I have paid little attention to what deals are being made to ensure that the CPRS is total hypocritical humbug and c*ap as, even if the scientific foundations are sound, almost everything else is wrong or sub-optimal. But what about the compensation for the lower income earners - all ten times as rich as most of the people I see on my annual visits to a Third World country?

They are nearly all voters and responsible as citizens who did or did not take any part in civil society or political life for what our country has done to exacerbate or not counter AGW. Why should they [we] not pay for our collective failure and, at the same time, be given an incentive to reduce CO2 emissions?

I was assuming that my target was still adolescent, if not absolutely infantile, like some of his contribution.

Did the horse give way to the car a hundred years ago? Were there government adjustment packages (Horse shit compensation)?

Did people buy and breed horses, expecting to make a profit, only to see their world view collapse as a better way was found to do things?

Of course, they didn’t receive compensation, or HPRS (Horse Pollution Reduction Credits), or anything else. They were simply forced to adapt, just as a mollusc on a rock shelf has to in the face of rising tides.

The captains of industry seek to remove risk from their dealings. That is evident from the past year’s collapse of the financial sector, where the public of a hundred nations have been called upon to save the businesses of the rich and famous from collapse. Nice work if you can get it, but not the way of Nature.

I see no reason to now socialise the losses which accrue due to the carbon economy or to privatise the profits which might be made by further rorting the system. Carbon chemistry and atmospheric physics may not be understood by said captains of industry or other commentators on this subject, but when the world turns, they have absolutely no rational reason to be offered the public tit as recompense.

Get over it, move on and change your business are the only words of advice which apply here.

As for brown coal… if the purchasers have not yet made a profit from burning this wet, low grade, stinking Victorian mess, then they never will. They have had enough time for us to refuse them our sympathy. Besides which, we are too busy dealing with the emerging world to worry about the finer points of offering a decent burial to those left behind.

Do you really expect any of us to read your dense, impenatrable cr_p? You have apparently copied and pasted a lot of stuff from another site and now expect us to work our way through it, and accept it as original work, relevant, and useful.

It is not.

For a start (and I choose to go no further today, the sun having set long ago), consider the following.

1. You choose to argue that additional CO2 after saturation has zero effect. This may be so, however saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere is not what is being discussed. The actual CO2 fraction of the atmosphere is and should be kept at, a fraction of the saturation concentration, which is poisonous to all life on earth, rather like sticking the exhaust pipe of a car into your mouth. CO and CO2 are both poisons. O2 is not. To keep this world inhabitable, we need to keep our gas mix (air) withjin reasonable limits. You, sir, are most certainly off your rocker and not reasonable at all.

2. Where the dickens did you get the notion that I said somewhere that CO2 reflects heat in all directions? Not from this site, or any other. Sure that you haven’t just imported cr_p from somewhere else and accused me of being the source?

3. After about four screen of diatribe, I have formed the opinion that you are in need of adjustment to the real world, because your current opinions are totally unreal. I have also detected that you need a job. 2:51pm is not an indication that you are gainfully employed. Perhaps you are paid to attend a workplace but choose to waste the bosses’ time. Either way: get a real job. You need one.

4. The quoted examples and arguments have all been answered many times by better than I. Essentially boring, now - old hat. You have swallowed enough hogwash to keep the pig population of Denmark clean and shining like a new penny for a couple of years.

Dream on.

I withdraw……. defeated but better for having been rapiered by that other trenchantly brilliant genius that is Andrew Lewis.

I both apologise to and grovel thanks to this coruscating Einstein.

Couldn’t you make the effort or give the time to thinking of [causes of] “long term adjustment” that weren’t so quintessentially short-term as currency movements and the GFC? Let it be noted too that you are apparently insouciant about adjustments which involve the end of businesses or whole industries. Creative destruction maybe but the destruction usually hurts many and your best point would have to be made with a cogent argument that when you buy something from government, e.g. Victoria’s brown coal powered generators, you should know that government may turn round and tell you that it is now illegal to use the asset.

And your point? Because business has been faced with big changes that have had little or nothing to do with government it shouldn’t complain when the government thrusts costs upon it in a way which, without adjustment or compensation, could put it at a disadvantage in rewarding effort and ownership and for having made investments in good faith, often encouraged by government, compared with those of other business investors in Australia, and, more to the point, overseas.

- currency movements
- the GFC
- the emergence of the internet,
- any number of technological advances over the past 1000 years,
- a pretty standard change of government and the overturning of employment laws every 5-10 years.

