Monday, November 2, 2009

Copenhagen Treaty

What exactly will we be signing up to in Copenhagen ?

What exactly will be the costs and obligations under the treaty ?

What exactly will be the powers granted to the treaty organization and how will this impact Australian sovereignty and freedoms ?

If you know the answers to these questions, please post them here.


  1. I don't think anyone can actually know. UN speak (of which Ruddspeak is a primative dialect) is less decipherable that the enigma code.

    It is clear however that whether or not the ultimate objective of creating a global framework for the reduction of CO2 emissions is successful the secondary objective of wealth transfer from developed to undeveloped nations will occur.

    Australia should insist that any contributions we are required to make be escrowed for no less than 50 years at which time they will be available for use in compensating developing countried for actual, demonstrable climate damage rather than going into some UN controled sluch fund for the advancement of dictators and despots

  2. Hi Stephen,

    Reading the below makes me question your intelligence:

    "Why I am running
    An emissions trading scheme in Australia could cost every taxpayer $4500 per year in new taxes.

    Yet I can find no credible scientific evidence supporting the claim that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming - can you ?"

    You must be kidding - you clearly have not looked at the peer-reviewed-science scientific literature on climate. You might want to look at Naomi Oreskes work on the extent of the scientific consensus on whether man-made emissions are going to cause climate change.

    You really, really should know of this work. If you don't it is embarrassing, esp, since you are running on a singe-issue.

  3. Hi Wadard,

    Thanks for taking the time to comment - I value open discussion on this issue.

    May I point out that a consensus is meaningless in the context of science. If 51 scientists believe x is true, and 49 do not... does that make x a scientific truth ? Of course not.

    Rather than deferring to authority and consensus we should be examining the evidence.

    For reference: Naomi Oreskes study (the one which I know about) was conducted on papers published only up till 2003.

    We have had 6 more years of experimental data since 2003 and virtually all of that data strongly contradicts the theory of anthropogenic global warming.


    Naomi Oreskes study has been severly discredited many times. One example above.

    Obviously Wadard you yourself should be embarrased to quote such pathetic, dishonest work.

    If you are going to come here be better armed them that.

  5. Oreskes' "work" has been so thoroughly debunked for some time now that I'm surprised (though perhaps I shouldn't be) that anyone actually cites it any more.

    James from Melbourne

    Let’s face facts this is city born. People from the city feel that they need to achieve something for the environment and so they have found a common bond it’s like a new religion.
    What is missing are facts. Facts like there have been recorded times that Co2 has been 1000ppm
    Fact, temperature of the earth has been dropping since 2000.
    Fact, you and I breathe Co2.
    Fact Co2 is in all fizzy drinks, beer, and champagne.
    Fact, there have been hotter periods when the Vikings colonised Greenland.
    Fact, plants grow better if there are higher levels of Co2.
    Fact, AL Gore is laughing because he is getting RICH from this propaganda.
    Fact, AL Gore is NOT a scientist.
    Fact, Penny Wong is NOT a scientist.
    Fact, Kevin Rudd is NOT a scientist.
    Fact, Professor Garnaut is NOT a scientist.
    Fact, in the US alone 31,000 independent scientists have said Co2 does NOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE.
    Fact, Dr David Evans who is a climate scientist and used to work for Australian climate office, says Carbon is just a new TAX with NO BASIS.
    Fact, former UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “Says carbon trading is the worst scientific scandal in history”.
    Fact, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist Dr G LeBlanc Smith, PhD,AIG,AAPG says “ that there is no credible proof that carbon drives climate”.
    Make policy on facts.
    If this TAX does go ahead expect class action law suits to follow, there are no grounds for justification of a carbon tax. Co2 does not change the climate.