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.