And all have the hanrahan shrill of we’ll all be rooned. Surely the worst example of this is the complaints of the owners of the brown coal burning electricity generators. Apparently they weren’t aware there was a debate about climate change emerging, although somehow everyone else was.

Industry in all its forms has had to work with bigger manifestations of change introduced more quickly than a 10-15 year roll-in of carbon credits. No public debate in my lifetime has been more disingenuous, no industry sector immune to the siren song of rent seeking

Industry is in a headlong battle with agriculture to win title of champions of “Socialise the losses and privatise the profits.”

“I can think of 3 previous occasions when the Government has changed regulations, all for health related issues, which would have enormous impact on the bottom line of various businesses;
Lead in petrol
Asbestos products
CFCs as propellants

Is there any evidence that companies moved sales of lead paint off shore to make use of lax regulations, or did they just change their process?”

Ask yourself , the next time you are at your local Bunnings, just how many different paint brands there are on show, then check where they were manufactured.

I believe that you will find the vast majority were manufactured overseas, simply because the costs of manufacturing paint in places like China, and then shipping it to Australia, is still cheaper than manufacturing here.

That long term shift from a manufacturing economy to a services economy, is hastened when the Government imposes long term cost increases through structural manipulation of costs to local manufacturing.

Look at what happened to our tyre manufacturing industry, or our car manufacturing industry, or our white goods manufacturing industry, or our electrical item manufacturing industry or even our clothing and underwear manufacturing industry.

You can, they are all on sale, many with the same branding, but manufactured in China, by Chinese, with the profits going overseas to support overseas jobs.

the “effectiveness ” of Co2 after saturation = ZERO

Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document foe Endangerment Analysis
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
the “effectiveness ” of Co2 after saturation = ZERO
_________________________________________________________

“perhaps a thousand years? = how about 5 to 10 Days ?

The lifetime for CO2 is the order of 5 to 10
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lifetime.jpg

OR

The real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

_______________________________________________________

“ongoing accumulating effects” ? = how about ZERO,zilsh,

OR;
Dr. Roy Spencer’s 0.6 C warming for a doubling of CO2.

OR;
Miskolczi`s New Greenhouse Law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykgg9m-7FK4&feature=player_embedded#t=98
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT HAS NOT INCREASED IN THE LAST 100 YEARS!
_________________________________________________________

The common misconception is;As we add more and more carbon atoms so more heat is retained by the increasing number and reflection of heat also increases
You missed the point regarding the fact that once the upgoing radiation that CO2 can capture
has been absorbed there’s none left for additional CO2 to have any further influence - it’s a
logarithmic effect i.e. the more CO2 you add the less the effect until there’s virtually no effect
at all. And as you stated “reflects heat in all directions” - that’s out into space as well. This
“greenhouse” has no roof.

The fact that that Co2 was many times higher in the past during extremly cold periods proves
the point.

A simple way to explain it is;If you add extra blinds to a window the second has little effect and the third next to zilsh and so on.
 —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — -
Miskolczi`s New Greenhouse Law
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/united-nations-environment-programme-uses-unreviewed-graph-from-an-anonymous-wikipedia-author-for-official-report/
 —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — 
The following chart comes courtesy of Climate Researcher Alan Siddons and illustrates the
theoretical pattern logarithmic CO2 forcing would assume at each of these four sensitivity
levels. Needless to say, the difference when allowing for negative feedback is staggering.
ZILSH GRAPH
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/the_planet_cools_while_romm_bu_1.html
 —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — -
Mistakes in IPCC Global Warming Calculations
http://mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.com/
 —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — -
As for your link;

Just like the IPCC the ABC the CSIRO or any Government funded agencies with $-grant-$
monnies’s why would they bite the hand that feeds them and not give them a pre concieved
biassed outcome ?
“The latest example is in Queensland where the CSIRO is given $2 million to help the
government fight global warming.”
http://www.countryman.com.au/article/2397.html
 —  —  —  — 

The EPA even tried to suppress evidence.

Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document foe Endangerment Analysis
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
the “effectiveness ” of Co2 after saturation = ZERO
 —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — 
The Sun has been more active recently than for the last 8,000 years.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=1
http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/solter/ihy2007/topics.html

Solar Radiation during the 20th Century
http://www.john-daly.com/solar.htm

New Discoveries from Denmark

In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the
climatological world with a paper in “Science” describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle

length and global temperature (IPCC version). “Science” writer, Richard Kerr described it as
“one dazzling correlation”.

