another proof that our democratically elected Government is dictatorship as soon as is elected and nothing can be done until next election.
> 
> Quite scary.
> 
> Also, didn’t China make enough money already on the whole world exporting their goods?




An election isn't going to save us ,the LIBS are just as useless at present .I hope they are going to grease that pole well because we are well and truely bent over ,ready to recieve it


----------



## OzWaveGuy (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

....and the curtain continues to rise on the Global Warming scam - revealing a sinister initiative that's been in the works for decades, and hidden from the majority for years. UN - Agenda 21.

The key people supporting this are a majority of the world leaders - including our ever popular Kevin Rudd (and Turnbull).

Agenda 21 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJp0P6eggXU

...already being implemented in Australia under a wonderful 'sustainability' initiative that will soon fall to the disastrous control of the new unelected world government in December.

Anyone still not clear yet?? If not, do your own research to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

I'm happy to do my bit to reduce personal CO2 emissions "just in case". 

Always used energy saving lamps where appropriate since they became available and always had economical cars. The solar PV panels are up on the roof and the heat pump water heater will follow before too much longer. And it's no secret that I've always been a huge fan of large scale renewable energy generation into the grid. So I'm not against the idea of minimising CO2 emissions that's for sure - no point polluting if there's an easy way to reduce it.

But this Copenhagen Agreement isn't about that. It's using the environment as a convenient distraction to a much bigger plan. They really couldn't give a damn about CO2 or anything else - it's just a convenient means of getting their broader agenda implemented whilst minimising resistance.

Meanwhile we ignore all those real problems the world faces. You know, those trivial things like losing all the good top soil, running out of phosphate fertilizers, running out of cheaply available oil, over population, pollution in all its forms, war, hunger, water shortages and so on. Things that actually matter.

And CO2 may well matter too - pump enough of it into the atmosphere and it will probably affect something, somehow. But this nice little arrangement won't even do much to address that one - just watch total worldwide use of coal, oil and natural gas over the coming years and you'll find I'm right. All we'll do is shift the location of combustion from one country to another, a completely pointless exercise.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Smurf1976 said:


> I'm happy to do my bit to reduce personal CO2 emissions "just in case".
> 
> *But this Copenhagen Agreement isn't about that. It's using the environment as a convenient distraction to a much bigger plan. They really couldn't give a damn about CO2 or anything else - it's just a convenient means of getting their broader agenda implemented whilst minimising resistance.*
> 
> ...




Smurph can you give some factual science to back up your line which I turned into blue? Pump is too grandiose and reads like propaganda. (Not saying you are propagandising)

There is no debate in the media or by politicians about this treaty issue.


----------



## -Bevo- (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

Did I read that correctly, we are going to pay China because we all been pumping out CO2 and causing global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Happy said:


> Another proof that our [size=+1]*democratically elected Government is dictatorship*[/size] as soon as is elected and nothing can be done until next election.
> 
> Quite scary.
> 
> Also, didn’t China make enough money already on the whole world exporting their goods?




Hmmm.

Need new e-term(s) to describe....

Democrachip?
Democraship?
Democtorship?
Demoship?
Dictatoracy?
Dicmocracy?
Dictocracy?
Dictracy?
Diccy????

;o)


----------



## Fishbulb (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



-Bevo- said:


> Did I read that correctly, we are going to pay China because we all been pumping out CO2 and causing global warming.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions




Yes

And not just China as you've probably gathered already.


----------



## Fishbulb (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Aussiejeff said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Need new e-term(s) to describe....
> 
> ...





Socialism covers it quite nicely


----------



## Calliope (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

I've seldom seen such unanimity on a thread. Where are all the man-made-climate-change alarmists. When are they coming out to do battle in support of world government. They should be hanging their heads in shame, but I doubt that their Marxian ideology permits a change of direction, except for greater control over all human activities.


----------



## Happy (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Aussiejeff said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Need new e-term(s) to describe....
> 
> ...





How about:  Democtatorship
or even:    Democtatorshipocracy  (but this one could be too suggestive) 


Edit:
But it is not all bad, if we see how seriously UN is taken by some countries and what effect resolution 5 898 953 a has on a country that has got finger up in the air for all other UN member countries to see, we should sleep easy.


----------



## Fishbulb (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Calliope said:


> I've seldom seen such unanimity on a thread. Where are all the man-made-climate-change alarmists. When are they coming out to do battle in support of world government. They should be hanging their heads in shame, but I doubt that their Marxian ideology permits a change of direction, except for greater control over all human activities.




They probably realise they've been duped - and how....


----------



## Buddy (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Fishbulb said:


> They probably realise they've been duped - and how....




Yes, that's an interesting point. Now that the cat is out of the bag regarding exactly what Copenhagen is about, we are just starting to hear a few journos make commentary. Not a lot is coming from the alarmist side though. Maybe you are right, and they are just starting to see how they have been duped. Will be interesting to see if they can muster support for Copenhagen. 

P.S. I have just written to my local member of (fed) parliament, expressing concern about what this Copenhagen thing is really about. Since there appears to be general consensus that its B.S and a con, maybe everyone should be writing to their M.P.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

A summary of podcasts from 2GB's Alan Jones on this crazy agreement:

*Senator Barnaby Joyce joins Alan Jones in the studio to discuss emissions trading. *
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesjoyce041109.mp3

*Alan Jones talks to Lord Monckton, British climate change sceptic, who says the Copenhagen treaty is about creating a world government*
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesmonckton261009b.mp3

*Malcolm Turnbull joins Alan Jones in the studio to talk about climate change, boatpeople and Peter Costello's new government job.* 
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesturnbull021109.mp3

*Alan Jones talks to Dr Richard Lindzen - Massachusetts Institute of Technology – atmospheric physicist – regarding the global warming scam.*
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjoneslindzen301009.mp3


----------



## dbcok (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

There was an international fishing quotas conference in Korea last month.One of the outcomes was that the blue-fin tuna catch in Australia was reduced by 30%.
How can a world body tell Australia how much to catch?
Of course the Australians were upset by the result,especially as other countries only had their catches reduced by 20%.They said that Australia had been above their quota in past years.
Do you think that it is legitimate for a world body to tell Australia what to do?
It is not democracy is it


----------



## Julia (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

Commentary (read criticism) from Business Spectator about the cost blow-out of the ETS.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...oldrums-pd20091105-XGRKZ?OpenDocument&src=kgb


----------



## OzWaveGuy (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Calliope said:


> ....They should be hanging their heads in shame....




IMHO, I'm sure there will be time for that later. Right now, Australia is going to lose it's sovereignty to a world government in Copenhagen on Dec 7th - mere weeks away.

The Global Warming proponents all around Australia need to stand up and voice their disgust with this ludicrous treaty along with everyone else.


----------



## Happy (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

Just heard on radio our Church Minister quality Prime Minister KRudd, that Copenhagen agreement will not be binding, which is good news for now.


----------



## Fishbulb (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

I don't believe that....the document is binding. A treaty means that it's agreed to last time I checked.


----------



## -Bevo- (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

Glen Beck talks to Lord Monckton part 1 of 6 wont post all the others there easy enough to find. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fsAGJwQhoY&feature=related

Also as to above post Monckton mentions something in the interview that it is binding, don't believe Rudd and don't trust Rudd the man is Dangerous.


----------



## Buddy (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Julia said:


> Commentary (read criticism) from Business Spectator about the cost blow-out of the ETS.
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...oldrums-pd20091105-XGRKZ?OpenDocument&src=kgb




I wonder how Rudd will worm his way out of this one. The whole ETS thing is turning into a shambles, as all those (US) level heading thinking people have stated. It was, and is flawed policy. Let's pray that the only thing that comes out of Copenhagen is pollies, greenies and bureaucrats with large hangovers.


----------



## noco (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



OzWaveGuy said:


> A summary of podcasts from 2GB's Alan Jones on this crazy agreement:
> 
> *Senator Barnaby Joyce joins Alan Jones in the studio to discuss emissions trading. *
> http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesjoyce041109.mp3
> ...




OzWaveguy, My hat goes off to you for gathering these interviews for all to listen to.

Kevin Rudd is becoming the biggest rouge and con-man in the history of this great country of ours.

He has to be exposed in the greatest way possible by the media for keeping these  details from the citizens of Australia.

I cannot believe Malcolm Turnbull did not have any knowledge of the details of an agreement he (Rudd)  wants to ratify at Copenhagen. Now is the time to do a 180 degree turn and throw the whole ETS scheme out the window, lock, stock and barrell. Now is his chance to do it.

I hope every Aussie Stock Forum subscriber writes to their loacl MP as well as Kevin Rudd. Rudd has to be stopped at all costs.

Go Barnaby Go!!!


----------



## OzWaveGuy (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

Thanks

Credit actually goes to Snake for highlighting Alan Jones locking horns with Malcolm T previously https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=506142&postcount=4

I just thought I'd summarize the latest for people to send around


----------



## Julia (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Buddy said:


> I wonder how Rudd will worm his way out of this one. The whole ETS thing is turning into a shambles, as all those (US) level heading thinking people have stated. It was, and is flawed policy. Let's pray that the only thing that comes out of Copenhagen is pollies, greenies and bureaucrats with large hangovers.



The media finally seem to be waking up to what a potential disaster the ETS is, so if they keep up the growing criticism, and if Turnbull were to actually develop enough spine to just vote it down and out, then Copenhagen is nothing more than a (non binding) talkfest, some level of common sense might actually prevail.

The electorate no longer regards climate change as an urgent imperative, now that they are beginning to realise how the ETS will affect their hip pockets, said hip pockets now no longer being flush with the hand out cash.

It's just possible the rosy glow of Kevin 07 is really beginning to be tinged with harsh reality in the minds of more voters.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (5 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Julia said:


> The media finally seem to be waking up to what a potential disaster the ETS is, so if they keep up the growing criticism, and if Turnbull were to actually develop enough spine to just vote it down and out, then Copenhagen is nothing more than a (non binding) talkfest, some level of common sense might actually prevail.
> 
> The electorate no longer regards climate change as an urgent imperative, now that they are beginning to realise how the ETS will affect their hip pockets, said hip pockets now no longer being flush with the hand out cash.
> 
> It's just possible the rosy glow of Kevin 07 is really beginning to be tinged with harsh reality in the minds of more voters.




Speaking of Spineless, Leigh Sales, Presenter of ABC's Lateline didn't even go near the treaty last night with featured guest Al Gore. The interview was a joke in light of the recent 'accidental' discoveries on the AGW scam.


----------



## REA (6 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

I have been listening to Alan Jones for years and have been following this debate and frankly I am aghast at the likely outcome for my children and grandchildren.  However I wonder if the general public are really becoming aware of the outcome of this agreement?

People who listen to Alan Jones are more than likely liberal voters and mostly older, I really wish mainstream analysts and reporters would do their job and report more information for the general public.  Is there much reporting of this information in other states other than pockets of NSW?  

I have made up my mind to write to a few politicians tomorrow.  I live in a major coal mining area in Australia and we have lots of hardworking men who have no future so much for the labor party protecting its own.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (6 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

The scam continues to gain support

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aL5640OngwdQ&pos=8
*Senate Democrats Pass Carbon Plan Over GOP Boycott *
....“We’re hearing the call to get moving on this,” said Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat and cosponsor of the bill.

The legislation had been tied up in the committee for two days by the Republicans, led by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who said the bill’s impact on the economy hadn’t been adequately studied. They boycotted most of the panel’s meetings this week to try to prevent a vote until the Environmental Protection Agency reviews the bill further.

Boxer said the Republican call for more study was a stalling tactic. The Senate cap-and-trade proposal draws heavily from legislation that passed the House in June, and the EPA’s studies of that measure were good enough for the committee to vote, she said. .......


----------



## LM (6 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



OzWaveGuy said:


> Speaking of Spineless, Leigh Sales, Presenter of ABC's Lateline didn't even go near the treaty last night with featured guest Al Gore. The interview was a joke in light of the recent 'accidental' discoveries on the AGW scam.



It appeared she hadn't even skimmed the draft treaty available online. The cynical would suggest the "interview" was loosely scripted giving Gore, the lobbyist, some more air time. Never, not from the ABC...http://www.theage.com.au/national/abc-chief-seeks-massive-funding-boost-20091104-hxyt.html


----------



## Fishbulb (6 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

It's beginning to look as if it will not be legally binding....http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/06/2735040.htm

I for one, am mightily chuffed. But just as with the Republic referendum, I suspect it'll simply be a matter of time.


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Fishbulb said:


> It's beginning to look as if it will not be legally binding....http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/06/2735040.htm
> 
> I for one, am mightily chuffed. But just as with the Republic referendum, I suspect it'll simply be a matter of time.




According to KRudd, all 'sceptics' are essentially spineless, cowardly, uncaring & essentially un-Australian.

Gotta love the whining lil' dood, right?

