I listened to Garnaut, and I must admit I was disappointed in his lack of restraint. He could have remained professional simply by failing to make pronouncements on issues where he had no evidence only opinion.

For example, when questioned on one of the most pertinent issues, i.e. what lead him to believe that Australia's implementation of a carbon tax would influence other countries around the globe, his response was:

"I would like to believe that Australia is not a piss ant country."

Really, with 1% of the world's GDP Australia is far from having significant influence on world policy, and Garnaut's comment is simply wishful thinking.

This simply comment shows that he has sullied his supposed "analysis" with partisan politics, and as such has simply become yet another talking head pushing his opinion.

It passes comprehension how carbon dioxide is being treated as a pollutant. The IPCC has no evidence of research that comes to this conclusion.
Hydroponic vegetables are grown in greenhouses where carbon dioxide is introduced to 1,000ppm. In submarines and spacecraft, carbon dioxide is introduced to 5,000ppm.
Does anyone have any report of deaths due to carbon dioxide at these levels? If so, why has WorkSafe not closed them down?
Stupidity and greed dictates that CO2 is a pollutant;
Stupidity in believing MSM reports based upon reports from scientists who need Government funding for research - without question.
Greed in that vast fortunes are being made, both legally and illegally, in European carbon trading.
Australia has to be congratulated on producing so much carbon dioxide per capita. It contributes to increased crop growth.

Des, we have all seen in the past, the left of politics are so well known for a change in direction, at the whim of political opportunity.

Garnaut is simply following the path of so many before him....

in this case, he is not (as many of the left do) promoting change just change for the sake of change

but

promoting change for the sake of power and vested interest as well as in the name of economic leveling.

I have heard that when Julia and the other socialists go on TV, the TV company have to spend alot more time on them in the makeup room.....

not because they are that much more hideous than the right but simply because each has two faces requiring a thorough makeover

Excellent! But, Des Moore, while noting that Garnaut emulates the scaremongering of the Club of Rome back in 1972, overlooks that Garnaut's first review actually specifically endorsed the Club of Rome, and merely pushed forward its ludicrous dates for "exhaustion" of various metals, minerals and "fossil" fuels (table 3.3, p.71). For example, we will have exhausted reserves of nickel by 2047, zinc 2024, lead 2029, tin 2027, gas 2067, oil 2047 (at the production rates of 2007). Given the latter dates for gas and oil, why do we need a carbon tax, as there will quite soon be no oil or gas "polluting" the atmosphere?

Coal reserves will last until 2146, according to Garnaut 2008, but Garnaut last week accepted W.S. Jevons' 1862 claim that Britain would run out of coal by 1880! Clearly Margaret Thatcher was deluded when she tackled striking coal miners in 1982, they were actually lemon growers.

Unlike the author or any of his supporters I really care about what kind of a world is going to be left for my grandchildren. It really appears that in this country the lunatics are running the asylum.

Des Moore should have led with his strongest card, the fact that the hands of anyone who really wants to reduce emissions here are tied by Australia’s policy banning nuclear power. Instead he leads with his weakest suit, the ‘Garnaut is not a scientist’ accusation. The result? Well, ‘Des Moore who is not a scientist’ stringing together the usual set of criticisms of climate science and proposing that the real climate scientists have somehow overlooked them. Of course Des hasn’t, because he is smarter than that.

This just won’t do. Before posting this I took yet another look at the five main sets of global temperature data and their three year rolling averages. Frankly you’d have to be puffin muffins to assert that there is now a downward trend. How about the climate deniers getting together and running a book on the global average surface and near-surface temperature being less than now in say 20 years time? That should sort them out. Based on the form guide, no punter would put a zac on it.

This is all a pity. There is much to criticise in Garnaut’s recommendations. Henry Ergas did a great job. Des Moore can do it too but he tarnishes his arguments by starting out denying the simple physics. Not good enough.