"Something sensible would have to be agreed on carbon pricing..."

The only 'sensible' position on carbon pricing / carbon taxes is to remove them altogether, and agree to enjoy the bounty delivered to us by increasing CO2 and the currently high global temperatures, while they last. Since no major party has the courage to support that yet, any current coalition or deal is likely to continue doing something stupid.

We can only hope that it becomes progressively less stupid over time.

“Centrism means standing for being sensible, for behaving professionally, for acting like adults...”
Says who?
I would suggest it could be far more credibly argued that Centrism stands for:
Having a bob each way,
Having no principled stand on anything,
Having no core beliefs,
Being prepared to make endless compromises for the sake of staying in power...
…
Okay, both major parties are Centrist.

perverting marriage is regressive not progressive. Turnbull was unelectable as leader of the Liberal party as he swallowed the gw lie. Abbott might get up the leftist nose but polls since he took over say it all. Suck it up guys.

runner,

Turnbull is eminently electable....

But since Abbott has garnered a modicum of support in the great "centrist" tradition of: "I don't really stand for anything, except that I'm against whatever the other side is for.", he's got his nose in front in the polls.

If Turnbull was to take over, he'd be "streaks" in front.

"suck it up guys"

Now runner, that does not sound very um, er ... Christian.

Sounds more like the devil in sheep's clothing.

Yes, Runner's positions on everything are endlessly fascinating.
His God advises us to “Judge Not...”
Unless your monicker be Runner?
God also apparently allows the continuing existence of the Devil, evil incarnate; apparently because it's important to Him that individuals be allowed the freedom to make their own choices voluntarily.
What a shame God didn't have Runner around 5,000 years ago, to advise against some of His sillier ideas.

Malcolm Turnbull would have no trouble fitting into the Labor Party.

After all, as an untiring believer in AGW and the perceived need to tame climate change, Malcolm agrees with the levying of the carbon tax and the imposition of an ETS.

And he also speaks in favour of same-sex marriage, thus placing the priorities of his few dozen gay constituents over those of his multi-thousand straight ones.

Malcolm Turnbull is intriguing. It would not surprise if he had Labor leanings given his family background and early relationships with the Whitlams and Neville Wran.

He presents very well, and is probably the most statesmanlike of the current crop of parliamentarians. Take, for example, his recent speech in parliament on the asylum seeker issue. Clearly he is intelligent, accomplished and experienced. He also appeals to the electorate, as evidenced by his success in winning support in Wentworth.

On the other hand, there are sufficient comments from his parliamentary colleagues that many of them find him difficult to work with internally. And it seems strange (to me at least) that he could seriously hold the position that he does on anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming. One would think that someone of his intellectual capacity would have looked into the issue himself, rather than accept the arguments from authority of the IPCC, CSIRO, BOM etc.

On balance though, I think that Malcolm would make an outstanding Prime Minister, if he can win the support of his colleagues, in whatever party he ends up.

Herbert Stencil,

"...rather than accept the arguments from authority of the IPCC, CSIRO and BOM, etc."

How strange that an intelligent, accomplished, experienced man of statesman-like quality should take direction on climate change from entities that are actually staffed by scientists.....poor Mr Turnbull obviously lacks the "conspiracy gene".

Malcolm is a curious mixture of things, many of them contradictory. He is not a man of the people but neither is he part of the ruling classes.

He does not fit easily into the wolfish Coalition but the LABOR Party Thugs would destroy him in a matter of weeks.

Politics is not in his DNA. He can't stab people in the back and he can't dupe them like Julia does.

Malcolm would handle a philanthropic organization with supreme skill!

If Turnbull was to take over, he'd be "streaks" in front.
Poirot,
Not by judging on his past performance.

If 54 46 is not streaks in front after being 48 52 behind when Abbott took over I don't know what is. You just can't please some people.

You just can't please some people.
runner,
the ratings ramblings are just pointless academic gobbledegook. Have any such surveys ever been conducted among everyday thinking people instead of Uni campuses ?

If Malcolm Turnbull had resorted to following the rules of evidence and carried out due diligence when he was environment minister, he would have found that the "arguments from authority of the IPCC, CSIRO and BOM, etc" were not supported by factual scientific evidence. He since has had ample time in Opposition to review the facts, but instead chooses to maintain his stubborn politically correct position, assumably for promoting his 'progressive' image.

Raycom,

It's endlessly fascinating day after day listening to the rants of "non-scientists" informing us that they understand "the factual scientific evidence" so much better than the "scientists".

Which "facts" did you have in mind for Turnbull to review?

@Poirot: "Which "facts" did you have in mind for Turnbull to review?"

Well, he could start with these peer-reviewed papers:

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8

Holding a particular opinion on AGW is reasonable: pretending there is no contrary evidence is fanaticism. It's getting a little tiresome by now.

Jon J,

Your linked site draws its references from "Popular Technology Forum"...."most of the links you see here were collected by them and used with their permission."

Popular Technology is choc-o-bloc full of material from the usual denialist/skeptic suspects. - Heartland, Marshall Institute, Joanne Nova, David Evans, etc.