:arsch:


----------



## Fishbulb (7 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Aussiejeff said:


> According to KRudd, all 'sceptics' are essentially spineless, cowardly, uncaring & essentially un-Australian.
> 
> Gotta love the whining lil' dood, right?
> 
> :arsch:





Really....where does this bloke get off? Rudd's obvious and hysterical angling for a UN position is getting embarrasing. 

As Murdoch the elder said on news com - he should really be concentrating on running Australia at the moment.


----------



## Calliope (7 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Aussiejeff said:


> According to KRudd, all 'sceptics' are essentially spineless, cowardly, uncaring & essentially un-Australian.




Rudd is a bigoted fool. Nearly all the world's great advances in science, medicine and geographical discovery were made by sceptics and usually in the face of great opposition from the perceived wisdom of the majority. Columbus and Charles Darwin e.g. weren't spineless.


----------



## Fishbulb (7 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Calliope said:


> Rudd is a bigoted fool. Nearly all the world's great advances in science, medicine and geographical discovery were made by sceptics and usually in the face of great opposition from the perceived wisdom of the majority. Columbus and Charles Darwin e.g. weren't spineless.




Good point


----------



## Julia (7 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Aussiejeff said:


> According to KRudd, all 'sceptics' are essentially spineless, cowardly, uncaring & essentially un-Australian.
> 
> Gotta love the whining lil' dood, right?
> 
> :arsch:



I think perhaps his attack on all sceptics may be backfiring somewhat.
Plenty of negative reaction and even Steve Fielding suggested Mr Rudd was "having another of his hissy fits".

Mr Turnbull needs someone to put a bomb under him.  He'll never have a better opportunity.


----------



## spooly74 (7 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Julia said:


> I think perhaps his attack on all sceptics may be backfiring somewhat.



I've attached his speech for anyone interested, and who has a strong stomach. 



> The truth is this is hard, because the climate change skeptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country.
> 
> They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests.
> 
> *Powerful enough to so far block domestic legislation in Australia, powerful enough to so far slow down the passage of legislation through the US Congress. And ultimately by limiting the ambition of national climate change commitments they are powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond.*




Right, the inevitability of no agreement at Copenhagen can now be blamed on skeptics. :nono:

Oh yeah, and temperatures here in Australia are going to rise by about 5 degrees by the end of the century. 5 DEGREES!! Even the IPCC aren't that insane. He even mentions that they remind him of the tobacco industry lobbyists, must read the ****ing Guardian too.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (7 November 2009)

*Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09*

For those members and guests who haven't been following along in some of the other threads on Global Warming and the upcoming Copenhagen conference to start on Dec 7th - here's a summary of what's been discovered in recent weeks and what it means should Rudd sign the draft treaty as it stands today (and has been kept completely secret by the Australian Government without any consultation or debate)

(Note: for those who *still insist* on debating Anthropogenic Global Warming, go to the other threads to do this. Quite frankly, we're past the debate, the future of Australia is now on the table to be decided in 30 days and the 'wonderful' Kevin Rudd is planning to sign it with very little resistance from the Opposition)

*Summary*
In the last several weeks, information on the Copenhagen Treaty has been made public by Lord Monckton and the information is shocking. *A World Government will be created and will have greater powers than the Australian Constitution. * This un-elected World Government will have unprecedented control over every Man, Woman and Child in Australia including our economy and industry, your finances, your life and your choices and your freedom.

*Summary of Information*

*The last 4min of the 135min Monckton Presentation from the US: * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
*Alan Jones interviews Monckton who says the Copenhagen treaty is about creating a world government (MP3): * http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesmonckton261009b.mp3
*Malcolm Turnbull joins Alan Jones in the studio to talk about climate change, boatpeople and Peter Costello's new government job. Fast Fwd to 16:50 (MP3):* http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesturnbull021109.mp3
*Senator Barnaby Joyce joins Alan Jones in the studio to discuss emissions trading (MP3): *http://podcasts.2gb.com/alanjones/alanjonesjoyce041109.mp3


*More Detailed Information*

*Alan Jones talks to Dr Richard Lindzen - Massachusetts Institute of Technology – atmospheric physicist – regarding the global warming scam.* http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjoneslindzen301009.mp3
*The full Monckton youTube presentation that completely destroys the AGW movement (135mins): *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
*The Slides from the Monckton presentation (86 slides, most annotated by hovering over top left of each slide):* http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
*Glen Beck interviews Monckton:* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fsAGJwQhoY&feature=related

*31,478 American scientists rejecting the Global Warming agreement:* http://www.petitionproject.org/

*Other Sites*

*Should you suddenly find the urge to write to your local member here's a link to 42nd Parliament List of Members by State:* http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-state.asp
*A copy of the Draft Treaty:* here

*Other Thoughts*

I have only one: That the Australian People will stop this ludicrous Treaty and act now.

Feel free to post ideas and resources


----------



## prawn_86 (7 November 2009)

*Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an un-elected World Government in Dec 09*

The New World Order idea/theory has bee around for a while now, and belief is slowly growing. Just how far it will go though is still unknown, but i dont doubt that there are much higher powers out there trying to gain World control.


----------



## So_Cynical (7 November 2009)

Why fight inevitability? a single world governing council of some form has always been inevitable...i didn't, and still don't think we will see it for at least a half a century, but the Copenhagen Agreement is a good start.

I know this is all hard for the right wing Liberals that dominate this forum to accept but its ALWAYS been a certainty, just because John Howard and GW Bush etc decided to ignore it all for over a decade doesn't change the facts of inevitability.

Ignoring reality for political gain is and always has been self indulgent, destructive and expensive....not to mention very stupid.


----------



## prawn_86 (7 November 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Why fight inevitability? a single world governing council of some form has always been inevitable...i didn't, and still don't think we will see it for at least a half a century, but the Copenhagen Agreement is a good start.




Im not against a World government per se, but i would be against it if it meant that people did not have the right to vote. It then becomes like a monarchy/dictorship where the standard 'peasants' have no way of making their voice heard and creates an (even) bigger divide between the haves an have nots. Too 1984ish for my liking if there is no voting involved.


----------



## Fishbulb (7 November 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Why fight inevitability? a single world governing council of some form has always been inevitable...i didn't, and still don't think we will see it for at least a half a century, but the Copenhagen Agreement is a good start.
> 
> I know this is all hard for the right wing Liberals that dominate this forum to accept but its ALWAYS been a certainty, just because John Howard and GW Bush etc decided to ignore it all for over a decade doesn't change the facts of inevitability.
> 
> Ignoring reality for political gain is and always has been self indulgent, destructive and expensive....not to mention very stupid.




Inevitable realities? Hmmm, no thanks. I don't like things being forced on me.

I don't have a problem with govt. but I do have a problem with big government. 

You speak as if the idea of world government is a a left wing notion, and that the right are imitating ostrich behaviour. But you're dead wrong, a world government - or the idea of one, has been thrown around and written about by politicians and citizens who represent the entire spectrum of politics.

If you're for the idea, that's your prerogative, but don't try suggesting that those that oppose the idea, are all right wing and backward. Ignorance is just as dangerous as knowledge.


----------



## So_Cynical (7 November 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Im not against a World government per se, but i would be against it if it meant that people did not have the right to vote. It then becomes like a monarchy/dictorship where the standard 'peasants' have no way of making their voice heard and creates an (even) bigger divide between the haves an have nots. Too 1984ish for my liking if there is no voting involved.




In Australia we have two party preferred voting, so in reality a duo political dictatorship of sorts...so we have a situation where the 2 big party's change seats every 2 or 3 elections....and we call this democracy?

Its a joke....political success in a democracy brings middle of the road politics, which delays change and delivers lowest common denominator outcomes.



Fishbulb said:


> a world government - or the idea of one, has been thrown around and written about by politicians and citizens who represent the entire spectrum of politics.
> 
> If you're for the idea, that's your prerogative, but don't try suggesting that those that oppose the idea, are all right wing and backward. Ignorance is just as dangerous as knowledge.




A right wing world Govt is a truly scary thing...at least the lefty's have ChÃ¡vez and Castro, and to a lesser extent Rawlings to make the left side of things look a little better...and i want to make my absolute loathing of the UN clear.

Anyway all this is inconsequential...there will be a climate agreement come outa Copenhagen, and it will be weak and about at consequential as the thread.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 November 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Im not against a World government per se, but i would be against it if it meant that people did not have the right to vote. It then becomes like a monarchy/dictorship where the standard 'peasants' have no way of making their voice heard and creates an (even) bigger divide between the haves an have nots. Too 1984ish for my liking if there is no voting involved.




Just imagine all the evil bastards you would have had on the ballot papers over the last thirty years, Pol Pot, Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter, Gus Pinochet, and Bob Mugabe to name just a few.

gg


----------



## prawn_86 (7 November 2009)

SC,

I agree that the Aus system only has 2 parties as candidates, but the fact we still get to vote (although we shouldn't _have_ to imo) is a big difference. Ultimately i would like to think that if both parties went to extremes some other party would step up and get voted in.

The problem i see with unelected govs, is not in this generation, but say in 10 generations time, when those in power feel it is their right, not privilege, to rule over others.


----------



## Chris45 (7 November 2009)

*Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an un-elected World Government in Dec 09*



prawn_86 said:


> The New World Order idea/theory has been around for a while now, and belief is slowly growing. Just how far it will go though is still unknown, but i dont doubt that there are much higher powers out there trying to gain World control.



You wouldn't be referring to that secretive *Bilderberg Group* by any chance would you? There's an interesting report of their 2009 conference here:
*
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=13738&context=va*



> Apparently, the main topic of discussion at this year's meeting was to address the economic crisis, in terms of undertaking, *“Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty ... or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.”* Other items on the agenda included a plan to *“continue to deceive millions of savers and investors who believe the hype about the supposed up-turn in the economy. They are about to be set up for massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead,”* and “There will be a final push for the enactment of Lisbon Treaty, pending on Irish voting YES on the treaty in Sept or October,”[1] which would give the European Union massive powers over its member nations, essentially making it a supranational regional government, with each country relegated to more of a provincial status.




Forget democracy, their plan is for a World Government of the people, by the billionaires, for the billionaires.


----------



## prawn_86 (7 November 2009)

Chris,

As per WayneL's previous post in this thread the Lisbon Treaty has already been signed off on creating a massive Euro state essentially. Although i am not familiar with the details of that specific paper.


----------



## bellenuit (7 November 2009)

I just shot off an e-mail to my local MP asking that the issues raised in some of the links here be openly discussed. My knowledge of the agreement is based solely on what I have read here today and though this forum may be distorted (not saying it is, just acknowledging it may be) the issues are of such concern that they must be highlighted to the general public and discussed.

Although some recent posts have suggested that the agreement is not binding, one thing you can be sure of, even if it were binding our Kev would still be rushing to sign it.

Even though I detest the guy, I must agree with Ruport Murdoch when he said in a interview in the last few days that Rudd is more interested in running the world than in running Australia. The Copenhagen Agreement is just the sort of platform that Rudd would use to promote his "world" credentials and he would bask in the glory of the praise heaped on him by the faceless bureaucrats behind the agreement, even though that praise is really for selling Australia out.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I just shot off an e-mail to my local MP asking that the issues raised in some of the links here be openly discussed. My knowledge of the agreement is based solely on what I have read here today and though this forum may be distorted (not saying it is, just acknowledging it may be) the issues are of such concern that they must be highlighted to the general public and discussed.
> 
> Although some recent posts have suggested that the agreement is not binding, one thing you can be sure of, even if it were binding our Kev would still be rushing to sign it.
> 
> Even though I detest the guy, I must agree with Ruport Murdoch when he said in a interview in the last few days that Rudd is more interested in running the world than in running Australia. The Copenhagen Agreement is just the sort of platform that Rudd would use to promote his "world" credentials and he would bask in the glory of the praise heaped on him by the faceless bureaucrats behind the agreement, even though that praise is really for selling Australia out.




Don't worry about it.

The word is that it will be a talkfest.

Nobody has the bottle to enforce any of the controversial bits. Its dead in the water.

Next stop Mexico 2010.

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Don't worry about it.
> 
> The word is that it will be a talkfest.
> 
> ...



Words and signing bits of paper is easy. Actually cutting emissions is another matter...


----------



## bellenuit (7 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Don't worry about it.
> 
> The word is that it will be a talkfest.
> 
> ...




We may not need to worry that the agreement will be passed, but we should be very worried that our dear leader would want to pass such an agreement in the first place. He is doing everything within his power to actual get this agreement up and running.

Somebody mentioned earlier that this issue is almost unique in that there hasn't been anyone on this forum who has tried to defend the agreement, in spite of the same posters having opposing opinions on other issues. If this is reflective of how the population as a whole would view the issue if they were aware of the facts, then the opposition is missing a golden opportunity to expose Rudd for the duplicitous creep that he is.

They should highlight the concerns raised here. Rudd will then have to defend why he wants to support selling out our sovereignty. Letting him go unchallenged because the agreement is unlikely to be passed would be another missed opportunity.


