Runner, let me guess - you're a 'bible-bashing-believer'?

Did you actually read the article? The author says:

Howard also argues that politicians should not be intimidated or browbeaten. Quite so. But they should listen to evidence, query the methods used in providing it and weigh it up - without prejudice, preconception or bias. Politicians are practised in dealing with lobbying. Howard's government provided subsidies to car manufacturers who periodically threaten to abandon Australia if their efforts are not subsidised. Is this 'intimidation'? Of course it is! It is also part of the industry's normal modus operandi, and dealing with such things is integral to the operation of government.

A sensible society considers where it might be going. It plans for its future, both the short term and the long, by soberly evaluating its strengths and weaknesses, the opportunities it might exploit and the threats it faces. It does not work from the basis of weak logic, the selective plucking of evidence or the unreasoning denial and denigration of expert opinion.

John Howard does not perceive the bigger picture. He is not serving us well here."

The author said it well.

Stephen.
I have to disagree; Tony Abbott & Co are closer to the American Tea Party Republicans - but I can understand why some 'small-L' liberals would not want to admit that.
Everything else you say I can agree.

warmCO2air obviously you don't know that of the total CO2 produced by humanity the proportion from exhaling is 8.99%; the calculations are here:

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

Given that the human population is increasing and emissions from the burning of fossil fuel declining in the West that proportion will be increasing.

AGW is a lie and its supporters fools.

"I have to disagree; Tony Abbott & Co are closer to the American Tea Party Republicans...."

Ain't that the truth!

ozdoc,

runner doesn't bother with reading articles. He usually just parachutes in to climate threads and deposits a dollop of fundamentalist "Christian" sentiment, backed by nothing and resting on a pediment of denial.

No wonder he's a fan of the Abbott govt....much in common with vacuous Tea Partiers.

But it seems even the deniers and Republican Tea Party members are losing influence in America.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/06/global-warming-science-denial-losing-position

"In yesterday's Virginia governor's race, Terry McAuliffe's win over anti-science Republican Ken Cuccinelli is showing that being a climate-change denier is a losing political position. Certainly the election was about many issues, but climate change was the most striking difference between the two candidates. Virginia's voters clearly rejected Cuccinelli's attacks against climate scientists and his head-in-the-sand views.

Ken Cuccinelli has a history of not only discounting scientists but spending taxpayers' money to actively attack them. In 2010, he began a witch hunt and accused climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of fraud. In the end, Cuccinelli's crusade wasted hundreds of thousands of hard-earned taxpayer dollars – waste that Virginia voters did not forget."

Considering Australia lags the US in many of these respects,(for instance, we've only just elected our version of Georg W. Bush) we'll have to wait a while for succor.

Poirot,

According to Pew Global, even in the US 40% of those surveyed saw climate change as a major global threat. Not the only major threat but a major threat.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/24/climate-change-and-financial-instability-seen-as-top-global-threats/

In Australia the number is 52%

In China the number who see climate change as a major global threat is 39%.

In reality I think most decision makers in most serious countries are convinced of the reality of global warming. They may not know what to do about it and more immediate concerns usually take precedence over a more distant threat; but few seem to doubt the essential correctness of the science.

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from Virginia. Both candidates were considered so disreputable that no major Virginian newspaper was prepared to endorse either one. Guardian pundits often engage in wishful thinking.

The truth is that de-carbonising economies is entirely possible and, if done correctly, not especially expensive. New technology is making it cheaper all the time. The biggest obstacle is vested interests.

'Tony Abbott & Co are closer to the American Tea Party Republicans. '

I certainly hope so. We saw Labour embedded with the Greens religion which blew a huge surplus into a big deficit in no time flat. The Tasmanian sucking on the productive states is testiment to Greens ideology and religion. Give me the tea party any day compared to the extreme green religous zealots who stop at no propaganda in order to deceive the gullible.

Yes, Steven, you have a point.

Nevertheless, Tea-Partyesque political fervour played a big part in Cuccinelli's conduct and his demise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-cuccinelli-has-himself-to-blame-for-loss/2013/11/07/d8b8cc54-47da-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html

"The Cuccinelli record had nothing to do with job-creation or the state’s economic well-being or alleviating deepening transportation problems, all of which are central to Virginians’ well-being. It was mainly about bashing homosexuals, harassing illegal immigrants, crusading against abortion, denying climate change, flirting with birthers and opposing gun control. A hero to the tea party and a culture warrior of the first rank, Mr. Cuccinelli lost because he was among the most polarizing and provocative figures in Richmond for a decade. That made him the wrong candidate for Virginia."

"....The biggest obstacle is vested interests."

Yes, and their "think tanks", front groups like Heartland and the NIPCC, and their acolytes who disseminate garbage that passes for science.