Well done Nicole!

To vote for a party on a single platform is stupid. So much for mandate.
We have govt's to govern. The carbon tax is as good as passed. So what are you arguing about. Julia did say all promises were off before any govt; was formed. Results of a hung parliament, and there's nothing to stop it happening again.

If Tony Abbott goes to the next election with a "carbon scheme", and then after the election not only dispenses with it, but unravels the GreenALPindy scheme, regardless of cost ..

Would anyone be upset?

I'm sure all the AGW believers, who find it acceptable that the government lied, will have no problem with anyone or any party lying in future.

Or is it just the particular lie that's OK?

Deceit is deceit, and the ALP will never get past this .. their "whatever it takes" culture is not acceptable.

Some might find lying politically expedient, the majority of Australians, clearly do not.

huh .. someone just pointed out, that I must be the only person surprised that believers find lying acceptable

It seems to me that society might reasonably arranged in three groups of thought about AGW:
First, the scientists at the pointy end of observations and assessment of data, and those who accept analysis from them. This group has grave concerns about increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere due to human activities.
Second, that spectrum of society which is in adamant denial of any reason for concern for human society out of the scientific observations; and also in denial of the veracity of those scientific observations.
Third, the population in the middle who depend upon dissemination of information provided by one or other of the above; depending upon information which is given merit, not according to scientific veracity, but by editorial decree.

The pressures working upon the third group are illustrated by contrasting statements during the past week from retired vice-chancellors of two different universities:

Ian Chubb, holding a Masters in Science degree, took up the position of Australia’s Chief Scientist after being Vice Chancellor of the ANU. In his opinion, there could be serious problems: “--you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events. You can’t reproduce it through modeling if you just factor in natural events. If you factor in human activity, then you get what’s happening and you get the reduction.”

Don Aitkin, a past Vice Chancellor of the University of Canberra, says (above) “-- after four years of close study of the issue, I have to say that I am quite unpersuaded either that disaster awaits us--.”

Our ability to assess it will not alter the science itself.
Don Aitkin ( OLO, previously) stated “Carbon Dioxide is a fertiliser - the more of it the better”. Under some controlled conditions carbon dioxide might be a fertiliser - in what quantity before it before it becomes a poison (as do other fertilizers)? Earth’s benign atmosphere contains nitrogen/oxygen/carbon dioxide in percentages of approximately 78/21/.04. Not Venus by a long shot; but an optimum earth temperature for human society depends fundamentally upon atmospheric proportions very similar to the present

@colinsett

I don't agree with your 'reasonably'. There are several different groups of scientists, and those who like models often differ from those who work from observations. Those who work from ground and sea observations often differ from those who work with satellite and balloon data.

Try this grouping:

Supporters of the AGW orthodoxy

1 Strongest The IPCC has raised the alarm. We must do something now, and that something is to get global agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. The science is clear, and now is the time to act. This is fact the orthodox or IPCC position.

2 Partial Support There is no doubt that adding more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere must increase the world’s temperature. But we don’t know yet how much extra warming there is likely to be.

3 Lukewarm support Adding more carbon dioxide will very likely increase the temperature, but there are other factors at work too, and the effect may well be pretty small, or even positive for some parts of the world. We need to know much more before we do anything.

Dissenters

4 Agnostic dissenters The orthodox arguments rely heavily on models and conjectures. AGW is plausible and possible, but we need real evidence before we do anything. In particular, we need to be able to distinguish AGW from natural variability. A little warming may be good for humanity, as it seems to have been over the past thirty years.

5 Sceptical dissenters Many sceptics are well informed about one or other aspect of the central AGW proposition, and can show difficulties with it; they tend to argue that the failure of the orthodox to satisfy them in these domains means that the whole AGW proposition is void.

6 Opponents AGW theory is just a scam, a sign that the Marxists have taken over the green movement, an attempt by some to construct world government, a conspiracy, a sign of lazy journalists, the effort of bankrupt governments to stay in power, etc. There is nothing to it.