----------



## Mickel (7 November 2009)

Here is an essay by one of the lead authors on the IPCC- the panel that many world leaders (including K Rudd) cite as the conclusive evidence that carbon emissions are causing heating of the planet to an alarming degree-.

I've edited the essay as the full text is too long  to repeat here.

Resisting climate hysteria

by Richard S. Lindzen

July 26, 2009

A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.  During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).


According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008).

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980's, global cooling in the 1970's, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. *Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.
*
In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

*With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. *However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.


Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Link- http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria


 Says it all really,doesn't it !!! We should urge our Senators and Government to have an open debate on the issue and vote against any emissions trading scheme.


----------



## Mickel (7 November 2009)

I don't think anyone has mentioned this on this thread to date.

In 2007 a British High Court Judge ruled that 9 major points in Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" were in fact errors.

Here they are-

*The Alleged Errors Highlighted by High Court Judge Michael Burton:*

1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)

2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")

3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future…")

4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.")

5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")

6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)

7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")

8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")

9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.")

The link- http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1&page=1


----------



## Mickel (8 November 2009)

As you may note from my 3 posts on this thread tonight, I am passionate about this subject.

Here is a link to a website - http://noteviljustwrong.com/home where they are selling a DVD movie titled "Not Evil Just Wrong" which is a reply to the Al Gore movie "An Inconvenient Truth".

I intend buying a copy of the DVD.

Here is a synopsis of the movie. It's about 88 min in length and had its premiere on 18 Oct 09- 

Global warming alarmists want Americans to believe that humans are killing the planet. But Not Evil Just Wrong, a new documentary by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, proves that the only threats to America (and the rest of the world) are the flawed science and sky-is-falling rhetoric of Al Gore and his allies in environmental extremism.

The film drives home the realities of that extremism. "Turn off your lights. Turn off your heat when you get cold. Turn off your air when you get hot," one man on the street says. "And then think about that."

Not Evil Just Wrong warns Americans that their jobs, modest lifestyles and dreams for their children are at stake. Industries that rely on fossil fuels will be crippled if the government imposes job-killing regulations on an economy already mired in recession. Small towns in the heartland, like Vevay, Ind., will become bastions of unemployment and poverty. Breadwinners like Tim McElhany in Vevay will lose their jobs -- and will have to start borrowing money again just to buy bread for their families.

The damage that would be wrought is unjustified by the science. Not Evil Just Wrong exposes the deceptions that experts, politicians, educators and the media have been force-feeding the public for years. Man-made pollution is not melting the polar icecaps. The ocean will not rise 20 feet in a flash. And the only polar bears dying because of man are the ones who try to eat men.

McAleer and McElhinney debunk what for a time was the environmental movement's most powerful weapon of disinformation, the infamous "hockey stick" graph that attributed a supposedly unique burst of warming in the 20th century to humans. They also shatter the myth that the hottest years in the United States were 1998 and 2006. The hottest year was 1934, and the hottest decade was the 1930s -- when there were half as many people and no SUVs or jumbo jets.

But environmentalists like actor Ed Begley Jr. and Leo Murray of Plane Stupid, who appear in the film, won't tell you that. Instead, Begley sheds phony tears for ex-cons who are offered "green" jobs, and Murray decries air travel as the modern world's worst indulgence. Their hysterical claims have fooled many people into believing that carbon dioxide, an element that is essential to life, is poison.

Organizations like Greenpeace, whose excesses are roundly condemned in Not Evil Just Wrong by founding member Patrick Moore, persistently push the same kind of propaganda that prompted world leaders to ban DDT. They believed environmentalist Rachel Carson's doomsday scenarios about the mosquito-killing chemical, and millions of children in the Third World may have been infected by malaria and died as a result.

The documentary notes that the World Health Organization lifted its ban on DDT in 2006, but Al Gore and his allies will not accept that verdict any more than they will accept the science that discounts theories about global warming. They are determined to blame humans for everything.


----------



## Calliope (10 November 2009)

Rudd;



> The challenge we face, and others around the world face, is to build momentum and overcome domestic political constraints. The truth is this is hard because the climate change sceptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country. They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests.




Now Rudd is a very intelligent man. He surely knows, like those of us without vested interests know, that to think we can change the climate is a crock of s**t. 

He should come clean on what *his* vested interests are.


----------



## prawn_86 (10 November 2009)

For all those interested Barnaby Joyce has just started an online petition to reject the CPRS and the signing of the Copenhagen agreement- http://barnabyjoyce.com.au/default.aspx


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Smurph can you give some factual science to back up your line which I turned into blue? Pump is too grandiose and reads like propaganda. (Not saying you are propagandising)



Note that I said "probably" in that sentence. 

If you change the chemical composition of something to a significant extent then generally speaking you would expect it to have some effects. That's just what happens.

Now, I'm not saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change. But I do think it reasonable to assume that if we forever increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then there will be some effect on something, somehow. What I don't know, but it would be an unusual situation if there were not some form of feedback resulting from a change in composition of the atmosphere.

Proof? I don't have any and don't claim to have any. But if the change were large enough then I do think it reasonable to assume that there would be some impact on something - whether it's good or bad I really don't know.

My main point though is that no matter what your stance on CO2, Copenhagen doesn't deliver. It doesn't cut emissions and it doesn't maintain cheap energy. Fail on both sides of the fence.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Calliope said:


> Rudd is a bigoted fool. Nearly all the world's great advances in science, medicine and geographical discovery were made by sceptics and usually in the face of great opposition from the perceived wisdom of the majority. Columbus and Charles Darwin e.g. weren't spineless.



Exactly. Hit the nail on the head there...


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Somebody mentioned earlier that this issue is almost unique in that there hasn't been anyone on this forum who has tried to defend the agreement, in spite of the same posters having opposing opinions on other issues. If this is reflective of how the population as a whole would view the issue if they were aware of the facts, then the opposition is missing a golden opportunity to expose Rudd for the duplicitous creep that he is.



The unique thing about this agreement is that it doesn't actually deliver what either side wants. It doesn't maintain cheap fossil fuel energy and it doesn't cut CO2 emissions. 

And that raises some rather serious questions - it's clearly not about CO2 / climate change at all. So why the apparent desire to push it through?


----------



## OzWaveGuy (10 November 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> For all those interested Barnaby Joyce has just started an online petition to reject the CPRS and the signing of the Copenhagen agreement- http://barnabyjoyce.com.au/default.aspx




Excellent! thank you.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 November 2009)

I've signed the petition against the ETS.

I think most would agree that it is never wise to sign any contract or agreement without having a plan that enables you to meet the conditions of that agreement. And we sure don't have a workable plan to meet the conditions of a CO2 cut.


----------



## Julia (11 November 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> For all those interested Barnaby Joyce has just started an online petition to reject the CPRS and the signing of the Copenhagen agreement- http://barnabyjoyce.com.au/default.aspx




Good.  Thanks, Prawn.


----------



## So_Cynical (11 November 2009)

Is there something in the psyche of conservatives that makes change so difficult to accept? the whole climate change denial/Copenhagen treaty thing reminds me of the aboriginal native title issue of a few years ago.

Remember how the NFF and the Coalition were all dead against it...how the farmers were all going to get kicked of there land and suburban blocks were going to get seized....lol 

LOL ive started a Petition. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/whinyliberals/ SIGN NOW


----------



## bellenuit (11 November 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Is there something in the psyche of conservatives that makes change so difficult to accept? the whole climate change denial/Copenhagen treaty thing reminds me of the aboriginal native title issue of a few years ago.http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/whinyliberals/ SIGN NOW




So_Cynical....

Don't you need to separate a few things here.

I would say almost all but a few head in the sand conservatives accept that climate change is a fact. The issue that many disagree with is that the cause is predominantly man made. I personally am not fully convinced that that is the case. 

But accepting that man is the cause, then there are many that don't accept that the emissions trading and other proposed schemes are going to be effective solutions. There are many scientists sceptical about that.

And even if one was to accept the schemes being proposed as the best we can do, that doesn't mean that the Copenhagen Agreement is going to be the proper way to implement the schemes. There are many aspects to the Copenhagen Agreement that seem more to do about power grabbing than solving climate change.

Conservatives or those leaning towards conservatism usually expect sounder arguments than the simplistic slogan solutions offered by the left.


----------



## dbcok (11 November 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Is there something in the psyche of conservatives that makes change so difficult to accept? the whole climate change denial/Copenhagen treaty thing reminds me of the aboriginal native title issue of a few years ago.
> 
> Remember how the NFF and the Coalition were all dead against it...how the farmers were all going to get kicked of there land and suburban blocks were going to get seized....lol
> 
> LOL ive started a Petition. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/whinyliberals/ SIGN NOW




Opposition to any climate change legislations reminds of the anti-smoking lobby.For years they were able to argue that smoking did not cause adverse effects to humans.They were able to stall curtailing legislation for years.
The lobby produced their "medical" experts to front the media and produce the benign reports paid for by the cigarette manufacters.
There were always references to people aged 90 years that had smoked all of their lives and showed no ill effects.
To do nothing  on climate change is a course that I do not wish to gamble on.
It seems a lot of politicians are subject to heavy lobbying by the interests that fear that climate change legislation will be detrimental to their narrow agendas.
When isssues such as climate change know  no boundaries of course you have to have collective world-wide cooperation,and not have rogue, unwilling countries caring only for themselves.
Can anyone think of any example where Australia has historically and currently,ceded sovereignty to foreign countries.I certainly can.


----------



## wayneL (11 November 2009)

dbcok said:


> Opposition to any climate change legislations reminds of the anti-smoking lobby.For years they were able to argue that smoking did not cause adverse effects to humans.They were able to stall curtailing legislation for years.
> The lobby produced their "medical" experts to front the media and produce the benign reports paid for by the cigarette manufacters.
> There were always references to people aged 90 years that had smoked all of their lives and showed no ill effects.
> To do nothing  on climate change is a course that I do not wish to gamble on.
> ...



The old "what-if" argument. 

There are a million what-if scenarios that can be used to justify just about anything.

What id Indonesia decides to invade Oz? Better Nuke them now... just in case. pfffft

Copenhagen gives the right to third world countries to do exactly as you fear... pollute as much as they want while 1st world countries will be restrained. No net result except for handing economic power to China et al on a silver platter to the detriment of the west. They get to be rogues, while we get taxed to oblivion.

The real science is gradually getting out and it is clear that our environmental problems are not (or minimally) co2 induced. It is the biggest straw-man ever constructed in the history of the planet.


----------



## Tink (11 November 2009)

:topic   Interesting isnt it

They did say China was going to be the next World Power


----------



## basilio (11 November 2009)

There are a number of separate issues in this debate.

Firstly are we in the middle of man created climate change? If we accept the physical evidence of melting icecaps,  increasing temperatures, fundamental changes in the behaviour of plants and animals around the world, then our world is  becoming  rapidly warmer.

If we go a step further and ask "why is this happening now" we are faced with

1) The overwhelming view of 99.9% of  relevant scientists that rapid rises in CO2 emissions and other gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are  the fundamental reason for this current increase in temperature. This view also states that if we can't/won't quickly reduce CO2 and equivalent emissions  temperature increases will accelerate to the point that most of the earth will be uninhabitable for the current  ecosystem.

2) Or  alternatively, that a host of other factors (sun activity, whatever) are responsible for any (extremely limited) global warming and in particular that CO2 is not a prime culprit. (This view is  strongly supported by fossil fuel industries )

In theory at least  most of the political leaders in the world have accepted the reality of global warming and the view that CO2 and similar emissions are the cause and must be reduced.

The Coppenhagen summit is a final desperate attempt to work out some massive shift in how we power our world  while reducing the use of CO2 emitting fossil fuels.   A fundamental part of the approach is that we are all in this together.  Big issues like responses to war, responses to natural disasters  necessitate  massive co-operation and inevitable dislocation. In a bushfire or flood  we all have to do our bit in some way. Effectively responding to global warming will require  similar changes of behaviour.

Will an international emissions trading scheme be the answer to the issue? Not the way it's going. On a micro level it looks as if most players are still attempting to extract every piece of self interest they can, to game the system and in effect behave as if there really isn't a crisis that  needs to be addressed. Cognitive dissonance on an international level.

There is an excellent piece of how these negotiations are being undertaken which underlines this behaviour.




> Lifting the lid on climate change talks
> 
> Rich countries bullying poorer ones, mud-slinging and back-stabbing - environmental summits can be vicious




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/07/climate-change-talks-2009

If anyone is interested in more of the nuts and bolts of what is happening in the lead up to Copenhagen The Guardian has an excellent range of views.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen


----------



## wayneL (11 November 2009)

basilio said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/07/climate-change-talks-2009
> 
> If anyone is interested in more of the nuts and bolts of what is happening in the lead up to Copenhagen The Guardian has an excellent range of views.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen



Basilio,

The Guardian, as the mouthpiece of the Fabian Society, is not an honest broker, just not credible on this issue.


