Where do you get your facts, Mr Shoebridge?

The biomass plant proposal in Eden was based on not one extra tree being cut down. The saw dust and other residue from saw milling and wood chipping were ample to feed that proposed plant. So rather than just burn it off as waste, it would be put to a use that might bring some relief to brown coal reliance, so it was a green energy solution. The pellet plant proposal was also completely dependent on saw mill and chip mill waste.

You appear to have been duped by your Green associates in the Bega Valley if you're prepared to put your name to those outright falsehoods.

And where were you and your local Green representatives when the NIMBYs were fighting the Epuron windfarm project in Eden? You didn't try very hard to champion that 'green energy solution' and so it has been lost.

According to actual research, the most endangered snake in Australia has disappeared from Kuringai NP because its basking habitat has been obliterated by scrub; the Hastings River mouse has disappeared from National Parks and only survives in grazed and burnt country because it's open and grassy; the eastern brown treecreeper disappeared from two state forests after they were put into national park where grazing/burning were excluded. The only substantial population of the smoky mouse in NSW was extinguished after NPWS took over its state forest habitat and stopped it breeding by surrounding its nests with traps and isolating lactating females from their critical forage as part of a supposedly scientific study.

Even the common grass tree has been made locally extinct in parts of Royal National Park under its 'protection'. No plant or animal has ever been extinguished by logging in NSW.

And 90% of native forest cover lost? NSW has lost hardly any of its forest cover but it has lost nearly all of its grassy woodland to scrub because of parks non-management.

And while I'm at it, ‘scientific consensus’ is an oxymoron and there is no scientific evidence that human CO2 emissions have caused any climate warming. Any scientist would know that there were dramatic changes in climate in the medieval warm period and the little ice age before the industrial revolution. Since then there has been a sustained increase in CO2 and no corresponding trend in temperature.

I found this interesting too:

DPI NSW has announced by media release that a landmark NSW report published in an international forest journal has for the first time highlighted the potential role of production forests in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Research Leader for Climate in Primary Industries, Dr Georgina Kelly, said Australian scientists are leading the world in this area and are contributing to the global debate on the role of forests in addressing climate change.

“In an Australian first, the report compared the full greenhouse gas (GHG) potential of NSW production forests against conservation forests,” Dr Kelly said. “The report authors found that production forests have a significantly higher greenhouse benefit than conservation forests when considering the full lifecycle of timber products as well as standing carbon in trees.

“Unlike conservation forests, production forests provide additional greenhouse gas reduction benefits through wood products, generation of bioenergy, providing substitutes for more greenhouse-intensive building products such as concrete and steel and minimising the need for greenhouse-intensive imports.”

The report, along with a YouTube video, can be downloaded at: www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/topics/climate-change

Mr ShoebridgeMLC. Appreciate your reply. Your link to a zero carbon Australia was interesting and a lovely dream. Spain seems to be running into considerable trouble with their solar thermal experiments, in much the same way as Mr Flannerys' geothermal plant is going. When wind, wave, solar and all the others prove themselves in an open competitive market environment, devoid of government (taxpayer) subsidisation and protection, then they will undoubtedly overtake carbon energy generation in the natural course of things, similar to how word processors overtook typewriters.

I am sceptical of your 90% loss of forest cover claim. Too too many times I have read statistics resultant from 'junk science'. The loss of trust in the environment movement, encapsulated in the 'climategate' affair and the BBC 'eminent scientist' consultation resulting in the non coverage of those questioning the 'consensus' is a rather large hurdle for me to cross at the moment, Not to mention my dismay and revulsion at Robin Williams likening my questioning to being a supporter of pedophelia.

Your attack on Raycom as "unbelievably ignorant" typifies your approach to those who disagree. Your link provided proof of your own ignorance by once again thinking that 'science' is driven by consensus and all you can do is argue from authority. Truly a pathetic point of argument.

If you really wish to win an argument with those questioning the current approach, try responding to the comments made, not ad-hom attackers, straw man arguments and the like. You will next be swearing the Mann 'hockey stick' is valid science and the 90% of climate scientists survey is anything other than laughable.

I really do not understand how someone in your position can be so very 'anti-science'.

Mr shoebridge. Raycom proposed " There is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused dangerous global warming".

If you dispute this statement, instead of calling him/her names, just provide real world data that the statement is wrong. No references to the consensus, no reference to 'the models', no reference to hypothesis, just the data ok?

Gee Dave, them rednecks are givin you some stick. They should show more respect for a educated man of justice. Seems you do OK when you are preaching to a fellow bunch of pseudo sustainability freaks, but the going gets tough when you drop your pearls of ignorance among folk that know what they are talking about. You tell us how much forests NSW lost in the south last year. Can you tell us much did the NP&WS spend to maintain high fuel and predator numbers in the southern parks last year? With your comments about koalas and logging, you obviously haven’t talked to anyone who treated the burnt koalas at Tidbinbilla after the 2003 fires, after the 2006 Pilliga fires, after the 2007 Warrnambool fires and after the 2009 black Saturday fires in Victoria. Typical old green spin doctor, ignore the real threats to koala survival, while you whine about them redneck loggers.

ShoebridgeMLC: "Finally Raycom's statement that "[t]here is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused dangerous global warming" is unbelievably ignorant. To see some analysis of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change then I suggest you start here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm"

Your response is typical of an arrogant, dogmatic warmist.

In claiming that there is a scientific consensus on human-induced global warming, your website reference blatantly ignores the thousands of scientists who do not accept that view. The scientists and science groups who make up the socalled consensus, unquestionably believe the IPCC's assertion in its 2007 Report, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. In reaching this assertion, the IPCC disregarded dissenting comments of numerous reviewers of its drafts.

The IPCC claim is unfounded as it relies heavily on the alarmist projections from unvalidated computer climate models. These models are relatively simplistic and fail to represent the complexity and uncertainty inherent in the climate system. Furthermore, the IPCC has failed to find any empirical scientific evidence that substantiates its assertion, and its reports have been tainted with essentially false statements, viz. the 'discernible human influence' claim that struck out the approved draft report key statement "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases" , the 'hockey stick' scandal, and the Climategate scandal that exposed the falsifying of data by key IPCC climate scientists.

Therefore, you should note that scientific consensus does not constitute scientific evidence.

If you are aware of any scientific paper that has been able to measure the human influence on global warming, please table it for all to see.