Apparently Turnbull has been kept out because he was inclined to believe in Rudd's early message of global warming.

Once again a message is necessary that modern man associated with the capabilities of massive modern motorisation gives proof that the Industrial Revolution portended what many of us oldies are concerned about now that our great great grandkids will join the young madcaps, turning their minds away from the future and enjoying themselves while there is time.

Ah what a feeble attempt to divert the electorate away from what matters....

the Liberals were in power for a decade and left office with an economy in healthy and whole

The Labor party has raped the economy, wasting their inherited the budget surplus in an orgy of dimulous, insulation and BER excesses

and THAT IS WHAT MATTERS --

Liberal "Economic Prudence" versus Labor "Economic Incompetence"

Regarding "Malcolm Turnbull would be advised to not let down his guard. One suspects he may need to invest in some garlic, holy water and a silver stake if he ever wants to become the leader of the Liberal Party again."

that advise should have been given to Rudd before he copped the silver bullet from Gizzards.

as for suggesting the Liberal party is as factionally riddled as the labor mob...

never has been, never will be

the Liberal party does represent a "broad church", where not everyone will hold the same view of everything

but that said, the Liberal Party has nothing to compare to the dog-eat-dog, rabidity of the Labor factions.

Two usages raised my eyebrows. One is the word 'believer' with respect to anthropogenic global warming' (AGW) - 'human-induced climate change'. This ought to be a matter for argument and evidence, not for belief — though plainly that AGW exists is a matter of passionate belief for many — including, according to the author, Malcolm Turnbull.

The second is the notion of 'climate change' itself. The world's climate does change, and has changed, and will change, for reasons that have nothing to do with human activity. It is possible that human activities contribute to such change at a global level, but that is a matter for argument and evidence, and the arguments and evidence for such a contribution are not powerful at all.

The lack of clarity here, and the use of such terms as 'carbon footprint' as though they have real meaning, bedevil so much of the discussion of this area.

The latest evidence that the climate is warming is very strong.
The evidence that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' is unarguable. It is very likely that variations in the solar cycle contribute to climate .
But the current sun cycle is actually cooling rather than warming.
The Biosphere is effectively a closed system. The increased levels of CO2 in the biosphere are the result of the digging up and burning of Fossil Carbon- carbon that has been out of the system for 100s of Millions of years.
Just how worrying all this should be is a fair Question. But-If the frequency of massive crop failures in China , on the Steppes or on the American mid west grain bowls was to change from being very rare to say a one in ten year event the effects could be not so good.

On passive smoking- New Scientist editorialized (about a year ago)
that evidence for long term harm caused by passive smoking in the outdoors was exaggerated , it had with little scientific basis. New Scientist warned that making very questionable claims for a good cause was likely to back fire.

The more extreme claims about the greenhouse are based on calculations about methane, in particular fossil methane in the arctic , Methane levels are not so far, rising.
If they did it would be all over red rover for us.
On balance negative feed back loops such as starvation , social chaos and war will provably reduce human economic activity enough to prevent a runaway positive feed back loop happening.

for pedestrian:

the planet is warming... (1) Over what period? (it hasn't warmed since 1998, and the long-term trend in the Holocene is down, not up. (2) What is the evidence that x% of the warming, whatever it is, is due to human activity?

Don't quite get what you mean by what matters, Stern.

Certainly what matters with too many success stories, is making personal fortunes only to be used in raping the earth rather than tending it.

Most old Aussie farmers have learnt about when they over-cleared the fertile gullies before they turned salt, only left to remember the smell of the little rainbow creepers in the spring-time with mallee hens and mouse-like kangaroos for company.

Fortunes, however, so much hungered for in today's world are mostly only made from ruining such beauty with quarry economies, such investors not daring to believe that such money-making might run out.

Yes, we owe so much to this world, but we could well ask in what way could we pay this amazing wonderful world back?