The LNP was attempting to make political capital from the SE Qld floods even before the water started to recede. I am just wondering if Pete Coulson is the same man who was a policy advisor to the Leader of the Opposition in Qld last year, and also a federal candidate for the LNP; and if so, why that wasn't mentioned in his brief bio?

Also, I think it would have been germane to mention in an article about politics and the Wivenhoe Dam the LNP's pushing in October 2010 for the Wivenhoe Dam to be filled up completely, which would have made it entirely useless for flood mitigation. The Bligh Government said, "No, that would be grossly irresponsible."

So tell me again Mr Coulson how politics contributed to this disaster?

Interesting Chris, the truth of the claims are not important, just any political affiliations of the writer.

From your post, I would have to assume that you accept the post as factually correct, but wish to stop any damage to our wonderful government.

I left the ALP in 1990 after serving on the (Victoria) Conservation & Environment Policy Committee because I was disheartened with the constant referral of issues to further Committees. Decisions could not be made because they might be the 'wrong' decisions.
IF Wivenhoe dam was built for flood mitigation purposes and then used for drinking water storage, it stands to reason that, regardless of the writer's politics, the reason for this must be determined.
If the ALP believes so adamantly in global warming - to the detriment of the rest of us - then they have to be held to account.
Anyone who still believes the AGW mantra, must be incapable of researching the issue. Carbon dioxide is an essential of life not a pollutant. There is no science that proves it is a pollutant. The USA Supreme Court determined that it is but that was a legal decision, not a scientific one.
The Qld flood was not a political decision. The fact that it could not be better controlled is

Carbon dioxide is indeed not a pollutant but the argument is about the effects of too much carbon.

That's what the term "too much" means.

Dear wobbles,
Too much carbon?
What on earth are you talking about?
Research the following;
1. What volume of CO2 is used to grow hydroponic vegetables? Around 500ppm.
2. What volume of CO2 is used in a submarine? Around 4000ppm.
3. Are there records that show that there has been higher levels of CO2 on the planet? Yes. Read Ian Plimers book.
Humans will not drop dead of too much CO2. There are fewer deaths from sunstroke than there are from freezing to death.
If you sincerely believe in AGW you must have a blind faith.

We are not talking about growing tomatoes, we are talking about the level of co2 in the upper atmosphere.