I am profoundly in awe of the quality and thoroughness of your rebuttal.

[deleted large quantities of copy'n'paste]

go figure

[lprent: The system thinks that comment was spam, largely cut and pasted from other sites with no input from you at all. So do I. Link-whoring is against the policy of the site.
There were some interesting linked articles in there. But not for the reasons that you probably put them there for. I'll hold them for a while for maybe constructing some climate change posts on.
Your task (should you be capable of doing it) is to add some original thought to a comment those link(s) make sense (and where I can't just look up the 'origional' part on google). ]

It’s worth asking though- ‘if you are capping costs to the polluters, who therefore have no incentive to cut emissions, how are supoosed to hit our target?’

I know they are hoping like hell that forestry will save them, but unless no trees are cut down and lots more are planted, new measures will need to be taken before 2020.

Looks like 2020 is going to be year that targets are going to be set for- I can’t see the current ETS staying as it is for too long if they want reductions by then.

The climate change denier rort has been exposed for the shallow and contemptable scam that it is, with its manipulated data and hidden agendas.

It’s nothing more than a cynical opportunity for big oil and industrial companies to triple-load their bottom lines with skimmed profits all around the world, with a load of froth and very little substance.

Next you’ll be trying to tell us that Fred Singer is a straight up kinda guy and that all these billion dollar slush-funds are vital to our future

Bah-fucking-humbug.

[See how easy it is to trot out this kind of drivel? Any fool can do it. Try harder Winston.]

The climate change rort has been exposed for the shallow and contemptable scam that it is, with its manipulated data and hidden agendas

It’s nothing more than a cynical tax-gathering opportunity for governments and an opportunity for triple-bottom liners to skim profits around the world with a load of froth and very little substance.

Next you’ll be trying to tell us that Al Gore is a straight up kinda guy and that all these billion dollar ETS slush-funds are vital to our future…

Bah-fucking-humbug

Hide the decline Jones ?
Maybe you should read this about a third of the way down headed

“Lost and tampered data’

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/crude-hack-and-the-bleat-goes-on/#more-7405

Be warned it has graphs in it

Just keep on spouting your denier memes like the obedient little cult-follower that you are.

[See... how easy that is? Feel the nice warm sensation in your pants? Note how much quicker and easier it is than putting up an argument? Or have you given up... and this is now the best you can do?]

Just keep on spouting your warmist memes like the obedient little cult-follower that you are.

“It is now clear that Canada will refuse to be sanctioned for abandoning its legal obligations. The Kyoto protocol can be enforced only through goodwill: countries must agree to accept punitive future obligations if they miss their current targets.”

Meanwhile, climate scientists are suggesting that Copenhagen must fail because, well …”I would rather it (an agreement) not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it’s a disaster track,” said Hansen, who heads the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Which brings me to a point that seems to have been lost in the too-ing and fro-ing of climate change debate. While it has been informative and educational witnessing the arguments of CCDers commenting on this blog being knocked over (I’ve certainly learned a thing or three), the whole exercise has distracted from the travesty that passes as a political solution to climate change. This isn’t a fault of or limited to ‘the standard’…it seems to have been pretty widespread that the debate over what to do has been swamped by red herring arguments about the existence of climate change.

Which means that we are more susceptible to being fobbed off by any bullshit that emerges from Copenhagen. The debate on alternatives to ETS’s and the like just hasn’t happened, which goes back to Hansen’s point I guess. Anyway. Glad that’s off my chest.

That would at least keep it off the tele I suppose.