Science is supposed to advance humans right? Here CO2 it poses to tax us and remove our rights.

The CO2 argument shoots from below the graft, ignoring what we are taught in university physics, geology, chemistry and physical oceanography. Science is supposed to leverage off what we know.

AGW theory has become a gravy train and a high pedestal for every bumper sticker-toting bleeding heart. Every green collar that benefits from carbon credits and ETS could be taken as a fraud - if they were not so breathtakingly naive...

The AGW notion is spawn of the blunder by Michael Mann, and a naively awarded Nobel Prize. Thermometers located in progressively urbanised areas show higher tempertures than satellite data that are not prone to the urban heat island effect and their proximity to air conditioner vents, heat reflecting of bitumen and brick etc.

Satellite data shows temperatures flat if not decreasing for the past seven years while CO2 concentrations keep rising. So the AGW notion is challenged on fundamentals...

...but it has so much momentum. Skeptics, those that still cry for a single shred of evidence, are practically accused of heresy!

Evidence rules science, not consensus. Unless we want to go back into the dark ages. Ironic that the dark ages were the Little Ice Age, you know the period after Greenland iced over, you know when the Vikings farmed wheat and barley there?

Oh! so climate changes naturally!? Yes folks, so does sea level. The edge of our continent is actually ten to thrity kilometers offshore, as a result of millions of years of sea level transgressions.

And, remember now, there is one sea level, so don't go blaming CO2 if it rises more in WA than in NSW. That's isostacy and the effects of erosion/deposition that's fooling ya. Venice is sinking.

But what about the ice that's melting. Oh, the Arctic ice did melt back a bit, so the media took a glug of gravy (why not?) but refused to make a deal out of the Antarctic ice, which advanced. Anyway, if the ice does not melt back ever again, then Greenland will never grow crops again.

Now that AGW theory is under some form of attack, the reaction is to grab for a study that showed pH in the oceans increasing and simply blame it on higher CO2 in the atmosphere. OMG! Do they know that the ocean has 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere? And 19 more times than the biosphere? Someone better critique that study, because how can you claim to know pH to 0.1 unit at a particular location in the ocean back in 1700?

Surely!? Imagine 1 unit of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will take a very long time to even double, forcing the pH of the ocean? Has anyone remembered the tens of thousands of kilometers of subsea volcanoes and how they might heat the ocean? Well yes, they also spew untold CO2 into the ocean, and it dissolves there, and upwells on continent margins and joins the 4.5 billion year old carbon cycle.

Consider geologic time, go way back before Al Gore's hockey stick handle, and look at plots fo CO2 versus temperature. CO2 > 3% did not cause runaway global heating. Folks, listen up, we are worrying about 0.038%, potentially doubling to 0.076% by 2255.

And physicists and non-IPCC meteorologists tell us that CO2 has already done it's job. It's already absorbed practically all the reflecting radiation, so it's pretty much saturated. Adding more will hardly make a difference, if they are actually wrong.

The ocean acidification notion is blown to bits by the pop drink experiment: do it at home Australians; take two bottles of the same carbonated soft drink (Oh! does my ginger ale have CO2 in it!?); open them; put one in the fridge and one in front of a heater; the warmer one loses it's fizz faster. Wow! Do IPCC and greenies know what this means? To spell it out for them; warmer weather means more CO2 is given up by the ocean into the atmosphere. That's an example of elementary physics - proven cause-effect, sprouting many branches up from the graft.

What would an AGW gravy trainer say to that? I heard 'em say it already...'dodgy experiment', 'proves nothing', 'so don't you believe that pollution is bad?'

No folks, what the experiment shows is that the open pop drink bottles behave the laws of physics, AND (on a side note) they will not force your fridge to work harder or make your heater more effient in heating the house.

Senator Joyce, step in and stop the rotting of our minds by this misinformation. The debate is not over, pollution is bad, but CO2 is actually good for plants.

Now Al Gore writes that we should consume less meat!!! OK, how much CO2 and CH4 (mehane) did the buffalo make while they were farting their way across the great plains of the USA? Before the few remaining were put in zoos. How much CO2 and CH4 did lions and elephants make before they were also sent to the zoo. C'mon folks stop buying the gravy, enjoy your meat and veggies, enjoy your cars and fridges and travel while these fuels are still economically viable, pursue efficiencies AND SEEK THE TRUTH!

