The dinosaurs probably thought they would make a big comeback and the world would thank them. Shame it didn't turn out. To their credit the Liberals have an intuitive grasp of a couple of key points for which the Left is in denial; namely that expensive energy will slow the economy and that nuclear power is the alternative to coal and gas. What they don't grasp are the abundant signs that the unfriendly climate will impose its own costs and that they will be made scapegoats. It would be prudent for them to steer a middle course since ageing coal fired power stations will need to be replaced and global crude oil production has peaked, perhaps to decline 4% a year for the next few years.

Thus if the Libs/NP are annihilated in a double dissolution election we could end up with more Ruddspeak and no real action on climate. Basically Rudd doesn't deserve an easy passage so he gets to do more of essentially nothing. As a voter the choice seems to be deniers vs ditherers and that seems to be where we're headed.

Her pedigree states:“Joanne has done over 200 radio interviews, and hosted a science series for children on Channel Nine.”
After reading this article of Joanne’s, I wonder if that science series was more elevated than Creation Science.

The Oppostition should continue to oppose any ETS burden on Australia. It would be a waste of time, apart from ruining our economy.

By wanting to propose amendments to Rudd's silly scheme, Turbull is cynically trying to suck up to the drongos whom the polls say want 'something done' about natural climate change.

These drongos have been said to represent 90% of the population. A recent poll now suggests that approval has dropped to 75%, and this will drop further still when the drongos find out just how much Rudds huge carbon tax is going to cost them, and how many jobs will be lost through closure of the few industries we have left.

Well done Joanne.

No one who has followed the latest revelations on the so called science, promoted by that totally corrupt organisation, the UN, & it's IPCC, could possibly still believe the global warming scam is true.

I don't know if Turnbull is too dumb, [probably], lazy, or just can't read, but he's got this all wrong.

Of course it's possible he is really a wimp, running scared for his job. Well, he's right to be scared, & so should his entire party.

I have not been able to vote labor since Richardson prostituted that party, to buy the green vote. I will not vote for anyone who puts votes above policy, & principal, such expediency is just not acceptable to me, or most of the people I know.

So now we have Turnbull, a fool, wanting to play the same game to save his scalp. Well sorry Mal, play that game & you've lost me, & most of my friends. You will have lost anyone who votes on principle, & so will your party.

This could be the end of the lot of you.

Wake up libs, junk this looser. Just because he's articulate, does not make him a leader.

Get up off the floor, pick up your guts, & start talking truth. It won't be that long before even the media will have to join you.

Yes the cunning rodent KRudd [what goes around, comes around], may out manoeuver you for one election, but you'll come back in a landslide, if you just tell it as it is. The pack of cards, that is this con is about to fall.

I share Joanne's view on AGW.
There are lots of questions to be answered yet about the effect of various amounts of carbon in the atmosphere.
I always wonder why plants that have been tested always do better and use less water when CO2 is at about 700ppm.
Just lucky or have they evolved to enjoy that much CO2
But I also appreciate Turnbull's position as the Federal Parliamentary leader of the Liberals and his desire to win government.
The majority of Australians believe that mankind is responsible for climate change.
They will not vote for anyone who doesn't share that view.
Turnbull has at many function's that I have heard him speak at has always accepted that there is a large Minority that dont hold that view.
He proposes a "No Regrets" policy it which a Turnbull Govt would back projects that are good in their own right and it is a side benefit that carbon is reduced by efficiency gains or sequestration.
But at the moment Turnbull needs to deal with Rudd's legislation which has been designed to wedge the conservative side of politics and which is plainly working.
Joanne would be better off destroying the arguments of Rudd and Wong if she wants to change the mind of the Majority of Australians.
Better still, run for parliament and see if she can convince the average punter of her point of view.

Can you link to the 75% poll, Leigh?

Rare indeed, an article with which one is in total agreement. Joanne has hit the nail on the head. Turnbull has missed a great opportunity. He may be a cleaver lawyer. He appears to be like so many of our masters totally deficient in knowledge of the most elementary science. That unfortunately is not his greatest deficiency. Turnbull clear lacks a good “bulldust detector” that is in proper working order.

>> thousands of scientists with legitimate concerns about the science;

yeah? thousands of scientists with any particular expertise on climate? names?

>> that some key pieces of evidence have dramatically changed in the last ten years;

what a shock. welcome to scientific research. have the key conclusions changed?

>> that evangelistic journalists are censoring the news;

journalists censoring the news is not news. (iraq, anyone?) any evidence here of systemic bias?

>> and that there is a massive, well financed, vested interest in promoting this crisis.

yep, and no massive, well-financed vested interests in denying it? can't think of any? try a teensy bit harder?

yes Bushbasher key conclusions have changed.

Temps are falling not rising.

