Why it is that it is the Victorians that dominate the propagation of all this nonsense? Why is it that it is Melbourne that is the home of most of these environmental nut cases like Karoly and the HQ of both the BOM and the CSIRO?

Why is that it is the same state that is holding the rest of Australia to ransom over the Murray Darling Basin, and fiddling the books, by taking the most, and doing the least with it.?

Why is that despite political a diatribe like the 4.5mb document referenced, that these same people don’t tell us, that if the whole of Australia does comply with the most dire reductions, it will make no measurable difference to a reduction in global temperatures, and do nothing for our collective negotiating position in world forums.?

Why is that the convocation of the scientific ninnies that abound in Victoria can’t tell the whole truth, and that we can have no effect, even if we adopt the most radical targets.

What sort of governments do we have, even in Victoria for gods sake, that would put thousands out of work and hamstring economies for an outcome that can’t be measured, even for Victoria.

Why is it that no one points out what a biased load of rubbish it is to have a league table of per capita outputs of Co2 emissions,( see p2 etc) and not equate it to the land and sea area occupied by the same emitters?

Why it that if a league table for nation states is produced, that includes the variable for the land and area occupied, then Australia is one of the best, and the Europeans are by far the worst. ?

They never have answers for this sort of stuff, just glossier b/s and bias.

Fionna writes
'We have the technology. We must find the resources, and the courage, as a community, to demand our political leaders make a legislative commitment to return our climate to one that is safe to inhabit and will continue to be so.'

Yea sure Fionna. And at what point was our climate safe? Victoria is a State bereft of morals as shown by the killing not only of early but late term unborn babies. Why is it we have to pretend a fake morality to hide man's degradation. To use pseudo science in justification for this false morality stinks. The self righteousness of the Green movement knows no bounds.

Fiona:

Your words are beginning to sound shrill. They convey an air of desperation. Give it up. With each passing day, more and more people see the fallacies of your AGW beliefs for what they are: unfounded. People become reluctant to acquiesce to authority when authority is challenged for cause, and when they are given enough information to think for themselves.

Simply put, we are approaching the point where AGW science and its climate models must finally survive scrutiny in the light of day. I applause those scientists, men and women of honor, who show the fortitude to stand up before the world and say, "It isn't so!"

Given that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a small fraction of the annual natural CO2 emissions, that anthropogenic CO2 behaves exactly the same way as naturally emitted CO2 in the atmosphere in terms of ‘greenhouse effect’, that both natural and anthropogenic CO2 are reabsorbed within a 3 to 12 year time period (this time frame is supported by about 90% of all the peer-reviewed literature) and that, in part, anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed locally by vegetation, then this raises questions about how effective globally or locally applied emissions trading schemes (ETS) will be in reducing current and future anthropogenic CO2 levels equivalent to a proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 levels emitted in the year 2000 (or 1990, as is sometimes quoted).

As a researcher the greatest reduction I can find, assuming a globally applied ETS, was the indeterminate ‘several’ ppm of total atmospheric CO2, in other words, a reduction from the current 387ppm to, approximately, 380ppm. Given that an ETS is designed to only reduce anthropogenic CO2 and not the 50% to over 90% (depending on the reference) of natural CO2 outgassed from oceans or transpired by plants then what difference will an ETS make? The easy answer is, of course: no difference whatsoever!

Peter K...well...you are of course so right. Here they all are. A danger to themselves and others, clearly in need of psychological help of some kind, but I fear it's too late for them. And you are also right that they should be kept away from politicians, who are also deeply ill of course, and like tends to attract like.

Guys...just try stopping your idealogical hatred of the colour green getting in the way of your brains. And it is of course, not just about "evidence", it's also about common sense and risk management.

Duh.."there is no evidence whatsoever that Hitler is going to invade Poland, and anyone saying so is a doomsayer, and here...I have this piece of paper that proves it". Rock on.

Serious researching of climate change policy should start with the rigorous analysis of the causes of climate change. The IPCC was set up for the purpose of finding scientific evidence to support the adoption of the greenhouse theory. After 20 years of searching, the IPCC has been unable to come up with any convincing evidence. In fact, the strongest endorsement that the IPCC can give in its 2007 Report, is the assertion: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
Fiona presumably is influenced by the IPCC’s alarmist climate change projections that are derived with the use of computer climate models and quoted widely in the media. She should be aware that none of these models has ever been validated. Consequently, its models cannot be relied on for prediction purposes, and the projections can be regarded only as speculative.
She should be aware that the IPCC reports have been tainted with essentially false statements, e.g. regarding the ‘sulphate aerosol factor’, the ‘discernible human influence’ controversy, the’ hockey stick’ scandal. Further material that seriously questions the credibility and integrity of the IPCC's activities and claims may be found at http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm , which lists some 50 articles.
Climate science is not settled. The available observations do not support the mathematical models that predict a substantial global warming and form the basis for a control policy on greenhouse gas emissions. Whereas CO2 emissions have continued to increase, global temperatures have not risen in the past 10 years. In fact, there is no convincing scientific evidence that global warming or climate change is man-caused.
Climate history observations point to global warming being a natural process, with celestial phenomena being the principal driver of climate. Solar variability is considered as the leading hypothesis to explain climate change.

There is no scientific or economic justification for the socalled carbon pollution reduction scheme policy. The policy is not in the national interest, as it is being driven on unfounded political grounds. Therefore, the approach is neither moral nor ethical.