May peace, truth and wellness overcome all (like there is a lot we can actually do to make this a better planet...)

John White, Geologist and Environmental Consultant
Mossy Point, NSW

The image of men in white coats chasing cow farts is one of the few reasons to smile at this whole sorry saga of exaggeration and misrepresentation.

There is a park at the end of the street. The council mows the grass periodicaly. After a few weeks, the cut grass has "disappeared" releasing water, CO2 and Methane (which soon breaks down to CO2 and H2O), but wait - new grass has grown taking CO2 from the atmosphere. If council buys a cow to replace the lawn mower .. cow eats grass, emits CO2 and Methane (which soon breaks down) - less the carbon retained in its body for later consuption by meat lovers. The cow cannot emit any more Carbon than the fodder it eats absorbed from the atmosphere in the first place. Two cows or 2000 cows will cycle carbon x2 or x2000 faster but cannot increase total atmospheric CO2

John - You are absolutely right. I wish there were about 75 other guys with your understanding in the Australian Senate right now.

And for what it's worth, my vote will be trying to do that whenever it gets a chance.

Best Wishes,

Mike

Thank God we have someone like Barnaby Joyce who has the "guts" to speak up and say what so many Australians believe.

I was a refugee from Hungary who fled from the horrendous communist regime in the 1950s. We chose to come to Australia because we thought it was the best country in the world. However, the way Kevin Rudd is going with his ridiculous egotistical policies he will destroy this beautiful country and botch it up even more than Geogh Whitlam did!!! Who would ever have thought it could be possible to do a worse job as Prime Minister than Whitlam?!? BRING BACK JOHN HOWARD - PLEASE!!!

Senator Joyce
Isn't the proposed ETS simply another GST or an extension of the existing one? And the way this is being introduced by the fanatics in Canbera and elsewhere is that if you oppose the ETS you are desrtroying the world or even our home country and our children's future, and therefore you are an unmentionable. Bet John Howard would have liked to have introduced a similar frightening strategy to get support for the GST. Now maybe clear thinking people might see though that very old threat, and support you in your campaign.

Barnaby,
Have you read the 'Copenhagen Treaty'? That's right it doesn't exist. The PM was right on that one.

Have you read any of the draft text (referred to as non-papers)? If so, which version? They are changing all the time.

Which particular square bracket do you have a problem with?

That's right, your poor yet adament arguments are designed to distract attention from the fact that you do not support Australia's scientists or scientific institutions. The CSIRO, the BOM, Australian Academy of Sciences and every other National Academy of Sciences around the developed world recognise that climate change is real and that it is driven primarily by human CO2 emisisons. Stop playing russian roulette with my future. Bugger off and run a farm somewhere, and suffer the consequences of climate change in silence. Let someone with an appreciation of the value of scientific rigour represent the people of QLD. They, and we, need it.

Your "AWG is a hoax" argument is called denialism and you probably should get it looked at.

It would be amusing if it were not so serious.

Have you ever taken the time to meet Professor David Karoly or Professor Will Steffen to receive a scientific update? If not, do it today.

I don't know about Barnaby but there are numerous with out brackets that I have problems with.
i.e.

"38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components,

(c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange."

The "finanicial mechanism" appears to be where our new global tax will go.

Some sections with brackets

"A mechanism for financing climate change actions by monetizing emission allowances through auctioning is hereby established.
This financial mechanism implies that a certain proportion of the total number of emission allowances under the Copenhagen Agreement is held back and auctioned at the international level.
The auctioning will generate revenue that shall be used to assist developing countries in implementing climate change actions.
Revenue generated by this mechanism will contribute to the fulfillment of financial obligations under the Convention of those countries taking on quantified emission reduction commitments"

So we know that Ian Macpharlan has discovered there was $50B of unallocated allowances.

It appears these are being held back to be auctioned for the benefit of the UN..

And the telling thing that makes this treaty different to others is the ability to get out sometime down the track if necessary..

Once we are in with give an unelected body control over our energy.

