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.