Australia’s CSIRO's Clive Spash has come out fighting against the
Australian government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, saying
carbon trading and offset schemes appear ineffective in terms of
actually reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs).

"The public appearance is that action is being undertaken.

Reported in the Australian newspaper, Spash said trading schemes did
not efficiently allocate emission cuts because their design was
manipulated by vested interests.

 For example, in Australia, large polluters would be compensated with
free permits while smaller, more competitive firms would have to buy
theirs at auction.

He said the schemes were flawed because global warming was caused by
gases other than carbon, emissions were difficult to measure, carbon
offsets bought from other countries were of dubious value and the
schemes "crowded out" voluntary action by individuals.

He said more direct measures, such as , regulations or new
infrastructure would be simpler, more effective and less open to
manipulation.

Spash’s comments are matched elsewhere, with Matthew Sinclair of the
Guardian in the UK claiming that emissions trading by the EU is
costing British consumers GBP3 billion a year – equivalent to around
GBP117 per family, a large part of it coming through higher
electricity prices.

Arguing against the EU system, he added: “We should make sure
developed and developing countries are prosperous and free enough to
cope with whatever climate change throws at them. We should also
directly support the development of technologies that can provide us
with new options, ideally with the kind of rigorous prizes that have
delivered dramatic results in the development of everything from
agricultural machinery and private suborbital spaceflight. That will
be far more effective and affordable than the current approach.

“The (EU) ETS has been an expensive failure.

 Having been implemented through the EU without a real debate here, it
lacks democratic legitimacy and it is imposing a significant burden on
the poorest families while achieving very little. It should be
abolished.”

Elsewhere, the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) says government
ministers have misled the public about Britain’s reduction in its
greenhouse gas emissions.

The authority’s chairman, Sir Michael Scholar, said the use of “carbon
credits” bought under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to
represent actual British emissions cuts could give a false impression
of progress.

He said tradeable “permits to pollute”, bought by British companies
under the ETS may in effect be “hot air”.

HARDLINE Muslim extremists in Somalia have been ordering women to shake
their breasts at gunpoint to see if they are wearing un-Islamic bras.

Victims have been publicly whipped for wearing the undergarments because the
gunmen say they violate Islam as they are 'deceptive', The Daily Mail
reports

Insurgent group Al Shabaab has sent gunmen into the streets of Mogadishu to
round up any women who appear to have a firm bust, residents claimed
yesterday.

The women are then inspected to see if the firmness is natural or the result
of wearing a bra. If they are found wearing a bra, they are ordered to
remove it and shake their breasts, residents said.

Men were also not spared the 'moral cleansing'. Any man caught without a
beard was been publicly whipped.

Al Shabaab, which seeks to impose a strict interpretation of Sharia law over
all Somalia, also amputated a foot and a hand each from two young men
accused of robbery earlier this month.

They have also banned movies, musical ringtones, dancing at wedding
ceremonies and playing or watching soccer.

"Al Shabaab forced us to wear their type of full veil and now they order us
to shake our breasts," a resident, Halima, told Reuters, adding that her
daughters had been whipped on Thursday.

"They are now saying that breasts should be firm naturally, or just flat."

The JOOS did it !

No !  Hang on, it was the CIA.

Malcom Fabian - Stupid, Demented, Kiddie Fucking, Camel, Sheep, Goat Fucking
Muzzie.

Malcom recommends and uses Mohammed Brand Condoms.

http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=mohammed+bra...

On Nov 3, 3:33 am, kangarooistan <kangarooist...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Carbon " TAX " / trading permits will be used exactly like the
salt tax , except it will be run by those who OWN the " rights " to
emmit carbon , check out the financial pages in newspapers to see how
enthusiatic some financial experts are , they openly claim it WILL be
more profitable and BIGGER than the oil industry

The consumer will pay , exactly like the salt tax , everybody will be
caught in their scam

Taxation of salt in India was greatly increased when the British East
India Company began to establish its rule over provinces in India. In
1835, special taxes were imposed on Indian salt to facilitate its
import. This paid huge dividends for the traders of the British East
India Company. When the Crown took over the administration of India
from the Company in 1858, the taxes were not repealed.

The stringent salt taxes imposed by the British were vehemently
condemned by the Indian public. In 1885, at the first session of the
Indian National Congress in Bombay, a prominent Congress Leader
S.A.Swaminatha Iyer raised the issue of the salt tax[1]. There were
further protests throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries
culminating in Mahatma Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha in 1930.

