Chris,

"I think Howard and Abbott are on right track.

They are democratic politicians; they listen to a variety of opinions and adopt a pragmatic policy stance in accordance to debates of day."

How naive/partisan are you.....

Abbott thinks it's "crap" and only adopted his dodgy "Direct Action" because he regarded it (then)as a political imperative.

Mr Howard said a few words regarding bushfires in 2006 and their possible connection to global warming: http://www.smh.com.au/news/scorchedearth/pm-expect-extreme-weather/2006/12/13/1165685752372.html

"THE Prime Minister, John Howard, last night embraced a key climate change forecast, warning Australians to prepare for more extreme weather events such as the current bushfires.

Visiting north-east Tasmania, he repeatedly made the point that the region was not normally associated with bushfires, and neither were they usually so common early in the summer.

On his last stop in St Helens, Mr Howard was asked if he accepted the scientists' predictions of more extreme weather events.

"Let me put it this way," he said. "I think the country should prepare for a continuation of what we are now experiencing … I think the likelihood of this going on is very strong."

.... in the intervening years he's obviously been instructed by his masters that that was a tad unwise. So he's giving us the benefit of his scientific ignorance...commonly known as "instinct".

Joke!

The reality is that there is only "one" premise for AGW "skeptics"..and that is that tens of thousands of scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy.

That's it - there's nothing else to it.

Certainly nothing to do with science.

Ray,

A good insightful article. You have nailed the motivations of *many* of those spruiking AGW. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist (or a climate scientist!) to see that --except for a few notable and honourable exceptions-- those pushing acceptance of AGW on this forum and others are not in the least interested in "the science". They have a darker political agenda, checkout some of their posting history. They are on nothing short of a jihad and AGW is just one of the weapons in their arsenal.

I echo JKJ's call --more please.

Good grief, this article just about plumbs the depths of burning strawmen.

The characterisation of the political left is the sort of thing you would expect from an Elementary School student. The old “reds under the beds” bogeyman. The fact that the author would bother creating such a strawman to attack demonstrates he is not interested in reality, only politics.

The argument about electricity pricing is so poor and lacking support, that I can only conclude the author made it up whole cloth to suit himself.

The leftist Garnaut Report http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up8-key-points.html points out that the biggest factor in increasing electricity costs in Australia has been increasing network costs due to the age of the network. The leftist Australian Government says the same http://www.ret.gov.au/Department/Documents/clean-energy-future/ELECTRICITY-PRICES-FACTSHEET.pdf and there is a nice little info-graphic about it from that leftist magazine Choice http://www.choice.com.au/~/media/Files/Consumer%20Action/Sustainability/Take-the-Power-Back/electricity-price-increase-graphs1.ashx

The argument presented about wind power simply ignores the sophistication of the leftist power network to manage power inputs.

SPQR,

"....They have a darker political agenda, checkout some of their posting history. They are on nothing short of a jihad and AGW is just one of the weapons in their arsenal."

Yup....it's all one big nasty old conspiracy.

Lol!

Agronomist, it would seem that you have little, or no, knowledge of electrical generation and distribution. Your statement "The argument presented about wind power simply ignores the sophistication of the leftist power network to manage power inputs." clearly proves my point. Load management is an integral and complex part of the system. Rapidly swinging inputs make the job very difficult and you don't simply turn off generators with the flick of a switch. There are also further problems from wind with power factor and harmonics, an area too complex for discussion here. The management of these changes is costly and adds to network costs.

Further, the network costs as discussed in your links are quite deceptive. A lot of these costs can be attributed to "reverse engineering the grid", mainly due to solar. It is not so much the age of parts of the grid that is the problem, rather the capacity to "collect" electricity generated by solar, particularly that it is typically generated it low demand times and in excess of the normal supply demands. Thus transformers and conductors had to be uprated to allow solar generated power to utilised. Hence the limits placed on the capacities of systems allowed to be installed on homes.

The cost of “renewable energy” is much greater than the installation of solar panels and bird beaters, and it is business and the general public who are footing the bill.

Oh god.

Poirot talking about someone elses scientific ignorance.

That has to take the cake.