CO2- care to give us a source for the "Democracy may need to be abandoned" quote?
I just googled that phrase and nothing came up.

Anyway- excellent news, an expensive empty facade that does naught but make some people feel good they're somehow 'helping the environment' while certain others would have our money lining their pockets got CANNED!

Happy days!

Hazza has it about right. The ETS model as presented in the failed Bill would have achieved nothing more than allowing the Rudd government to claim to be doing something about AGW, while allowing the big polluters to continue business as usual.

The Greens rejected the CPRS because to do otherwise would have been the height of hypocrisy - the lack of which in the Greens is a major reason that a steadily increasing proportion of the electorate supports them.

While Johnson is superficially correct that the Greens were instrumental in denying the passing of the flawed CPRS Bill, she doesn't succeed in making the case that the particular model of ETS proposed would have made anything other than an illusory difference to AGW.

What I find particularly disturbing from the denialist commentariat is that they've now abandoned any pretence at 'skepticism', and are now attacking such institutions as BoM and CSIRO - and indeed science generally - on the basis of what are clearly ideological rather than empirical grounds.

Hasbeen's comments here are a good example - he impugns the scientific consensus on AGW, but when pressed to support his defamation with facts he completely dodges the question. Unfortunately, these are increasingly the tactics of the denialist camp - slagging off the scientists on the basis of factoids and manufactured quotes that nobody actually said.

Personally, I think that the Greens are the only political party in Australia that has approached AGW with anything like honesty, unsullied by populism and corporate manipulation. Eventually the Greens will be proven correct, but unfortunately by then it is very likely to be too late to do anything effective about it.

Ah well, who cares. Very few of us will be around when the sh!t really hits the fan anyway, eh?

CJ Morgan

<<< Ah well, who cares. Very few of us will be around when the sh!t really hits the fan anyway, eh? >>>

Yes, we should leave the entire issue of pollution, exploitation of fossil fuels, sustainable v. consumerism and the like to the next generation.

I also agree that the Greens are the only party to have shown some backbone on standing for a strategy that actually achieves investment in clean sustainable technology, which neither Labor nor the Libs have a clue about.

You folks *still* believe that hundreds of scientists world-wide can fiddle the figures and get away with it? do you know how competitive science is? Do you realise how much easier is it is to get funding for "anti-global worming science" then it is for proper balanced science?
Talk about wacky conspiracy theories!

Wake up and really look at the data. Real sea surface temps, air temps, ice loss, etc are tracking at the most extreme upper end of the model predictions. The middle range of the current predictions are now looking even worse than what was considered bad in the 2007 IPPC report. *This* is why the science community is getting more public information out there. There is *nothing* to gain from science lying, and everything to lose.
The folks pushing "teach the controversy" are playing the same patsies that believed Iraq's WMDs were a threat, and for the same reasons:profit. The real sceptics prefer the overwhelming professional opinions of Climate Scientists when dealing with the real climate situation.
Check out this page. Keep in mind the amount of energy needed to warm oceans is much more than the air above them, its a bit like the canary in the coal mine.
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=sst&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0
Hasbeen: If there data was "manipulated" incorrectly then another team in another country will pick it up. Science is very competitive. What you are probably referring to is the Quality Assurance process, which is absolutely necessary to draw real conclusions from raw data from various sources. Data adjustments and re-factoring are always required as single source from a single instruments will not achieve a realistic result. Of course this won't convince the die-hards for which denial is now a faith, but the real data from many sources is *very* convincing! I'm sure you can cherry pick to find "evidence" to the contrary but the real science takes longer and must use all the relevant sources. Don't worry the next decade will soon produce some events that will convince people!

Ozandy, you said to Hasbeen. << If there data was "manipulated" incorrectly then another team in another country will pick it up. >> Absolutely correct, and they have! Truck loads of them.

That’s why the UN, UK Parliament, UAE, UK Met Office and Pen. State Uni. are holding hearings and inquiries. That’s why the Russian, Canadian, Australian and Chinese ST data are under interrogation. That’s why the New Zealand’s premier research establishment NIWA, has been forced to admit, in writing, that it cannot substantiate its warming claim for NZ. That’s why Phil Jones has had to admit no warming since 1995 and that the CRU cannot reproduce the warming report in the AR4, that Heat Island effects do indeed contribute up to 40% of measured temps and that the MWP should be factored back in. That’s why 16 Litigation notices have been issued against the US EPA, including one from the State of Texas. That’s why the UN’s de Boer has resigned and why Pashauri is facing the “perfect storm”. Rest assured Ozandy, they did pick it up.

Back to the CPRS thread. The UK Telegraph two days ago reprinted a translation from a German newspaper along the lines of, if no other countries sign up for similar CPRS schemes, with whom are the EU going to trade carbon credits? A good question I thought. Why would we put Australia in that position?

Hasbeen,
I think qanda was asking for proof not an extended opinion.
I too would like to see your source proof....I don't believe it exists.
You have never produced fact and figures on anything beyond the news paper.

Time to ante up.