One of the criticisms of the Howard government was that it blurred the lines between church and state. I wonder how its critics will react to the apparent decision by the current PM to lobby the Pope to make Mary McKillop a saint? http://tinyurl.com/lfd9c8

I've linked to a Catholic news site because their report seems to understand the proprieties a but better than the PM and the Australian media. They also put in a sharp dig about Rudd being an "Anglican". The PM describes himself as a Catholic, but obviously some Catholics have different ideas.

I also notice that while he is overseas he will do some lobbying on global warming. http://tinyurl.com/nk7lqd

Agreed Graham. The canonization of saints should not be the business of governments. The article you linked stated the PM had promised to raise this issue with the Pope on behalf of two Catholic nuns rather than as a particular personal goal, however it does blur the line between Religion and Government responsibilities. Let's not go down the path of the US.

Howard was also irresponsible when he introduced the School Chaplaincy Program and Rudd for maintaining the program.

Introducing a Christian program into the public school system and then promoting secularism, multi-culturalism and democracy is hypocritical for both governments.

As for global warming, that is the job of the PM to try to influence for positive change on environmental issues. To ensure Australia is not negatively affected by emissions targets which, per the article by Michelle Grattan, the Opposition supports in its revised form.

As we only produce about 1% of overall emissions it would be futile for Australia to take on this challenge alone and think our small contribution will have any impact globally.

Personally, I think it is evidence that our Prime Minister is prepared to say exactly what people want to hear, and to not worry whether it is inconsistent with i) facts or ii) anything that he has said before.

He was elected pretty much on the "I'm not John Howard" ticket, where the electorate was invited to compare his boyish, guileless looks with a brooding and shifty suburban solicitor. And as we know, it worked.

What annoys me is that we - collectively - thought for a moment that he might not also be a bog-standard politician, adept in the arts of dissembling and ingratiation that that breed seem to have learned from used car salesmen.

There is no chance at all that his "intervention" will advance the cause of Mary McKillop's journey towards sainthood. In much the same way that he has no chance at all to influence the direction of climate change policy.

And he is fully aware of this.

Still, he will get the votes of two nuns. And potentially could stop the leakage of green supporters.

Which is all that he appears to care about.

Separation of Church and State? Irrelevant. It's the politics, stupid.

Dear Graham,

I'm not at all surprised at the PM's
lobbying for Mary McKillop to be made
a saint.

Personally, I don't believe that politics
and religion should mix - yet they do.
In practice, civic affairs and religion
have been closely intertwined. For example,
religion plays a part in oaths of office,
court-room procedures, even the sitting of
Parliament begins with the Lord's Prayer.
The Scouts give a "God and country,"
pledge that implies, to say the least, a
compatability of interest between the two.

Political leaders have always paid lip-service
to religious belief. These sentiments are not
allied to any specific faith or political
program; they are sufficiently broad to be
acceptable to almost everyone.

On climate change - world experts are looking
to Australia to be among the first to set the
example. According to one British world expert,
4 countries have already made commitments -
and Australia has no reason to claim that they
would be the first - as the Opposition claims.

Australia has always shown to be backward in
accepting a lead in global decisions always
leaving it to the US or Britain to make a move.
Internationally Australia has a reputation of
being years behind world leading nations.

Climate change will affect Australia more by
the nature of its location on the globe -
being predominantly an isolated dry and
desolate continent, surrounded by
oceans and close to Antarctica.

It's our PM's responsibility to the Nation and
its people to be among the first to undertake
responsible action on climate change, otherwise
Australia may be the first to suffer the most.

Rudd is a religious man and a champion in hypocricy not only as PM and leader of ALP but also as a religious person.
Few years before Pope said that anglican church is not a real church and its followers will go to the hell, I do not know if between them will be Rudd or not.
I will not be surprised if one day I will see the Anglican Rud as a Catholic Crusader next to Blair.
These things can happen with millionaire leaders of the labours!
Do not forget that catholics are much more than Anglicans in australia and the distance between them increases very fast, as cotholic church is against condom, pils, abortion etc.
Rud is not only a champion in hypocricy but he is a smart politician, sure smarter than Howard!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Rudd thought that the GG was good enough to lobby for a spot on the UN security council, but only Rudd is good enough for the Pope, it seems.

