Come on now, only the ratbag greens, the gravy train riders, a few pollies, [in public only], & journalists still believe in global warming.

Hell, even most of them are so embarrassed they are trying to change the name of their con, almost monthly.

It's about time they threw in a math & physics strand, to all journalism courses, to try to get at least a few with some common sense.

I suppose that would result in them all failing at uni. Still that would be better than them all failing in print.

...Does not matter a "tinkers damn" what Tony thinks ,does or says, he is in with a grin! Thats politics!

Hasbeen,

i like your idea of journo's possibly having a specialist major to go with their degrees, such as physics/maths, or politics or whatever. Then we might get some educated reporting on events and issues, instead of the lazy regurgitation of media releases that we are all so wonderfully misinformed by in this day and age.

Of course, if journalists did have a clue and were less controlled by the whims of Murdoch and co, you wouldn't be so massively ignorant about the real facts and science on climate change. That would really make my day. But go back to your murdoch press and internet blogs, they know better than the scientific community, surely.

'But go back to your murdoch press and internet blogs, they know better than the scientific community, surely.

The same consensus scientific community who predicted we were in for an ice age only about 40 years ago. How quickly the consensus changed. How quickly the doomsdayers who predicted the end of us due to the hole in the ozone layer only about 20 years ago. Keep up the faith TrashcanMan but don't forget to jump ships when the consensus changes. What would the ignorant public know.

There are several other problems with Tony Abbotts proposal which he has never responded to, probably because he can not:

1. Direct Action is unable to adequately cope with reducing Australian emissions to 5% below those of 2000. So how would it cope with a larger reduction were that called for?

2. Direct Action is to be funded by an impost on individual taxpayers whether directly - by a tax hike, or indirectly – by reducing expenditure in other areas. Either way taxpayers will be asked to cough-up the money needed to pick winners and encourage emitters to reduce their emissions.

3. Direct Action outcomes are dependent on voluntary action by emitters to reduce their emissions and they will only do so if it is in their commercial interests (not environmental interests) to do so. There is no compulsion or penalty for not doing so and no certainty of reduction targets being achieved.

4. Direct Action excludes generating a pool of funds for use in promoting development and application of new technology aimed at replacing energy generation from fossil fuels with clean energy sources. So it slows, even discourages that replacement, making reduction targets even harder to achieve.

5. Direct Action fails to provide investors with the encouragement and certainty needed for them to fund new technology and clean energy generation, making Australia’s transition slower than that of other nations and placing it at an economic disadvantage.

Given enough political spin (lies and distortion), Direct Action can be made to look superficially respectable. It might even get Tony into The Lodge but will it best serve the National Interest, protect the taxpayers hip-pocket or bring about meaningful reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? No, No and No.

A short word which I am told Mr Abbott is familiar with.

Runner,

There was never a consensus 40 years ago about an impending ice age. In fact there was more support in the sciences then for global warming than the ice age theory. It was quickly debunked by further research.

And there has been no change to the science on the ozone layer. The consensus is still as it was. However the threat to human health posed by it has been reduced thanks to effective action from the world's governments (based on advice from scientists, not priests).

It would seem that, if your statements represent public understanding of the facts, Joe Public is very poorly informed indeed.