I just heard Howard say he's praying the drought will break and we'll all be OK again. Hooray!

Seems he still doesn't get it does he? To hold an international meeting like APEC and come up with "We hope something will happen" consensus tells us all he, and the Coalition, are irrelevant.

As are Labor to date. The State governments have done more than Howard but it's still fiddling at the edges.

Clean coal? Oxy moron yes? A line run by morons.

Unless we focus fully on alternate energy no carbon trading or emission control will do anything. It can't as the climate has already changed and any use of oil, coal etc produces more and more emissions. Regardless of restrictions it still increases. Check the figures. Don't tell Howard or he will mandate umbrellas.

Seriously why are Australian alternate energy finding huge markets ready to both listen and buy in China while Howard still sits by his oil heater while the coal truck delivers emergency supplies out the back?

Howard the "CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTIC" sure is a leopard who has changed his spots... Yeah right! Howard is a 1970's politician bringing us 1960's solutions.

This guy has had 11 years to address drought issues and still he does very little. Land is still being cleared in areas that will be marginal farmlands at best probably never returning a profit and just before an election he starts throwing money around to try to look pro-active.

Howard is a typical old thinker who is trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted.

Guess that is what you get when your biggest Principled decision is to accept money from people who's sole aim is to continue polluting.

Clean coal is a laughable concept.... and we are even 11 yesr behind even if it were possible.

These times need serious decisions from serious people not "CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS" who are only interested in getting back into power after a miserable performance.

WAKE UP! Australia throw this guy and his nodding dog Government OUT!

"But there is a significant and paralysing lack of consensus about how serious climate change will be and consequently what mitigation measures need to be undertaken."

Or maybe the public don't think this issue is as important as the hysterics would like it to be. As Hendersen writes "the public is more knowledgeable about climate change than in most other nations", and yet he thinks they're not taking it seriously enough. I postulate otherwise, the issue in the scheme of things is relatively minor, especially in the Southern Hemisphere where temperatures have returned to 1978 levels when satellites first started measuring global, hemispheric and regional temperatures. There are much bigger threats facing the world than a small temperature rise (although some would have us believe that it will be massive) and people would rather face these.

"Ask Tim Flannery" as he is from the extreme alarmist end of the spectrum. Look at how his predictions for Sydney's dam levels went. Sydney should have run dry by now according to Flummery.

"Ask a major centrist organisation with resources and expertise to facilitate and referee the debate. CSIRO could be the perfect referee."
Ha! As if. A referee is supposed to be a neutral party. The CSIRO are some of the biggest screamers on the alrmist side of the fence.

"Climate change requires a new level of consensus building and Australia can lead. A defining consensus on climate change danger and needed mitigation globally could be built in time for the crucial US election in 08."
There is no consensus and the US election is hardly crucial with regards to Australia. Here is a big fat "Who cares!" about the seppos.

"If we are all not to be climate change losers"
Sounds like you've already made up your mind so why bother writing this drivel.

"This guy has had 11 years to address drought issues and still he does very little. "
What is he supposed to do, make it rain? Do you think not clearing land will break a drought? Talk about simplistic thinking.

Oh Alzo... your true blue Liberal ideals have jumped off the page and have affected your mind my friend.

Um, in a recent article John Howard said he is "praying for rain" how simplistic do you want to get? I note you didn't place that in your reply...ha!

Go study micro climates and the effect of land clearing in regards to the upward movement of water into our atmosphere before you go calling me simplistic.

Yes strange but true water evaporates from the leaves upwards and adds to cloud mass as they pass over the trees(OOps we have removed most of the trees.)

How many trees & shrubs have we removed in the past 11 years?

So drummer boy... read this article ... and consider yourself a little more informed than you were a few minutes back...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Environment/Fewer-trees-less-rain-the-deforestation-equation/2005/03/03/1109700611592.html

See even Liberals like you can be educated... on the real world! Howard is a self declared "Climate Change Skeptic" BUT suddenly he is now a devotee... laughable and yet you defend him!

"Go study micro climates"
I didn't realise the whole of western NSW was a micro climate...

"How many trees & shrubs have we removed in the past 11 years?"
So in Toy Town, we put the shrubs and trees back and the rain returns. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that. Too bad that palaeo-climate studies show the presence of droughts much longer and stronger than the current one, otherwise your "shrub" idea might actually hold some water.

"See even Liberals like you can be educated... "
Actually I've voted Labour in the last 3 elections...but not because of climate change.

"laughable and yet you defend him!"
Nope, I hope he gets thrown out on his proverbial. I just can't stand simplistic "shrub" theories.

Alzo some good retorts to my hastily worded posting... You are the most Liberal sounding Labor voter I have heard in awhile... I dislike them both... so i guess I answered that question before it jumped into your head.

So because the palaeo-climate studies show the presence of droughts much longer and stronger than the current one - are you suggesting that man has had no effect? That our shrub & tree destruction has had no effect? You are a far braver man than I...

You seem to use the word simplistic a little too often... even you should understand that the so called shrub theory was only one of the solutions that we should be embarking upon.

Do you think "A CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTIC" is the right man at the helm if this is a fossil fuel exaggerated drought. Do you think Labor will do any better than Howard in the big scheme of things?

I agree that Howard should be thrown out on his proverbial - His phoney "CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICISM TRANSFORMATION" TO "CLIMATE CHANGE ACKNOWLEDGER" is only one of the reasons he should go - but a pretty good one!