He made a grave error (if anyone cares about it, that is) in using the 'apolitical' GG to do government business, and he is making a fool of himself lobbying the Pope to get a 'saint' for Australia. The idea of sainthood in this day and age is absurd.

However, there is not much sense in saying that politics and religion do not mix. Our society is based on Christian values and, while I am agnostic myself, I would prefer our way than any of the others.

We have seen what happens to Western society in the UK, where the old values have been undermined by the weakness of the C of E, multiculturalism and 'rights' legislation which has seen cultural relativism leading to minorities losing respect for the majority culture.

And, remember, we are having a religious war waged against (whether or not we are religious)by Islamists whose religion is indistinguishable from their poltics.

Personally, I suspect you’re all overanalyzing the situation, or reading too much into it.
Aussie PM’s have traditionally seen the Pope at some stage, he’s a world player, so why not. They also meet the Dalai Llama, (the ones with a spine that is) and the head of the C of E, and even the Patriarchs of the Orthodox sects, again, so what?
As for his support of Mary McKillop’s sanctity, again, he’s only supporting a cause dear to the hearts of many Aussies, that’s part of his job description, surely? Whether or not he has any effect is debatable, but don’t kid yourself there’s no politics in such decisions, they are made by humans after all.
The best thing aussie pollies can do to prevent Global Warming, is shut their mouthes!

I trust neither the Catholic Church or the Prime Minister to decide who is a saint. In actual fact the bible declares all followers of Christ as saints. It is idiotic for a group of men or woman to try and improve on what God has declared. Could you imagine the Apostle Paul or Peter sitting around trying to decide which dead people deserve to be a saint. So so funny if it was not so sad. NO wonder many believers see Catholicism as a perversion of the true faith.

Runner, as a person brought up in an intensely Catholic family, I would like to refute you, but I cannot. That’s the simple truth of it.

ASymeonakis,
Could you please give an exact quote and/or link to where the present pope is saying that the "followers" of the Anglican Church "will go to hell"?

(I do not mean the Dominus Dei where the concept of Church is being discussed, and its Catholic version explained. As far as I remember, there is no mention of hell in this document.)

What you must always remember is that since man has been governed by government, Church and State have been one and the same. The Australian Government is a universal catholic church, in the true meaning of the word catholic. Rudd describes himself as a catholic and he is. The Australian Government is sufficient of a political entity, to feel obliged as a political party is to authorize its political advertisements.

The difference between the Anglican democracy we adopted in Australia in 1900 with a written Constitution, and the governments of continental Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, used to be the separation of Church and State that occurred by including 12 lay people in the constitution of courts. If Hitler’s Germany had courts instead of Courts, the damnation of the world would have been twice as harsh, because they would individually have had to bear the burden of the murder of their Jewish fellow citizens. As it was, it was public servants called Judges, who condoned this slaughter. If Communist Russia had courts, with 12 citizens as judges, as mandated in Australia by s 79 Constitution, sixty million murdered Christians would have been shown justice.

The merger of Church and State in Australia was started in South Australia in 1927. Next to go was New South Wales in 1970, followed by the Commonwealth in the Family Court and Federal Court of Australia in 1975-6. In 1979 the State and Church merged officially in the High Court of Australia Act 1979 , Victoria adopted the unitary Church/State in 1986, Queensland in 1991, Tasmania in 2002 and Western Australia in 2004.

The shonks spivs and conmen who most benefit from crying that the Church and State must be kept separate are the very ones who benefit most from the merger. They are the ones who steadfastly refuse to de-mutualise the Courts, and restore democratic courts, as existed in Australia in 1828, when the Australian Courts Act 1828 was enacted. An Australian court, should separate Church and State, but does not do so while a lawyer paid by the State runs it

I am not sure it matters, but surprised Rudd is a Catholic.
Is he practising in that church?
Not that it matters either I have zero doubt he is a committed Christian, not a vote winer for me.
I would rather keep all Church's all creeds out of government.
I have few doubts some who claim to believe in a god, in politics, would say anything to help them stay in politics.
While born WASP I am often amazed at the infiltration of Catholics in my party.

What is really important is that people realize that catholic does not mean exclusively Roman Catholic. Kevin Rudd as far as I am able to make out was born into a Roman Catholic family, but when he fell in love with a good Anglican Girl, found the companionship of shared churchgoing both fun and educational, and still regularly attends church with his wife. The Anglicans call themselves a apostolic catholic Church, and were top dog in the Church pecking order until 1900, along with the Presbyterians and Methodists.

