"The policy imperative is clear, however: just as the climate changes, so must we adapt."

I DO adapt. When winter comes I put on an extra jumper and turn on the electric blanket at night. When summer comes I use sunscreen and open some windows.

So why 'adapting' to a two-degree change over a century -- if it is real at all -- should involve the expenditure of trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money is a baffling mystery to most of us. And if Bob Brown ever knew, he's not telling now.

I am about as sick of journalists & others, with out the math, physics or chemistry, to have the faintest idea of the truth behind climate the climate scam, pontification on the subject, as I was of Bob Brown.

Good riddance to one, & could we please have a moratorium for a week or two, of of fools talking too much from too little knowledge.

"...could we please have a moratorium for a week or two, of of fools talking too much from too little knowledge."

I'll look forward to that, Hasbeen.

...but I wonder what you're going to do for entertainment while you're away?

I wouldn't put money on that if I were you, Mr Laidlaw. But I suspect you wouldn't anyway.

"It is far too early to say, and it is disingenuous to do so anyway, that the Green vote has peaked and that, with or without Brown, the party had already begun at least a cyclical decline."

You have managed to pack an awful lot of potential excuses into that one sentence, that it is difficult not to suspect that you are just a little concerned about the future Green vote. Rightly so, in my view.

"It is far too early to say... that the Green vote has peaked"

Is it? I know that many folk have been thoroughly appalled at what happened to their vote, having entrusted it to the Greens at the last election. Very few of them, I'm certain, intended their vote to cause the destruction of the Labour Party, which Mr Brown achieved so completely, and so quickly. And all he had to do was to ensure that Labour's policies were "Greened" - in other words, he was ruthlessly effective in getting his way. Any residual belief that a government that involves Greens might involve any form of compromise, however slight, has been washed away by the reality.

>>...it is disingenuous to do so anyway<<

Far from it. It is, rather, disingenuous of the Greens to suggest that Mr Brown's departure is anything other than the act of a politician leaving at the top. He knows - probably better than anyone - that the Greens have shot their bolt for the time being, and are desperately in need of policies that have electoral appeal. Voters are now only too painfully aware of what "Green" means in practice.

Brown himself has now reached the la-la-land of "One World Gumment", and has nowhere else to go.

The decline may turn out to be cyclic. After all, voters have poor memories, and the reality of having Greens anywhere close to the steering wheel may actually fade after a while.

But decline they will.

The basic "Green" idea is not pooping in your own nest...an idea not too many folks should disagree with...although there will always be the Peter Pans who honestly believe that they can do what they like and let others clean up.
The carbon tax is an idea fresh from the neo-classical finance bible...As the Stern report says there is no cost to pollution, so it needs a price and a market to price it. Anyopne who understands free markets will know this will benefit a few bean counters and bankers...but no-one else.
This is, of course nuts when one considers the $B in subsidies that carbon fuels enjoy...why tax when you can just shift the subsidies? Why are we subsidising fossil fuels anyway? (hint: money talks).
Hasbeen: Checkout the climate stats for the northern hemisphere...and prey for a volcano or more flooding 'cause the next El-Nino will be a cracker. Scams based on real data are such a pain are they not...keep going on for years supported by nothing less flimsy than thousands of experts and *real data*.
Propaganda fools make me sad.

Thank you Pericles. How is the plague in Athens? :)