Foxy, “What do they read? (Or do they read at all?) How can their ignorance be explained?”

I don’t think it’s ignorance, they get caught up in party lines and ideology. You may well ask what they read? They read all the stuff we read, and they have access to all the “stuff” that is going on over Climategate. Because most of the media has censored much of the news the Pollies are not (yet) answerable to the electorate and can bluster on.

Like I said to examinator, this debate has been forced into the public and political domain because it ‘aint science, never has been.

rstuart, you say “Our pollies were happy enough to reverse other legislation, such as Work Choices.” Not so, Work Choices is Australian legislation, we can change it. A binding International Treaty to reduce carbon emissions and collect Tax for the UN is not that simple and will involve both penalties and punitive trade ramifications that the Australian Tax payer will have to fund

Dear spindoc,

You're right of-course - it is party lines
and ideology.

Actually I'm somewhat embarrassed by that particular
post of mine. (Blonde moment).

spindoc: "Not so, Work Choices is Australian legislation, we can change it. A binding International Treaty to reduce carbon emissions and collect Tax for the UN"

Have you got a link to support this claim? Because it sounds like absolute unabridged rubbish.

Collect tax for the UN? You have gotta be kidding me. Tie us into international agreements we can't withdraw from with a due notice? That would be a first.

Methinks you have gone beyond your name now. You ain't just spinning.

rstuart I know it's Wikipedia but the page on Kyoto gives a couple of examples which seem similar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

"Financial commitments

The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects. The principle was originally agreed in UNFCCC."

"Enforcement

If the enforcement branch determines that an annex I country is not in compliance with its emissions limitation, then that country is required to make up the difference plus an additional 30%. In addition, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions trading program.[17]"

I've not verified those claims nor have a I seen serious rebuttal of the claims.

R0bert

Thank you R0bert for shining the laser beam of reality into the very small dark hole represnted by rstuart. I really couldn't be bothered with any more lost causes created by people who are simply to affraid to look for themselves.

“Why do we tolerate our politicians deciding on critical *scientific* issues without even seeking appropriate, objective advice from scientific experts in the relevant field.”

This is a late offering and I hope I am not repeating something which others might have already stated

That is simple to answer

Because, in a democracy, we elect representatives to reflect the view of the entire community, not just a professional specialty within it

Hence ordinary MPs, of all sorts of background, vote on matters which enact statute concerning

Health – but they may not be doctors
Education – but they may not be teachers
Taxation – but they may not be tax agents
Defense – but they are not soldiers

The point is, in a democracy, we tolerate an imperfect system which is not necessarily the most efficient nor the most “scientifically” objective.

If we wanted “efficient objectivity”, we would do better with some sort of techno-autocracy but it tends to lack that essential “democratic representation”.

Some would say the “collectivist” model, where all the resources are meticulously planned and administered by the state and all are supported “according to their needs” is the most “efficient” and “objective” but history is littered with the disasters of socialist / communist, / collectivist of every flavor and by every name, including the Israeli kibbutz system.

So as Churchill said

(multi-party) "Democracy is the worst form of government, excepting every other system ever attempted."

Including “single party" systems