That's hilarious. "Green party leaders need to stop behaving like petulant school children."

Let's face it. Despite their protestations to the contrary, the Greens only have seats in the Victorian Upper House, or indeed in the Senate, because of the idiocy of proportional representation which has to be about the least democratic form of election you can think of. Do a majority of voters in any seat or State want the Greens in charge of anything? No thanks. So why should the legitimately elected Bracks government have to "negotiate" with idiots who represent about 7% of the population - where "negotiate" is code for "bribe" to get legislation through the upper house. The Senate is even worse of course. Bob Brownie, from the bottom of the Tasmanian garden, represents about 0.5% of the Australian population and claims some legitimacy as a political party. Give me a break.

I'm waiting for Green party leaders to stop behaving like petulant bullies who feel (and are) unloved and unwanted by the majority of grown-ups.

Regards

Kevin

Good point, Kevin. For all Bob Brown's posturing, he only needs the votes of about 24,000 Australians (half a tasmanian quota) to hang onto his seat in Senate. And that is only 0.2 of 1% of us.

Ha he reeeeeeally got a BA AND! an MA? - from the University of Tasmania no less. It says so in is little bio

What a putz.

What was the point of this piece - I may well need to go to universtiy to understand it.

No one cares about the green vote - it has dried up and has been doing so for a while _ if I were a green voter I would be well pleased with the attention the major parties have devoted to the environment - for if it twerent for the greens we'd be a whole lot worse off - if that is all the greens have done - good on them

This Prins person, as an employee of the state ALP, would say all this wouldn't he. Labor hates the Greens worse than they hate the Coalition, as we all know. Thanks to his party we got Family First instead of a Green into office - congratulations, Stewie et al. As for Peter Garrett, now Labor's parrot, he pretends still to have a principled position on the environment but only when it suits the party. Just for one example, he has refused to even reply to several pleas for support from a large alliance of environmental groups in NSW campaigning to call a halt to irreparable mine damage to river systems. Not even a polite brush off, let alone a supportive statement for a significant environmental issue in his state. Could this be something to do with the influence of the miners' union, the CFMEU ? Yep, Bob Brown has every right to call attention to Garrett's hypocrisy.

Wikipedia states: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."

(or in this case the "person" is the Greens party)

This waste of web space article didn't actually address whether the Greens were right to criticise Peter Garrett or not, or talk about the reasons why people should vote Green or not. When it comes to "behaving like petulant school children", perhaps the author should take a closer look at their own shrill writings.

“It's time for the Greens to stop whining about conspiracy theories, and to accept that voters are able to think for themselves.”

I’d put it slightly differently:

It is time the Greens started concentrating on real sustainability issues, that is; seeking the essential balance between all things human and all things natural, and between the rate of exploitation of resources and the ability for those resources to be supplied in an ongoing manner.

THIS is the essence of greenness. Or at least it should be. But quite frankly we don’t see or hear too much of it from the current bunch of ‘pseudogreenies’

Yes they should just state it straight and let voters think for themselves about what is being said, instead of getting caught up with bickering and relatively trivial issues.

Even the biggest issues that the Greens are on about, to any extent publicly at least, are either piddling compared to the things that really matter, or beyond us to do anything meaningful about.

They shouldn't be wasting time on bloody climate change. Yes it is real, but for as long as China and India continue to rapidly grow and exploit their huge coal reserves, we’d may as well just get used to the new climate regime. It’s toooo big to handle!!

What is the really big issue that the Greens should be dealing with? Achieving an end to the absurdity of continuous rapid expansionism, which is simply taking us rapidly away from sustainability. At the core of this is population stabilisation. We can’t deal with this globally but we surely could in this country if the message was just put out there by the people who are supposed to be fighting for sustainability.

So the Greens are riding a bit of a wave in Victoria at the moment. But it appears to be based on the climate change issue and just completely not at all on the sustainability issue.

Oh how hopeless. It seems this country is destined to crash and burn.

The problem with the Greens is that they espouse the same doctrine enunciated by Konrad Henlein in the 1930's:

"We must make demands that cannot be satisfied!"

Have you ever noticed that whenever any solution is offered for a problem, they quickly point out why the solution won't work. After all, if the problems were solved, there would be no need for the Greens, wouldn't there?

No only is this a great secular religion, espoused mainly by extreme leftists who disparage everything about the current system, but it can lead to lovely government funded jobs in Parliament.

I had a good laugh too sneekypete, I have a BA MA, and a B Teach, M Teach too. Whoopee! Good thing I spat my coffee on the cat and not on the keyboard. I can't afford a new keyboard, but the cat just licked off the coffee. Its OK, it wasn't hot. I must pay those darn hecs fees one day. lol.

The "heroic" DLP as opposed to the "failed" Greens. Now, someone did not do their math. The Green vote in Victoria increased considerably, as it increases in most parts of the country. Look at that statistics of voting and go figure.

I question the credibility of the University of Tasmania if their esteemed graduates use the word "empirical" yet their commentary is based on qualitative opinion rather than quantitative data.

The writer also failed to do his homework to find that the Greens are an international Network. The old nihilistic groan that all is futile, so, we'll just have to sit through Armageddon and watch Bert Newton. Ask New Orleans after Katrina, global warming is something that humanity has never had to face in civilized history.

In the US there are a few dozen Green Mayors. There are Green members in the Canadian Parliament too. The European Union Parliament has, I think at the moment, a half a dozen Green representatives. It is an international movement, ironically founded by Quakers, some from Australia.

BTW the Greens are completely independent from Greenpeace. That is another kettle-of-fish, so to speak.

