Why are we even entertaining Lord Monkton......All political parties within Australia agree that global warming is happening and action is required.....The debate is about which policy will be the most effective in changing our economy to low emissions.....Arguing against the scientific consensus supporting climate change is not going to change the facts and provides ignorance not enlightenment.....Unless the Monkton or his supporters can provide peer reviewed research that contradicts the science they have nothing to offer anyone.....If the Monkton has real evidence that global warming is not happening then he needs to provide his research for peer review and allow it to be scrutinized and deal with skepticism like the research he denies....Monkton has only proven he can question science he has not proven he can deal with it in a peer reviewed process.....When Monkton can present his findings for peer review and stand up to scrutiny he can be taken seriously.....Until then NO political parties in this country believe him.....Having an opinion is not a crime.....Pretending that this opinion is anything but a guess is disturbing!!!

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (460 BC - 377 BC), Law

Yes,  there is massive abuse by laymen trying to hijack the scientific process.

Science leaves itself open to selective discrediting because it actively encourages differing opinions. That is its great strength. It isnt a church where you are told what to believe. It is a consensus of opinion that is continually challanged. Organically moving to a greater understanding.

Yes indeed, laymen have been trying to hijack science, and maybe that’s the reason why there is no mention of reducing CARBON MONOXIDE in the Greens carbon tax.

As Lord Monckton said: “…do your homework.”  That includes looking at all the information provided, and maybe you guys can explain why the more dangerous pollutant of carbon monoxide was left off the carbon tax agenda?

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:10pm:



Don't you think its fair and reasonable that Juliar & Bob were asked the same question?

CARBON emissions trading might be useless at tackling climate change but it is proving to be highly profitable for the financial engineers behind it – men like the godfather of pollution trading, an American called Richard Sandor, who was one of the founders of financial derivatives in the 1980s at junk bond trader Drexel Burnham Lambert.

It was at Drexel Burnham Lambert that Sandor pioneered the “collateral mortgage obligations” that eventually brought the financial markets to their knees. He was also architect of the first pollution permit trading scheme (in sulphur emissions) in the US in the 1990s.

Today he chairs the company controlling more than 80 percent of EU carbon emissions trading, Climate Exchange plc, which regularly launches “innovative” carbon products such as daily futures contracts and has set up trading exchanges in China, Canada and Australia.

Private Eye, No. 1258, 19 March – 1 April 2010

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:42pm:



If only the theory was borne out in practice - unbridled markets have wreaked much social, economic and environmental havoc and destruction and there is probably much worse to come in the near future...

Perhaps most notably, is the fact that: under-regulated markets are fueling the rapid and exponential extraction of finite resources - without pricing the value of those resources in terms of costs-benefits, opportunity costs, absolute deprivation and sustainability deficits to future generations of humanity!

Equitist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2011 at 12:58pm:


It is not the markets role to manage finite resources. That is up to the government.  The Markets role is to find a fair price balancing supply and demand.  To blame the market for the things you have said above is about a logically as blaming a bacon sandwich.