The Roman Catholic Church would not support the concept of a self governing Australia except they were given equality, and once promised S 116 Constitution, supported the second referendum to create Australia and it was passed 370,000 to 141,500 or thereabouts. Sufficient to go the London, and ask for self government in a united colony. The New Zealanders were invited to join, and probably still could. I do not think a time limit is set in S 6 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, for New Zealand, to be admitted as a State, though it lost its opportunity to be an Original State, it has always been a de facto State.

The wars between Roman Catholics and Anglicans in the Labor Party in New South Wales led to the rise and rise of Menzies, and it was Whitlam’s suppression of these wars, that led to his win in 1972. He was unable to keep the lid on these divisions, or govern in the interest of all Australians, and frictions divided his party, to his chagrin.

The same led to the demise of Labor in Queensland in 1957, and in Victoria, under Bolte. Now with a positive external threat from Islam, and people swearing to destroy us, by Jihad, living very close to our northern border, a united Christian front representing the vast majority of Australians is emerging. Kevin Rudd represents that united front, born Roman Catholic and practicing Anglican Catholicism, acceptable to both major Churches, and also by the rising tide of evangelical leaders. He of course can talk to the Pope

George
No he did not tell they will go to hell but he told that they "WILL NOT GO TO HEAVEN" but I learn from the school that only the heaven and hell exist in the other world, if they do not go to heaven as pope said, then they will go to hell!
He was speaking about the churches, creation and continous churches from apostoles, real churches etc. I thing I read it on BBC.
Sure is not from my fantacy, I read it.

ASymeonakis,

Of course, the controversial declaration I was referring to was not called “Dominus Dei” but “Dominus Jesus” (issued in 2000), apologies. It indeed (in part), insisted that non-Catholic Christians are “in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the (Catholic) Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation” and that non-Catholic Christian communities suffer “defects.”

You can google it out for yourself - it is not an easy reading for those who have no theological qualifications - and you will see that although it indeed can be seen by non-Catholic Christians as controversial, there is no mention about who will go to heaven or to hell: that is a language used today by BBC - as you say - and the like, not by the Pope.

Also, one should not draw conclusions about e.g. the nature of mathematics from what one learned in Grade 1 or even 5. The same about Christian teachings.

Of course, I am not surprised you heard/read it thus: this would not be the first time that the Pope‘s words were misrepresented, intentionally or not.

Saint Kevin of Glendalough (the first person in history to be called "Kevin," by the way) was a charismatic teacher, a man dedicated to the spiritual growth of not only himself but his neighbors, an enthusiastic if somewhat extreme advocate of animal welfare and reverence for the natural world, he wore cool monk robes, he was a lovable kook, and he was a major force in the Irish monastic movement that literally saved Western Civilization What more does it take to rate a first-class holiday?

Saint Kevin’s day is the Third of June. His feast day was used as an excuse for much merrymaking, carousing and generally having fun. We need our very own St Kevin. Australian Civilisation is predicated upon a Rule of Law. Before the advent of Kevin, we will leave the saint bit for others to judge, we have had a succession of sinners, whose main aim was to enrich the legal profession at the expense of everyone else. We had a more honest than most leader from 1993, and between 1993 and 1996, a whole raft of excellent Commonwealth legislation was enacted and promptly ignored.

Perhaps we had a miracle in 2007. It was an elusive miracle for Mark Latham, because when he came out and admitted he was an atheist, his miracle, which looked assured deserted him. God is back, it would seem, and 23 seats, more than enough to assure the Prime Ministers job, came across to Kevin’s side. In the Senate the party that wanted to abolish prayers, lost every seat it had.

Perhaps if we can rely on Kevin to restore the spiritual growth of the men and women in the justice industry, to have them accept they cannot continue to impersonate Almighty God, simply because the Parliament mistakenly says they can, in 1400 years we may have a Second Saint Kevin.

It took St Kevin until 1900, to make Sainthood. Born in 498, he was not greatly impressed with women. In that our Kevin has shown that he not only likes women, but is a great judge of women as well

It took decades of lobbying by Australian Catholics to beatify Josephite nun, Mary McKillop and while this most humble woman is worthy of canonization, the Vatican will decide when and if she is to receive a sainthood.