I am not writing as a green, I just think the every party deserves to be recognised as a reflection of Australia's diversity. This includes the National Party which I have defended on previous postings. It is a surprise to find an academic using the good name of his University, rant as an anti-intellectual would.

Plerdsus,

Couldn't agree more. More emphasis on the word "extreme" would be appropriate though.

No comments from Greens today. Perhaps they are still trying to find a retort to the Bureau of Met's annual report announced today.

The Bureau is forecasting, with fingers crossed, that our rainfall is likely to return to "normal" this year. If we do get the rain so badly needed in many areas then the urgency will disappear from government's agendas regarding global warming. Less worry, less Green votes, less future planning.

It is noted also that the report actually states that Australia's rainfall was slightly above average in 2006. That's right, slightly above average. Clearly the distribution of that rain is the problem as our country had more rain fall on it than the average year during 2006.

Which refocuses the issue where it should be. On government providing long term infrastructure to spread the water rather than let it run away back to the ocean.

Additionally that report states that 2006 was the 11th warmest year since 1910. Yep, there have been 10 warmer years, 2 of which were pre 1950. That's only back to 1910 as well, a small sample to use for predictions.

Why is the focus on trying to combat the climate. That is not possible with today's technology. What we can do though is adapt to the climate, as living creatures on this planet have done since day 1.

Pity Kim B went though as he "could fix global warming". Hmmm.

Sigh... I shouldn't go for the bait but...

RobbyH, I think you should read reports a little more carefully before commenting on them, particularly as you challenge the Greens to "retort". The BoM report you referenced, (which can be found here www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20070103.shtml)

does indeed state that 2006 was Australia's 11th hottest year on record. Strangley enough, you ignore the following parts of the report:

- 15 of the hottest years in Australia have occured since 1980;
- While 2006 was the 11th hottest year on record, temperatures were lowered due to the prevalence of drough conditions in the south-east, and high levels of storm activity in the tropical north, that on average depresed temperatures;
- The spring of 2006 was the hottest on record;
- You also note that 2006's rain fall was above average. The report states that this occured in the tropics and inland WA, while:

"It was the third-driest year on record for both Victoria and Tasmania, while for the broader southeast Australian region, which also takes in southeast South Australia and southern New South Wales, it was the second-driest."
- It was also the 6th warmest year on record for the globe as a whole, which according to BoM's senior climatologist Neil Plummer is "consistent with a warming trend".

The drought is caused to El Nino conditions in the Pacific ocean. BoM does indeed seem to think that the condition is weakening. But the report also highlights of this extended dought:
"Aspects of this multi-year drought are highly unusual and unprecedented in many areas"

For some reason, you said that the Green's, which have long been vocally pointing out that climate change is occuring should retort this report. It seems to me that this is a vindication of the policy they have pushed for some time.

Now, apologies to everyone who has trying to discuss the article. I try to stick to the topic, but some times just get a little hot under the collar about this mis-representation of science.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/scorchedearth/rising-temperatures-show-not-all-is-well/2007/01/02/1167500125122.html

(quote)
"""
"It's consistent with a warming trend," Neil Plummer, a senior climatologist with the Bureau of Meteorology, warned yesterday.
"""

People have never lost interest in the environment but they have lost interest in the Greens. This is primarily due to the doggedly negative approach from the incredibly uncharismatic Bob Brown who complains about EVERYTHING the other parties say and do in relation to the environment.

If Bob had his way we would be reduced to depressing stone age methods of energy generation and transport. It seems that the electorate is more sophisticated that poor old Bob and can see the downside of his plans for a wind and sun powered Australia which would precipitate a massive economic catastrophe.

Robbyh says: "What we can do is adapt to the climate though as living creatures on this planet have done since day one."

Aren't you forgetting the collapses of past empires Robbyh, and the extinction of other species unable to adapt to climate change? In addition, the extinction of other species in the last 50 years is far greater than those which occurred with the previous Big Five.

And aren't you also ignoring the rapidity of the current climate changes when previous changes took thousands of years to occur?

The author may be a little premature in knocking the Greens. It's early days yet!

The Corruption and Crime Commission are presently investigating cabinet ministers in the WA labor party. One minister has already been thrown out!

Mark MucGowan was the worst Environment minister that state's seen and clearly aligned with pollutant industries. However, he's been rewarded with the Education portfolio. Three others have been "demoted."

Johnny Howard, a man I helped put into office, is well and truly on the nose. The current bias, spin and deception on all things nuked will not go down well at the next election.

To restore his credibility, he will need to own up to the fact that nuclear energy will not reduce anthropogenic GHGs. In fact, with the resurgence in uranium mining, they will drastically increase!

It's incredulous that we have referendums on daylight saving and trade deregulation, but none on nuclear energy! Remember that politicians are bound by law, to represent the voice of the people who elected them!

It would be refreshing to see the Greens at least generously hold the balance of power in Canberra and in all state parliaments, "if only to keep the bastards honest."

And perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

Well I have to agree with Dickie. The Greens need desperately to hold the balance of power in the State and Federal Governments. If we allow both the ALP and Liberals to destroy Australia with foreign mining conglomerates digging up our beautiful land, there will be nothing left for our children. We can't afford to have nuclear power here - not only will it make us vulnerable to warfare, we will also be obligated to take the waste of the world.

The Australian Greens have put some excellent policies in place - but the reason they gain so few seats regardless of their average 10% of votes nationally, is because the two major parties are fickle and prefer to place their preference bets on the religious whacko parties.

*Bob Brown* for President!

howard et al, aka the child abusers who supply the WMD abusers england & america with uranium for their enrichment waste munitions are terrified of the Greens who are arguabley the only party of integrity and honesty in Australia.

The ill informed sh!t shovellers in this post are to be ignored.

...Adam...