----------



## brty (11 November 2009)

basilio,



> If we accept the physical evidence of melting icecaps




How about you go and look at the evidence before making such sweeping statements. The link below shows the changes in sea ice from the average for Antarctica. Over the last 30 years there is a slight, but becoming more obvious INCREASE in sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. By the way the IPCC models only took changes up to the end of 2005 into consideration, which showed no significant change up to that time. If you look carefully you will see why that was a good place to stop if you wanted to prove something.


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

brty


----------



## OzWaveGuy (11 November 2009)

*Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09*



OzWaveGuy said:


> ....Note: for those who *still insist* on debating Anthropogenic Global Warming, go to the other threads to do this...




This thread isn't to debate Climate Change - it's focused is on the underlying Copenhagen Treaty and what it means for everyone in Australia.


----------



## lasty (11 November 2009)

I must hand it to the lefties.
After being battered and bruised with the fall of the wall and the collapse of communism, they dreamt up a doosey with good marketing and fear.
However I think they have left their run too late as the Climate Alarmists are being found out and Rudd and Wong are in panic mode.

The reason why this isnt headline news is that most journo's lean to the left.
Talk back radio has uncovered this can of worms.
Rudd refuses to be questioned by Alan Jones. So much for the PM to all people.

Rudd's love with the UN will have us sold out.
His arrogance and attitude including dummy spits is amazing to see.
Whats more amazing is that his popularity is still very high.
Is that smoke and mirrors too or are Australians that dumb they can see through him?


----------



## dbcok (11 November 2009)

Wayne-Your argument seems to be that there is not man-made climate change,but at present we haven't got enough scientists  willing to back that claim.But time is on our side and we will have in the future.
Whatever  the arugument surely we have stop sh:tting in our own nest!


----------



## Calliope (11 November 2009)

*Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09*



OzWaveGuy said:


> This thread isn't to debate Climate Change - it's focused is on the underlying Copenhagen Treaty and what it means for everyone in Australia.




I agree. The Climate Change issue has been done to death on other threads by Guardian readers and sceptics, without converting anybody from the sceptic (commonsense) line.

This thread is about whether we should submit to world government by an unelected Comintern.


----------



## prawn_86 (11 November 2009)

*Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09*



OzWaveGuy said:


> This thread isn't to debate Climate Change - it's focused is on the underlying Copenhagen Treaty and what it means for everyone in Australia.




Just to reiterate this point.

This thread is not, for the debate of CC, rather the discussion of the treaty specifically and the impacts it (the treaty, not CC) will have.

Further off topic posts will be removed.

Thanks


----------



## Buddy (11 November 2009)

*Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09*



prawn_86 said:


> Just to reiterate this point.
> 
> This thread is not, for the debate of CC, rather the discussion of the treaty specifically and the impacts it (the treaty, not CC) will have.
> 
> ...




Thank you prawn. I am so tired of the AGW debate it puts me to sleep. There are plenty of other places to debate that. 

"Copenhagen" is the issue! It's a sham, which is being used by the bleeding hearts in "the West" to atone for the so called sins of past industrial development. The 3rd world is practically irrelevant wrt CO2 levels. As I have said countless times previously, taxation is not the solution. If CO2 is so harmful, then REGULATE IT! Are any of you lefty bleeding hearts prepared to debate that?

The other falsity that these bleeding hearts come up with is that CO2 reduction should be based on per capita emissions. You go down this path and you will FAIL. Again this is just another moral B.S. stand taken by the left. Sounds wonderful but will not achieve anything.

If anyone is serious about this, then reduction needs to be based on total emissions. It's the old 80/20 rule. To achieve a result, concentrate on 80% of the problem. Look at some figures of total emissions:-
China        21.5%
USA         20.2%
EU           13.8%
Russia       5.5%
India         5.3%
Japan        4.6%
Germany    2.8%
U.K.          2.0%

That's about 76% of total (OK you can move the cut-off around a bit but I have cut it off at above 2%).
So that is where the effort has to be if there is any chance of meaningful reduction in overall CO2 levels.

If you concentrate on countries with highest per capita emissions you will achive almost nil impact (apart from the USA). The numbers for the top 5 are (I have taken a cut-off at great than 10t per capita):-
USA                 20t per capita, total emission 20.2%
Saudia Arabia    18, total emission 1.3%
Australia           18, total emission 1.3%
Canada             14.5, total emission 1.9%
Czech Republic   11.5, total emission 0.4%
Norway             11, total emission 0.2%
Only totals to about 25% of total emissions.

To me this proves that the ETS in Australia will have no impact, other than negative, as high emitting industries are moved to less regulated countries.  And for what logical reason would you transfer billions of dollars from Australia to 3rd world countries, in order to reduce CO2 levels? Folks, it will not work!


----------



## shortlist (11 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> The real science is gradually getting out and it is clear that our environmental problems are not (or minimally) co2 induced. It is the biggest straw-man ever constructed in the history of the planet.




Absolutely 100% solid gold cast-iron correct.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 November 2009)

*Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09*



prawn_86 said:


> Just to reiterate this point.
> 
> This thread is not, for the debate of CC, rather the discussion of the treaty specifically and the impacts it (the treaty, not CC) will have.
> 
> ...



The most relevant point there is that the treaty doesn't impact climate change - that is a completely separate issue.

If we take the climate change argument as being 100% correct and caused largely by CO2 then we would need to reduce CO2 emissions in order to reduce climate change - that's something that I doubt anyone would disagree with. 

*But, and this is the point that advocates of the treaty seem to have trouble grasping, the treaty does not reduce emissions of CO2*.

As a means of combating CO2-induced climate change, this treaty doesn't actually do anything. That makes it rather pointless to support it unless it had some other advantage for this country, which it doesn't seem to.

It all sounds like the Lima agreemnt round 2 - a second round of shifting industries from one country to another with the overall outcome being that production, resource use and pollution all go up, not down, as a result of an increase in the number of countries classified as "developed".


----------



## Ageo (11 November 2009)

Wow this is scarier then 1st glanced at. Does rudd have all the say or does it have to pass through parliament?


I can see overtime average people will be working just to stay afloat.


----------



## Calliope (11 November 2009)

How's this for a laugh. Clive Hamilton,the Green's candidate for Higgins and Australia's leading global warming alarmist, says the Copenhagen sceptics are creating a climate of fear.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-climate-of-fear/story-e6frg6zo-1225796249862

He's also the bloke who is not keen on democracy;



> Recently Hamilton has appeared to suggest - equivocally and ambiguously, it's true - that, in view of our looming climate catastrophe, it may be necessary to "suspend democratic processes", presumably so that a caste of wise and benevolent professional administrators can override our selfish instincts, and solve our problems for us.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 November 2009)

Whilst we worry about taxing the emissions from burning fuel we are completely ignoring the question of how we're going to get that fuel in the first place.

I'd seriously like to know what Rudd (and every other political leader) plans to do in order to keep the wheels turning given the massive cancellations and delays to oil projects internationally following the financial crisis.

November 2009 and we're all worried about treaties concerning emissions.

3 months' time I'll quite likely be posting about the blackouts in Vic / SA and why they were inevitable at some point (if not this Summer then it's only a matter of time before a major problem hits...).  

And whenever the global economy recovers we'll be hearing non-stop whinging about the soaring price of petrol.

The common theme here? We desperately need a proper energy policy rather than the single issue focus we've had since the 1970's that fails to see the big picture. The Copenhagen Agreement fails to meaningfully address any of the energy problems we face, CO2 included.


----------



## Julia (11 November 2009)

Ageo said:


> Wow this is scarier then 1st glanced at. Does rudd have all the say or does it have to pass through parliament?
> 
> 
> I can see overtime average people will be working just to stay afloat.




It first has to be passed by the House of Representatives then if that happens it has to get through the Senate.

If the Libs vote it down in the House, it gives Mr Rudd the trigger for a double dissolution election.  He would like this as on current polling he would clearly win another term.  He would then be able to bring down his anticipated 'horror' budget (where he will have to claw back the money wasted in the stimulus payments in order to get the Budget back close to surplus) with impunity because he will have just been voted back in for another term.

The dissenting Liberals don't share their Leader's distaste for an early election and are prepared to hold out for their belief that the ETS is a poorly contrived piece of legislation and will be ineffective in ameliorating CO2 even if we were to accept that the CO2 is anthropogenic anyway.

So, Ageo, there you go:  I think that's more or less a summary of where it's at for now.
Others might want to correct me.


----------



## Mickel (12 November 2009)

Julia said:


> It first has to be passed by the House of Representatives then if that happens it has to get through the Senate.
> 
> If the Libs vote it down in the House, it gives Mr Rudd the trigger for a double dissolution election.




Julia, I think you mean Libs/Nats vote it down in the Senate. Rudd has a majority in the House of Reps.


----------



## Ageo (12 November 2009)

Thanks for the reply Julia....... Can someone point out any positives in this treaty? i mean what benefit is it to nations for them to sign?


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

Ageo said:


> Thanks for the reply Julia....... Can someone point out any positives in this treaty? i mean what benefit is it to nations for them to sign?




They will be relieved of the responsibility of controlling their own future.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

Ageo said:


> Thanks for the reply Julia....... Can someone point out any positives in this treaty? i mean what benefit is it to nations for them to sign?



amongst other positives, it will cost a heap more to get on board this ship later than if we get on board now.


----------



## prawn_86 (12 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> amongst other positives




What other positives can you see 2020?


----------



## metric (12 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> amongst other positives, it will cost a heap more to get on board this ship later than if we get on board now.





only if you can pick your exit correctly. carbon trading will go like all the other scams..

the elite get in early (they create it) the sheep buy in and inflate the bubble, the elite sell out on top......then the bubble bursts.

and then they start another scam. super anyone?


----------



## lasty (12 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> amongst other positives, it will cost a heap more to get on board this ship later than if we get on board now.




And it will be hell of a lot cheaper if we dont get onboard at all.


----------



## wayneL (12 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> amongst other positives, it will cost a heap more to get on board this ship later than if we get on board now.




It's the wrong ship.


----------



## lasty (12 November 2009)

Rudd's hidden agenda is to become President of the UN.
He would sell out Australia to get his wish.
Rudd with a pen in his hand in Copenhagen is toxic.
Remember this guy is a bully, a spin doctor and a spender.

Those who felt sorry for the Aborigines being taken over by the Europeans 200 odd years ago may get this experience first hand.

So far 62pct of Australians love Rudd.
Soon 100pct will hate him but its too late.. he will President of the UN living in exile.


----------



## Ageo (12 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> amongst other positives, it will cost a heap more to get on board this ship later than if we get on board now.





Why would you want to board a ship full of pirates???? its suicide in disguise.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> amongst other positives, it will cost a heap more to get on board this ship later than if we get on board now.




perhaps I should define "later"
That is when the denialists are forced to admit they are wrong.  
say in 5 years or so. 

Like ... when Andrew Bolt says the world ('s atmosphere)  has been cooling since 1998, and that was only due to a bad El Nina index - the worst on record incidentally - (as if ENSO was an independent parameter in the discussion of global warming factors ) 

and ignoring the fact that the heat stored in the oceans is increasing (with their much higher specific heat capacity than the atmosphere,  Joules per deg C,) - and the total global heat continues to rise ...

then he should at least be prepared to wait until the next El Nina or two , and see if the atmosphere has warmed when projected through the peaks of said El Ninas.   

To pick an outlier in the time plot of temp is not scientifically mature. 

And to quote him and this argument is simply jumping on the Mobil Exxon bandwagon whereby billions have been allocated to obfuscate the argument amongst thinking people.


----------



## justjohn (12 November 2009)

Welcome back 2020, geez your spineless PM needs your support mate ,he is getting it both ends at present and deserves every little inch


----------



## prawn_86 (12 November 2009)

2020,

Last warning. We are not in this thread to debate CC.

What benefits will the Copenahgen Agreement bring specifically? How will it do as it says its going to? And why should we give up our sovereignty? Or show where it says we wont...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

:topic
Speaking of Miranda Divine and Andrew Bolt, 
weren't they the only two reporters that Johnny Howard permitted to go to Iraq (mid - late 2007 I forget exactly) to report back that to withdraw from Iraq would be ,  ... as Ageo says 


			
				 ageo said:
			
		

> suicide in disguise


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> 2020,
> 
> ... We are not in this thread to debate CC.
> 
> What benefits will the Copenhagen Agreement bring specifically? How will it do as it says its going to? And why should we give up our sovereignty? Or show where it says we wont...



Yep I started a thread on Copenhagen some time back. 
asked for predictions. 
Had the same problem of posters wanting to discuss scepticism etc. 

It turns out that there is probably an option that I didn't include amongst those options - and that was that they will defer the agreement  ( or the agreen-ment if you prefer).


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

justjohn said:


> Welcome back 2020, geez your spineless PM needs your support mate ,he is getting it both ends at present and deserves every little inch




jj, howdy - 
yep it seems that both Lab and Libs went to the last election promising a carbon trading scheme - 
 but in Johnny Howard's case 
a) it was a non-core promise, 
b) so much so, that most of the rest of the coaltion didn't even know about it lol. 