In the eastern coast, salt could be obtained extensively along the
coast of Orissa[2]. The salt produced by the salt pans called khalaris
in Oriya is of the finest quality in all India[2]. There has always
been a demand for Orissa salt in Bengal[2].

 When the British took over the administration of Bengal, they too
felt its need and traded for salt. Gradually they monopolized Orissa
salt all over Bengal[2]. To check smuggling and illegal
transportation, they sent armies into Orissa resulting in the conquest
of Orissa in 1803[2].

Since the introduction of the first taxes on salt by the British East
India Company, the laws have been subjected to fervent criticism. The
Chamber of Commerce in Bristol was one of the first to submit a
petition opposing the Salt tax:

    The price to the consumer here [in England] is but about 30s per
ton instead of 20 pounds per ton as in India; and if it were necessary
to abolish the Salt tax at home some years since it appears to your
petitioners that the millions of her Majesty's subjects of India have
a much stronger claim for remission in their case, wretchedly poor as
they are, and essentially necessary as salt is to their daily
sustenance, and to the prevention of disease in such a climate[7]

The Salt Tax was criticized at a public meeting at Cuttack in February
1888. In the first session of the Indian National Congress held in
1885 in Bombay, a prominent Congress member, S.A. Swaminatha Iyer
pleaded against the salt tax[8][9][10].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India

The Salt Tax was criticized at a public meeting at Cuttack in February
1888. In the first session of the Indian National Congress held in
1885 in Bombay, a prominent Congress member, S.A. Swaminatha Iyer
pleaded against the salt tax[8][9][10].

    It would be unjust and unrighteous if the tax on salt should be
increased. It is a necessary article both for human as well as animal
well-being... it would be bad policy and a retrograde movement to
raise the tax, especially at a time when the poor millions of India
are anxiously looking forward for a further reduction of the tax....
As any increase, therefore, of this tax will fall heavily upon the
masses of the people of the land, I would strongly urge upon the
attention of this Congress the necessity of its entering its strong
protest against any attempt on the part of Government to raise the tax
on salt[1]

At the Allahabad session of the Indian National Congress in 1888,
Narayan Vishnu, a delegate from Poona vehemently opposed the Indian
Salt Act. A resolution was passed wherein the delegates present
declared 'That this Congress do put on record its disapproval of the
recent enhancement of the salt tax as involving a perceptible increase
to the burden of the poorer classes, as also the 'partial adoption, in
a time of peace and plenty, of the of the only financial reserve of
the Empire.' The 1892 session at Allahabad concluded thus: '... We do
not know when the tax will be reduced. So that there is every
necessity for our repeating this prayer in the interests of the
masses, and we earnestly hope that it will he granted before long'. A
similar sort of protest was also issued at the Congress session at
Ahmedabad.

The Salt Tax was also protested by eminent people like Dadabhai
Naoroji. On August 14, 1894, he thundered in the House of Commons:

    Then the Salt Tax, the most cruel Revenue imposed in any civilised
country provided Rs. 8,600,000/- and that with the opium 'formed the
bulk of the revenue of India, which was drawn from the wretchedness of
the people.... It mattered not what the State received was called -
tax, rent, revenue, or by any other name they liked - the simple fact
of the matter was, that out of a certain annual national production
the State took a certain portion. Now it would not also matter much
about the portion taken by the State if that portion, as in this
country, returned to people themselves, from whom it was raised. But
the misfortune and the evil was that much of this portion did not
return to the people, and that the whole system of Revenue and the
economic condition of the people became unnatural and oppressive, with
dangers to the rulers. So long as the system went on, so long must the
people go on, living wretched lives. There was a constant draining
away of India's resources, and she could never therefore, be a
prosperous country. Not only that, but in time India must perish, and
with it perish the British Empire[1]

In 1895, George Hamilton stated at a session of the House of Commons
that:

    Time has, however, now come when the Government finds itself in
possession of larger surpluses and it is, therefore, its duty as
guardian of public exchequer, to reduce taxation on salt

When the Salt tax was doubled in the year 1923,

The Carbon " TAX " / trading permits will be used exactly like the
salt tax , except it will be run by those who OWN the " rights " to
emmit carbon , check out the financial pages in newspapers to see how
enthusiatic some financial experts are , they openly claim it WILL be
more profitable and BIGGER than the oil industry

The consumer will pay , exactly like the salt tax , everybody will be
caught in their scam

Taxation of salt in India was greatly increased when the British East
India Company began to establish its rule over provinces in India. In
1835, special taxes were imposed on Indian salt to facilitate its
import. This paid huge dividends for the traders of the British East
India Company. When the Crown took over the administration of India
from the Company in 1858, the taxes were not repealed.

