This election like previous ones is going to be fought and won on fear campaigns about an “invasion “ of boat people.
It shows that the IQ of the electorate is so low that they cannot see the really important issues and are swayed by the side with the best bribe on offer.
I really despair that any progress towards the solving of global warming, peak oil and of course the main problem World overpopulation have any chance of resolution while we continue to allow our “Democracy” to be wasted.
When, not if, the problems get so bad that we have to take notice and do something about it, it will too late.
Ban the boat people, bring footy to Tasmania, Give us new cars, lets get to the important things in life

More political rhetoric? Or a Prime Minister with the courage to tackle climate change and global warming?

Der…lemme think…..

Ooow thats a hard wun.

Oower… er…. ouwwww…. my bwane herts twying to werk it out! ( :~{

Del, you put too much faith in "education campaigns". A lot of people simply don't trust the information they get in such campaigns. The case for action on climate change has been weakened by the "activists" who have overstated the science. The case for real action is strong, but the argument has been hijacked by people with other agendas or with pure ego. That's why the issue has fallen down the "to do" list.

The key problem is this. Many of those who want action on climate change also want to avoid paying for that. Hence all the crazy schemes like the ETS and others that simply create the illusion that the cost will be paid by the big guys and "ordinary folk" will somehow get it all for no extra cost. If we have a carbon tax, everyone will pay and that should be the point. We all have to wean ourselves away from fossil fuels. Our willingness to pay the extra for cleaner energy is what determines our commitment, not just how loudly we badger politicians to "do something about it".

What annoys me about this article is that it insists that we have to sacrifice lifestyle for being environmentally friendly- if one would simply use their power more responsibly, install solar panels, and use devices that consume less electricity- earth saved, problem solved.

No back-to-the-noble-savage decision required.
The best part is, it doesn't even require an ETS- or even a politician at all.
Having said that, my vote for the Greens is well outside the ETS and refugees- both notions I strongly disagree with.
Sarnian why have you not mentioned political powers, corporate regulation and privatization?
Also, strict refugee policies would actually do well to contain overpopulation to only a few areas- the reverse would probably allow it to go higher.

'The science is telling us that global warming is for real. It is telling us we have a very short time frame in which to act to avoid irreversible global warming. '

The same science was taught to me in the 1970's. The only difference is that if we did not act we would have an ice age. The warnings were just as serious.

Already people are going without heating because electricity prices have risen sharply. Hopefully not to many old people will have to die from cold before we wake up to the Green madness. Progress has improved life expectancy and given a better quality of life.

Even if we accepted part of the hopelessly flawed science that is espoused we know Australia can have little impact on the rest of the world. The 'true believers' should row their boats to China and India and start lobbying their Governments. If they are not prepared to do that they should support a local nuke industry.

Runner,

Actually, China's environmental policy is more progressive than ours. They accept global warming, just like most of the world outside the US and Australia.

The problem in China is corporate corruption undermining official government policy.

TrashcanMan

'The problem in China is corporate corruption undermining official government policy.'

My point exactly. So why should we get our knickers in a knot? Our contribution to carbon usage is next two nothing assuming this version of 'science' is right.

Well may we ask, are we just voting for our lifestyle for 3 years? Or will some voters at least consider the looming environmental disaster facing Earth? Only the Greens have given the electorate an inspirational vision or any inkling of what we can achieve by stretching ourselves.

If the Greens achieve a balance of power in the Senate in 2010 as seems likely, then it's game on.

Gillard's true environmental credentials will become apparent when she's faced with the prospect of engaging the Greens in a progressive, strategic dialogue about pricing carbon, or will we see her capitulate yet again, perhaps in collaboration with Abbott or rebel Liberals to dish up a more lavish menu of financial rewards to satisfy the hunger of our greedy, gross polluters.

On the PM's form to date, my bet is that she will hold out the prospect of a deal with the Greens in order to clinch a deal with the Liberals.

Actually, China's environmental policy is more progressive than ours.
Trashcanman,
I sincerely hope so. After all there's about 1200000 million more people than here ! have you asked them how they're ever going to produce less pollution than Australia ? Australia, Austria, Switzerland & many other small countries could throw away their emission policies altogether & still don't produce as much pollution as one big industrial city in China.