Sure Copenhagen has to sort out a workable plan here for such matters - or at least the first steps.    It is important to move on beyond Kyoto.


----------



## Julia (12 November 2009)

Mickel said:


> Julia, I think you mean Libs/Nats vote it down in the Senate. Rudd has a majority in the House of Reps.



Yes, Mickel, of course.  Thank you and sorry.



Calliope said:


> They will be relieved of the responsibility of controlling their own future.







2020hindsight said:


> amongst other positives, it will cost a heap more to get on board this ship later than if we get on board now.



Oh God, there goes this thread!



2020hindsight said:


> :topic
> Speaking of Miranda Divine and Andrew Bolt,



We weren't.
There is absolutely no one in the entire history of ASF who has the capacity to hijack threads with so many utter irrelevancies as you, 2020.


----------



## Ageo (12 November 2009)

2020 are you always stoned when hijacking threads?

Your talking about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the treaty.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

Ageo said:


> 2020 are you always stoned when hijacking threads?
> 
> Your talking about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the treaty.



Ageo
I was simply explaining the source for Mickel's recent long post on the parallel thread , ...
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=509394&highlight=miranda#post509394

(You're right - it probably would sit better on that thread - but it's a close call - and I just wanted to juxtapose the close relationship that Miranda Devine and Andrew Bolt have with justjohn's heroes )


----------



## Timmy (12 November 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Just to reiterate this point.
> 
> This thread is not, for the debate of CC, rather the discussion of the treaty specifically and the impacts it (the treaty, not CC) will have.
> 
> ...






prawn_86 said:


> 2020,
> 
> Last warning. We are not in this thread to debate CC.
> 
> What benefits will the Copenahgen Agreement bring specifically? How will it do as it says its going to? And why should we give up our sovereignty? Or show where it says we wont...




Thanks 2020 and Ageo.

No more on the Miranda Devine debate now please.

Prawn has asked twice, nicely.  He is very patient.  Not one of my qualities, unfortunately.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2009)

Ageo said:


> Thanks for the reply Julia....... Can someone point out any positives in this treaty? i mean what benefit is it to nations for them to sign?



The practical implication is a transfer of industry and hence wealth to non-developed countries (notably China etc) so they have an interest in it going ahead.

Also it benefits the nuclear power industry and to a lesser extent renewables (primarily wind and hydro) so those who own power plants, suitable sites or uranium mines also gain from it.

Within Australia, the Tasmanian Government would benefit from it since the state-owned Hydro would gain around $400 million a year in revenue (equivalent to 10% of the Tas Govt's entire budget) through increased wholesale electricity prices in the national market. Hydro would also likely gain increased consulting revenue (noting that consulting is already a major part of it's total business) and new wind / hydro development opportunities that otherwise wouldn't be viable. That said, the state as a whole (as distinct from government) would likely see a decline or even total loss of it's major exporting industries (zinc, aluminium and ferro alloys in particular) as well as negative impacts on tourism, paper etc. So it's a transfer of wealth from the general community to the energy industry, which in this case just happens to be government owned (and has been kept that way largely in expectation that something like this would someday arise).

Nationally, the Australian Government gains via a new source of taxation that potentially dwarfs most existing taxes in scale and certainly in scope - it's effectively a tax on just about all economic activity.

The other states and territories would lose outright since there are minimal gains to offset losses apart from mostly privately owned wind farms. Individual communities potentially gain from a few energy related projects being built however. SA and the ACT have relatively less to lose overall than the rest due to lower CO2 intensity of power generation (SA) and a relatively lower dependence on energy-intensive industry (both).


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> amongst other positives, it will cost a heap more to get on board this ship later than if we get on board now.



One thing that is very undemocratic is the silence of the contents and the lack of debate in the public domain by leaders, and other politicians including the people of the nation on the nearly decided issue.

I still haven't heard or read anything by the leader, nor the opposition leader spelling out what the agreement will mean to the Australian public.


----------



## Happy (12 November 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> One thing that is very undemocratic is the silence of the contents and the lack of debate in the public domain by leaders, and other politicians including the people of the nation on the nearly decided issue.
> 
> I still haven't heard or read anything by the leader, nor the opposition leader spelling out what the agreement will mean to the Australian public.




Proves once again: *Democratically elected dictatorship*!


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 November 2009)

Happy said:


> Proves once again: *Democratically elected dictatorship*!



Duopoly.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2009)

Happy said:


> Proves once again: *Democratically elected dictatorship*!




That is why we have set time periods of governance. The power is still with the people.


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

Happy said:


> Proves once again: *Democratically elected dictatorship*!




Hitler was democratically elected. There were no more elections of course. When you have such popular figures running the country you don't need elections.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (12 November 2009)

An updated summary of podcasts from 2GB's Alan Jones on this crazy agreement:

*Alan Jones talks to Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt regarding climate change NEW *
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesbolt121109.mp3

*Senator Barnaby Joyce joins Alan Jones in the studio to discuss emissions trading.*
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesjoyce041109.mp3

*Alan Jones talks to Lord Monckton, British climate change sceptic, who says the Copenhagen treaty is about creating a world government*
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesmonckton261009b.mp3

*Malcolm Turnbull joins Alan Jones in the studio to talk about climate change, boatpeople and Peter Costello's new government job.*
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesturnbull021109.mp3

*Alan Jones talks to Dr Richard Lindzen - Massachusetts Institute of Technology – atmospheric physicist – regarding the global warming scam.*
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjoneslindzen301009.mp3


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 November 2009)

It vill last fur a zousent years. Achtung!!

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (12 November 2009)

Does anyone know if B.O is going?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 November 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Does anyone know if B.O is going?




No, he's not. He's going for his Nobel instead to Oslo.  Its caused the Copenhagen talkfest to be downgraded.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (12 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> No, he's not. He's going for his Nobel instead to Oslo.  Its caused the Copenhagen talkfest to be downgraded.
> 
> gg




Ausgezeichnet!


----------



## Julia (12 November 2009)

There are obviously some ASF members who believe the ETS is necessary, well designed, and capable of achieving a reduction in CO2.  (This is not the thread where we dispute the anthropogenesis or otherwise of CO2).

So could any or all of you people kindly set out for the rest of us just how the government's ETS is actually going to achieve this reduction in CO2?

With thanks.


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2009)

Mr Rudd accuses the Copenhagen sceptics of being scaremongers. But whose scaremongering now? Run for the hills!!

*Dykes may be vital in stemming Venice effect*

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/dykes-may-be-vital-in-stemming-venice-effect-20091113-iesa.html


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 November 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*



Smurf1976 said:


> Note that I said "probably" in that sentence.
> 
> If you change the chemical composition of something to a significant extent then generally speaking you would expect it to have some effects. That's just what happens.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your comments Smurph.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2009)

smurf1976 said:
			
		

> 1. Note that I said "probably" in that sentence.
> 
> 2. If you change the chemical composition of something to a significant extent then generally speaking you would expect it to have some effects. That's just what happens.
> 
> ...



gee smurf
1 & 2.  - 
3. well I am saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change.  I agree with BOM and Hadley Centre for instance. 

4. gee whiz smurf - there's a debate back there by "intelligence squared" - that Global Warming is or isn't a crisis - where everyone (all 6 speakers) agree that "more greenhouse gases will cause warming".  Not only is the smart money on that one - all the money is on that one.  

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369727

In the words of Crichton ... ( and he's on the side saying it isn't a crisis)


> “Is the globe warming .. yes
> Is the greenhouse effect real? yes
> Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and is it being increased by man? Y
> would we expect this warming to have an effect? Y
> ...





5. bit early to say what Copenhagen does or doesn't deliver don't you think.    Was Kyoto a step (tiny bludy step that it was)  in the right direction? - or the wrong direction?

Or do we continue to argue - as Johnny Howard did - that "we refuse to sign Kyoto, but we exceed their targets anyway. " - I believe that would belong in the "square root of intelligence" camp.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> gee smurf
> 1 & 2.  -
> 3. well I am saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause climate change.  I agree with BOM and Hadley Centre for instance.
> 
> ...





2020 mate, 

I was under the impression that all the CO2 and holes in the ozone layer horse**** had been shown to be a load of codswallop.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> 2020 mate,
> 
> I was under the impression that all the CO2 and holes in the ozone layer horse**** had been shown to be a load of codswallop.
> 
> gg



I can't help you with your impressions gg
mind you, you do a pretty good impression of someone pretending there isn't a problem, when maybe even you are observing some changes to the weather - and hence, long term, the climate .

I think by juxtaposing CO2 and ozone, you pretty much nail your colours to the mast.  Ozone is proven, we acted, it's being corrected ( thanks to god - and James Lovelock)


----------



## wayneL (15 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Was Kyoto a step (tiny bludy step that it was)  in the right direction? - or the wrong direction?



It is now unequivocal that they are betting on the wrong horse (environmentally that is, politically is another question).

Therefore the direction doesn't matter. Meanwhile, mother earth continues to suffer from a myriad of other pollutants ignored by the alarmists.

Cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> 5. bit early to say what Copenhagen does or doesn't deliver don't you think.    Was Kyoto a step (tiny bludy step that it was)  in the right direction? - or the wrong direction?



All of the information I have on the subject is to the effect that CO2 is a _global_ problem. Adding a tonne of CO2 to the atmosphere has the same effect whether it comes out the stacks at Torrens Island (biggest power station in SA) or from a central heating system in a house in Alaska. It's all just CO2 going into the atmosphere and it ultimately has the same effect, it doesn't concentrate in one area and just cause warming in that location. 

So if New Zealand, for example, cut emissions to zero whilst the rest of the world continued to pollute then NZ would still suffer the effects of climate change.

Given that the Copenhagen agreement and Kyoto don't cut CO2 but rather relocate the point source of emissions from one country to another, I can't see how they are in any way effective at addressing a problem with CO2 emissions entering the atmosphere. Their primary effect being one of wealth redistribution, with the effect of an overall increase in resource consumption as more people enter the "wealthy" category, rather than emissions reduction.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2009)

2020, since you are apparently convinced that climate change is a product of CO2 , and that we must have an ETS to save the world,
and since you are obviously au fait with all the detail, could you kindly explain to us how  our ETS here will work to reduce CO2, with particular reference to the free permits which will be issued, and the purchasing of permits to pollute?

Further, if Australia is the only country employing such a scheme, how is the climate going to be affected, either locally or globally?

I think most Australians understand very little, presumably because we haven't been told to any extent, so here is your chance to be helpful.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2009)

Julia said:


> I think most Australians understand very little, presumably because we haven't been told to any extent, so here is your chance to be helpful.




You are the supreme optimist Julie. You are inviting the master of obfuscation to be helpful? 

And have you noticed how he is trying to hijack the thread from* "The Copenhagen Agreement - Australia to lose sovereignty"* back to his pet subject. even though he started his own thread on this subject and there is also the climate change hysteria thread.


----------



## sails (15 November 2009)

Thanks Prawn for the link to Barnaby Joyce's website and petition.  I found his senate speech on ETS on the site: http://barnabyjoyce.com.au/Newsroom...cleView/articleId/939/ETS-SENATE-CHAMBER.aspx

What is so scary is that we really don't know Rudd's real agenda on this issue.  Nor do we really know for sure the impact this will have on us and our future generations - Barnaby doesn't paint a pretty picture.  Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue.  It's the apparent lack of information and confusion on something that potentially has an enormous negative impact on us - that is worrying.  

IMO, this isn't something that Rudd should be committing Australia to without full disclosure and transparency.  Why something as serious as this isn't being debated by the main line media is puzzling.  

On the basis of the apparent smoke and mirrors, surely we need to voice our concerns urgently.  Here is the petition link which takes one straight to the petition page.
http://barnabyjoyce.com.au/Issues/Petition/tabid/99/Default.aspx

2020, if you are thinking of replying - PLEASE keep it on topic...


----------



## OzWaveGuy (15 November 2009)

sails said:


> Thanks Prawn for the link to Barnaby Joyce's website and petition.  I found his senate speech on ETS on the site: http://barnabyjoyce.com.au/Newsroom...cleView/articleId/939/ETS-SENATE-CHAMBER.aspx




LOL, from the above URL..."It is Kevin from heaven””the Prime Minister from heaven, I apologise, Acting Deputy President””who is going to develop a new tax to change the climate!"

"It is interesting today we open up the papers and we see: ‘Food Prices Set to Surge Under ETS’. Isn’t that amazing? We have been saying all along that food prices are going to surge"

Australian food prices have already surged by an average of 44% (saw the survey the other day, can't remember where)

The "working families" catch phrase has been all but abandoned by Labor and in it's place is the ETS and a brand new tax  to support the Climate Change Police (aka New World Government)


----------



## Julia (15 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> You are the supreme optimist Julie. You are inviting the master of obfuscation to be helpful?



Whatever do you mean, Calliope?   That is very negative on your part.
I strongly believe 2020 to be misunderstood by many, perhaps even including myself at times, and you should, along with the rest of us, be eagerly awaiting the undoubtedly erudite explanation of the workings of the ETS that 2020 must be about to provide.