Rudd's intervention to lobby the pope for canonization, I find offensive and politically motivated. After all, a large proportion of Catholics are right leaning and what better way to attract votes at next year's elections?

Rudd's project of carbon capture is merely to protect the big polluters so they can continue pillaging and plundering our resources and polluting these lands. After all how does one capture the mercury, cyanide, arsenic, particulate matter or lead from say, the super pit in WA's goldfields or the 100,000 litres of radioactive water seeping from a tailings dam every day at the Ranger uranium mine? How will carbon capture mitigate the environmental carnage Alcoa is committing in the Jarrah forests of WA? How will carbon capture mitigate the obscene use of precious water by the mining industry?

History tells us that more than 1,700 people died after deadly gases spewed from Lake Nyos in North Western Cameroon, during 1986.

The lake released a cloud of carbon dioxide which hugged the ground and flowed down surrounding valleys to suffocate local villagers and animals.

The phenomenon (though rare) also occurred at Lake Monoun in the same zone two years earlier killing 34 people.

According to some reports, the lake now contains twice as much carbon dioxide as was released during the explosion.

Carbon capture technology is still unproven at industrial scale and is a dangerous distraction from the realities. Carbon capture, on the massive scale required, will be very expensive and has the potential to cause unprecedented environmental catastrophes.

In the meantime, why hasn't Rudd enforced the "Polluter Pays" principle? After all it's legislated into the preamble of every Environmental Protection Act in the country. Oops - that's right. Industry captured the corrupt EPA bureaucrats (to do their bidding), decades ago and this corruption was "canonized" by successive, equally corrupt governments.

The lack of fury in the discussion on this post confirms what I had suspected. All the agitation against Howard because of his alleged blurring of the lines between religion and state was just political posturing. Didn't matter what Howard did it was always going to be wrong for some people and any excuse to criticise him was sufficient.

Mind you, the global warming skeptics were a bit slow here too. No-one pointed out that to become a saint you have to have at least two miracles by you confirmed. So, in lobbying for someone to become a saint you're lobbying for something of an unscientific nature to have occurred. Ironic that Rudd should combine an exercise in faith and anti-science with a conference based on scientific concern about natural phenomena.

But then, some would say that a lot of global warming science is in fact dogma, and that it would be a miracle if the climate behaved anything like the IPCC models say it should.

>> in lobbying for someone to become a saint you're lobbying for something of an unscientific nature to have occurred <<

I am not sure whether by "unscientific" you mean being outside the realm of science (which proclaiming somebody a saint - like awarding somebody the Order of Australia - obviously is) or going against the findings or laws of science.

If the latter, one has to keep in mind that you can lobby for something without being a specialist who understand whether, and under what circumstances, what you are lobbying for is actually feasible (e.g. an environmental lobbyist does not have to have a degree in biology or chemistry and economy). So I think Rudd did not have to have an understanding of what Rome considers a "miracle" supporting a claim for sainthood, a concept more complicated than the understanding of the proverbial old lady who thinks of any "miracle" as an event that violates the laws of e.g. physics.

Roughly speaking, in the eyes of the Congregation of Rites a "miracle occurred" if it cannot be explained using available scientific knowledge (e.g in the Middle Ages a driven car - i.e. a "cart" that is not being pulled by horses - would probably have been counted as a miracle assigned to the driver). There is nothing "unscientific" in recognising occurrences, phenomena (often related to the nature of human consciousness, and the working of the human psyche, where much is still unexplained) that science of the day cannot (yet?) understand.

Oh George, You always have damn good responses!

I always seem to think of Leonard Cohen when I read you. I'm your fan.

Aw Graham come on now. The climate is already behaving like the models say it should and that’s no dogma. Nevertheless, I was one who helped put godbothering miracle believer, Johnny into office about the same time climate change impacts became evident to a blind mute, which was about the same time Johnny became myopic – bobbing and weaving, obfuscating climate facts – and a right sycophant to the polluters at the big end of town. That’s when I helped put Johnny out of office.

Now we have to deal with Johnny’s successor, who’s only a little better than Johnny but a little better is better than the nothing that JH offered.

The outrageous claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an elaborate conspiracy engineered by hundreds of climate scientists around the planet, who twist their results in order to maintain their research funding, is spurious and so passe when even Johnny's buddy and ignominious eco-terrorist, Bush, in 2005, at the G8 Gleneagles meeting acknowledged that climate change is caused by humans and is a problem which needs to be addressed.

