Oh dear. The Climate Cultists again;

>"You can be defined as a prime minister for the ages, by sponsoring the right to die legislation, legalising same sex marriage, and accepting that climate change is real."

No one is denying climate change is real. Everyone knows the climate changes and has been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years. Where have you been if you didn't know that.

The argument is about the costs and benefits of GHG mitigation policies. The facts are that the GHG mitigation policies that have been advocated by the Climate Cultists for the past 25 years almost certainly wont succeed. They probably won't get implemented globally (which is necessary for them to succeed) and even if they do, they won't survive a century or what ever it takes to achieve whatever it is that the Climate Cultists believe in.

Bjorn Lomborg has just testified to the US Senate. His testimony is here http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=ebcd8f70-cc3f-978d-c157-58c503716d6f&Witness_ID=aa6bae10-21c3-4867-a761-0462a53b8b25 . A summary of what is most interesting is here: http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/30/lomborgs-senate-testimony/

My take home message is that the climate 'actions' being advocated will cost a great deal more and do much much more damage, especially to the poor, than no action. The climate actions being advocated by the Climate Cultists is the wrong action.

So you want Tony Abbott to agree with you? You spent far too long asking, as everyone lost interest after the first page. You believe you are right of course but take no heed of others opinions. You have to accept you are not some God who knows everything and we all have to worship you and your opinions. Sorry I think TA should disagree with you.

To all the Climate Cultists,

Do you want to do something that you hope will make things potentially better sometime in the future at a cost of doing a great deal of harm today?

To make the question even simpler for you - do you want to still take that action today knowing that the net cost is greater than the net benefit?

"The debate should not be decided based in favour of one's personal religious beliefs"

And why are religious beliefs less valid than political ones?
Both are "big picture" perspectives.

Why should anyone set aside their personal beliefs/opinions just because others don't share them?

"Religion needs to rediscover its true original intent, find its spirit again"

By ignoring or denying it when in Canberra?

If anything, political leaders *should* view matters from a more "spiritual" perspective, not just numbers, dollars and headcounts.

"I support strict regulations that ensure only those individuals with a terminal or incurable illness, suffering unbearable pain, their quality of life profoundly affected, has the right and choice to legally end their life."

Why?
Why should only some people have the "right to die" but not others?

"This is a right I believe all Australians should have."

Well, all Australians who have doctor's certificates in triplicate.
Not if they're just sick to death of this stupid, pointless, insane world.

"You can be defined as a Prime Minister for the ages, by sponsoring the right to die legislation, legalising same sex marriage, and accepting that climate change is real."

Anything else?

Or he can think for himself, not cave in to groupthink robots who think *their* opinion/preference is the only valid one, and can therefore impose it on the entire population.

These issues are controversial precisely because there are no simple, easy Manichean answers or judgements.

Nobody can legalise same-sex marriage, try hard as they can - because it is ALREADY legal!

It is only a matter of time before the Coalition is given a conscience vote on officially recognizing same sex marriage.
And we have enough, cheaper than coal thorium, to power the world for 700 years?
And could be made even cheaper, less than half, by connecting mass produced trucked in 50 MW thorium reactors to micro grids, rather than the great white elephant, of a gold plated national grid!
Which doubles the retail price of even non privatized electricity!
Thorium reaction uses up to 95% of its fuel product, almost in inverse proportion to oxide reactors!
And the waste product is far less toxic, and eminently suitable as long life space batteries; meaning, there are far fewer problems with disposing of vastly less toxic waste!
And given we would only use a few tons of the stuff even powering the entire nation, much much cheaper than coal, with its eternally mounting price structure!
We could address man made climate change, given there is actually such a thing, just by addressing the hip pocket nerve. It really is just that simple!
Cheaper than coal carbon free thorium, connected to micro grids, is even cheaper than hydro, which has to be connected to a much larger grid!
We also have the option of powering our homes and or living/office space, with homemade biogas, made from currently wasted waste and for even less money!
And with the best will in the world, and billions of people extremely full in the face, we'll never ever run out of that!
Sorry, but Peter Lang should stop thinking within extremely limited circles, if only to understand, there are other options, that are far less expensive, than what we have now, or indeed, considerably cheaper, than the oxide reactors he is usually banging on about.
At least twice as expensive as coal, oxide reactors might save the national grid, and the grip on our financial short and curlies, by foreign based, price gouging foreigners!
And given your comments thus far Peter, I guess you're very much in favor of just that!?
Rhrosty.