I see Sails, too, is seeking more information.  Given the lack of any clear explanations from the government, as she has observed, it seems we are dependent on the fans of Mr Rudd's scheme to explain it to us.



> And have you noticed how he is trying to hijack the thread from* "The Copenhagen Agreement - Australia to lose sovereignty"* back to his pet subject. even though he started his own thread on this subject and there is also the climate change hysteria thread.



I notice that Sails too has suggested there could be a possibility 2020 - in his forthcoming reply - might not adhere rigidly to the topic.

I'd suggest to both of you that you are being uncharitable and unkind and that you should be following my initiative in encouraging 2020 to be genuinely helpful.
You should both go and wash your mouths out.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 November 2009)

Julia said:


> 2020, since you are apparently convinced that climate change is a product of CO2 , and that we must have an ETS to save the world,
> and since you are obviously au fait with all the detail, could you kindly explain to us how  our ETS here will work to reduce CO2, with particular reference to the free permits which will be issued, and the purchasing of permits to pollute?
> 
> Further, if Australia is the only country employing such a scheme, how is the climate going to be affected, either locally or globally?



In theory it's simply a matter of gradually reducing the number of permits available over time thus reducing the legal limit on emissions. Since they are tradeable, they will have a market value (just like shares) and polluters are free to choose to buy permits from the market or cut their emissions.

If we're going to limit CO2 then I don't have a problem with that principle and I'd argue it's not too bad a way of going about it. Let the polluters and the market work out how best to cut emissions rather than banning this, regulating that and putting restrictions on something else. Let the market find the cheapest way to cut emissions - all nice in theory and I don't object to the principle there.

BUT the problem quite simply is this. Australia is not a closed economy. There are completely FREE "permits" available in unlimited quantity from any country which is not part of the scheme.

Now, if I owned a steel works (for example) then why would I contemplate paying for increasingly expensive (as supply is gradually reduced) permits in Australia when I can avoid this cost completely by relocating my operations overseas? I wouldn't pay and nor would any rational business.

Just how global is the energy-intensive industry market? Best I can say there is to understand that individual Australian states (notably Tas and Vic) were competing in that game right through the era of high tariffs, quotas etc. In Tasmania's case since 1916, in victoria's case since the 1960's. In latter years Qld and NSW had a go at it too. 

It's very much a global market where we're up against South Africa, South America, various Middle East countries etc. It's not some closed shop market between the states or between Australia and the EU or US. It always has been global, at least for the past century. 

So an ETS in principle could work, as long as there are no free permits available anywhere. And that means we need every country to be part of it - we'll be economically bleeding rather heavily if we try to go it alone with zero benefit to the environment.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> BUT the problem quite simply is this. Australia is not a closed economy. There are completely FREE "permits" available in unlimited quantity from any country which is not part of the scheme.
> 
> Now, if I owned a steel works (for example) then why would I contemplate paying for increasingly expensive (as supply is gradually reduced) permits in Australia when I can avoid this cost completely by relocating my operations overseas? I wouldn't pay and nor would any rational business.



Thanks, Smurf.  That's my understanding also.  If some of our best businesses relocate then obviously there will be an adverse effect on our economy as well as the individual tax every individual is going to be faced with in everything we do and buy.

I'm still hoping 2020 - or another fan of the scheme - will be able to come up with a more positive take on the scheme and how Australia's lone adoption of it will benefit the world.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 November 2009)

Julia said:


> If some of our best businesses relocate then obviously there will be an adverse effect on our economy as well as the individual tax every individual is going to be faced with in everything we do and buy.



The really big problem is that the sorts of businesses that would be leaving are the largest exporters - here comes a balance of payments crisis.

The economic importance of these companies is very much misunderstood. It's not that they employ x people but that they export $ millions per year. Even in Tas there are individual processing plants creating $1 million a day + in exports and there are a lot more of that type of thing in the other states. 

Take that out and we've got an instant crisis as a country that imports everything and exports nothing.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> .
> So an ETS in principle could work, as long as there are no free permits available anywhere. And that means we need every country to be part of it - we'll be economically bleeding rather heavily if we try to go it alone with zero benefit to the environment.




In other words you need World Government to make it work, (which means giving up our sovereignty), in the same way as Marx and Lenin needed world government to make Communism work. It was called the Comintern.



> Posted by Julia
> I'd suggest to both of you that you are being uncharitable and unkind and that you should be following my initiative in encouraging 2020 to be genuinely helpful.
> You should both go and wash your mouths




You are right. I forgive him for all the nasty things he said about me when I was a novice at this game. It upset him that an upstart could have the temerity to criticise the Forum's Gun Poster and his host of followers. I wish they were still around so that I could forgive them too. Thanks for putting me on the right path Julia.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2009)

The big worry about Copenhagen is that the man representing Australia is a psychopathic liar. He is as cunning as a sewer rat and it is doubtful if he has firm beliefs in man -made GW or any other global issues, apart from his obsessional belief that he is a world leader, a modern day messiah who is destined for high office in world leadership.

One thing is certain about Rudd. He will sell out Australia's interests to advance his own personal interests. His motives as always are ulterior.


----------



## brty (15 November 2009)

The news out of APEC appears to be they can't agree on anything to do with climate. It sort of says that Copenhagen will be dead in the water for anything meaningful.

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...-emission-cut-target-china-20091115-ig0b.html

brty


----------



## Julia (15 November 2009)

Brty, that exact same conclusion was discussed in an interview with Tim Costello on ABC Radio this evening.  He suggested it is now widely accepted that Copenhagen will be a complete waste of time and that nothing will be decided.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> One thing is certain about Rudd. He will sell out Australia's interests to advance his own personal interests. His motives as always are ulterior.




Just try telling that to the fans.  The memory of the $900 is still fresh in their minds, and the potential impost of the ETS is yet to register.


----------



## noco (16 November 2009)

It looks like Copenhagen will be a complete flop and a gigantic set back for our fearless leader particularly if his scheme is rejected by the Senate.


----------



## Calliope (16 November 2009)

noco said:


> It looks like Copenhagen will be a complete flop and a gigantic set back for our fearless leader particularly if his scheme is rejected by the Senate.




The Senate won't reject it. It will only take a few soft liberal votes to get it up. I don't see how Turnbull will surviive the chaos of this capitulation to the alarmists. 

There is no point in having another election, it would be a waste of money. Rejection of the Bill would have, at least, given a large minority a banner for unity, and with the right advocates, who knows?


----------



## Calliope (17 November 2009)

Mr Rudd's dreams of becoming the major player in the World Government to be set up in Copenhagen have taken a severe blow.

It all started at the weekend in Singapore. Rudd tried his hardest to corner the Indonesian President on the boat issue. It was beautiful the see the brush off that Bambang Yudhonono gave him. Rudd tried his hardest to maintain his cordial grin on his prissy mouth.

It would be interesting to know who Rudd took his rage out on later. Perhaps it was the hapless Stephen Smith, after all he is the Foreign minister.

The main point is that all the major Asian nations have now got Rudd's measure, and he is not going to be able to jerk them around on global issues like Copenhagen. 

Asians can spot a phony much quicker than Europeans and Americans, but it is only a matter of time before these leaders wake up to this prissy mouthed upstart with the comical Southpark head and riding boots, and realise  (as discerning Australians know) that he is just a bureaucratic windbag.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 November 2009)

Brian Wilshire at 2gb.com has been talking for years about the global governance agenda. I hope he is wrong. He also wrote 2 books about it and just listening to him he said what he was talking about in the 80's is now happening.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (21 November 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Brian Wilshire at 2gb.com has been talking for years about the global governance agenda. I hope he is wrong. He also wrote 2 books about it and just listening to him he said what he was talking about in the 80's is now happening.




Not only is it true, it's been openly discussed by many of those in the know for years...(Rudd and Howard have in the past refrerred to the new world order in their speeches) and more recently by the newly elected president of the EU....

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...copenhagen_to_give_us_global_management#63675


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 November 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Brian Wilshire at 2gb.com has been talking for years about the global governance agenda. I hope he is wrong. He also wrote 2 books about it and just listening to him he said what he was talking about in the 80's is now happening.




May I suggest we all bend over and smile wide as we get what we snivelling sycophants well and truly deserve....


----------



## Calliope (21 November 2009)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Not only is it true, it's been openly discussed by many of those in the know for years...(Rudd and Howard have in the past refrerred to the new world order in their speeches) and more recently by the newly elected president of the EU....
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...copenhagen_to_give_us_global_management#63675




By "global management of our planet" the new EU president means, of course, the global management of the planet's inhabitants, i.e. you and me. The Communists had a similar agenda and it took nearly a century to discredit their ideology.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (24 November 2009)

OzWaveGuy said:


> An updated summary of podcasts from 2GB's Alan Jones on this crazy agreement:
> 
> *Alan Jones talks to Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt regarding climate change NEW *
> http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesbolt121109.mp3
> ...




It seems that there are only a few in the media that are reporting the reality of the ETS, Copenhagen Treaty scandal and the recent Climate email scandal. I would have thought that this would have been front page news - and a story of a lifetime for the investigative journalist who breaks it open. Some more examples of the few who continue to drive informed info against  one of the world's greatest hoaxes:

Alan Jones talks to Herald Sun journalist Terry McCrann regarding emissions trading. http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesmcrann231109.mp3

Alan Jones talks to the Reverend Fred Nile about the Stop The ETS rally being held at the Roseville Returned Services Memorial Club on Friday, 20th November. http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesnile181109.mp3


----------



## dbcok (24 November 2009)

I would have thought that the world's greatest hoax was WMD's in Iraq.Interesting that the nearly same supporters of that dishonesty are climate change deniers.Andrew Bolt is a prime example-so trusted by the coalition that he was entrusted with confidential government information to discredit Andrew Wilkie.A contrarian Bolt is not !
Think back how any doubters of WMD's in Iraq were dealt with.This time the vested conservative interests ,and their political sympathisers have the roles reversed on them a little.
The closer any potential agreement at Copenhagen the more desperate the vested interests will become.


----------



## Buddy (24 November 2009)

You've lost me coko, I don't see the link between WMD and Copenhagen. IMO you are drawing a long bow.


----------



## dbcok (24 November 2009)

The link is the hoax link..someone claimed  Climate Change was the biggest hoax...I claim that WMD's was a bigger hoax.
This comes when people get extravagent with their language .
This is how silly these word games become .


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 November 2009)

The consequences of either climate change itself or the measures required to effectively combat it far exceed those which actually happened as a consequence of the WMD hoax however.


----------



## dbcok (26 November 2009)

Well the changes may be more positive than negative.In that respect we will have to suck and see.
My comment about WMD'S in Iraq was a little disengenuous.It was designed to point to the level of integrity of John Howard,
This is because some on these forums do not seem have gotten over Howard's demise and conseqently call Rudd a liar and imbecile etc.
It flushed out one Rudd-hater at least.
If Bush and Howard were still in power Copenhagen would be well and truly trashed.
Like it or not Rudd has a mandate to take action on climate change.
For thousands of Iraqis the brave new world of Climate Change is moot point.


----------



## Julia (26 November 2009)

dbcok said:


> For thousands of Iraqis the brave new world of Climate Change is moot point.



You're quite right.   Ditto Afghanistan.


----------



## Calliope (26 November 2009)

dbcok said:


> Like it or not Rudd has a mandate to take action on climate change.




You're right and so does Turnbull, and like most mug punters I assumed an ETS was about cutting back on pollution. But nobody told us that it was the road to "Global Management" where other countries could tell us what to do and also seek compensation because we have burned more fossil fuels than they have.

And Rudd has gladly accepted the offer of "Friend to the Chair" at Copenhagen to play an active role in bringing this about. And now Turnbull has an unholy alliance with Rudd.

Just because Copenhagen will probably be a flop, doesn't mean that Rudd  and Turnbull will stop trying to sell us out. The ETS is the thin edge of the wedge.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 November 2009)

dbcok said:


> My comment about WMD'S in Iraq was a little disengenuous.It was designed to point to the level of integrity of John Howard,
> This is because some on these forums do not seem have gotten over Howard's demise and conseqently call Rudd a liar and imbecile etc.
> *It flushed out one Rudd-hater at least.*



If you are referring to my post then I'm certainly not anti-Rudd anymore than I'm anti-Liberal. Bottom line is that at the federal level both parties make empty promises and burden the future with massive debts - all that differs is what he promises are and who is left holding the debt bag. 

At the state level I generally prefer Labor, largely because the Liberals just run up debts and sell everything off. They're always running around preaching doom and gloom with no optimism for a future that doesn't involve the state going completely broke. Been there, seen that and I'd vote Green before I considered the Liberals in a state election (not that I think Labor is any good either, but at least they're not as keen on the debts and selling everything).

I maintain my original point though that the consequences for Australia of either actual climate change or attempts to combat it will almost certainly exceed anything that actually happened in Iraq in terms of its impact on Australia. 

