I am surprised that the usual suspects have not commented about climate change being "rubbish".

It has always seemed to me that the natural home for environmentalism is the conservative side of politics. This was always so in the early days of the Conservatives in England; it was only when they subsumed the Whigs, after the rise of British Labour, that Conservatives took on the "free market" mantra of the new urban business classes.

It is interesting to see the struggle within the coalition in the light of their current leadership troubles between market fundamentalists and social liberals. It is also interesting to see that those in marginal urban seats, and those who are younger are more likely to be climate change realists.

When one considers that age distribution of climate change denialism, it is largely confined to those of more advanced years - the ones who will probably be dead before the worst effects take place. They are also the ones who listen to the likes of Alan Jones.

Australia, like Canada, seems to take most of its news and opinion from the USA - the home of free market fundamentalism and climate change denialism. Colleagues who live in Europe tell me they are surprised at the level of denialism back home in Australia.

So much seems tied up in ideology and so little credit is given to proper science in the American hegemony. A sad reflection on our consumerist worldview.

Thankfully it was the 'inflexible right' who insisted on some science when the scaremongers were predicting an 'ice age' not to many decades back. I wonder how much money was made on this 'settled science'.

Krystian describes himself as 'promoting progressive policies and the renewal of social democracy'

That says it all. Another inflexible idealist who obviously is intolerant of others that don't share his 'progressive policies'. He obviously dislikes open debate which has been the hallmark of the 'experts' in the climate change debate. NO doubt he is comfortable with the deceit that has been covered in the formation of the gw policies.

There is no reason why true conservatives should shift any more than socialists should shift positions to fit in with trendy fads. The problem with the Liberal party is that it is a liberal party which no longer represents conservative voters.

That’s the reason for the turmoil, not any failure of the Right of the party to adjust to junk science and mumbo jumbo and other socialistic ideas. There is no conservative party in Australia.

Change should be brought about by people, not by governments, be they “Hawke-Keating Governments”, Rudd Governments, or Turnbull-led Oppositions.

As a conservative, I stopped voting Liberal long ago. I am now pleased to see people like Nick Minchin, Cory Bernardi, and Alan Ferguson in South Australia, and other senators interstate, at last jacking up on the liberals who would be more comfortable on the Labor side.

I look forward to a complete break by conservatives wasting their time in the Liberal Party, and the rise of a genuine conservative party to represent the 50% of Australian voters who are now virtually disenfranchised by wets like Malcolm Turnbull and his anything-for-votes cronies

Kristian wants to enmesh two quite different problems I cannot think why? The Global Financial Crisis was the banks lending money for assets that were just not worth it. Instead of governments letting the banks fail and then bankrupting and jailing the perps they paid them off sounds more communist than conservative.
Global warming is a hoax just like the hole in the ozone layer and the Y2K scam. The perps could not believe the stupidity of the people who fell for it and so went on to this latest nonsense and the governments...........

A telling comment from a scientist recently was that those scientists who agree with climate change have their research peer reviewed. Whereas those scientists who are critical/skeptical of the climate change view are not specialised in the science of climate and have no research which has been peer reviewed. The other matter is whether climate change is man created, or nature at work; provision needs to be made for rising sea levels, changes in sea currents, and major storm events.
Scientists are generally not particularly involved in politics and those who suggest that scientists are forming some kind of socialist vanguard do not forward any kind of logical argument; quite laughable actually. Scientists with a pro- climate change view come from all corners of the world.

It's the old political trick of denigrating people when the no proper debate can be brought to bear against the opponent.

"A telling comment from a scientist recently was that those scientists who agree with climate change have their research peer reviewed. Whereas those scientists who are critical/skeptical of the climate change view are not specialised in the science of climate and have no research which has been peer reviewed..."

This is precisely ass-backwards. Scientists who do not toe the AGW line are unable to get peer reviewed because they are blocked from publishing in major journals -- and if you want to see how this is done just read the Climategate emails. Sceptical scientists would love to be peer-reviewed, if only the outlets weren't blocked, and sceptical scientists would _really_ love to peer review the work of AGW proponents; but surprise! that's blocked as well, and the AGW enthusiasts with the aid of taxpayers' funds have sewn up a neat little racket for themselves.

Or at least they HAD... until some public-spirited employee got fed up with the whole web of lies and connivance and went public. Read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ and tell us honestly: does this computer program read like the work of a group that ever expects to be 'peer reviewed'?