Amicus, what I said was “the Greens could win enough seats in the Senate to hold the balance of power which would make the Coalition (NOT the ALP) irrelevant”.

But seriously, could any government rely on the Greens to support their legislation? My guess is yes – at a price where the environment was concerned and, as you point out, Green preferences usually go to the ALP anyway.

The next election, not that far off, is likely to be a referendum on climate change and what we should do about it. Rudd can certainly make it one by calling a double dissolution. Will he? Mind you, if Rudd thinks he has a shoe-in, he should think again and start explaining to the electorate what he is doing and how it will affect the climate. Oh yeah, and how it will affect their hip pocket.

What I want to know is how Rudd will live up to his commitment to keep temperature increase by 2100 to no more than 2 degrees when he says their 2020 target for reducing emissions need only be 5%. Climate scientist will tell us it can’t be done without reducing emissions by 2020 to a level which is 30% or more below 1990 levels.

Shadow Minister Hunt reckons it can be done by being more efficient. I reckon that’s just a stunt Mr Hunt. Scientists v politicians is “no contest”.

Ken Fabos makes a telling point, the failure of climate change skeptics to get theories published in a reputable scientific journal and peer reviewed. I am open to the view that science is wrong. It is all very well to simply assert this, as those who deny AGW and climate change often do - but quite another to persuasively show the science is wrong.

Much easier to show that the Rudd Government is disingenuous and the Opposition is equally determined not to compromise the production and use of fossil fuels.

As the obvious results of global warming start to effect the whole world with extreme weather events, melting of the polar icecap, the Greenland ice cap, Antartic ice shelves, glaciers melting all over the world and sensible rational people try to take some action to reduce the effects as an insurance, the denialists stream of garbled facts and vituperative insults are reaching a hysterical pitch.
I am now convinced that they do so because apart from the ones that are being actively financed by the corporations with a economic interest in stopping the move towards reversing the greenhouse gas escalating, the rest of the pack are unable to come to face the thought of global warming and deny it as a defense.
If they had any intelligence at all, it would be obvious to them that taking action now would be like insuring their house against disaster. It does cost a small amount to pay a premium but if there is a disaster it is well worth it. They would most likely not abandon insurance “because it is not going to happen” but would keep it up even if there were only a remote possibility they would need it.

Sarnian

I couldn't agree more. We all know why deniers and doubters can not argue on the basis of fact or empirical evidence, except by resorting to distortion, misrepresentation or downright porkies.

From Sarnia? I'm from Riduna.

Jon Jay, I was born in Caesarea but my family are all from Riduna & Sarnia. how to get in touch? Phone? 0362950881