Am I the only one who despairs at the lack of DISINTERESTED comment and analysis on this subject?
So many claims and counter-claims for new and existing technologies alike; made by all sides, cut with ideological and political humbug- that a boy just doesn't know what to believe anymore.
Can anyone point to a disinterested, rational evaluation of energy options as things stand today?

Yep

We already have, Palimpsest! Some of us find reiteration tedious. Read some of the earlier posts, or other reams of literature on solar and wind-farming and how industry could reduce their emissions whilst still remaining profitable.

There is a myriad of scientific literature on the devastating human and eco impacts from the burning of fossil fuels and its legacies are well documented.

There is also much documented evidence revealing how Australian regulators are turning a blind eye to the increase in industrial carbon based and non-carbon, hazardous emissions from the burning of fossil fuels in this country.

Additionally, the federal government is masking this increase by banging on about their (non-existent) lead in "green initiatives."

Is this the best Turnbull can do? Selling neoLiberals as green was always going to be tough, but this makes me wonder if bulls**t is the sole credential of merchant bankers.

Australia's +8% Kyoto deal was always the loot from a diplomatic smash and grab, when previous Howard flunkys tried desperately to sabotage the Kyoto Protocal negotiations by demanding more concessions than even the US (also busy trying to scupper the treaty, but ala Howard-Turnbull relationship the US got Australia to do the dirtiest work). We MIGHT come close to meeting +8%; the Climate Institute says not http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21629269-2,00.html, Turnbull of course leaves that possibility out of the sales pitch. Pity the farmers who actually wore the cost of GHG emission cuts by cutting landclearing.

MT trumpets a report on carbon trading, the ninth by his government in ten years. Might even see some carbon trading in five years, boy i'll bet Goldman Sachs (his old employer) is salivating over that prospect, because of course its the traders and polluters who will make money out of carbon credits, just as in EU. What do yuo expect from a banker/salesman, he's very keen on trading water too (and bugger the few remaining family farms). Shame the lack of emissions cap or any clue of safe emissions level (maybe 0.5Tco2e/person >> natural sinks. compare to 26Tco2e/aussie), but then hes just a lawyer, just like all the other bloody lawyers who think the sun shines in their undies.

$20 says Turnbull goes back to professional embezzlement (merchant banking) after Howard loses. At least his ignorance will do less damage there.

I will take you on Liam,but don't believe that merchant bankers can't do harm,look at Laurie Connell.
The good thing is that we have had the opportunity to see him for what he is.

Fair enough Bruce, twenty on Turnbull dumping the good folk of Wentworth within six months of Howard losing election/being put to sword by Libs/bolts before election. The six months gives time for him to run for post-Howard leadership, lose, and be unable to cope with lack of attention.

We have to be careful that this new religion called"Climate Change"does no get too carried away with it's own importance,just like all our other religions.

We have to consider all the possibilities and not let our ideologies,pet theories and predjudices rule our thinking.

Stopping the burning of all fossil fuels in too short an time span could be more catastrophic than increasing average temp buy a few degrees.

Would Sheik Hilali or George Pell let the facts get in the way of the power of their Churches?The Greens and Peter Garrett can be equally as illogical.