Of course politicians of both persuasions have endorsed AGW hysteria, since it appeared to offer them a way of raising taxes and increasing control without any public outcry. But right-wingers tend to have a firmer grip on reality and have realised -- like Abbott -- that the whole thing is an apocalyptic cult intended to channel large sums of money to its founders and their accomplices as quickly as possible. Britain is backpedalling wildly on its energy 'policy' -- if one can even call it that -- and Germany's government is losing support rapidly.

Meanwhile, in not unrelated news, the personal wealth of Canadians (with a sceptical government) has risen above that of US residents (with an alarmist one). A few more of these financial shifts, and AGW will be acknowledged as the insatiable money sponge that it is.

This piece bears out my personal experience in Australia. I have encountered many people who would not dream of voting ALP and whose opinion of the Greens is unprintable but who understand the risks of continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As the evidence continues to mount I think we shall see a sort of de facto alliance between the sane parts of left and right on this issue.

"As the evidence continues to mount"

What evidence is that Steven?

It works the other way of course: I'm a Labor/Greens/Minor Moderate Left Party voting leftie whose opinion in of the Liberal Party in general and the Mad Monk in particular would never make it past the moderators. Although I do quite like that Turnbull fellow.

I also think the climate-change true believers are backing a wrong 'un. Where I differ from a lot of conservative sceptics is in perceiving it all as some grand conspiracy theory: that seems even less plausible to me than the claims the warmists are making. I've seen many conspiracy theories and they have all had the common features of being absurd and easily disprovable.

I just think it's a dodgy theory that will go down in the annals of history alongside ideas like phlogiston and Aristotelian physics: things that seemed like good ideas at the time but were eventually realised to be wrong.

Cheers,

Tony

< A government can be both pro-business and pro-environment >

Well, I certainly hope so!

Trouble is; Labor is nowhere near being pro-environment. So its policies relating to climate change sit in stark contrast to the other big policies pertaining to the environment and sustainability, especially their facilitation of record-high population growth and never-ending expansionism.

They are also paying absolutely no credence to peak oil, which is very closely related to climate change inasmuch as we need to do much of the same sort of things in order to address it… and it is arguably considerably more urgent

Now, if Labor were to put it all together into a holistic policy platform, aimed at achieving a sustainable society in the near future, they’d probably be on a real winner.

With the right sort of approach, they’d glean the support of the majority of voters. There is afterall a great deal of concern out there about our current political direction, the need for a large-scale change of direction, and the need to address the huge environmental issues that are bearing down on us ever more heavily.

The ordinary person can see this, and will support a government that properly and genuinely embraces it.

The Coalition will win the next election. They’ll then make a complete mess of their stint at upholding the same old pro-growth anti-environmental methodology.

Labor will elevate Bob Carr, a fundamentally sound environmentalist and ‘sustainabilityist’ to the top job and set about reinventing itself as a sustainability-oriented party, much greener than the Greens, which will be swept into power in 2016 if not before…. and we will at last be on the right political track for the saviour of this great country!

Tony Lavis,

"I think it's a dodgy theory...."

Any scientific basis for you thinking it's a dodgy theory - or is it just a feeling in your bones?

Certainly at the moment the consensus is that industrial emissions are changing climate, so both sides of politics and many people who know little of the issue would follow that consensus to formulate varying policies.

Its also far from surprising that people with scientific training and interested in conservation of resources.

However, if Dr Chapman wanted to take the matter a little further he could ask uncomfortable questions such as what sort of forecasting record does the climate consensus have? Is back testing (matching of model output to past results) for the past few decades really a sufficient base for strong conclusions? He might also ask whether there is any overall, satisfactory theory of climate that ties togther concepts such as Milankovitch cycles (supposed explanation for the ice age cycle of the past million years) with previous ice age and hothouse eras of earth.

Perhaps he might care to look at the way climate models are run and how they have to be run repeatedly with different conditions, each run being adjusted periodically. He might also ask about the assumptions underlying these models.

He might well be horrified at the results of his questions.

>>Any scientific basis for you thinking it's a dodgy theory<<

Yes.

Cheers,

Tony

What is your scientific basis Tony?

Simply saying 'yes' does not back up your argument with any substance...in fact it gives the impression that you are either not capable of explaining your opinion, or you are arrogant enough to think that you don;t need to.

"What is your scientific basis Tony?"

Tony does not have to provide a basis; he is not asserting that CO2 emissions are causing AGW or catastrophic AGW, or whatever fanciful name they give to this non-existent 'problem'.

People who claim AGW is real have the onus of proof; they have failed to fulfil that onus.

But just for the record; the Tropical HotSpot is an essential requirement for AGW to exist; all the models have predicted one but it has failed to appear.

