I support Bernard's call to include Dave Andrew in the el gordo set. From [The Australia Istitute](https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP44.pdf#page=37) I don't see a downside to this. Arguabley we are in no worse a position than with the deeply flawed CPRS. It was always Kevin RuddÃ¢s political strategy to do a deal on an ETS with the opposition Ã¢ whom he had consistently branded climate sceptics Ã¢ so he could share any blame for higher prices with them and to shut the Greens out of any negotiations. #72 "post modern climate optimum" that would be the one, I guess, Mt Gordo, that just happened inexplicably to coincide with the massive rise in CO2 belching out of power stations and car exhausts. I take Chris O'Neill's point though about what is [politically possible](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warmâ¦), and how the Green's approach might be idealistic, and this sets me to hours of contemplation of the best route forward. Now Chris and I have never agreed on anything but it sure says something about your mindset if you go around accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being dishonest! ', On the other hand, the idea of using clothing as a proxy for temperature has lots of good science behind it. Given the discussion above this link to an article by Johann Hari in The Nation dealing with REDD credits and the idea that something is always better than nothing" may be of interest. In case not everyone has been driven away by mine and Chris's interaction, I wanted to recommend this [easy to read pdf book](http://www.dhf.uu.se/critical_currents_no7.html) with some interesting details. It is not the same question. So 2011 might bring a more climate friendly Senate. The only way it won't happen is if the Govt goes to the polls in a normal election whereupon the Greens will most likely get the balance of power after July 2011 (when the half Senate is changed). I sense you want to change the topic. >*"Beyond the missing trader scam, the ETS is attractive to fraudsters because in order to trade in EUAs [European Union Allowances] you have to register your company, but there are no strong regulations or checking principles as there is in banking to prevent such activities as money laundering."*. Self censoring, capitulating in advance or crumbling in response to their back-room threats just makes them stronger and won't expose who is wielding what power. >"It's an incredibly lucrative target for criminals," he added, warning that there are other aspects of the ETS that are creaky. No they don't undermine the incentive. -Amelia Earhart Actually there are structural problems with the ETS's credit system that lead to multiple and diverse examples of rorting. level in Roman time was at -0.13 +- 0.09 m. The "citrus in England" claim is a new one to me. The double sitting would avoid any Senate problems. >Your error is to only tackle one partially solved [managed] superficial example rather than the underlying structural problems. California Do Not Sell My Info And the best [avaliable evidence](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-milleâ¦) does **not** support the claim made by Abbott. - Genesis 1:3 >*the best solution now, which I find quite elegant is simply to make fossil fuel-derived energy non-tax deductible.*. The Ã¢ideological puristsÃ¢ you seem to be arguing with are strawmen. That and other literary fragments from the time con… Study: Climate was hotter in Roman, medieval times than now . This climate made it possible for the region to develop a strong agricultural base. The location of vineyards is a good climate proxy. Understandably, the natives preferred Latin Law, as they did at least, retain some power. There was always an abundance of concord grapes growing wild. What a wonderful achievement. You are obviously incapable of understanding the importance of your prime example. >or the other way round either. It's like Abbotts says, you [can't trust him](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hhGhPLf5vXxWHS4AQwSOâ¦) when he opens his mouth. Americans sweltering in the recent record-breaking heatwave may not believe it - but it seems that our ancestors suffered through much hotter summers in times gone by, several of them within the last 2,000 years. Wouldn't that be terrible? If it was, those Italians must have been a lot hardier than me. The government argues that it is irrational to subsidise the consumption of fossil fuels by favourable tax treatment, and that if these costs really are essential to business, then they should be passed onto end users of the goods and services to whom we give the funds clawed back who can then decide whether they as individuals need to accept these costs or make other arrangements. Are should one reconsider when even one's cherry picks still require "within error" margin comparisons. THE TAX EVASION PROBLEM WAS SOLVED. >*The rorts have come from carbon-credit-creation schemes, not from emissions trading itself.*. The rest of your response is empty opinion in the face of the evidence I provided. The mild climate enabled Romans to grow wheat, grapes, and olives. At that point in time and in that place, what percentage of the soldiers in the Roman army were actually Roman? Full Roman Law, where the native laws did not apply and were replaced by the Roman constitution. It staggers me that Abbott puts his faith in his religious and economic ideologies ahead of rational science, and that he does so dragging a whole nation (and now possibly the world, given his actions last December) further toward irreparable long-term climate harm, and that he was able to do so on the basis of one bloody vote! Funny thing is why does the government bend over backwards to acccomodate big coal when something like the super profit tax, that has all the miners up on their hind legs, get though without a hitch. The RWP and MWP were an accepted part of consensus science prior to the hockey stick and were part of IPCC reports 1 and 2. This is bad. Clearly they do: http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropemed.php. The Greens had an ideological agenda to punish carbon-emitting industries which was not necessary to reduce carbon emissions in future. calling for legislated floor price of $20/tonne to prevent the sytem being worse than useless, And how much does it cost to emit carbon now? I disagree with your thoughts about the Greens not voting for the ETS.