Proto

Both you and I understand the science stuff - although we may disagree on the minutiae (that is not unusual in the scientific community, btw).

I think we also agree that the "debate" is really being played out by politicians, economists and social ideologues - not scientists.

Turnbull is a 'dead man walking', but he is the best the 'conservative' side of politics (in Oz) has to offer in terms of strategies (not policies) to address the challenges the world (not Oz) must face in coming years.

Again, if you disagree, name an alternative in the non-government side of Oz politics that can lead us there.

Turnbull is playing the political game, so is Rudd. Reality check - they all do it. We are all but pawns in their game.

At the end of the day, the environment is all that matters - it doesn't give a stuff about politics, religion, he says/you say, whatever.

Some in the big end of town do care ... the small end of town do not have a monopoly on what is right, or what is wrong.

Yes proto, I agree entirely.

I can't believe that either of them are stupid enough to believe this AGW rubbish, particularly with all the genuine info available to them.

This being the case, they are both beneath contempt in that they are prepared to seriously damage the lives of tens of thousands of middle aussies to achieve their political aims.

I believe the motive form Krud is to find a way, any way, for a double disolution election. This is what he wants and Turnbul knows it.

At the present moment Australia faces some real challenges in the future, most of them ecconomic.

We have experienced almost a decade of unprecidented growth, yet, after just a year or so of slow down, we are almost on our knees financially.

How on earth can making us 'less competetive' on the world market be anything other than a complete disarster for our ecconomy.

If and when any Australian government impliments their caron trading scheme, and it makes our industry wear the financial burdon, you can all but kiss goodby to any form of manufaturing here, along with many other insudtries as, for as long as our trading partners don't follow the same rules, we are doomed.

Now you think we have had a rough year or two, well brace yourselves as you 'aint seen nothin yet'!

Gather round brothers and sisters of the not right.
I have a story to tell, so excuse me while I climb up on the stump.
Remember how we felt when Howard had the keys to the lodge welded to him?
As our side fell again and again over its own feet?
Crean , how did we let that happen?
Oh please the mad man Latham, it hurts still.
But cheer up, it is our turn in the sun.
Here in this thread and others is a poster who STILL thinks Peter Costello is going to charge back into the house and lead.
And watch this space, so very many who think Turnbull can undo his messy unmaking, hide the man he a proved he is.
NEVER not ever will he win an election, unless its NSW state.
Yet so hard up for talent is the conservative rabble they look for the imposable.
Our turn in the darkness will come, aways comes, but enjoy, our best asset our very best ace, is this mob .
They keep the sun shining on us, maybe for more than another decade.
Turnbull I thank you true I am a sunlight fan thanks again.

Q&A

The good eggs at the big end of town are not the problem. It’s the big, big bad eggs who feign concern about GW and purport to be “good corporate citizens” whilst increasing their hazardous emissions. This reinforces my belief that self-regulation of pollutant industries has always been a dismal failure, despite the implementation of the Environmental Protection Act legislation in the 70s. Some joke that eh?

Perhaps you’re correct about Turnbull’s ability to pull a rabbit out of the hat on carbon emissions.

What a tragedy that the Libs initiated debate on the environment in the 80’s and Howard et al managed to gag everyone. In 1980, Andrew Peacock personally signed a commitment to cut emissions by 20%; Chris Puplick repeated the GHG target and the Coalition was backing bigger cuts sooner than Labor though both sides then acknowledged that climate change was a bipartisan issue.

According to Guy Pearse’s account, even under Hewson, the deeper emissions reduction target was larger than the Hawke government’s proposal. Chaney was proud of the policy and environment minister Robert Hill had great plans for Australia to do something.

It appears that Hill was progressively undermined on GH policy by his colleagues – Howard, Minchin, Anderson, Downer and mad dog Tuckey. Three down, two to go plus the additional Joe Planet rapist neo-clones plotting against every effective proposal to mitigate emissions.

“can't believe that either of them are stupid enough to believe this AGW rubbish, particularly with all the genuine info available to them.”

Hasbeen the “genuine info” is compelling. The current profligate eco-vandalism by humans has already proved to be unsustainable therefore I fully support adopting measures to curb anthropogenic hazardous emissions. It’s just that I believe the current ETS proposal will fail. You, for example, could become a sub-contractor and plant a few million trees for, let’s say BHP Billiton, however, that will not mitigate the hazardous emissions from their operations.

Though of profound significance, there is much more to ecological sustainability than just carbon-based chemical emissions warming the planet.

The problems faced by Gough Whitlam which he seemed to want to fix by a double dissolution, in an election called in 1974, are similar to the problems being faced by KR today, and James Scullin in 1931. Both Scullin and Whitlam tried to rush Australia into reform, and got ahead of the consensus, and the unseemly haste with which the Parties are attempting to rush us into carbon trading is similar.

While there seems to be a consensus at the moment on climate change, will this continue when jobs start to evaporate, the economy starts to deteriorate under increased taxation, homelessness increases at an exponential rate, and lawlessness is embarrassingly apparent and threatening our third greatest export, education.

I am not a fan of Malcolm Turnbull, mainly because he is a lawyer, and lawyers are the worst criminals in Australia if the law was enforced against them. Howard was a lawyer too, and he spent eleven and a half years protecting his lawless mates, in the legal profession, while prosecuting an imaginary terror threat created by deceptions in the United States.

The Labor Government has its share of lawyers too, but KR is not one of them. There are thirty lawyers in the Australian Labor Party out of eighty three. The Labor Party has a majority that they could lose by losing eight seats. While Belly is feeling really cocky, and sure the Labor Party will be returned again, my gut is telling me that Rudd must be careful not to upset his constituency. Rudd will continue to be safe provided he does not lose the Christian centre. If he descends into animal and tree worship, like the Greens want him to, and ignores the sixty five percent majority, of Australians, especially the six percent who swung to his side last time, a double dissolution could be the last thing he would want.

Rudd’s two pushy environmentalists are Llb’s Wong and Garrett. The other twenty eight lawyers should read Exodus to Arthur by a scientist called Mike Bailey, and get climate change into perspective. We all could win then