Lee Rhiannon,

>"Santos, Woodside Energy and Hancock Coal were some of the companies that donated more than $1.1 million to the major parties. The implications for democracy are deeply concerning."

Can you tell me about the big donor to the Greens Party? How much did he/they donate? And why did the Greens try to cover it up and deny it? And why are your party meetings behind closed doors? The Greens are blatantly hypocritical and extremely irresponsible.

The damage the Greens are doing to Australia, is immense. You are so embedded in your eco-religious doctrine and cult beliefs you are incapable of rational analysis. The damage you are doing is immense: economic, environmental, human well-being world wide, security.

"Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity": http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity

"Fossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really)" : http://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really-1426282420

Lee - go back and look at the $1.1 million figure you quote repeatedly. Its simply too small to be taken seriously. The fact that you think that its large enough to distort the debate shows a concerning lack of experience in an aspiring politician.

Also make some effort to look at the overall budgets of the major parties, as well as the Greens, as Peter Lang suggests, and see who and what are the major influences.

In any case, banning specific classes of companies from donating over a specific issue is fringe politics with no place in government. NSW has banned property developers from donating but, please note, no one is against property development as an industry as such. No wonder Labor joined the Libs in voting it down.

And yet the Greens opposed the increase to petrol excise. Hypocrites!

Yes and where are the Greens on the biggest ongoing environmental catastrophe on the planet, ie Fukushima?

The Greens in my view are just as owned by the Global Corporates as Labor and the Coalition. You do not stand for our common humanity but an insane ideology based on here say. The world has not warmed since 1998 so the new con is climate change which has nothing to do with CO2 induced warming.

Arjay

'The world has not warmed since 1998 so the new con is climate change which has nothing to do with CO2 induced warming.'

Could you explain this? I'm not raising a belligerent rhetorical question. I genuinely would like to know what you mean?

Killarney,

Read 'The Stadium Wave': http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/
It provides a good explanation of the many causes of cycles of changing temperature of different method: decades, multidecades, centuries, millenia, etc. This first study goes back only 300 years so far, but there are much longer period natural cycles too. They are working on extending back.