It is not much of a stretch to think that we would be bullied into implementing other "directives" on the threat of having our carbon ration increased/decreased, just the same way the Fed's do to the States now with money.

Open your eyes Duncan. How can a cow make carbon? How can you trust a man that thinks that. Al Gore is a fraud, and so is anyone with a car, a fridge, an air-conditioner... If you truly believe in a cause you ought to live it, or are you satisfied with a bumper sticker and a tax on every thing made, mined, grown, enhanced, innovated and brought to your city shopping mall?

Or maybe you would feel better, in carbon credit for the rest of your life, if you only had one child.

Don't even think that being a vegetarian will make a difference. Breathtakingly stupid - anyone who buys Al's book. Every veggie is ultimately processed to methane, water and CO2, and again, veggies don't make CO2 either.

Pollution kills, but CO2 is good for plants. Read some geology and physics, crack open a softie and see if you can feel any more heat, no matter how tiny your apartment.

As a scientist I am thoroughly embarrassed at how consensus can override evidence, and the lack of it. Remember how tough Galilleo did it.

Don't be afraid of the truth mate. When you finally realise you are wrong, then celebrate that you have learned something. That's a true sign that you have grown up.

...also remember that CSIRO published a diet, sponsored by the beef industry. It recommended more meat than the Heart Foundation suggested.

Scientists take grants, measure and study what anyone wants, even cow farts. Remember that billions are being spent on this. I would prefer all that money go into cancer research and improving renewable energy tech.

Money talks, and it will talk ever so loud and clear when 1% of our GDP is taken as tax and handed to China.

The full text of the Copenhagen treaty is available at http://tinyurl.com.yza3jz3
Reading just one page: 20 (p) will give you an idea what is in store for you!
If the true contents of this treaty would be explained in simple language to the people, there would be a revolt.

Good to see a polly standing up for what he believes. Go for the throat over this nonsensical ETS.

Question,

Why is the mainstream news media so quiet on the Copenhagen Treaty?

Why do they ignore or scathingly attack anyone who speaks against AGW?

Why do they blindly support any statements from the AGW Sect?

Has freedom of the press disappeared (and, by association, democracy) or is there a more benign reason?

Dear Mr Joyce

I gotta say your analysis of the 78 "Sri Lankan" assylum seekers along with your recommended solution to take them back to Columbo was incisive, logical, and crystal clear. It's a pity the same clinical analytical reasoning is not applied to the ETS

I'm a Forensic Accountant and Coal-Face Economist, and coincidentally a "derivatives trader". I agree the ETS is not the best solution. But rather than opposition at all costs how about some incisive solutions. If you want to carry "we" the people with you we need some crystal clear detail.

What we dont know is the level of subsidies that have been paid to the "coal and power" industries over the past 10 years. It is now these same industries that are demanding further assistance in the form of concessions and assistance. But the question arises : what value have "we" been getting from the subsidies already paid.

Provide us with some concrete detail and let us make up our own mind. Dont tell us its a "tax". It's not. You know better than that. It's a transfer payment.

Correct, Mr Rudd & Ms Gillard are bent on shifting all productive enterprise off shore.
Their policy direction leaves companies like ours no room to continue manufacturing much here. They talk "jobs" and "getting the balance right", but the reality is that Australia as a smart and innovative manufacturing country is being legislated out of existence.
Australia will become nothing more than a big quarry and shopping center selling imports.

The farcical carbon tax will drive Australian costs beyond any dream of international competitiveness.

Absurdly "over the top" OHS laws combined with an increasingly litigation driven system have combined to make every task so procedural and restrictive that most common construction tasks take far longer than they did even a few years ago. This time is wasted on procedure which adds nothing to productivity. We will have the safest workplace in the world because nobody will be allowed to work anymore as a risk aversion strategy.

Other countries have minerals. Australia will lose to those where reality prevails.

Australia may have "avoided" the recession by propping up "jobs" in the retail sector to sell imports, but the extremes of fluctuation of exchange rates make any export of technology or smart machinery impossible for Australian sourced product. Many of these negotiations run for years. A price increase of 50% in a few months makes export efforts futile.

