Suter like all the climate nazis deals in slight of hand.

'But he (John Howard)then introduced it (GST) when he became Prime Minister after defeating Paul Keating in 1996 and it became his most notable domestic policy change.'

Yes he introduced it after seeking a mandate from the Australian people at a subsequent election.

Suter is also ignoring the elephant in the room.

The Liberal Party's position has always been to wait to see what the rest of the world would do at Copenhagen before committing to any carbon trading scheme or carbon tax.

Rudd just wanted to inflict the consequences of carbon trading on the Australian population regardless of the outcome at Copenhagen.

Now with Copenhagen blowing up in Kevvys face his campaign to be the world leader is in tatters and his credibility among the Australain population falling dramatically.

Abbott looks like Australia's saviour.

Turnbull's terminal.

Kevvy cannot win an election on Australias response to the climate warming. He'd look too silly in advocating any action. But then Kevvy's pig-headed and not all that bright and might persist anyway.

And to Suter's disappointment it will be the voters of Australia who will finish off the stupidity of the climate nazis. Thus will end, not the debate, but the nazi like propgandising.

"A fresh round of natural disasters would force politicians once again to be more active on this subject."

But there is no evidence whatsoever that the incidence of 'natural disasters' is increasing, or that there is any causal link between natural disasters and global temperature. What you perhaps mean is that another round of natural disasters would make it easier to whip up public panic and hysteria and channel it towards some political outcome; presumably another attempted power grab.

Quick Respnse, where are any competent bodies covering the whole global problem?

Certainly once the polar ice stops freezing, everyone will be forced to take notice, especially America, which many many years ago was so happy to be called the Lucky Country.

Almost as if native America was not only so lucky to have the Whitey invasion, but in the end her global position will let her be the last to go.

Reckon there is still so much like the above to talk about, a strong knowledge of history, especially environmental history being so important.

Copenhagen is over and with it the third best of all possible outcomes. Best of all would have been a realisation that so called anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on fraudulent science and has been correctly called “the scam of the century.” The second best would have been a total collapse of the conference.

Of course neither the first nor second best were anything other then pipedreams. Now we have both the time and leisure to explain the absurdity of AGW. The full impact of the leaked emails can be digested.

Consider this statement; “the global temperature is not to rise above 2 degrees C. No indication as to how this is to be measured. Which data set is to be the standard? Is it the Hadley Centre? Is it NASA/GISS? Or is it the satellite data from RSS and UAH?

Is the measure to be global surface air temperature? An index derived from non randomly situated Stephenson screens (designed by a nineteenth century civil engineer, the father of the famous author RL Stephenson). The screens are placed about 1.25m above ground level. Many images are shown on the internet of screens placed in less then ideal locations.

What about Ocean temperatures? Since about 2001 accurate ocean measurements have been done by the Argos system. A series of buoys placed in a grid pattern defined by 3 degrees of latitude and longitude and cover the seas from 60 degree north to 60 degree south.

The point I make is that if the politicians are going to use global temperature as their measure. They would be advised to carefully define what is being measured.

One other thing the AGW activists from Al Gore downwards seem to have considerable financial interests in renewable energy companies and possible in the putative carbon trading credit companies.

Dr. Suter, your piece reads more like a threat to continue the “good fight”. It’s not just the Australian climate change debate you need to consider but that about to be played out on the international forum.

With the recent issue of “Litigation Hold Notices” by the US Senate to all the main players in AGW science, we have seen another step towards legal action. A further 8,000 personal e-mails have been sent to employees cautioning against the destruction or altering of any related data held on any media whatsoever.

The first big domino to fall IMHO will be in the USA. It won’t be long before it registers with those involved in the alleged Climategate fiasco that they are now dealing with the “big boys”.

So the debate will continue but not I suspect, in quite the way you seem to imagine.

Thanks Keith,

An easily understood model of CO2-related global warming can be found at:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bath

Our problem is explained in terms of CO2 running out of a tap, into a bathtub, at about twice the rate it can pass through the plughole.

A closer look at sources and sinks is given, and a perspective on why CO2 driven climate change is so regularly misunderstood.

This short article is science journalism at its best.

The difficulty, of course, is that anthropogenic global warming is not simply a well-established science issue, however, solid the evidence. It is economic and transnationally political. For that reason, I give the Kyoto process and Copenhagen about the same chance of coming up with a functional response as I would give the Convention on Conventional Weapons, on coming up with a cure for the scourges of land mines, cluster munitions and other UXO.

Regarding land mines, the CCW started gasbagging in 1980, and still hasn't finished. Meanwhile, on land mines, the CCW has been irrelevant for the past 10 years - thanks to the Ottawa Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty, whose second review conference was held in Cartagena, Colombia, two weeks ago. Further diminishing the CCW, the Convention on Cluster Munitions will very likely be in force by July of next year. The USA, China and a number of other countries are still trying to get other nations to trust in the CCW process for cluster munitions.

When movers and shakers see issues as matters of human rights and human needs, instead of as outputs of economic models and issues of hegemony and national pride, things get done.

Who are the movers and shakers on climate change? Not for me to say. But I would not be voting for either our Australian government or the coalition. A shame the government did not act definitively on the Garnaut report, while it had the momentum and a clear mandate.