Craig, it’s nice to see that you took some notice to the comments last time you wrote to OLO but as RPG says actions speak louder than words.

Your theory says ‘objectivity’ but in practice your starting point lets you down.
On one hand you say that CIS is not a right wing think tank because of the individuals who contribute. The problem with that logic is that your argument is based on a false assumption. That is that individuals are ‘left or right’ this was one of your logic failings in your last outing on OLO.

ISSUES MAYBE on a left to right continuum but People generally aren’t.
People tend to change their left-right allegiances to issues based on their circumstances.
e.g. I have some ‘left’ opinions yet I also maintain some ‘right’ opinions. By your reasoning there is a disconnect but I decide issue by issue hence Liberal/Labor, Left/Right are meaningless terms when applied to individuals.
Left /right ideologies are creations of political expedience not of the people.

Therefore it is irrelevant who contributes to what ‘think tank’ what counts is what comes out for the PEOPLE that matters. In almost every occasions the hatchings from CIS are based on financial/business principles first and what the people actually want/need often a poor 5th or 6th. Need and want (not wish list) are often inseparable and if divided give rise to dissatisfaction/failure.

Again I point out that Labor didn’t win the last election *Liberals lost it* they voted for CHANGE. The previous Lib senate was aberration and had more to do with the demise of the Dems. Simply put the people don’t trust either side they want BETTER Government. This is evidenced by the deliberate almost continually Hung Senates. Finding a better way is YOUR JOB.

If your current rationale (OLO and Q&A) is indicative then what we’re going to get is much the same only with Red frilly bits.

Craig, the 1980/90’s take on Economics (dry rationalism) isn’t what the people want. As Mr Right put it politicians (and I would suggest Business) are servants not masters.

I think Pollies should be allowed to contribute to OLO. We are usually exposed to them in brief doorstops, press releases, and for the real diehards (or masochists) listening to Parliament or sitting through a Press Club lunch. Having them write an article gives more a measure to them than a few catch phrases.

Other than the name I hadn't been exposed to Craig Emerson till he wrote an article on OLO. Since his previous article, I've been a total fan, though not for reasons he would probably appreciate. The dark satanic mills thing was a ripper and I now look forward to all his work. For Emerson, I might be prepared to brave the Press Club.

If we have to have them on, then I'm glad to see that Don Aitkin has held his nose long enough to read what this one says and put him right on a few things about climate change and the habit of calling people who question the human cause theory climate change 'deniers'.

I, of course, did not read Mr. Emerson's piece, but judging from comments made about left/right labels and the heading "Good ideas beat ideological divide", Mr. Emerson seems to trying to distance himself from labels and ideology.

Why, then, is he a member of a party? All parties are loaded with ideology. The only politicians I now trust are independents who can prove that they will work for their electorates - not spruik party ideology.

It's good to hear the voice of reason again in the form of Don Aitkin question the government's willingness to accept new evidence regarding climate change. When questioned,Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong only seem to be able to quote IPCC dogma which now has many question marks over its credibility. And they even manage to misquote that dogma, such as Penny Wong's totally untrue statement that 12 of the last 13 years have been the hottest on record. Try as they may, the climate researchers have still found no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is affecting temperature on a global scale; indeed temperatures stubbornly refuse the follow both the CO2 lead and the predictions of the climate modellers. Don is right to ask how much evidence does the government need before it will question the science more closely.

If the predicted temperature rises do occur, we are told categorically that catastrophe will follow with species extinctions of 50% or more, the end of the Great Barrier Reef and the collapse of the farming industry. The fact that there are researchers, including at James Cook university in Townsville, who do not believe that the reef is under threat, seems to be totally unknown to the government or to Ross Garnaut. And so does the fact that the Bureau of Meteorology's own figures show no reduction in rainfall in the Murray-Darling basin during the last century. Don is also correct to raise the potential benefits of higher atmospheric CO2 in respect of agriculture and food production. Forest growth has increased by 40% in North America during the last 50 years because of increased CO2. Commercial greenhouse growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses, up to 1000ppm; they get 50% more growth and less water consumption due to more efficient evapotranspiration.

Unfounded statements coming from the government and its specially chosen group of advisors serve only to instil unnecessary fear into the minds of the majority and, ultimately will lead to policy decisions which are futile and potentially disastrous.

I'm not going to bother reading this article after his last one which was disgraceful (to put it simply a representative of our current government, representing Rudd, was talking about "Enlightenment" even as they implement a Chinese censorship scheme for the internet). I think our present situation with its bureacratic class and follower-populists proves that the title of the article at least is nonsense and untrue.

Mr Emerson's rather slight contribution to the greenhouse debate emphasises the bizarre nature of that debate.

For after repeated assertions about overwhelming scientific evidence and that its too late, and we are all hurtling towards a warming world, the greenhouse proponents then insist on policy responses that clearly contradict their own statements.

Let us brush aside the minor problem that temperatures have actually been falling - not rising - in the past few years, and that the latest forecasts are for not much change until 2014-2015, and accept the greenhouse case. What then is the point of trying to cut carbon emissions in the short term? If we are to spend the money, then it should be spent on adapting to the change, rahter than trying to prevent it. As even the early signers of Kyoto have show no interest in sticking to its requirements, Australia efforts will make not the slighest difference.

A better set of responses would, say, include devising wheat strains suitable for higher temperatures, or building barriers around Sydney harbour, or investing more money in reducing emissions on coal plants. Instead, we are being stuck with a bizarre policy that is both horribly expensive and pointless. To add insult to injury a Federal Minister then tells us what a good idea it is.. what a mess