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?