The floating exchange rate (and the proposed ETRS) benefit only speculators and traders who of themselves create no value.
A return to an exchange rate fixed to a basket of trading currencies would be a more sensible path to real job retention than more fickle market driven schemes.

The Copenhagen Treaty is only part of the basket of measures adopted by the federal government to shift jobs offshore.

For us it is already too late. Much of what we do is being moved offshore. There is no option.

Duncan, how very democratic of you

"Let someone with an appreciation of the value of scientific rigour represent the people of QLD. They, and we, need it."

So Barnaby being elected by the people and for the people is not good enough should he then hold an opinion different to you?

And 'rigour'? Just where has any of the AGW claims stood up to any sort of rigour at all? The Hockey stick, the centrepiece of the first IPCC report barely lasted 4 years before being demolished by a statistician.

The tree ring data has also since been demolished.

The lovely big graphs of Al's showing Carbon linked to Temperatue conveniently used a scale that didn't show that they actually lagged those temperature changes by 800 years!

Al's claims of increased Hurricanes - demolished in the past 5 years as the number of Hurricanes has fallen dramatically.

The AGW theory and models have NOT predicted the current cooling trend that even the AGW proponents now admit is happening. How can we trust these same models in 5, 10 or 20 years if they keep failing?

A scientific theory is first put forward, then results are observed and only if a 95% success rate is achieved, is the theroy then thought to be 'true'. The AGW theory keeps failing at the observational level in that none of its 'predictions' have occurred.

Keep up the good work Barnabay.

Good on you Senator Barnaby Joyce. This shows you what you get if employ 'paid' tame fools as to advise the Prime Minister who don't understand the depth of the subject or pushes their views or their minders to keep in the with the mainstream of the government and there by keep their little jobs.

Hi Barnaby,
Go for it ...I agree the ETS is a DOG...keep the pressure on KRUDD, he is failing in that he is believing his own spin ( although I do think CRAP is a better word). He will fall,,people are beginning to see him for what he really is. Watch the poles over the next two months... Regards kev

Senator Joyce i am glad we someone in that parliament who is standing up for the little people in this country keep up the good work cobber

Dont forget Mr Turnbull is no different. Jones demonstrated that he hadnt
read the treaty either. Hence both our leaders havent a clue what they are
frightened of nor what they are allowing people to be intimidated by to agree to all this AGW nonsense. All one can determine therefore is that they both
want to get their hands on this massive tax regardless of what it does to the economy and our standard of living.

This is totally reprehensible, is a complete faiure of government and a
subordination of the democratic process to the egos of two men and two parties. Neither of them nor their parties have an ounce of decency nor an ounce of shame.

If the ETS is to be successful, & the other major countries are in dept & are close to being bankrupt due to the world economic crisis, Who is going to suffer/pay the extra taxes; the people of these countries??.

Which countries are going to gain, the underdeveloped countries which haven't signed the ETS, eg:- China , India, African etc, will they still be manufacturing & polluting the environment; will they take instruction from the U.N.??? or will the countries which form this specialized ETS group within U.N. have more to gain??. Will they do the right thing for the World Environment, who will oversee them??; Which Scientists or group will write the forever changing rules over the next 50 years; will they get it right???.

How/Why, does Australia pay out 8 billion dollars are year to the U.N (An unelected entity) & still pay for our economic crisis handouts totaling approx 150 billion dollars; it took the Howard government 13 years to pay 96 billion dollars of the last Federal Labor party dept, that’s approx 7.4 billion dollars a year,???.
Plus, how will we pay for any extra penalties imposed by the U.N. for not meeting their requirements in our Country.

Any treaty that has to be paid annually, must be put before the Australian Parliament & agreed to by the House of Representative & the Senate. (All elected).

In Switzerland a vote has to be taken on any Treaty before it can be signed; two thirds of the parliament or the people have to agree, before it to be ratified.

You don’t have to be an Accountant to see that this doesn’t add up.

Len

Your claim that if you inflict them with an ETS they do not want then they will vote for someone else is entirely true but not only for the left wing parties, if the coalition bow to Rudds demands in any way shape or form, even if one coalition senator crosses tha floor and votes for an ETS will at least gaurantee that my vote will be caste for an independant come the next election.