Hence the evangelical journalists unquestioningly adopting the lunatics name change from Global Warming to Climate Change.

Some of us actually watch what is going on and aren't fooled by all the clumsy attempts to pull the wool over our eyes.

I think the credibility of this article went out the window by misrepresenting the van Onselen article at the get go. Suggesting that 80% of liberals are deniers because a number don't want to negotiate until after Copenhagen is a non sequitur. While a number of Coalition MPs are deniers, the issue van Onselen highligthed is about timing and tactics, not about whether or who believes.

Notwithstanding the fact that ultimately the outcome of the Lib machinations will be known shortly, I am left wondering what the opportunity missed is? To not agree with the author? The suggestion that agreeing with the author is political nirvana fails the test of numbers and history. Every poll I have seen puts the skeptics in the minority - so why lining up with them is an electoral winner is beyond comprehension, but then, the author is a bit loose with the facts. Even Leigh suggests that a mere 75% support action on climate change (which is a landlside in any language). BTW Leigh, I am not sure but think the numbers you refer to are not whether people believe but how many rank it as an important foreign policy issue - it sounds like the Lowy Institute numbers.

The Liberals took the authors option on whether or not to sign the Kyoto protocol and look where that got them. So the hypothesis in this article - to oppose action on climate change - was tested and found to be wrong 2 years ago. The issue is increasingly what action to take and when - not if.

Gobsmacked, Leigh won't be providing a link to his poll, and for good reason: it's a push poll with no methodology - probably in a tabloid newspaper or Right-wing website - designed to return a negative response to the question, which will be something like, "do you believe Labour should wreck the economy".

Leigh wants to roll out the 75% figure, but there's no way he'll admit that even a poll which tries to rubbish climate change concerns produces a result showing three quarters of the population supporting an ETS!

Someone -- was it Churchill? -- once said "The art of leadership is to figure out where the people are going, and run like hell to get there ahead of them." Right now the people are changing direction. Can Turnbull get up enough acceleration to stay in front?

No Jon J, he's not flexible enough to make the turn.

Besides, he'd never get through the thousands of so called scientists, all ready running that way, causing an almighty traffic jam.

Spot on Joanne. The tide is turning, and the Libs have missed the boat and left themselves floundering in the mud, where they could have stood for something, and presented a strong united position. Neil Mitchell today - "Climate change - does anyone care anymore?" One caller I think. The people are bored, the alarm is fading, and more are cottoning on to the realities of the con and the costs.

Good article JoNova, I'm impressed you attracted less than the usual AGW believer's howls of outrage that you are not some a climate scientist. However much they let it go through to the keeper if an article is written by a non scientist supporting AGW belief.

Gobsmacked - "The Liberals took the authors option on whether or not to sign the Kyoto protocol and look where that got them. So the hypothesis in this article - to oppose action on climate change - was tested and found to be wrong 2 years ago."

So you're saying that the last Federal Election was on Climate Change and that's what lost it for the incumbent government - it wasn't Workchoices, or all the advertising by the Union movement on opposing Workchoices.

Gosh, the unions could have saved a lot of money, what fools they were, when all they had to do was let the community decide the country's fate on Climate Change.

What was the promise of cost to the community by the ALP back then, $1 per week was it? Is that still true?

" ... I always wonder why plants that have been tested always do better and use less water when CO2 is at about 700ppm. Just lucky or have they evolved to enjoy that much CO2 ... "

Yes, I have heard it said that at one point in the Earth's history, there was a relatively heightened concentration of CO2, significant and long enough for plants to evolve to be able to consume greater amounts in the photosynthesis process and collectively plants retain this potential in their genetic makeup.

"Growers" have long taken advantage of this, irrespective of the reality of the evolutionary science behind the phenomena. So, with a timer controlled indoor greenhouse say, for a period of say 15 minutes within every hourly cycle, ventilation can be shut down and CO2 from say a BOC cylinder can be injected over the top of the plants, say from around the lamps, which will then fall down and be consumed by the tomatoes say.

Only problem is though is that due to the warming effect, temperature rapidly rises to the point that plant death will also rapidly result if a cooling system isn't introduced, say a standalone aircon.

Then, if all factors in the grow chamber are tuned and tweaked appropriately, significant improvements in yield can be achieved. If in turn, the value of the increased yield is more than the additional costs, then the overall scenario is a winner.

..

We must remember though, that the earth no longer has the abundance of plant life that it once did so in deforested areas, it is unlikely that the heating problem will be manageable.

For the cockies, think "Shade Patch" and "Park Land Clearing," just on a grander scale. That's the ticket. Now, admittedly, that doesn't readily lend itself to traditional broad acre farming however ... you'll just have to count on newer machines being built which are more readily able to harvest from a number of different species concurrently whilst weaving in and out of the trees. The Jappos and others are coming along nicely with robotics so I don't imagine it should be too much of an issue.

