John, the people of Australia recently had an opportunity to express their feelings on AGW .. and I'm not sure if you noticed, did NOT overwhelmingly vote in the Greens in a landslide of all landslides.

They got 11% of the overall vote, that's not a signal that many people care about AGW - it certainly is not top of mind when voting as much as some people want to talk it up - it just no longer matters.

Many voted Green, not for AGW reasons, but because they were protest voting against the ALP and coalition.

The world is not ending, and the MAJORITY of Australians believe this, you need to accept that and not continue to believe people can be beaten verbally until they agree - they just don't agree with you and that's that.

"If government wants to see appropriate legislation passed by Parliament it should start again from scratch." if the ALP wanted to do this, they would have addressed it more strongly in their election pitch - the best they did was to defer to a panel of people who would be "educated" until they agreed, then it would be put out to the other side of 2013 for a decision to implement .. hardly a commitment is it.

Basically, the ALP do not believe it matters to their position.

get over it.

John, despite the efforts of people like you, and the lies told by the IPCC, in support of the greatest attempted fraud in history, the majority of Australians do not regard global warming as an important issue.

Unfortunately, they are still confused by the nonsense put out by the alarmists, and misrepresentations by people like yourself, that there is any scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions play any measureable part in global warming.

There is peer reviewed science which shows that warming is caused by natural cycles.

There is no scientific study which shows any input, to global warming, by human emissions.

The IPCC have put out an unscientific opinion that it is “very likely”. This is backed by five unconflicted scientists. It used to be 7, but two withdrew their backing. There are 55 conflicted scientists who back this opinion, all with some connection to the IPCC.

There are over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition asking that no action be taken until a scientific basis is established.

I have never seen a constructive criticism of Ian Plimer’s book, which sets out clearly why the global warming scam has no scientific base.

Face proven facts, please, John.

If you have any scientific basis for your assertions, let us have it. The IPCC do not know of it, or they would not have to resort to an opinion which has no scientific base at all.

John - the electorate has spoken and they were far from overwhelmingly in favour of the ETS or any strong action on curtailing carbon. Strong policies are not going to come out of a hung Parliament.

As for the scientific opposition to greenhouse doctrine you cite, in fact they are not the leading dissenters. they are just the most vocal recently seen in Aus.
I quote from my recently published book: "The more prominent critics of the IPCC line include Richard Lindzen, a professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts in the US; William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Colorado State University; and Roger Pielke Jr, a professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA recently wrote a book Climate Confusion (Encounter Books, 2008; available on Amazon.)
In Australia prominent critics include Stewart Franks, an associate professor at the University of Newcastle school of engineering specialising in the environment; David Evans who helped build the carbon accounting models for the Australian government to track carbon in plants, debris, solids and agricultural products; and William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology, and a former Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organisation’s Commission for Climatology. Garth W. Paltridge, an atmospheric physicist and former director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, among other posts, has also written a book The Climate Caper (Connor Court, 2009). On the policy side, and cataloguing some bizarre behaviour on the part of environmental scientists a professor and head of the school of government at the University of Tasmania, Aynsley Kellow, has written Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science (Edward Elgar, 2007).

As you can see, its not nearly as straightforward as you would have us believe. This comparing of list of scientists is, in any case, almost entirely irrelevent.

Good summary John.

And not everyone here belongs to this nest of deniers who descend on everything that disagrees with their dying crusade.

Geoff, still backing AGW nonsense, and still no scientific basis for it?

You would let us know if you found any science which backs AGW, wouldn't you, Geoff?

You even let us know when the Climategate miscreants were able to have their mutually peer reviewed study published, purporting to refute the study showing that global warming is all attributable to natural causes.

It did not last long, and it was merely an attempt to divert us from the scientific explanation for global warming, which excludes any basis for AGW.

It was amusing to read the Climategate email which showed their anxiety to have their study published, and having to "tone down the rhetoric" to make it fit for publication, which they had been "trying to do".

You are two steps removed now, Geoff, from the objective of establishing any assertion of AGW.

1. Global warming is all accounted for without AGW.

2. There is not, and never has been, any scientific basis for assertion of AGW.

Good luck, Geoff, you really need it, since you have no merits.

There are question marks over the politics, economics and science of man-made climate change. Finally, there are question marks over the data used by the scientists and advocates of man-made climate change. Google "satellite-gate". US Government now admits faulty NOAA satellites have been grossly overestimating temperatures for a decade.

If the data was faulty, this would have lead to faulty science, which would have lead to a faulty economic analysis, which has apparently now contributed to a hung parliament. On the bright side, humanity may be saved from squandering further billions on a non-problem, which will free up billions to address real life problems.