Next.....

Poirot, I don't know of a single person who claims to understand the science better than the scientists.

What any thinking person, with enough math to understand does claim, is to be no longer fooled by the activists in scientist clothing, payed by the UN, & some governments to promote a cause using this fraud.

We have studied their arguments, & found them wanting. If you have not read the Email record of their duplicity in climate gate 1 & 2, do so, then tell us you don't have some doubts.

I am disgusted with myself that for years I took the word of these con men as gospel.

I am even more disgusted with our academics, many of whom must know the whole thing is a con, who don't come forward & say so.

Poirot, you have apparently achieved what the supposed experts, namely the IPCC, the socalled learned science societies, the government-funded climate researchers, and the environmental lobbyists have been unable to do, i.e. find the empirical scientific evidence that proves the hypothesis that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of dangerous global warming.

Do not be shy. Share that evidence with us. Table the scientific papers that document that evidence.

PS IPCC climate models do not qualify as scientific evidence.

Hasbeen writes

'I am disgusted with myself that for years I took the word of these con men as gospel.'

Thats exactly how many will feel when they have their eyes opened to the evolution con. That is what turned true science into a religion. Thankfully many have already seen through the fantasy/religion/deceit or whatever else you want to call it.

Yeah Poirot, don't be shy. Table the evidence. Go on, I dare ya.
PS evidence about climate change, supplied by climate scientists, does not qualify as evidence.
(?)
How about this:
Fossil Fuel usage:
coal: 53,000,000 barrels (oil equivalent) every day
oil: 84,000,000 barrels every day
Natural gas: 19,000,000 barrels (oil equivalent) every day.
Total daily: 156,000,000 barrels of oil equivalent converted from an underground resource into pollution, mostly atmospheric, every day.
More than 56,940,000,000 barrels a year, producing 21.3 billion tonnes of CO2, and still growing.
Nah. How could that piddling little amount possibly make a difference?

Good on ya, Runner.
There you go, Hasbeen. Anyone stupid enough to believe in AGW, is also stupid enough to believe in Evolution.
Couldn't agree more.

Hasbeen,

Email - schmeemail....http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/

"We have studied their arguments and found them wanting......" As if you're some sort of authority on the subject (not).

How's your "maths" on evolution?

You could confirm runner's con theory with your expertise.

Dear Poirot,

Just a small reminder by the economist Tor Hundloe:

"On issues which require radical solutions that are likely
to harm vested economic and political interests,
censorship has always existed. For example in Australia
in 2006, leading climatologists with the country's
pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO, were
forbidden by the organisation's management from publicly
discussing the implications of climate change."

"Management was acting on behalf of the government. And
Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of
human development status. In 2006, the Australian Government's
position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to
enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto protocol."

"With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the
Australian Government's position had changed - yet the Prime
Minister remained half-hearted about a commitment to counter
global warming."

Remember that Galileo was put under house arrest by the Vatican
for saying that the earth moved around the sun. In fact, in
1633 the Church made him recant his theory of the universe.

Little has changed over the years when ignorance and vested
interests are confronted by scientific facts. New ideas, instead
of being welcomed for the opportunities they open up for
the improvement of the human lot, are threats to those
who've become comfortable in their ideologies (religious
or otherwise).

Look at how long its taken for the dangers of tobacco to be
recognised - finally. The Tobacco industry was a powerful
lobby group - but then so are the "smokestack" industries.

cont'd ...

As for Malcolm Turnbull?

He obviously has decided to remain in Parliament as
a clear alternative to the current leader and Mr
Turnbull is by far a less polarising figure. He's also
widely respected in the business and wider community for
his economic nous, his experience and acumen.

Prime Ministers of Australia all had ambition however in
the past it was accompanied by talent, eloquence,
intelligence and shrewdness. Menzies had towering
intellect. Whitlam had the broad popular appeal of the
conciliator, Bob Hawke was a great communicator.
Each in his own way stood out from the pack. Mr Abbott
has offered little in the way of vision and what he
actually stands for - apart from the Church, the monarchy,
and "aspirations." All he seems to have is sound bites,
slogans, and "look at me" TV pictures on track - but
not any underlying sense of economic competence.
He only won the leadership by one vote. If there's a slide
in the polls - who knows what a nervous party might do.

Grim
The climate models used by the IPCC have not been validated. They do not reflect real world climate behaviour. They cannot be relied on for prediction purposes, and are at best speculative. Although anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have continued to increase, there has been no statistically significant increase in atmospheric global temperature since 1998, which is contrary to what the models project.

The supposed climate science experts assert that observed climate changes are anthropogenic, but have not been able to produce the empirical scientific evidence to prove their assertions. They ignore the significance of natural causes of climate change e.g. solar activity, El Nino. Yet they have the gall to claim that climate science is settled, when it is simply not the case.

The fossil fuel statistics you quote are not evidence that climate change is anthropogenic. Furthermore, you appear to mistake CO2 as pollution, when it is in fact an invisible, odourless gas that is necessary for plant life. Greenpeace founder, Patrick Moore, who has since left the organisation, now states that CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on earth and admits that it is proven in lab and field experiments that plants would grow much faster if CO2 levels were 4 to 5 times higher in the atmosphere than they are today.