Hey Graham – did you know that out of all the industrialised Annex 1 countries with emissions’ targets under the Kyoto protocol, Australia’s coming last with the highest per capita emissions between 1990 – 2008? Yep that’ll make ya happy eh? Good for the economy - aye that’s for sure!

George, that's a nonsense definition of a miracle. If it doesn't occur through God's agency then it is of no use in confirming the sainthood of the beatified person. To try to pass it off as something that is scientifically inexplicable at the time but which we might understand later takes out the idea of God's agency. It can't be a miracle if it occurred in the ordinary cause of events, it's just coincidence in that case.

The idea that God intervenes in the world is not only non-scientific, it is anathema to a large number of theologians.

Protagoras, if you read my posts you'll find I have no difficulty with the proposition that CO2 causes the planet to warm. But I do have a difficulty with the proposition that the models predicted the current cooling. Show me a model from 10 years ago that did so. I also have problems with a lot of the nonsense pushed by the IPCC, some of which actually contradicts their own research.

Conspiracy? I've never said that. Panic? Definitely.

And I notice you justify ducking on criticising Rudd because he's "a little better" than John Howard. So there's a line that Howard crossed that Rudd hasn't? Where would you put that line? How much religion is enough, or not too much?

Graham Y,
As I said many times on this OLO, I would not call nonsense opinions, definitions, concepts etc. that I could not understand (some use terms like mental or intellectual gymnastics instead of nonsense). So whatever definition of miracle you prefer, I would not call it a nonsense, especially since I know that it is not an easy, but rather controversial, concept.

I myself did not provide such a definition, I only tried to explain in simple - probably too simple - terms what Rome considers as sufficient to be called a "miracle" leading to canonisation. Perhaps you are right, you know more about the Catholic Church canonisation procedures (see e.g. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm) than I.

There are many interpretations - by theologians and philosophers (of science) - of what you call God's intervention in the world: just google out references to "divine action" (I found over 94,000 of such references). Some of these interpretations are indeed "anathema" to this or that "large group of theologians". I personally prefer those that do not ignore discussions in theoretical physics (QM), psychology, cognitive science etc. of the last, say, 50 years. Nevertheless, I agree that any reasonable interpretation is necessarily "non-scientific" in the sense that divine action (in whatever sense) is not a phenomenon investigable by science.

Graham

What current cooling are you speaking of? Deniers are spreading the rumour that the combined global temperatures have cooled. When I ask them to provide me with the evidence, I'm ignored.

Mr Plimer insisted on Lateline that the combined global temperatures had cooled, however, Tony Jones insisted that Plimer show evidence. After a dogged persistence by Jones, Plimer (“will you respect me in the morning?”) admitted he was talking about temperatures in the US – a truly irrelevant and scurrilous attempt at obfuscation.

His book is peppered with the claim that warming ceased in 1998, however, he tells other interviewers that warming ceased in 2003. Which is it?

I genuinely want your claim verified and I think you’re too intelligent to exploit an El Nino year to use as a red herring. I provide you with NASA’s graphs for you to point me in the direction of the cooling to which you refer:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html#gtemp

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat (Hey what's wrong with OLO's system here?)

Oh well here's another link to the link:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php

Frankly I’ve never been too interested in whether it’s cooling or warming but more concerned about the environmental carnage which has and continues to be perpetrated on Australia’s fragile territory by the big end of town, corrupt bureaucrats and ignorant politicians. How does cooling or warming mitigate the irreparable damage these eco-terrorists have done and are doing to our ecosystems?

However, the current regional cooling in certain areas (impacting Australia’s climate) I believe will continue and will perhaps, drastically alter the overall global temperatures.

The man-made cooling to which I allude (an alleged 10 million square kilometre wide, 3 kilometre thick brown "cloud") has the catastrophic potential to wreak havoc on the entire planet if you and others continue resisting any endeavours to mitigate anthropogenic pollution:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/11/13/brown-clouds.html

The IPCC and the climate institutes (from which I glean some of my information) do make blunders but they are sufficiently ethical to publish their corrections.

Rest assured, Mr Rudd has incurred the wrath of my caustic tongue on several occasions.