A scientifically valid reason for the THS's failure to materialise, as opposed to the unscientific reasons for it to appear, is explained by researcher William Gibson:

"Yes, I am pretty sure the “hot spot” is an aberration of the climate models in that they do not handle the non-equilibrium thermodynamics correctly. I think the models do not properly take into account the fact that the latent heat of condensation is dispersed both as heat and PV work. Thus, where the “hot spot” is supposed to be, there is still much convection (PV work and mass transfer) going on which doesn’t show up as temperature. The actual thermodynamic behavior within the troposphere is not just a heat transfer mechanism, but a combined heat and mass transfer phenomena. The models’ parameterization of the Navier-Stokes equations may not do this properly (if the models use Navier-Stokes at all?)"

http://tinyurl.com/7j8m333

The planet is heating up.

Now what are you going to do?

cc

"The planet is heating up.

Now what are you going to do?"

How about poking fun at your ludicrous attempt to put forward an out-of-date story from a notoriously biased mass media source as actual evidence of anything whatsoever?

At least, that's what I'M going to do.

Now what are you going to do?"
silly question, pay Carbon Tax of course & all will be well. I'm sure the pollution in China will reduce dramatically because of the Carbon Tax.

'The planet is heating up.'

If only. Far more die from cold than heat.

Hit a nerve, did I:)

cc

Now all calm down. What is as leader-ship, is just commonsense:)...def...(of a person, action, or manner) Not showing or feeling nervousness, anger, or other emotions.....

So, in http://tinyurl.com/6m2zg3u

We still have a chance.

c

Sadly, the IPCC and its fan club succeeded in conning politicians on the left and right of the political spectrum. Environmental activists will take the credit for that.

Surprisingly, the author omitted mention of AGW true believer, Malcolm Turnbull. But then again, Malcolm regards himself as a progressive, and would fit quite easily into the Labor Party.

Malcolm regards himself as a progressive, and would fit quite easily into the Labor Party.
Raycom,
Could you persuade him to join them please ?

Individual

Isn't there enough instability in the Labour Party without a silvertail like Malcolm joining?

The author takes some pains to identify the potentially mutually beneficial relationship between development and care for the environment - the underlying principle being that development at the expense of environmental sustainability is in reality unsustainable. I would agree wholeheartedly with this proposition.

And what response does the author get? A meaningless debate on AGW. How very disappointing.

Julia's (or Red's) approach to 'Green', is a carbon tax, a mining tax and wealth redistribution - a genuinely socialist ideological approach - whilst refusing attempts to recognise the value of preserving prime agricultural land - but rather giving precedence to mining over agriculture (and food security), and over most environmental and cultural heritage concerns, and even over concerns for public health and for water quality and security. A blinkered focus on GDP and fiscal surplus chasing, irrespective of the ultimate cost to future sustainability and quality of life.

Ok, we don't have a clear picture of Lib/Nat (or Blue) proposals or policies towards long term sustainability and sustainable development, but I venture it could scarcely be worse than the current scenario. If anything, the current Labor dumping on the Greens presents distinct headwaters for any future environmental interests.

Without a continuing sustainable and meaningful biodiversity, what purpose and what substance can there be to human existence? A lonely, steel and concrete, nuclear-fueled monoculture of humanity - with only an ipad, TV and Facebook for comfort. How low can we go?

Science is slowly revealing the hidden possibilities of our amazing planetary biodiversity - to medicine, to food and fodder production, and to the wealth of human experience. We risk so many possibilities and so much future value in our haste to rip and reap and ravage. A line needs to be drawn, irrespective of AGW concerns.

It's always amusing to come onto this site and see people still trying to argue against AGW theory as if every single scientific academy in the world is wrong.

It's like going back in time. My internet speed must be set at 88mph.

"My internet speed must be set at 88mph"

No David that is just your IQ. People who resort to the consensus argument to support the lie of AGW generally have low IQs, or are liars.

"Without a continuing sustainable and meaningful biodiversity, what purpose and what substance can there be to human existence?"

Pure junk consisting of motherhood terms which have no meaning or relevance other then being on at-shirt walking down King st in Newtown.

"It's always amusing to come onto this site and see people still trying to argue against AGW theory as if every single scientific academy in the world is wrong. "

Sadly, scientific academies are governed by politically correct executives who are members of the IPCC fan club. However, there is at least one notable exception -- the Russian academy is not conned by warmist ideology.

Plant 3.1,
Unfortunately no one bothered to point out to you that the
url you gave is to a story that was an embarrassment to the IPCC.
The story was not scientific and was never reviewed formally and
predicted that the glaciers would be gone by about now if I remember
correctly. The IPCC formally withdrew the story about the Himalayan
glaciers. A later study suggested it was possible that they could
possibly be gone in several hundred years.

It is like many of the AGW "official" stories, they have been exaggerations
that have had to be "cleaned up".