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?