I think a major issue here is that, by using a political stage to lobby for sainthood, Rudd is cheapening the very thing he is lobbying for. If a saint becomes a saint because a politician asked for that to happen, then surely that saint's position is tainted? Then, if saints are used as badges of honour (after all, why else would the PM be so concerned to have an Australian saint?), then every other country's saint would be better than ours.

If the Catholic Church ever makes Mary Mackillop a saint, she won't be connected with Australia, but with the church. She may not even be our patron saint - we already have enough of them (and she was born overseas, anyway). Perhaps it's best just to let the church do what the church does. If it sees fit to canonise Mary M, good for them. If not, it doesn't change the fact that she did some good stuff and is an Australian to be proud of.

Protagoras, I'd rather not get bogged down in a global warming argument, but just a couple of points. The graph you have chosen, which is associated with the institute run by James Hansen, who is hysterical on these issues, shows cooling over the last 10 years. The other datasets tend to show more of it, including the best temperature data set which is from the satellites, but has only been in existence for a much shorter period of time.

Why shouldn't we choose 1998, the El Nino year, as the point at which it started to turn-down? My memory is that in 1998 we were being told by the warming enthusiasts that it proved everything was accelerating, now we're told if we use it we are cherry-picking. It seems to me that turning-points, whether lows or highs, are always to some extent outliers, but it seems illogical not to pick the highest or the lowest point to map warming or cooling from.

It's certainly the highest point on the graph. Or are you suggesting that it should really be a different number as though it hadn't been an El Nino year?

Graham

I understand fully why you say you “don’t want to be bogged down in a global warming argument,” however, it was you who raised it in your original post.

The following anomaly chart for the ten hottest years on record is provided by the NCDC and not from the “hysterical” James Hansen at NASA. Alas, I have arrived at a conclusion as to why you would distort the previous figures I provided:

Global Top 10 Warm Years (Jan-Dec)
...Anomaly °C Anomaly °F

2005..... 0.61..... 1.10
1998..... 0.58..... 1.04
2002..... 0.56..... 1.01
2003..... 0.56..... 1.01
2006..... 0.55..... 0.99
2007..... 0.55..... 0.99
2004..... 0.53..... 0.95
2001..... 0.49..... 0.88
2008..... 0.49..... 0.88
1997..... 0.46..... 0.83

You ask “Why shouldn't we choose 1998?” Well your peer, Mr Plimer did advise that “one swallow does not make a summer,” did he not? Therefore, may I ask you why one La Nina year would make a winter?

Unfortunately for you, Graham the two thousand climate change researchers, attending the Copenhagen Conference in March this year, appear to disagree with your claims also, as does every reputable climate institute on the planet:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/12/irreversible.climate/index.html

Protagoras, there isn't an argument here. If you look at any of the various analyses of the various datasets you see a cooling over recent years. If you look at a graph of those temperatures you have in that table you will find that it has been cooling since around 1998.

You seem to have chosen an analysis which says that 1998 was the second hottest, but it doesn't really matter because even on that dataset there has been cooling since 2005. If you look at the other graphs on the page which measure temperature different ways and at different levels in the atmosphere the same cooling is even more obvious.

We also know that ocean temperature has been cooling for the last 3 to 6 years.

I'm not particularly concerned about the views of the thousands of science lobbyists that went to Copenhagen. It's the facts that matter, not how many people assert fantasy. I read a lot of the press from Copenhagen, and I don't think I saw a single piece of new evidence.

You'll find the smart AGW money is hedging its bets and talking about possible cooling for anywhere up to the next 20 years, and people like Hansen are now talking about the heat having been taken up in the ocean and that it will reappear later.

So you're a bit on your own on this point. Everyone else appears to have recognised that it has cooled a little and are trying to take account of it, one way or another.

I also don't rely on Ian Plimer to read graphs for me. He makes a lot of good points but he's not infallible, which is a way of sequing back to the pope.

"So you're a bit on your own on this point. Everyone else appears to have recognised that it has cooled a little and are trying to take account of it, one way or another......We also know that ocean temperature has been cooling for the last 3 to 6 years."

No I'm not on my own at all Graham. The "little bit of cooling has been acknowledged by the climate institutes before you latched onto that information to use as ammunition:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

Sadly for you Graham, you don't have the potential to perform miracles by altering the science or the official global temperature records which state that eight out of ten of the hottest years on record, over 150 years, occurred in the 21st century.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html

And isn't it about time that you provided some evidence to support your claims? After all, I have and if I told you that Ian Plimer is a director of some 5 mining companies, thereby having a conflict of interest, or that Exxon lied when they said they had ceased funding climate skeptics, or that the IPA campaigned against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, promoted the use of genetically engineered crops and defended the logging of native forests, wouldn't you expect me to provide some evidence?