The stringent salt taxes imposed by the British were vehemently
condemned by the Indian public. In 1885, at the first session of the
Indian National Congress in Bombay, a prominent Congress Leader
S.A.Swaminatha Iyer raised the issue of the salt tax[1]. There were
further protests throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries
culminating in Mahatma Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha in 1930.

In the eastern coast, salt could be obtained extensively along the
coast of Orissa[2]. The salt produced by the salt pans called khalaris
in Oriya is of the finest quality in all India[2]. There has always
been a demand for Orissa salt in Bengal[2].

 When the British took over the administration of Bengal, they too
felt its need and traded for salt. Gradually they monopolized Orissa
salt all over Bengal[2]. To check smuggling and illegal
transportation, they sent armies into Orissa resulting in the conquest
of Orissa in 1803[2].

Since the introduction of the first taxes on salt by the British East
India Company, the laws have been subjected to fervent criticism. The
Chamber of Commerce in Bristol was one of the first to submit a
petition opposing the Salt tax:

    The price to the consumer here [in England] is but about 30s per
ton instead of 20 pounds per ton as in India; and if it were necessary
to abolish the Salt tax at home some years since it appears to your
petitioners that the millions of her Majesty's subjects of India have
a much stronger claim for remission in their case, wretchedly poor as
they are, and essentially necessary as salt is to their daily
sustenance, and to the prevention of disease in such a climate[7]

The Salt Tax was criticized at a public meeting at Cuttack in February
1888. In the first session of the Indian National Congress held in
1885 in Bombay, a prominent Congress member, S.A. Swaminatha Iyer
pleaded against the salt tax[8][9][10].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India

The Salt Tax was criticized at a public meeting at Cuttack in February
1888. In the first session of the Indian National Congress held in
1885 in Bombay, a prominent Congress member, S.A. Swaminatha Iyer
pleaded against the salt tax[8][9][10].

    It would be unjust and unrighteous if the tax on salt should be
increased. It is a necessary article both for human as well as animal
well-being... it would be bad policy and a retrograde movement to
raise the tax, especially at a time when the poor millions of India
are anxiously looking forward for a further reduction of the tax....
As any increase, therefore, of this tax will fall heavily upon the
masses of the people of the land, I would strongly urge upon the
attention of this Congress the necessity of its entering its strong
protest against any attempt on the part of Government to raise the tax
on salt[1]

At the Allahabad session of the Indian National Congress in 1888,
Narayan Vishnu, a delegate from Poona vehemently opposed the Indian
Salt Act. A resolution was passed wherein the delegates present
declared 'That this Congress do put on record its disapproval of the
recent enhancement of the salt tax as involving a perceptible increase
to the burden of the poorer classes, as also the 'partial adoption, in
a time of peace and plenty, of the of the only financial reserve of
the Empire.' The 1892 session at Allahabad concluded thus: '... We do
not know when the tax will be reduced. So that there is every
necessity for our repeating this prayer in the interests of the
masses, and we earnestly hope that it will he granted before long'. A
similar sort of protest was also issued at the Congress session at
Ahmedabad.

The Salt Tax was also protested by eminent people like Dadabhai
Naoroji. On August 14, 1894, he thundered in the House of Commons:

    Then the Salt Tax, the most cruel Revenue imposed in any civilised
country provided Rs. 8,600,000/- and that with the opium 'formed the
bulk of the revenue of India, which was drawn from the wretchedness of
the people.... It mattered not what the State received was called -
tax, rent, revenue, or by any other name they liked - the simple fact
of the matter was, that out of a certain annual national production
the State took a certain portion. Now it would not also matter much
about the portion taken by the State if that portion, as in this
country, returned to people themselves, from whom it was raised. But
the misfortune and the evil was that much of this portion did not
return to the people, and that the whole system of Revenue and the
economic condition of the people became unnatural and oppressive, with
dangers to the rulers. So long as the system went on, so long must the
people go on, living wretched lives. There was a constant draining
away of India's resources, and she could never therefore, be a
prosperous country. Not only that, but in time India must perish, and
with it perish the British Empire[1]

