I don't think all the posts are condescending, but I agree that there is an 'older but wiser' tone about some of them.

The trouble is that the author begins with a series of strong assertions, each of which is full of holes. What is the evidence that, eg, Julia Gillard has estranged all voters under 35, or that Rudd won the 2007 election because of his 'climate change' position, or that he lost his position as PM because of his shift in that position? What about work choices, or tiredness with the previous incumbent, or Rudd's ease in speaking Chinese to a Chinese leader?

I would only repeat, to the author, what I wrote to another in her age group recently, that the issue of the extent to which human activity is warming the planet is vastly more complicated than she supposes, and that governments everywhere, not just here, are backing off from 'action' as they realise how little real knowledge we possess, and how much of what is said to be 'settled science' is nothing of the kind. I detect in Julia Gillard's remarks some acceptance that the government needs to know much more. I hope she perseveres down that path if she is re-elected.

Unfortunately it appears that the older and more cynical of us, on both sides of the political debate, sometimes find it hard to believe that government will deliver much, if anything, of substance. I think the phrase 'You Can't Polish A Turd' sums up the political and bureaucratic process.

But then again...I am a professional cycnic and avid satirist...so please forgive me!

"since when does the government need to wait for a “consensus” to act on scientifically proven facts?"

Sophie,

As one studying law, it is disappointing to see that you accept assetions, even 'scientific' ones, with such an uncritical mind. If you ever practice law you may be shocked to learn that experts in virtually every field, disagree on all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, and their views are very often aligned whith those who engage them. The more complex the issues, the more scope there is for disagreement, and without a doubt climate is a very complex issue.

Sadly for science and the truth, and as Climategate so clearly showed, the money and political pressure that has been applied to this issue, has corrupted the scientific commentary to the point that whatever it says should be regarded with great caution and skepticim.

Any young or not so young person thinking of putting their trust in the Greens in the Senate should have a listen to this short, revealing interview with Bob Brown.

http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/bob-brown/20100720-10jan.html

There seems to be confusion with two Greens parties going separate ways, there is the 'leader' Bob Brown, then there is what Bob calls the 'administrative wing' - which seems to do what it likes and contrary to what Bob says and believes.

The work of many research units across the world was directed at finding the expected signature of increased green house warming. This was projected by all the models (AOGCM) and defined with confidence by climatologists protesting against increases in CO2. After 20 years of searching, no such signature has been found. No sceptic denies the presence of warming but there have been revelations which indicate that much of the claimed warming has been grossly overstated. None of the modelling research groups is able to describe the role of carbon dioxide in "Climate Change". They simply tell us that it is "very likely" the cause of global warming. This is not a scientific finding. Many scientists have shown that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming but no one listens!

Don't blame poor Sophie. She is simply the product of our left leaning education system and chronic exposure to a decade or two of media driven environmental nuttiness. Now she and her generation cannot be deprogrammed. We have a whole army of under 35 Envirobots out there looking for something to get their teeth into. Logic can't touch where Ideology reaches first.

We really should look at the problems we are creating for ourselves by allowing fertile young and often intelligent minds to be brainwashed.