I'm thinking in economic terms, but when you really think about it, it's not impossible that carbon caps globally may ultimately lead to military war at some point down  the track. 

Coal is abundant and well distributed whereas cleaner natural gas, the primary coal alternative in the short term, is 70% concentrated in Russia and the Middle East. Think about that...

And now think about the consequences when every third world backwater has a working nuclear reactor...

And now think about the reality that we don't have enough uranium (much of what we're using now comes from old weapons) to use the throwaway nuclear fuel cycle to power the world. We'd have to use breeder reactors instead and recycle the fuel - sounds great until you realise we're now messing about with plutonium rather than just uranium. 

Now maybe I'm being a tad over-cautious here, but I really don't think that having 3 countries, two of which have historically been problematic to the West, control a huge chunk of the world's fuel supply (gas - Russia, Iran, Qatar) is a wise move. And nor do I think it's overly wise to have plutonium widely available to anyone who owns a power station. That sounds like a recipe for trouble to me...

There's a lot more to this than a bit of CO2. Brown coal might not be too good for the atmosphere, but nobody's likely to start fighting over it and it's useless in terms of weapons (well, unless your plan is to simply throw lumps of the stuff at someone...). Plutonium has a few more hazards, as does having Iran and Russia dictating the terms globally.


----------



## Julia (26 November 2009)

Smurf, thank you for your always reasonable, informative posts.

Presently, I'm trying to resist the temptation to just bury my head in the sand to prevent abject depression setting in.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (26 November 2009)

Unbelievable. Both Parties should be thrown out...

Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun talks to Alan Jones about the ETS vote and emails exposing the dubious science behind climate change.
http://www.2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=5268


----------



## noco (26 November 2009)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Unbelievable. Both Parties should be thrown out...
> 
> Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun talks to Alan Jones about the ETS vote and emails exposing the dubious science behind climate change.
> http://www.2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=5268




What a great interview between Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt. Only if Alan Jones could  get our fearless leader on air. What an interview that would be!


----------



## Calliope (28 November 2009)

Even if Kevin Rudd goes to Copenhagen with the ETS and CPRS under his belt it boggles the mind to think that he would agree to anything that would endanger our coal industry. Australia's economic survival is dependant on our coal exports which earn $50 billion annually.

In a country which manufactures practically nothing and where all our electronic goods, white goods, motor vehicles,clothing, etc are imported; without the export earnings of coal we would be reduced to third world status.

And yet coal (along with other fossil fuels), as far as Copenhagen is concerned is the main enemy. It is not our enemy - it is our saviour.  

And we will retrain the 130,000 people in the coal and power industries to erect wind turbines and solar panels and install pink bats. Of course we will have to import these things first. And pigs might fly.


----------



## noco (29 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Even if Kevin Rudd goes to Copenhagen with the ETS and CPRS under his belt it boggles the mind to think that he would agree to anything that would endanger our coal industry. Australia's economic survival is dependant on our coal exports which earn $50 billion annually.
> 
> In a country which manufactures practically nothing and where all our electronic goods, white goods, motor vehicles,clothing, etc are imported; without the export earnings of coal we would be reduced to third world status.
> 
> ...




Calliope, as Rupert Murdock said, "Rudd is more interested in ruling the world than taking care of the Australian interests". He rarely missus an opportunity to attend world conferences in an endeavour to become a populace amongst world leaders. He is hoping they will fall for his spin and BS to finish up as UN Secretary General.


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Even if Kevin Rudd goes to Copenhagen with the ETS and CPRS under his belt it boggles the mind to think that he would agree to anything that would endanger our coal industry. Australia's economic survival is dependant on our coal exports which earn $50 billion annually.
> 
> In a country which manufactures practically nothing and where all our electronic goods, white goods, motor vehicles,clothing, etc are imported; without the export earnings of coal we would be reduced to third world status.
> 
> ...




Chinese pigs?

Sow mein??


----------



## OzWaveGuy (29 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Even if Kevin Rudd goes to Copenhagen with the ETS and CPRS under his belt it boggles the mind to think that he would agree to anything that would endanger our coal industry.




Calliope, there's a bigger agenda unfolding and the Copenhagen Treaty is the bridge to achieve it. Hence the reason why Rudd and Obama are now aggressively mandating a ETS/Cap and Trade schemes be signed in as law as quickly as possible. 

Lord Monckton interviewed by Alex Jones on the latest developments... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Qhm6YRdJE&feature=player_embedded 

This is going to get a whole lot more interesting over the coming weeks.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Even if Kevin Rudd goes to Copenhagen with the ETS and CPRS under his belt it boggles the mind to think that he would agree to anything that would endanger our coal industry. Australia's economic survival is dependant on our coal exports which earn $50 billion annually.




The coal industry has had 15 years to do something about its negative exposure to GHG's, instead they chose to go down the denial road which has now lead them to this dead end....maybe they should sue Howard and Co for leading them on this journey of denial and stupidity. 

Now before every jumps up and down with the usually bollocks...im talking about OFFSETS, the coal industry could have been collectively putting say a lousy 50 mill a year into forestry offsets (tax deductible) for the last 15 years and now be in a substantially better GHG position.

And they didn't do it partially because that would have sent a message of inevitability, acceptance and responsibility, a bit like JH setting up an asbestos victims fund before it was forced to.


----------



## Ato (29 November 2009)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Calliope, there's a bigger agenda unfolding




Sorry, I dont have time to go through all the info out there. What's the bigger agenda?


----------



## Calliope (29 November 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Now before every jumps up and down with the usually bollocks...im talking about OFFSETS, the coal industry could have been collectively putting say a lousy 50 mill a year into forestry offsets (tax deductible) for the last 15 years
> and now be in a substantially better GHG position




Our coal exports are stepping up every year and under Labor Governments. Queensland would  be a basket case without coal exports We can't deliver it to our coal loading ports fast enough for the bulk carriers lining up to take it away. Have you been to Newcastle lately? What have OFFSETS got to do with this? This coal is being exported to burn overseas.

Greg Combet is Ms Wong's offsider. This is what he said recently;



> Mr Combet says Newcastle's coal export problems need to be resolved sooner rather than later.
> 
> "Well it's a problem that's gone on for a long time and it would certainly be good to see it resolved ... the coal industry is very important to the Hunter," he said.
> 
> *"It's extremnely important to the nation economically,* *it's our biggest export, so it would be nice to be able to see the best possible throughput through the port* and these commercial and competitive issues are sorted out."




Any puny efforts taken by Rudd, Wong and Combet to reduce carbon emissions by the CPRS or OFFSETS would be a drop in the ocean compared to what we export to  be burnt overseas. Of course if we want to give up most of our imports including a lot of foodstuffs, we could stop, as Bob Brown and Greenpeace advocate.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Our coal exports are stepping up every year and under Labor Governments. Queensland would  be a basket case without coal exports We can't deliver it to our coal loading ports fast enough for the bulk carriers lining up to take it away. Have you been to Newcastle lately? What have OFFSETS got to do with this? This coal is being exported to burn overseas.




Calliope have u heard of coal seem gas?...its basically methane and that's the nastiest GHG by volume...digging and transport coal = release of Methane = a great need of offsets to cover the emissions....assuming u want to carry on business as usual.


----------



## Calliope (29 November 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Calliope have u heard of coal seem gas?...its basically methane and that's the nastiest GHG by volume...digging and transport coal = release of Methane = a great need of offsets to cover the emissions....assuming u want to carry on business as usual.




Well Cynical it's no use complaining to me about it on this thread. You should take the matter up with the man most involved in digging up and exporting coal. It's Greg Combet, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Minister Assisting Penny Wong. He is also the member for Charlton in the Hunter coal regions.

If anyone can capture the nasty methane gas he can. But I doubt he can do this before Copenhagen.


----------



## Calliope (30 November 2009)

Mr Rudd heads for Washington with the endorsement of the Commonwealth Heads of State, for his ETS, CPRS and Copenhagen plans, ringing in his ears and accompanied with accolades which he modestly accepts. They even agreed to his request that the venue for the next meeting be moved from Sri Lanka to Australia. 

It seems ironic that most of these countries, being minor polluters, could get behind the leader of a country, which is the world's greatest exporter of carbon pollution, on the Copenhagen issue.

However if you look at it in a different light, these are the countries which stand to gain the most of the billions in compensation, which will have to be paid by the rich polluting countries, if Copenhagen is a goer.


----------



## satanoperca (30 November 2009)

Sorry if this has been posted before.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

And more will come out of the wood work in coming months.


----------



## Julia (30 November 2009)

satanoperca said:


> And more will come out of the wood work in coming months.




Let's hope so.  All the more reason to delay the legislation in Australia.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Even if Kevin Rudd goes to Copenhagen with the ETS and CPRS under his belt it boggles the mind to think that he would agree to anything that would endanger our coal industry. Australia's economic survival is dependant on our coal exports which earn $50 billion annually.
> 
> In a country which manufactures practically nothing and where all our electronic goods, white goods, motor vehicles,clothing, etc are imported; without the export earnings of coal we would be reduced to third world status.
> 
> ...



Not just coal exports per se, but we have a comparative advantage in energy-intensive processing which now accounts for much of our "manufacturing" industry.

Aluminium, paper, ferro alloys, zinc... it's all just a means of exporting energy, primarily electricity, and it's ONLY because we have cheap electrical power (mostly from coal, some from hydro) that these industries exist in Australia _at all_.

Take away the cheap power and watch every single one of those industries go offshore to use cheap coal somewhere else. That's reality whether anyone likes it or not - they are price takers in a global market so simply can't pay high energy prices no matter what the reason.

When you add the exports of those industries to the direct exports of coal, it's fair to say that Australia in 2009 rides absolutely on the energy industry's back. Not wise to throw that all away without a credible alternative which, at present, we just don't have.

As for jobs in alternative energy, it is the Greens themselves (and particularly Bob Brown himself) who have made the point more than anyone that there are essentially NO jobs in renewable energy once it's built. Lots of jobs during construction certainly, but then it just sits there and needs basically nothign doing to it (biofuels and wind are to some extent an exception but this certainly applies to solar etc).


----------



## So_Cynical (30 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for jobs in alternative energy, it is the Greens themselves (and particularly Bob Brown himself) who have made the point more than anyone that there are essentially NO jobs in renewable energy once it's built. Lots of jobs during construction certainly, but then it just sits there and needs basically nothign doing to it (biofuels and wind are to some extent an exception but this certainly applies to solar etc).




Are there any new jobs to be had in offset creation and the carbon accounting industry that will come as a result of putting a dollar value on GHG offsets?

If we look at the simple first wave of offsets, forestry and engine conversion/replacement...Does Australia have any cost advantage when it comes to creating forestry offsets for the global offset market? will any jobs be created in the change over to hybrid, CNG and LPG engines?


----------



## justjohn (1 December 2009)

where is our fearless leader ,KRUDD - Trinadad Tobago now the USA comes back has a shower then off to Copenhagen with an entarauge of a 100plus for 11 days who is running this place


----------



## Calliope (4 December 2009)

It is understood that Dr Hansen proposes a direct tax on coal at the mines and at the ports. This seems to me to be the only way to go if you are fair dinkum. It would however be suicide for Australia to go down that path, so all we can do is tinker around the edges



> A LEADING scientist acclaimed as the grandfather of global warming has denounced the Copenhagen summit on climate change next week as a farce.
> 
> James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he planned to boycott the UN conference because it was seeking a counter-productive agreement to limit emissions through a cap-and-trade system.
> 
> "They are selling indulgences there. The developed nations want to continue basically business as usual so they are expected to purchase indulgences to give some small amount of money to developing countries. They do that in the form of offsets and adaptation funds," he said.






> "The fundamental problem is that fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy. As long as they are, they are going to be used," he said. "It's remarkable. They refuse to recognise and address the fundamental problem and the obvious solution.






> Dr Hansen, adjunct professor at Columbia University's Earth Institute in New York, says the only way to control global warming is through a carbon tax. "We are going to have to move beyond fossil fuels at some point. Why continue to stretch it out?" he said.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ycott-copenhagen/story-e6frg6so-1225806753772


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Are there any new jobs to be had in offset creation and the carbon accounting industry that will come as a result of putting a dollar value on GHG offsets?
> 
> If we look at the simple first wave of offsets, forestry and engine conversion/replacement...Does Australia have any cost advantage when it comes to creating forestry offsets for the global offset market? will any jobs be created in the change over to hybrid, CNG and LPG engines?



Long term, once it's built, a change to CNG engines in particular should, in theory at least, lead to fewer jobs due to the pipeline distribution of the fuel rather than road tankers, depots etc. Indeed we could get rid of the majority of service stations since every home, office and factory with a natural gas connection becomes a vehicle refuelling point.

As for LPG, that's a very much misunderstood minor component of raw natural gas and also a product of oil refining (just like petrol, diesel etc comes from oil). No way are we about to run anything more than a minority (globally) of vehicles on LPG as the resource realities just don't work. 