"a less carbon-satiated atmosphere?"

I don't think that word means what you think it means. But even if it did mean what you thought it meant, do you really think a rise from 300 to 450 parts per million -- in other words, from .0035% to .0045% -- is going to 'satiate' anything?

There are lots of good reasons to cut down on our use of fossil fuels. Being held to ransom by the unhinged rulers of theocratic states is one of them. Climate change is not. And the problem with endorsing good causes for bad reasons is that when the badness of the bad reasons is exposed, it damages the reputation of all the good reasons as well.

People who realise they have been fooled are not in a mood to make fine distinctions.

Just thought I'd alert those who believe the Science is settled. Seven prominent physicists including Nobel Prize Winners state they disagree with the AGW hypothesis.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html

Runner <" The same science was taught to me in the 1970's. The only difference is that if we did not act we would have an ice age. The warnings were just as serious."

I too was taught science in the 70s Runner, but was never taught we were going to have an ice age any time soon. Maybe that was because my science teacher happened to be a Catholic nun who spent most of our science lessons trying to make us believe the earth was only 5000 years old 'coz the bible tells us so'!

I don't necessarily believe in global warming as such- it has just been announced that the area I live in has had the coldest winter on record so far

Dear Del,
How about an education program for all candidates in how to discern right from wrong so that they stop self centered games and truly represent the will of the people not their ambitions or the squeaky wheel, ah la the press.

Dear Del, please see the “tick the youth box with climate change” thread by Sophie Trevitt.

If you read previous threads you might stop subjecting us to the same old “Jesuit” reactionary proselytizing. You deserve only the same responses, but at least you do get to cut and paste only the responses you like.

Where on earth are we going with all this << public education program about the science of global warming>> madness? The scientists can’t agree so you want the public to sort it out.

Will all the non Marxists please take one step forward? Just hang on “one cotton picking” minute Del.

I think I get to say this because it was accepted on a previous thread, but I loved it. Stop polishing the turd.

Del,

I find it disturbing that you use the words "critically informed" and "climate change deniers" in the same sentence.

Sounds like your idea of critically informed is "what we, the god like the alarmists say, goes" and any other opinion is sacrilegious.

As runner said those of your ilk tried to con the world in the '70's with this (just the opposite), and I recall the same can be said for the peak oil argument, which has been alleged in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc. etc.

Not very convincing, especially when the BOM stated at 7am this morning that there would be no rain in Sydney until this afternoon, yet 45 minutes later, we had torrential rain.
Lucky I took my umbrella despite their predictions.

If you 'scientists' can't predict one hour into the future, the public is hardly likely to believe you can predict 100 years.

And if you really could I'm sure there would be plenty of investment banks that would like to have a look at your model to see if it can be applied to the economy.

Dear Atman, they do say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Personally I think it demonstrates astute cleverness, a bit like the difference between regular music and improvisation and Jazz.

The link you provided is utterly disgusting and can only be described as the provocative action of a flat earther.

You have the audacity to present contrary scientific views at a time when some revered members of our community, mostly unqualified pseudo-scientists, are trying desperately to contradict or ignore qualified scientists.

Don’t you realize that, contrary to popular belief, that science is not the domain of scientists? In case you have not noticed, the internet has provided millions of people around the world with access to information and other peoples’ opinion. That information (and opinion) has delivered a quantum increase in access to data on every conceivable topic. So much so, that we now have a broad based population qualified for open heart surgery, bio engineering, nuclear physics, aeronautical design and quantum mechanics.

You seem to forget that, whilst the internet does not provide knowledge or common sense, these attributes may develop over the next hundred years or so. In the meantime, we must be allowed to develop and apply whatever decisions we can formulate based up on internet information and opinion.

You, and people like Runner and Jon J, seem to be oblivious to the fact that reality is no match for internet based quantity. You are despicable exponents and peddlers of reality; you must be expunged from the societal reality of opinion based assessments.

It seems that no matter how many times we tell you or how many links we provide you with that support our view, you still insist on your own fact based opinion. This is despicable.

We would like to support the premise that regardless of contrary scientific views, that our science is better than yours. Whilst there are clearly two contradictory scientific views, yours has no merit because it is purely based upon only two views, whereas ours is based upon a plural singular perspective.

Sarcasm has no place in this debate