Thanks to those who appreciated the sentiments of this article. Of course the Greens have the most sensible policy, I was just focussed on the elephant in the room that mainstream commentary consistently ignores. I note that Paul Krugman of NYT did get some minor coverage for making a very similar observation about US climate politics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html

For the rest, it's a little disappointing, if not exactly surprising, to encounter exactly the same attitudes, and anonymous characters, as before, after a little time away from OLO. Regarding "AGW":

The hacked UEA emails business was a concocted storm in a teacup, never relevant to the main scientific findings, as I pointed out on OLO more than once. As Rodney Tiffen observes, the unsensational conclusions of investigations get very little media (or blog?) attention:
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-wouldnt-read-about-it-climate-scientists-right-20100725-10qev.html

Someone recycled the tired old claim that because warming led CO2 in the ice ages that proves CO2 can't be causing warming now. It does not prove that, and the reason can be found here: http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/co2-lag-during-ice-ages/

Otherwise, you choose your conspiracies and I'll choose mine. Mine's better documented. I wonder how anyone can claim Al Gore and Malcolm Turnbull are only in it for the money while not seeing any problem with ExxonMobil's motives in funding denialist disinformation. They don't even hide it: "Doubt is our product".

Oh, and so far 2010 is, not unexpectedly, the hottest year on record:
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/global-cooling-over/
So is anyone ready to recant on "global cooling since 1998"? Senator Fielding perhaps?

When government-funded scientists 'adjust' the raw data so as to increase warming trends by 66%, it does tend to show an increase in warming, yes.

JamesH: "It (sic) totally impossible to reduce Australia carbon dioxide emissions, whilst at the same time increasing population. The sums do not work."

It's easy:
-solar power
-wind power
-increased PT usage
-car pooling
-smaller dwelling size
-efficient light globes
-reduced packaging (e.g toy packaging is ridiculous) saves carbon emissions in manufacture and destruction
- more pollution controls in industry
- etc
- etc
- etc

The sums work if the people do.

And I fail to see what Malcolm Turnbull or anyone has to gain from any of the above.

If we need a carbon price to encourage the above activity, it is because present generations don't give a crap about future generations.

Geoff Davies,

“after a little time away from OLO”

I can only guess, Geoff, that you must have been far out to either not had the urge, or else, not been able to access OLO!
I mean in this day and age almost everywhere has the internet!

And your talk about seeing elephants in your room only serves to confirm my suspicions!

And it explains another thing too–why you are so far behind the times with regard to the AGW debate.But look, I’ve done you a favour, I‘ve attached a link here where you can read all the latest

I particularly liked this bit : “A study of Arctic cooling cycles suggest warming is linked to solar activity.”
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=4431

And here’s the counter from the believers side –an argument for immediate action-- this will really give you a belly laugh!

"So just imagine, if you like, you're in a car, travelling fast and in two seconds you're about to hit a 50-tonne truck. You do three things; first you call a meeting of all those who may be affected and gather their thoughts, secondly you consult all the authorities who may be interested (the lawyers, insurers, officials) and get their reactions too, and thirdly you can choose to reject the physics. It is a post-modern world. Reject gravity and Newton's laws. Have a nice crash"
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2965350.htm

<And I fail to see what Malcolm Turnbull or anyone has to gain from any of the above.

If we need a carbon price to encourage the above activity, it is because present generations don't give a crap about future generations.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 4:45:53 PM
>

Somebody has to run the carbon market and more than likely it will The Macquarie bank, carbon trading will be the biggest money earner without any actual productivity.