In 1895, George Hamilton stated at a session of the House of Commons
that:

    Time has, however, now come when the Government finds itself in
possession of larger surpluses and it is, therefore, its duty as
guardian of public exchequer, to reduce taxation on salt

When the Salt tax was doubled in the year 1923,

On Nov 4, 12:34 pm, maur...@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:
Indeed mate , taaxing carbon will not stop global warming , it will
only make money for those who OWN the right to emit carbon ,and THEY
will sell the right every year to the highest bidder

Inventing an entire new industry

Those who OWN the RIGHTS to emit carbon will RULE THE WORLD in a few
decades

exactly like " salt tax "

EXACTLY like water trading wont save the river murray

carbon trading wont save the world from globalwarming

Its REAL easy to work ourt WHI will make themoney mate

We ALL know WHO will soon OWN the rights to emitt carbon

The JEWS are EXPERTS at controlling the carbon trading markets world
wide

They have cornered the carbon market for centuries

Diamonds are pure carbon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond

the JEWS will corner the entire market

Probably EXACTLY the same people will use EXACTLY the same offices and
modus operandi to trade CO2 as they use to control the sold carbon
trading

carbon tax wont stop sea level rise

only adding iron to the ocean can CURE global warming

Its increased irrigation that stops iron fertilization of the oceans
that caused global warming , and adding iron even used tin cans  that
can CURE global warming

Once the jews have their carbon tax in place , they will discover
adding tin cans to the oceans will cure global warming , but the jews
will NEVER give up their RIGHT to tax carbon , once they OWN it

no mate,  the poor wont see a cent

carbon trading is simply a reincarnation of the " Salt Tax "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India

and the police and armies to ENFORCE compliance at taxpayers expense

the sheeple are too silly to even notice it mate

we can only TRY and warn them

sadly the jews will get their carbon tax

We will need have WW4 to free the sheeple once they eventually wake up
and the jewish strangle hold of the world economy will AGAIN need to
be removed at great cost

several billion sheeple will die before we see the end of carbon tax

We must still TRY

Future generations MUST know somebody TRIED to save the world from
carbon tax , that will KILL far more people than global warming ever
could

we MUST try and save the planet as we only have a few weeks until the
jews take over in copenhagen , after that it will be too late

kanga
=====

On Nov 4, 2:04 pm, kangarooistan <kangarooist...@gmail.com> wrote:

 several billion sheeple will die before we see the end of carbon tax
 We must still TRY

 Future generations MUST know somebody TRIED to save the world from
 carbon tax , that will KILL far more people than global warming ever
 could

 we MUST try and save the planet as we only have a few weeks until the
 jews take over in copenhagen , after that it will be too late

future generations can at least KNOW we are not ALL mindless fools
drunk on sport and mindless trivia

They will be able to SEE who tried to save them from the jews CHAINS
disguised as  carbon trading

It has also been suggested that the World Bank is an instrument for
the promotion of US or Western interests in certain regions of the
world.

Criticisms of the structure of the World Bank refer to the fact that
the President of the Bank is always a citizen of the United States,
nominated by the President of the United States (though subject to the
approval of the other member countries).

There have been accusations that the decision-making structure is
undemocratic, as the US effectively has a veto on some constitutional
decisions with just over 16% of the shares in the bank;[30]

 moreover, decisions can only be passed with votes from countries
whose shares total more than 85% of the bank's shares.[31]

as the USA owns 16% of the shares in the world Bank and it needs over
85% to over turn a decision ,

 AND the USA has the right to choose its leader

CLEARLY the World Bank is completely under FULL control of the USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank

Clean Technology Fund management

The World Bank has been assigned temporary management responsibility
of the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), focused on making renewable energy
cost-competitive with coal-fired power as quickly as possible, but
this may not continue after UN's Copenhagen climate change conference
in December, 2009, because of the Bank's continued investment in coal-
fired power plants.[18]

 In the 1990s the World Bank and the IMF forged the Washington
Consensus, a set of policies which included deregulation and
liberalization of  financial markets, privatization and the
downscaling of government controls.

USA bankers created the global financial crisis , and now want us to
give them TOTAL control of all world banking , and unchallenged rights
to SET TAX ON CARBON and with 16% of the votes NOBODY can ever
challenge ANYTHING they choose to do EVER  , they can set the carbon "
tax " at any rate THEY choose,  and do as THEY please with the funds

viewable at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcgk9t7p_190cd2vfsdg

======================================================

About the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTCARBON...