Fig 5. Solar Cycle Length and Global Temperature (surface)
(The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length)

As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the
solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent)

 —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — -
The Sun has X-been-X WAS more active recently than for the last 8,000 years.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=1
http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/solter/ihy2007/topics.html

An educated person knows that Sunspot cycles and ‘temperature’ or ‘climate’ are near perfectly correlated.
http://cce.890m.com/solar-gcr/images/sunspot-cycle-length.jpg
http://cce.890m.com/solar-gcr/images/fcl.jpg
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif
 —  —  — -
Now lets include the bad correlation of Co2 as well.
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_vs._CO2.jpg
http://www.kowabunga.org/images/pictures/misc/sunspot.gif

There needs to be a considderation taken into account, there is a LAG period well after because of the fact Oceans take time to cool.

Our release of gasses is minute compared to a warmed Ocean and 3 million+ under sea Vents
and Volcanoes which there are 85 times more of than land based Volcanoes.Besides there has
been a rise in the intensity of World Earth quakes that correlates with Mona loa curve

I think there’s not much mystery about the past warming really,It’s the Massive 3 MILLION?
Under-sea thermal and volcanic activity under the Arctic AND the warm currents also from the ring of fire that enter the Arctic which would ALL originate from an unballanced world from CME Magnetic disturbances causing above normal sizemic activity and thus extra heat entering

the Ocean and then to the atmosphere.
 —  —  —  —  —  — -
climate sensitvity for a doubling of CO2

Here is a summary of some of the recent determinations climate sensitivities or warming for a
doubling of CO2:

0.4 C (Idso)
0.5 C (Lindzen)
0.6 +/- 0.2 C (analysis above)
0.65 C (Schwartz without aerosol masking)
0.98 C (Modtran)
1.3 C (Schwartz with aerosol masking)
1.3 C (Shaviv)
2.2 C (Schwartz with aerosol masking and using incorrect ocean warming values)

I’ll just quote Roy Spencer’s latest finding on climate sensitivity at

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/epa-endangerment-finding-my-submitted-comments/
where he finds a 0.6 C warming for a doubling of CO2.
_______________________________________________________________
perhaps a thousand years? = how about 5 to 10 Days ?

the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

the lifetime for CO2 is the order of 5 to 10
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lifetime.jpg

http://newsbyus.com/index.php/article/2116

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, presented ‘smoking gun’ analysis
showing UN IPCC models ‚significantly overstated climate sensitivity to human climate forcings’ - June 17, 2008

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reid Bryson say’s you could go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon
dioxide.

UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of
the science of modern climatology.”

http://www.cordina.org/page2/page2.html

So why not do that instead? Rather than compensating our businesses, which in my opinion discourages any actual innovation on their part, tax imports that are from countries that don’t have a scheme. An advanced tariff I guess. Sure there’ll be some administrative headaches, but the current system is chock full of them as well. Then, our businesses have an incentive to decrease their emissions.

It’s a large criticism I have of the system; there are is so much compensation that there’s no incentive to improve. In some cases there’s even a disencentive.

Simple question.

The mining industry getting worked up is just silly. They make heaps of money. If they slow expansion somewhat that doesn’t reduce the value of future income, if anything it increases it (see Saudi Arabia constantly holding back oil supply).

The industry that does matter is energy intensive refining/manufacturing. This actual means smelters. However they are sensitive to energy prices and security of supply, not just carbon. The new smelters were always going to be built in the middle east or places with lots of hydro capacity (Canada/Norway/Siberia). Bahrain is offering almost free electricity to locate there (since they sit on the biggest gas reserves in the world, way more than they can possibly export).

I had thought most everyone even alarmists understood that calling an ETS the CPRS was and indeed still is a cynical device to associate one of nature’s key organic molecule ‘CO2’ with particulate carbon constituted by another molecule called carbon ‘C’ aka soot and smog. Interestingly our modern electricity generators no longer pollute the environment with carbon unlike say China’s:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

CO2 thus becomes the polluting enemy instead of an organic molecule absolutely indigent to and necessary for life.

Is there any evidence that companies moved sales of lead paint off shore to make use of lax regulations, or did they just change their process? Were they compensated for changing their process? Lead was used because it was cheap, didn’t they just pass the costs on?

Was James Hardie compensated for banning of their asbestos products? Quite the opposite I’d say.

What about CFCs? Was there any compensation for change of manufacturing processes and having to use more expensive compounds?

Like Bernard, I think the effects of carbon leakage are greatly overstated; sure as a theory it may occur, but I think the companies involved are deep in some classic rent seeking. The disparity between their shareholder reports and the reports given to Government bare that out. I also think the theory ignores some other potent motivators for doing business in Australia; a stable political climate, huge amounts of resources and abundant cheap energy. Only the last one will change, making it one of many pieces in the puzzle, not the whole game.