..

Yes, I imagine that turning the farm into its own little micro environment will for those who take the bull by the horns soon enough will render a more diverse and bountiful harvest.

..

If I was farming I'd want to get the latest prediction models for my area, make some educated guesses as to how climatic conditions are going to unfold all factors considered, and pick the best balance of profitable crops according to those that have better pre-existing adaptions in their makeup to take advantage of the new conditions.

Joanna, the prospect of a government that willfully ignores scientific advice won't win the hearts and minds of mainstream Australia. Make no mistake, the heads of Australia's scientific institutions will continue to insist climate change is real and that serious action is urgently needed to avoid the worst costs and consequences. Attempting to purge government sponsored science of climate change realists can only look like ideology pushing aside reason -and would create a huge backlash. Labor's rhetoric isn't matched by it's actions but the opposition failing to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific basis of climate change can only lead to disaster for Australia.
I won't bother with trying to refute the endless repetitions of arguments against AGW; the fact is every peak science body, every institution that actually studies climate and every report commissioned on the issue says it's real, serious and urgent. Mainstream Australia will inevitably accept the mainstream science and will want the biggest challenge of our time faced head on with eyes open; the coalition's failure to do so is why they are headed for oblivion.

I just have to say last I checked 95% of peer reviewed climate articles still support human induced global warming. The latest amateur attempts to interpret global climate (Ooh look, temperature fell somewhere!) are not helping the issue.
When data from ice, ocean, currents and wildlife all agree, I'm afraid you need a fair amount of ignorance to stick with he "sceptics".
The latest data is supporting the more radical warming models. There is no "change of opinion" among the experts.
Just as a banking "professional" is irrelevant to the airline pilots "profession", so too is non-climate scientists opinions on the discipline of climate science.
The ETS is a bad idea and just allows business as usual while giving bankers yet more revenue. I agree on that score. Just don't trash the real science or "debate" issues that have little relevance to the science.
The author seems surprised that the Liberals are non-democratic. How cute, a journalist who pretends she has no idea of how politics works!

OK here is a basic fact for all the newby climate scientists out there.
If you only look at temperature you are *way* off the mark.
Energy is stored as chemistry, motion and phase shifts.
GW is due to a net increase in Energy...NOT == constant temperature increase all over the world. Basing your ideas on an insanely simplistic understanding will not lead you to wisdom!
If this is not 100% comprehend able then I'd suggest you hit the textbooks before looking silly in public.
This is OLO so we can expect trolls I guess. For those seeking a balanced view then go to the best source (Bureau of Meteorology), not politically motivated opinions.

Ozandy - last time I went to the bureau of metrology I was told despite what people said/thought our temperatures had not increased and everything was tracking as usual. Now I wait for some knob to tell me weather isn't climate.
Its the same old nonsense mate time after time year upon year. Ooooh it's really scary, we are all going to be killed, no really it's serious this time.
Get a life, do something and stop squawking about "really terrible things" like anyone has ever listened to you before.
Rudd will do what he likes but there will be a reckoning and just watch him turn and say "I never said that"!
Look at the current refugee crisis he created now he is full of We will decide who comes into Australia, hahahaha what a total fool he always makes of himself.

Ozandy

One does not have to be an atmospheric physicist to realise your comment illustrates the difficulties global warming enthusiasts have in making their case. You have now shifted the goal posts from temperature to the overall energy balance of the planet. The operation of a thermometer is summarised by the Zeroth law of thermodynamics.

Namely: “if bodies A and B are in thermal equilibrium with a third body T, then A and B are in thermal equilibrium with each other.” Temperature measures the mean kinetic energy of particles at point of measurement.

Are you now seriously suggesting that the climate models and computer power available to us can even attempt to model the total energy exchanges both within and without the planet?

Why it would be necessary to consider the radiant energy arriving at earth plus the internal volcanic energy of the planet plus energy released by radioactive decay of unstable natural radio-nuclides. Then you would have to balance this with radiant energy escaping from the planet plus energy dissipated by convective atmospheric and oceanic processes. To say nothing of mechanical energy dissipated by violent storms, ocean wave motion, chemical energy dissipated by biological organisms and god knows what else.

I am truly grateful not to be a climate scientist!

No one has polled the Government Senators about their opinion on ETS, but about 3 months ago I was told by an informed source that over a 1/2 of the Liberals and 1/3 Labor senators did not believe in AGW science. It is possible that by now, the majority of Labor senators don't believe in AGW. So the senate might passes legislation based on science which only a handful of senators actually believes in. I wonder how history will record this event, when it all falls apart, as it must eventually.