I love the way all these eco activists loudly claim there is no leadershiip in government.

Well at least we only have the one federal government.

So how many climate / eco / AGW / anti this or that groups are there?

Really that many, hundreds, no thousands just here in Australia.

So many that we have groups that just try to coalese the other groups, (for which they are paid, lot, as the belief system of the groups is they are all the most important, so should get the biggest say - like little sects aren't you all?)

So you're all little self centered lobby cells, who cannot get along with each other? Correct? Because you all want to be the onee who is most in charge, making the biggest difference?

And you are complaining about self interest - hahhahaha, this is satire yes?

'Although I am certain that the feelings of the electorates haven’t been taken into account in the past with GST, for one example, one thing is clear: not only do MPs understand that the CPRS is weak, but also that their job is not primarily to serve in the best interests of the people, but to get themselves - and their party - re-elected.'

Well well well. If you'd read the most recent polls you'd know that Australians overwhelmgly think we shouldn't do anything about global warming until after we see what the rest of the world want at Copenhagen ... which is the position of only one party in Australia today.

Now politicians are elected to serve and represent their electorates. It is not as the author insanely thinks up to them to determine what is best for their electorate.

Just to correct your error. John Howard and the Liberal Party went to an election promising to introduce a GST. They were elected with the mandate to introduce the GST.

You've gotta be a leftie re-writing history to suit your own ends aren't you Georgia?

PH. You have clearly been reading some paranoid anti-science articles.
1)The consensus is based on decades of peer reviewed papers which cover theory, measurements, models and predictions. All point to something much scarier than the IPCC has allowed to surface. Recent data has supported the more radical models and predictions.
2)Governments are the only sources of funding for non-profit science over long periods. Climate science is a long term discipline. Only recently has private money been spent on "science" for marketing purposes. To suggest that private money is less biassed than public money is so ridiculous as to be an obscene joke. Surely you were grinning when you wrote that!
3)Carbon as pollutant is only used by Climate faux-sceptics. Please quit with the straw-men as it makes you look silly.
4) Again with the "earth is cooling" BS! Glaciers are melting world wide, the Arctic will soon be ice free (hence the recent territorial claims), record temperature extremes world-wide and we hear that science is suppressing evidence.
I work for a South Pacific climate science program. Yes it is government funded. Much of the climate data for the South Pacific is not of sufficient quality to include in the science yet, yet it all points to a major acceleration in warming, as well as alarming sea level rises in some regions. It will take much work to get to the point where we can include all this low quality data as science. If it were to be included now we would hear "Low quality data was used", and when we are conservative and use the best quality we get "they are a excluding data. Bias!". Needless to say, in the real world there is no incentive to fake disastrous predictions. Up until very recently it would have killed your career, and now you still need outstanding evidence for radical claims.
5) Science is not valueless: it values Truth, honesty, humility and shouting when it looks scary or profitable. Human nature takes over from there.

Cont...
6) So Climate change science is killing people now? Do tell!
BTW. The recent bank bailouts cost several thousand times more than the cost of green science. To blame science for world hunger is amazingly silly!
7) It is the religions that are indoctrinating people, not science.
Clownfish: Your mind is easily boggled. Nothing new here.

What I find amusing (sad really but you have to smile) is that Clownfish lumps AGW with anti vaccination zealots!

Gee and I thought the whole science of vaccination is just one great big conspiracy and is just the medical profession trying to cash in our parents fears :)

Strange that he can accept peer reviewed medical research is valid but not so in Climate Science. Sounds like a conflict of interest perhaps?

Having watched the Senate amendments debate this afternoon (Monday) there is no way that the legislation will be ready for vote this year.
It is amazing to learn how piecemeal the Kyoto agreement is.
From my understanding from the days debate our forests do not count towards any sequestration because the Kyoto agreement does not have any mechanism to measure the sequestration of greenhouse gases by forests.
It therefore just ingores the benefits of forests.
This is just one of many anomalies in the global and Australian legislation.
The more I am learning about the actual CPRS the worse it gets.
It needs a lot of work and I am very glad that the Senate is doing its job in making sure the legislation is properly debated.
And with deeper analysis of the UEA CRU Hadley Centre leak it appears that there is no urgency to cut the GHG's.
Hopefully the whistle blower will get a Nobel Prize for services to Ethics in Science.