Protagoras, the page you link to has any number of graphs showing cooling. I don't have to show cooling because you've done it for me. And if you're not prepared to acknowledge that then there is no point in discussing the issue with you because you aren't prepared to do it rationally.

This is not something I just "latched" onto, I've known about it for years, but it didn't seem very significant 3 or 4 years ago, but it is now because of the length of time over which it has occurred.

It also seems significant because it may help to confirm or otherwise that solar activity has a more profound influence on global temperature than the IPCC thinks. We've had less solar activity in the last 12 months than for decades. I'm an interested spectator, as others should be. It's plain from the geological record that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate, and there are so many things we don't understand. We should be looking for the clues as to how these things might manifest themselves and work.

The hottest years argument doesn't hold up. I'm not saying that it has been as cool this decade as it was in the previous one, just that the direction of temperature has been down when the models said it should be up. To fall back on what is effectively an average, which has no bearing on whether temperature has dropped since 1998 or 2005 (pick your year depending on your data), is not logical. Those that use it are normally in denial about the temperature decline we've seen.

Further to Graham's argument--came across this interesting piece when reading about other issues:

“ Ice core data suggest that from about 30,000 year ago until the last glacial maximum about 18,000 years ago, the Earth’s climate fluctuated wildly, sometimes within the space of decades.”
National Geographic -October 2008 (The Last of the Neanderthal)

Some what sobering when viewed against some of the predictions being made on the basis of short-term temperate changes!

Graham, we can agree to disagree and I must conclude that you are not concerned over climate change and wish to maintain the status quo.

The status quo allows industry to violate the legislated Environmental Protection Act 24/7 - 365 days/year with impunity. The Act was legislated some forty years ago (and ignored) and included in the objectives were:

“All reasonable and practicable measures should be taken to minimise the generation of waste and its discharge into the environment

“A person who intentionally or with criminal negligence causes pollution; or

"Allows pollution to be caused commits an offence.” etc etc

The environmentally destructive activities of pollutant industries continues and their criminal activities have destroyed ecosystems, polluted air, soils, water and are responsible for massive human illnesses and mortalities.

Since it appears that you are opposed to an ETS, please offer your solutions on how we can take action to prevent these crimes against humanity which are being perpetrated by Australian based pollutant industries and encouraged by successive corrupt governments:

1. ENVIRONMENT-CHILE: Activists Try to Block Start of (Barrick Gold’s) Pascua Lama Mine to mine at 4,000 metres altitude in the Andes mountains:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46895

2. “Newmont Mining Corporation agreed Thursday to pay $30 million to Indonesia in a settlement of a civil lawsuit in which the government argued that the company had polluted a bay with arsenic and mercury.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/international/asia/17indonesia.html?_r=1

3. MINING giant Barrick Gold were fined only a 'pittance' for spilling 4.5 million litres of toxic waste, toxicologists and Kalgoorlie residents say.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24071770-5017009,00.html

4. Villagers sue BHP Billiton for $5billion

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/09/2620966.htm

5. BHP Billiton faces shareholder concern over irresponsible conduct across four continents

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=517

6. Second delay in (Alcoa’s) Wagerup refinery dust case appalling, says magistrate

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=146&ContentID=137804

7. THE upper limit of airborne lead allowed in the mining state of Queensland is now 10 times higher than permissible levels in the US

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24613205-23289,00.html

8. Barrick’s operations have destroyed livelihoods and the environment around the world. Communities from Argentina to Papua New Guinea protest:

http://protestbarrick.net/downloads/barrick_report.pdf

Are you with these eoc-terrorists or agin them? Please advise.

Protagoras, the thread was about the separation of church and state. I suggest if you want to discuss the issues you have just raised instead of hijacking this thread you start your own.

And if you are asking me whether I support companies breaking the law, then I don't. Emitting CO2 doesn't constitute breaking the law, or we'd all be run in for breathing, and I'm not sure how you link your previous comment to the discussion we were having.

So, can I ask you to start your own thread and then we can take it from there?