On Nov 16, 11:07 pm, kangarooistan wrote:

There is a debate about climate change among academics with high
levels
of study in the issues involved.
There are some who say that increasing World Population statistics is
the
real problem.
The population of the world is about 7 billion. That will increase
as births are greater than deaths with doubling of the population at
times
in the future to 14, 28, 56, 112 billion people - the final statistic
given
being 16 times greater than the present population.
Just imagine 16 people living where 1 person now lives
and the consequences to all involved.  .
It is obvious that tecnology must advance to meet the challenge.
However, the fact is that as people economise, and are not wasteful
of
the resources that are available that the challenge can be met.

Responsibility in sexaul reproduction is vital. Those who are aware
that
their reproduction will most likely increase problems in the births
of
disabled children will show moral responsibility by not doing so.
Thse who believe they have the right to reproduce as many children
as women are capable of doing so are morally irresponsible.
Beliefs have to be discussed not indocrinated in closed religious/
political systems.
Gladys Swager

Common sense indicate it is how much carbon is in the air , not how
many people

A few people use many times more than others

its waste not numbers

there IS increasing carbon dioxide in the air

There IS ALSO less fish and algae and iron in the OCEANS

Since we increased the amount of irrigation of land based crops we
REDUCED the amount of IRON flowing into the OCEANS to fertilize the
growth of ALGAE to feed the fish and end up as LIMESTONE when the
shells and bones die

Adding IRON to he ocean WILL CURE GLOBAL WARMING AND FEED 100 BILLION
people easily GS

Once christians and jews STOP making wars and convert to the religion
of PEACE all wars will end

We can only GUESS what wonders await discovery in the next century

UNLESS we give the USA control of OUR FUTURE at Copenhagen

If they get their Carbon TAX and the World Bank Carbon Unit controls
itthe ENTIRE globe will be at their Mercy

EXACTLY like the British were able to RULE INDIA via their " salt Tax
" and set the rates so as to keep the masses dirt poor and unable to
complain as they needed work 7 days a week to earn a bowl of RICE AND
A LOIN CLOTH

INDEED GS

White christians and jews should ALL stop having babies so the world
can slowly recover from their ENDLESS wars

If you google wars in great Brittani and wars in Palestine

You will note that ten times as many WARS were fought in WHITE
peoples / ANGLO homeland

We need MORE good brown babies and LESS white christian babies

Nature and GOD will sort THAT bit out

I believe babies are a GIFT FROM GOD

s/He decided when we are born and when we die , unless  we as humans
choose to interfere by suicide or sterilization or wars

pity we can NEVER discuss Islam in open groups

The jews and Christians ALWAYS end it with vile filth threats and
endless ABUSE

They ALWAYS must end debates or face FACTS , Islam is INDEED a far
superior set of rules compared to the corrupted messages seen in
Christianity and judaism

On Nov 17, 1:15 pm, kangarooistan  wrote:
.
How can 'a few people use many times more than others'?
As the population is larger more fish and other items will be needed
for food consumption.

And how will you add more iron to the oceans. From where will you get
it?
And why hasn't that theory been given media prominance? .

You seem to think there are only Christians, Jews and Moslems in this
world.
It wasn't Christains who started the Gulf War.
It wasn't Christians who started the Second World War for Hitler and
his henchmen
had ignored all Christian training they might have had in their
younger years.

Well, it is obvious that we can't wait until the NEXT century 91 years
away.

But it is alright for Moslem women to have about six children each -
is that what you are meaning? Or is it a matter that Moslem men like
to make women pregnant so they feel their own masculinity -
what does it matter that other children are poor and starving -
is that what you mean?
There has been some discussion on Sydney Talk-back radio programmes,
but do you believe that Christians have a right to also put our ideas
in
the same way?

I can assure you that, as a Christian I have not ended with filth
threats and
endless abuse when I have given on Talk-back radio the knowledge
I have about the incorrect teacings of Mohammad and how he gained
those untruths.

That is according to your indoctrinations. It may take time for you to
alter
your ideas.
Judaism and Christianity - the scriptures of the former predicated
events
of the latter.
Mohammad used those scriptures to proclaim himself the last prophet
to give himself a leadership position amongst his own people
and corrupted them to suit his own ideas.
You need to go to the Biblical scriptures for the truth.
Gladys Swager.