Diesendorf appears to succumb to the spin he abhors. He notes the reality of climate change but offers no evidence that it is man made even though he is not burdened by 'pseudo science of the deniers'.

As Diesendorf points out there are many in society who have not succumbed to the new green propaganda and those who promised to implement it are now confronted with the political and economic reality that it is difficult for man to 'fix' something for which he is not responsible for causing.

The hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide emissions have caused a significant rise in global atmospheric temperature is shown to be flawed. We see proof of previous warming and no evidence that man has caused it. We now see falling temperatures with rising CO2 levels and you wonder why realists do not support the propaganda!

To expect Australians to support the introduction of a complex financial engineering scheme, in the form of an ETS, that will make the production of all energy more expensive, with no chance of changing global temperature is optimistic in the extreme.

If the science is so compelling Diesendork should have no trouble convincing the majority of the population and governments to implement policies that will snuff out any economic future for the eager young activists in the youth climate coalition.

The reality is that neither the science or economics of global warming alarmists stack up and the pollies know it.

Graham, these book adds are getting beyond a joke. Particularly those like this one, which starts off with a total lie, & ends with the add.

Could you not have just printed the first & last lines, & spared us the rest.

It's not just the AGW ones, although they are the worst, but all of them, on all subjects

Come on mate, we deserve a rest from them.

"The absurdity of a financial system growing around 6% pa is that a cent in one AD (legal claim to 1c worth of stuff) grown at 6% compounding, becomes a claim in 1992 to 100000 galaxies of a billion stars the weight of the sun made of pure gold at $328 an ounce!"

But if we immigrate 20 million more people they will pay for it, won't they? And they'll look after the aged as well (in between property deals of course)?

Labor population to hit 35 million by 2049:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26089576-2702,00.html.

And cause lower wage increases for better international competitiveness so bosses can get richer.

Boost to pay unlikely this year (& for-immigration-ever):
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26091265-12377,00.html

My opinion?

"Let all the poison that lurks in the RUDD(labor government) .. HATCH OUT!"

Poison#1 (The strychnine): Human caused global warming is caused by humans, ipso facto. But Rudd &Swan crowing about 35 million Australian's in today's press, under THEIR policies(not someone else's) is saying Labor doesn't give a Sh$t about climate change but its spending billions doing a Labor impersonation of curing it all the same.

Poison#2 (The Cyanide) Most of the extra 15 million immigrants will end up in Sydney and Brisbane 'Gangs & Ghettos', while original citizens who stupidly thought they had some kind of stake in Australia's future spend up big on SECURITY measures. This will only boost Labor's Economic growth while original citizens have their babies in toilet bowls alongside the rest of the immigrant hordes.

Not doing enough for renewables!! The Government has mandated 20 per cent of our electricity supply must come from renewables by 2020 haven't they? Or did I miss something?
Now there is a real suspicion that that figure is too much too soon - wind energy in large quantities has to be backed up by conventional sources, plays real mischief with the rest of the grid and forces the choice of inefficient generators. It causes so much trouble that European reports suggest they are of no use at all in reducing emissions. see the E.on GmBH report - or the more recent reports by the UK Royal Engineers on the real cost of renewables (once backup is taken into account) Yet we are persisting with this policy. A complete redesign of our approach may help, but instead we are persisting with this idiotic target.
As for climate change accelerating, the pro-greenhouse scientists have finally, reluctantly acknowledged that temperatures are declining - and have come up with several differnt explanations for the changes.. entertaining..

Curmudgeon: "The Government has mandated 20 per cent of our electricity supply must come from renewables by 2020 haven't they? Or did I miss something?"

Here is something for you to consider. I heard our esteemed PM today say he expected the population to be at 35M at in 2050. That means we are growing by about 1.0115%/year. Ergo, our population will be about 13.4% bigger than it is now in 2020. Also, currently about 5% of our electricity comes from renewables, so a 20% target represents a 15% increase.

When you do all the sums, this means there will have to be about a 5% drop in electricity production from non renewable sources between now and 2020. Doesn't sound that big to me.

Hi All,

I read arguments for and against greenhouse reasoning.
To me the real argument should be efficient use of resources rather than wasting as is done today. Petrol and diesel in my opinion is not efficient use of a resource as there are other alternatives that are not damaging to the environment or public health.
Over many decades there have been many inventions that prove to be more efficient in the use of petrol and diesel, yet they never go beyond the vested interests buying them up and putting them away so they can sell more fuel.
Whatever our resources we need to ensure we manage them efficiently and not waste them. We have alternatives e.g. wind power, solar energy, wave generators, tidal generators, even nuclear generators although I do not support this as we will have future problems as to how to get rid of the "spent" rods. These options did not receive attention for many years as it was not in the interests of the oil or the vehicle manufacturing industry.

continued.