"Emitting CO2 doesn't constitute breaking the law,"

Sorry Graham it does.

Prior to commencing my own thread, why not take a crash course in environmental toxicology?

You may then understand that CO2 is the progeny of several hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds - not least the "regulated" benzene - a category 1 carcinogen or essentially, the BTEX group - benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene which burn to carbon dioxide.

Another example, carbon monoxide elevates ground level ozone and methane prior to oxidizing to carbon dioxide and so on.

Then you have the "regulated" mining emissions of particulate matter, dioxins, chromium, lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, nickel etc etc.

I trust the information is helpful particularly in view of the rampant emissions of these chemicals from the self-regulated industries to which I have referred.

Protagoras, why is it that the lesser well-informed are always advising others to get an education? You can copy and paste all you like, but CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it there would be no intelligent carbon-based life on earth.

The fact that it can be used to produce harmful chemicals is neither here nor there. So can many, if not most, molecules. Are you going to label oxygen and water as pollutants too because they can also be used to create harmful chemicals?

I'm waiting to approve your pollution thread. Enough trolling on this one.

"Protagoras, why is it that the lesser well-informed are always advising others to get an education? You can copy and paste all you like, but CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it there would be no intelligent carbon-based life on earth."

Graham - I keep trying to escape but you keep distorting the science so it is not I who is trolling.

For instance, while benzene (which burns to CO2) is released from forest fires and volcanoes, it is miniscule compared to industrial emissions.

I don't usually "cut and paste" since being a member of a government appointed advisory committee on the issue of hazardous industrial emissions, where I was provided with all the scientific literature necessary, there has been no need.

But since you deny the science, I have taken the trouble to find you a couple of "cut and pastes" as I don't know how to download hard copies.

You see Graham, anyone can challenge another's suppositions but they need to provide firm evidence if they want to challenge a science which happens to be basic chemistry and where there is consensus among all scientific communities - that's elementary my dear Graham:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/physical_science/chemistry/carbon_monoxide.html&edu=high

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:WYViR8lV0z4J:www.slideshare.net/crispassinato/sandrogreco-chapt06+benzene+burns+to+CO2&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Cheers

Benzene might be a pollutant, but CO2 isn't. Lots of toxic and non-toxic substances will give off CO2 when they burn but that doesn't make the CO2, which is an essential part of the biota, a pollutant, just a byproduct of combustion.

The only reason I come back is because you put this nonsense up. Some poor soul might get sucked in bedazzled by all the links that you can find.

And if you're going to rely on membership of a government committee as a basis for why we should believe you, then you should put your real name and the name of that committee in your posts, otherwise the claim is just an assertion.

If you don't want to do that, then don't advance your supposed membership as proof of your credibility.

Can you start this other thread and stop destroying this one?

Graham my credibility is not important since I am merely the messenger.

Where I have provided scientific papers as proof of my argument, you have not. Where I have provided documented information on industrial polluters, you have not.

I believe you're on the losers' side and it's the Greenhouse Mafia who wear the leper's bell.

Auf Wiedersehen

But all your scientific papers are not on point or contradict the point you say you are making. It would be just as useful for the discussion if you just sent me the link to a library catalogue.

Facts don't need to be referenced to be correct. And the facts I am referring to are in every basic chemistry text book. There is nothing contentious about saying CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the orthodoxy.

When I did science I was taught to rely on principles, not papers. You work out what is happening from first principles, not because someone said it was so. It was only when I got into the humanities that I encountered this bizarre form of argument that because X said it, it must be so.

"There is nothing contentious about saying CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the orthodoxy."

Dear how silly of me. "Orthodxy" eh? Yeah Ok and wasn't that Darwin bloke a dill? And what do you think of that supernatural deity hanging in space somewhere whose devotees claim he invented the planet?

Hey howzabout sharing a Benson and Hedges with me - there's a good fella.

Protagoras,

Perhaps you could just point us in the direction of the legislation which renders the emission of CO2 illegal. That is what it all comes down to - GrahamY said it wasn't illegal, you said it was and then launched on this latest tirade. I am interested in seeing that point backed up.

"latest tirade" Otokonoko?

Sir - I spend a good deal of my valuable time dealing with the gaseous emissions of corporate polluters who breach their conditions of licence.

Having to endure the excessive gaseous emissions from a corporate shill, would be beyond the call of duty.