CO2 levels in the air are less than 0.04%. Annually, all human activity produces 3% of Earth's CO2, Nature 97%, 32 times more. Atmospheric residence time for CO2 is only 5 to 7 years, and it is then recycled back into sinks such as plants, oceans and soils

Raycom,
I agree the climate models are as yet incomplete, and are currently not capable of making accurate predictions. This does not make them merely 'speculative', but rather a work in progress.
From my observations, it seems the essential difference between intelligent people and the less intelligent is that intelligent people accept they have limitations.
When an intelligent person comes on to a problem they can't understand, they research. They poke, they prod, they pry... Then they break it down into smaller pieces; bits they can understand. Then they put all the bits they understand together to make a model. The model is then compared to the real item, and if found lacking, they try to add more bits.
Each time more detail is added to the model, their understanding increases, and the model becomes more accurate.
To suggest that highly trained and educated scientists would overlook such factors as sunlight, cloud cover and ocean and air currents when dealing with climate is just nonsense.

OTOH, when an unintelligent person comes across a problem they can't understand, the immediate reaction is: “Well, that can't be right!”

The CO2 argument is infantile at best. It is precisely like saying “water is essential to life; therefore floods can only be a good thing. There's no such thing as a flood catastrophe”.
Primary school kids are (or used to be) taught about the balance between plants and animals.
One puts out CO2 and takes in oxygen, the other takes in CO2 and gives back oxygen.
What is 'natural' about increasing mammalian activity a thousand fold over the last few thousand years (humans and their livestock) while at the same time cutting down 70% of the world's forests?
These actions alone disturb the 'natural' balance.
ON TOP of this, we add 21 billion tonnes of CO2 each year, only about half of which can be processed by 'Nature'.
Not only are CO2 levels still rising, but CO2 production is still growing, and we are still cutting down forests, and our populations (human and animal) are still growing.

Sorry, missed a typo. We have cut down more than 50% of world's forests, not 70%.
Or, perhaps an IPCC conspiracy, to overstate the case?

Interesting article, Tom. As a (rather half-hearted at present) Labor supporter I have been resigning myself to a Coalition victory at the next federal election, while hoping that somehow Turnbull could navigate his way to the Liberal leadership before then. Labor Leadership would be even better, but I fear this is a pipe dream.

Just who is advising Labor these days? Mickey Mouse?

Grim
Your faith in the IPCC's climate models is misplaced. The IPCC's models have been formulated to defend its AGW agenda, which it has been pushing for over 20 years. Sadly, the IPCC fan club includes many supposedly "highly trained and educated scientists". It is a case of political activism brushing aside scientific method.

Given your professed CO2 knowledge, would you be so kind as to table the papers that document the factual scientific evidence that proves the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause of dangerous global warming

Raycom,

"...the IPCC fan club includes many supposedly "highly trained and educated scientists...."

Precisely!

...as opposed to untrained conspiracy hacks who perpetuate the denialist mantra by posting their own unique amateurish "expertise" on public forums.

Poirot

The invitation remains open for you or any fellow AGW believer to table the scientific papers that document the factual evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused significant global warming.

Raycom, I haven't bothered to respond, firstly because we've wandered a little off topic, and second because there's really no point.
All the info is out there. If you want an objective view of developments, I strongly suggest you first check the established independent magazines and ezines; New Scientist, Nature, even Geographic. If you consider these too light weight, go to source contributors to the IPCC, if you don't like the body itself; contributions come from thousands of scientists in 95 countries, including Australia's Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO.
I strongly suggest you check how your sources are funded when considering objectivity. Independent magazines which live by reporting news worthy items would, I suggest, be more objective than sources funded by Big Oil and Big Tobacco, like the Heartland Foundation.
The most newsworthy articles, after all, are the ones which conflict with convention, or better still cast convention into controversy.
Objective sources are quick to publish new developments, particularly those which challenge the established thinking, such as:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought.html

The Heartland institute by comparison, only publishes articles which reinforce its own views.
A sceptic is one who remains yet to be convinced, not one who refuses to be convinced.

>> one who refuses to be convinced <<

Recalcitrant, conservative, 'stuck-in-the-muds', 'anti-science types', non-progressives, 'dumb-ass/donkey', religious 'fundies', 'rightist' ideologues, etc, etc.

Why are they referred to as ostriches, with their head in the sand ... anyone?

Grim

AGW ideology that is disseminated in the independent magazines or else spruiked by scientists in politicised bodies such as CSIRO and BOM, all of whom belong to the IPCC fan club -- mafia would perhaps be a better description -- fails to convince. All of these supposed scientists have failed to come up with the empirical evidence required to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt

Raycom, clearly that depends on who the 'reasonable doubter' is.
All those 'supposed scientists' still frequently fail to accurately predict tomorrow's weather.
But I find they're close enough often enough to make it worth checking the weather forecast.