Interesting how people construct their own reality about events. Tom makes a brave effort to salvage something for Tony Abbott from the G20 conference when many independent observers would say that he was completely finessed by Obama and Xi. The usual froth at the mouth climate change denialists have also been busy, even championing the so-called 'direct action' plan as something that will work. There are even those who belittle China's climate commitments. They should read Ross Gittins in today's SMH for a more balanced view. And the above comments about the EU in general and Germany in particular simply beggar belief for their profound ignorance.

For someone as generally sophisticated as Tom is, his inability to call Abbott on his profoundly ignorant and dangerous comments about Putin and Ukraine is surprising. The fact that the msm continually misrepresent the facts, and in significant areas totally fail to report even basic information, is no excuse. The neo-con narrative holds supreme and no deviation from the "official" version is allowed.

Tom also fails to mention the far more important meeting of APEC that preceded the G20. That meeting and a whole series of ancillary decisions by the major players there, and in both the SCO and BRICS outweigh the grandstanding of Abbott in terms of what is really happening by a large margin. Add Pepe Escobar to your reading for some real insights. Relying on the Oz media, in all its forms, is only a recipe for continuing ignorance.

Well, if merely opening your mouth to change socks is a sign of GENIUS, then Tony Abbott has got it in spades.
And no, I don't think he negotiated the FTA with china, but rather the hard working minister, beavering away unheralded in the background!
All credit and kudos where it's due! None where it's not!
Shame about the shirtfront, and just not having enough front to front up for it!
I reckon Putin would have done 'im like a dinner, or thrown 'im about like a flamin' rag doll?
A hairy chest and more than one budgie in the budgie smugglers, (maybe that's where he keeps his spare socks, or thinking equipment) counts for very little in the square ring!
Rhrosty

The hound:” you're certainly bringing the stupid.”
Yes, I knew my post would bring you out. No science, hound, no rational support for your position, just a baseless and ineffective attempt at ad hominem. You are as pathetic and ineffective as ever, hound
Abbott has wiped the floor with the climate frauds.

‘morning Robert LePage, Cobber the Hound, mac, James O’Neill, Rhrosty and Ross Gittins.

Tom made the point that if nothing happens in Paris next year, TA could look like a genius.

All you have to do is to evidence that the prospects for a new Kyoto in Paris next year are looking good. But not one of you has addressed the on topic issues.

I made statements that;

“The EU Commissioners recently announced a commitment to significantly increase emissions targets to be proposed in Paris at the 2015 round of talks. But that these targets are providing “that the rest of the major emitters sign up for binding commitments in Paris”?

“China has already made is clear they will not agree to anything until 2030, The USA cannot and has already voted down Kyoto in 1998 by 95 to NIL, Russia and India won’t if China won’t, so there goes the EU commitment.”

“Federal Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) has abandoned the requirement of cutting 40 percent of CO2 emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2020”.

“The German governments announcement was widely covered in the German, French and UK media”.

So, all you have to do, along with the SMH, is to show that these are NOT statements of fact.

Good luck and over to you.

If, as stated here, China will not commit to anything until 2030, and Obama's pledge is contingent on approval from a hostile Republican Senate and House, and neither Russia nor India will do anything without China, then what's left?
Whether or not the climate is changing due at least in part to activity by what is now 7 billion humans and counting, we seem determined to wager that nothing needs be done, at least for now. It's a big bet. We are, in effect, putting the farm on it. If we have it right, all to the good. But if we have it wrong, then those watching their lands disappear on the world's low-lying islands might soon have company.
Big winds, anyone? Here's an experiment - watch water heat up in a sauce pan on the stove and pay attention to the increased activity in the air just above the water. Now think global. We live in a closed system, and there is no guarantee that I can think of that says that what is today will necessarily continue thru tomorrow.

spindoc quotes this as the EU policy.

“The EU Commissioners recently announced a commitment to significantly increase emissions targets to be proposed in Paris at the 2015 round of talks. But that these targets are providing “that the rest of the major emitters sign up for binding commitments in Paris”?

This is misleading because the full policy is that they will reduce emissions by 20% from 1990 levels regardless of what others do and by a further 10% should other nations come on board.

“For 2020, the EU has committed to cutting its emissions to 20% below 1990 levels. This commitment is one of the headline targets of the Europe 2020 growth strategy and is being implemented through a package of binding legislation.

The EU has offered to increase its emissions reduction to 30% by 2020 if other major emitting countries in the developed and developing worlds commit to undertake their fair share of a global emissions reduction effort.”

Quoted from:-
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm