Mr Turnbull supports population growth AND is concerned about global warming. An absurdity.

John, you might give us the scientific basis upon which you consider that Australia needs to reduce its emissions.

Reputable, peer reviewed, science shows that human emissions are of no significance to global warming.

The Journal of Geophysical Science published a study McLean et al, on 29 July 2009, which showed that all warming is accounted from natural sources, and there is no room for the asserted “very likely” of the IPCC as to human emissions causing global warming.

If someone disputes this, then put up the scientific study which shows otherwise. The IPCC cannot, or they would not rely on an unscientific, “very likely”, to support the assertion of AGW.

If the atmosphere were represented by a line one kilometere in length, the emissions from Australia would be represented by less then the width of a human hair. It is no wonder that the effect of human emissions cannot be detected. They are insignificant.

If, like me, you were to email the IPCC asking for information on the research that proves that carbon dioxide is a pollutant you will receive advice that their is none available. They go on to say that the US EPA Clean Air Act decreed that it is a pollutant.
If you consider that scientific decisions can be made in a Court of Law, continue worrying.
Its just one step away from a decree that Accountants have to be eliminated.
Research the work of Dr Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts and find out how the misleading conclusions about global warming were manipulated. Just Google Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts.
As an Accountant you must know what Balance means. There is no balance in the global warming debate. Just pure greed by such as Al Gore.

Thank God that the Rhodes Scholar is a skeptic. He was obviously around when the 'science is settled mob' insisted we were heading for another ice age not all that long back. Julia is also a skeptic as shown by her complete lack of courage and political will. The difference is she is not honest enough to admit it. We all know that both Liberal and Labour will end up supporting the nuke industry so all the talk about 2020 from both parties is just a delaying tactic. In 2020 Julia and Tony will look back and be embarassed at the political games they have had to blame to try and impress some International body. The 'scientific world' would of invented another scam by then.

Phoenix94

CO2 does not have to be a pollutant to have an impact on the world. That argument is a strawman. There are plenty of substances that may not technically be thought of as pollutants that can have significant impacts. Water vapour, methane etc.

Water isn't a pollutant and yet, quite amazingly, it can kill you in the right quantity and situation. Oxygen is also not a pollutant, but get too much of it and it will also kill you.

Your slightly warped view of the debate does not appear to relate to any science, just opinion.

Phil, so can bull sh1t.