Most people probably don't realise this, but LPG is actually classified as "oil" and the figures you see, such as 85 million barrels per day of oil production, include LPG. Liquefied Petroleum Gas...

As for the accounting, well that's obviously a new source of employment even though not a source of actual wealth.


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 December 2009)

*Re: The Copenhagen Agreement*

This will truly be a monumental step forward towards at least a cleaner atmosphere. From this point on there will be no turning back as each country introduces legislation for the good of the planet. One single objective that every conscious and conscientious country can work toward. As far as uniting the good people of the Earth, it is better than an alien invasion or a world war.


----------



## Buddy (8 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Long term, once it's built, a change to CNG engines in particular should, in theory at least, lead to fewer jobs due to the pipeline distribution of the fuel rather than road tankers, depots etc. Indeed we could get rid of the majority of service stations since every home, office and factory with a natural gas connection becomes a vehicle refuelling point.
> 
> As for LPG, that's a very much misunderstood minor component of raw natural gas and also a product of oil refining (just like petrol, diesel etc comes from oil). No way are we about to run anything more than a minority (globally) of vehicles on LPG as the resource realities just don't work.
> 
> ...




It is possible to purchase a home CNG compressor in Australia. But are expensive. 

As far as I am aware, it is impossible to purchase a CNG (small, factory made) sedan in Australia. Such as the Honda Civic GX. Strange isn't it? Beats me why the gummint doesn't encourage CNG. It would solve a lot of problems in a very shortspace of time. I guess they're just dumb.

Here are the number of public CNG stations in the world (notice how smart Australia is):-
World Standing-Country-Vehicles-Fuelling Stations 
1-                      Argentina-       1.5 million-    1,400 
2-                      Brazil-             1.1 Million-    1,200 
3-                      Pakistan-         1.0 Million-    1,000 
4-                      Italy-              0.4 Million-    500 
5-                      India-              0.25 Million-  200 
6-                      USA-               130,000-      1,300 
7-                      Iran-               115,000-       140 
8-                      China-              97,000-        360 
9-                      Ukraine-            67,000-       150 
10-                     Egypt-             63,000-        100 
11-                     Colombia-         60,000-        90 
12-                     Bangladesh-      55,000-        120 
13-                     Bolivia-            45,000-         60 
14-                     Venezuela-       44,000-        150 
15-                     Russia-            42,000-         210 
16-                     Armenia-          38,000-         60 
17-                     Germany-         33,000-         650 
18-                     Japan-             25,000-         300 
19-                     Canada-           20,000-         220


----------



## OzWaveGuy (10 December 2009)

I see the debate in other threads still rages on re: "Carbon Pollution" - yawn, yet as pointed out in this thread weeks ago we are on the verge of a massive change into Global Governance 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nhagen-agreement/story-e6frg6xf-1225808741057

AUSTRALIANS could be hit with a tax bill of up to $400 billion under a draft deal leaked at the Copenhagen summit, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said today.​

Leading on from this, one can see how the enforcement will start to play out... 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/monckto...-creates-larcenous-global-government-tax.html

Lord Christopher Monckton warns that the secretive draft version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” and mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.

Speaking with The Alex Jones Show, Monckton, who is in Copenhagen attending the UN climate summit, said that when he attempted to obtain a copy of the current draft of the negotiating text agreement, he was initially rebuffed before he threatened an international diplomatic incident unless the document was forthcoming.​
Yep - this will reduce that pesky CO2


----------



## OzWaveGuy (11 December 2009)

I thought this 4 part YouTube series from Copenhagen by Monckton was a good summary of the Climate Change debate, the politics, the corrupt scientists, ClimateGate and the draft treaty...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1UAFRlZtVE


----------



## Calliope (11 December 2009)

*Aussie footprint 1817 tonnes, and counting*

Christian Kerrr From: The Australian December 11, 2009 12:00AM



> THE Australian delegation to the Copenhagen climate change conference could number 114, official documents reveal.
> 
> That number dwarfs the 71-strong British delegation. Such is the size of the delegation, it includes a dedicated "baggage liaison officer".
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nes-and-counting/story-e6frg6nf-1225809225797


----------



## Julia (11 December 2009)

Calliope, I expect the irony would be lost on Mr Rudd and Ms Wong.  Such is the level of their zeal.

For the first time, Ms Wong was having difficulty answering some of the questions in an interview on the 7.30 Report last night.


----------



## noco (11 December 2009)

I am totally confused!!!

Wong went to Copenhagen with  5% reduction by 2020.

Copenhagen says Wong has to meet 20-25% by 2020.

Now Wong is talking 15% by 2020.

Does anyone believe she knows what she is doing?

I'm bl..dy sure I don't.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 December 2009)

Has anyone got groundbreaking goss. on the Copenhagen festival?



> For the first time, Ms Wong was having difficulty answering some of the questions in an interview on the 7.30 Report last night.



You know the old saying Julie don't you. Two Wongs don't make a right, but they make a good couple. :bunny:


----------



## Julia (11 December 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Has anyone got groundbreaking goss. on the Copenhagen festival?
> 
> 
> You know the old saying Julie don't you. Two Wongs don't make a right, but they make a good couple. :bunny:



Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I don't quite follow how the above expression relates to Ms Wong having difficulty with Kerry O'Brien's questions?

And, sorry to be picky, but I absolutely hate being called Julie.
I take the trouble to get your rather odd nic correct.


----------



## So_Cynical (11 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Calliope, I expect the irony would be lost on Mr Rudd and Ms Wong.  Such is the level of their zeal.
> 
> For the first time, Ms Wong was having difficulty answering some of the questions in an interview on the 7.30 Report last night.




Hard to believe we saw the same interview...i thought she was concise, cheery and handled herself well, while not actually answering any questions...she is a polly after all....scroll down a bit for the interview.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I don't quite follow how the above expression relates to Ms Wong having difficulty with Kerry O'Brien's questions?
> 
> And, sorry to be picky, but I absolutely hate being called Julie.
> I take the trouble to get your rather odd nic correct.




Yes, as you stated, you are perhaps obtuse and picky but I will accept your sorrow and call you Julia.


----------



## So_Cynical (11 December 2009)

noco said:


> I am totally confused!!!
> 
> Wong went to Copenhagen with  5% reduction by 2020.
> 
> ...




LOL 5% was the minimum target and was always stated clearly, the 20% was always a best case scenario....Jezz noco its like your not actually paying any attention to the details and just rambling. :dunno:


----------



## Julia (11 December 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes, as you stated, you are perhaps obtuse and picky but I will accept your sorrow and call you Julia.



Thank you, Wysiwyg. (How do you pronounce this nic and what does it mean, if anything?)
Given that I'm obtuse, then, I'm sure you won't mind explaining what I failed to understand in terms of a connection.




So_Cynical said:


> Hard to believe we saw the same interview...i thought she was concise, cheery and handled herself well, while not actually answering any questions...she is a polly after all....scroll down a bit for the interview.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/



Good Lord, So Cynical, I saw it once.  Certainly don't want to see it again!
(Yes, of course I realise you are providing the reference for others)

It is indeed hard to believe we saw the same interview if you thought she was concise!  She trawled out all the same old stuff, none of which actually answered O'Brien's questions, and her 'cheeriness' I interpreted as her actually smiling quite sweetly to cover up her lack of ability to provide clear answers.

Ah, we see what we want to see, I expect.


----------



## Fishbulb (12 December 2009)

Julia - Wysiwyg = Acronym for "What you see is what you get" and phonetically it goes "Wizziwig"

Html editors began using it for their coding interfaces and it then became fairly ubiquitous. 

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

Okay, so Copenhagen has us screwed. Enforced socialism, nothing less. What else is it when smaller undeveloped nations get handouts totalling billions to help "fight climate change effect" - Crazy.

And there they are interviewed on the ABC and telling the UN it's not enough. Here's some advice for you - Work for it!


----------



## bellenuit (12 December 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Julia - Wysiwyg = Acronym for "What you see is what you get" and phonetically it goes "Wizziwig"
> 
> Html editors began using it for their coding interfaces and it then became fairly ubiquitous.




I first came across the term back in the days when Word Processing was the "IN" application. You even had dedicated computers that only did WP, such as those from Wang.  Most computer screens were text only screens (usually 24 lines each of 80 characters) and only supported one style and size of font, but printers were capable of more complex output. So when you composed a word processing document, you embedded (though functions of the WP editor) codes in the text that told the printer that the next piece of text was to be underlined, or in a certain font, or a part of the document was to contain a drawing or image. So the document as it appeared on the screen was completely different to what was printed and you really could only see what the output was going to really look like, by actually printing it. Great for wasting paper.

Then as computer screens became more advanced and were capable of supporting graphics and any text style or font, the document as it appeared on the screen was able to resemble the document as it was going to be printed. So Word Processing programs that were able to display exactly like they printed were called WYSIWYG editors. _What you see is what you get._ All advanced WP programs today, like Microsoft Word or Apple iPages have WYSIWYG editors.


----------



## Julia (12 December 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Julia - Wysiwyg = Acronym for "What you see is what you get" and phonetically it goes "Wizziwig"
> 
> Html editors began using it for their coding interfaces and it then became fairly ubiquitous.
> 
> ...



Ah, thanks Fishbulb (and to you too, bellenuit).  Interesting.

Re Copenhagen = socialism.  Agree.   China may yet be the spanner in the works which at least stalls any such agreement. Things are less than harmonious it seems.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Ah, thanks Fishbulb (and to you too, bellenuit).  Interesting.
> 
> Re Copenhagen = socialism.  Agree.   China may yet be the spanner in the works which at least stalls any such agreement. *Things are less than harmonious it seems.*




Indeed, Julia, wars have been started over much less!

We are just starting to get a tiny inkling of the future.

A not-too-distant future where ChIndia owns & runs the world.

Unless "something else" happens.....

Can't possibly think what that may involve..... any tips?


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 December 2009)

Ha Ha Ha!!!!

While our esteemed Western leaders are poncing on and on and on etc.. about how BAD CO2 is for us and how we MUST do something about it, they gleefully approve of delegations of multinationals going to Iraq to bid for the right to spew vastly MORE filthy megatons of CO2 into the air from the rape of Iraqi oil!!

[size=+3]OH, SPARE ME THE WANTON HYPOCRISY, YOU MORONS!!![/SIZE]

:angry: :angry:

[size=-3]PSST: I seriously don't believe any number of Wongs will make it wight... [/size]


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2009)

The developed countries are being screwed by the developing countries, and the third world countries, to help them develop faster so they can catch up to us in the carbon output stakes. These hypocritical  clowns are calling it "climate abatement funds."



> AUSTRALIA faces having to make a hefty payout to help developing countries such as China and India cope with climate change in order to clinch a deal in Copenhagen.
> 
> Despite Australia facing a domestic Budget deficit of about $50 billion for the coming year, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Sunday Mail from Copenhagen that Australia would have to contribute to so-called climate "abatement" funds if India and China were to come into the climate-change tent.
> 
> "There are a range of figures flying around," Senator Wong said. "(British Prime Minister) Gordon Brown has proposed a $100 billion mix of public and private money. We have not indicated a figure but we have indicated we're prepared to do our fair share."




http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26476987-953,00.html


----------



## Fishbulb (13 December 2009)

Emperor's new clothes - Hans was way ahead of his time.


----------



## Fishbulb (13 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I first came across the term back in the days when Word Processing was the "IN" application. You even had dedicated computers that only did WP, such as those from Wang.  Most computer screens were text only screens (usually 24 lines each of 80 characters) and only supported one style and size of font, but printers were capable of more complex output. So when you composed a word processing document, you embedded (though functions of the WP editor) codes in the text that told the printer that the next piece of text was to be underlined, or in a certain font, or a part of the document was to contain a drawing or image. So the document as it appeared on the screen was completely different to what was printed and you really could only see what the output was going to really look like, by actually printing it. Great for wasting paper.
> 
> Then as computer screens became more advanced and were capable of supporting graphics and any text style or font, the document as it appeared on the screen was able to resemble the document as it was going to be printed. So Word Processing programs that were able to display exactly like they printed were called WYSIWYG editors. _What you see is what you get._ All advanced WP programs today, like Microsoft Word or Apple iPages have WYSIWYG editors.




Wang Computers = funny for all the wrong reasons.

Well that takes me back bellenuit. I actually jumped into the computer thing at around the time the 486 processors were new. I bought a copy of Doom - all of five floppy disks as I remember, and using the DOS interface is how I learnt to use a computer. Command line interfaces were quite fun.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 December 2009)

*Newsflash:*















> *Rudd taken by Scores.*
> 
> The Prime Minister of Australia today was briefly detained by scores of demonstrators in Copenhagen, but has only vague recollections of the event.
> 
> " I informed Therese of the occurence and she forgave me " he said






gg


----------



## Mr J (13 December 2009)

It's just too bad they couldn't detain him indefinitely.


----------



## bellenuit (23 December 2009)

Interesting view from an insider at the conference. Makes Rudd and Wong look naive with their claims of success.

*How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas


----------

