It would appear that Bob Brown has chosen political expedience and has kept away from the carbon tax. If this gets up he will take much of the credit, and if it fails, Juliar and Labor can take the blame.

@ Pericles:

I'm part-way through responding to your anti-Green spin on another thread, but I can't let this go unremarked:

"they violently oppose nuclear power"

I assume your choice of words is typically careful, in which case I'm disappointed once again at your disingenuousness, which is becoming something that characterises your various pronouncements on the Greens. You know very well that a major element of the Greens' philosophy is their commitment to non-violence.

Yes, there have been various instances of anti-nuclear demonstrators having been engaged in violent protest against nuclear energy in Australia, but I challenge you to nominate just one instance where Greens members have been involved.

The reality within the Greens is that issues like nuclear energy and GMOs are continuously debated. Many of us are more receptive than others to considering conditions under which such technologies might be appropriate, but I agree that the weight of opinion within the Greens is strongly against them, which is reflected in current policy.

I'm happy to respond to reasonable, bona fide questions and requests for clarification, but can I ask that you lose hectoring tone and disingenuous spin?

Lastly, just to avoid me wasting time - can you also lose the coyness with respect to AGW? On balance, are you persuaded that the theory of AGW is likely to be true?

The reason I ask is that I want to ascertain whether your apparent obtuseness derives from genuine scepticism or, as is becoming apparent, it is driven by outright denialism.

The violence is metaphorical, morganzola.

>>You know very well that a major element of the Greens' philosophy is their commitment to non-violence.<<

You just wanted to find an angle that avoided the issue. Quite understandable, in the circumstances.

>>Lastly, just to avoid me wasting time - can you also lose the coyness with respect to AGW? On balance, are you persuaded that the theory of AGW is likely to be true?<<

"On balance", I'm not persuaded that it is even the right question.

There are, as we have seen from the various discussions cluttering up the airwaves, any number of factors involved. It would not surprise me one little bit, for example, if we eventually find that while the theory of AGW turns out to be sound, it has only a marginal impact on our way of life, compared to a multitude of other factors.

What I do agree with is that we should continue to find alternatives to our present dependency upon fossil fuels, and concentrate on ecologically more sustainable energy sources. But I refuse to turn it into a religion, and submit to the Green bully pulpit.

"It would appear that Bob Brown has chosen political expedience and has kept away from the carbon tax. If this gets up he will take much of the credit, and if it fails, Julia and Labor can take the blame."
Shadow Minister as a Green all I can say to your comment is YES! Labor has to pay the price for our support, it don't come cheap. There is this misconception that there is a cosy relationship between the ALP and the Greens, not that I know of. We have our agenda and we work on that

Oh, *Pericles* has been sooking ever since she/he found out the result of the last election. If I recall correctly, no one got what they wanted according to him/her at that time. .. ROFL!