Shadow Minister, enough with the 'Juliar' line. It's childish and does you no credit.

I'm not particularly impressed with Gillard's government. I find them lacking in scruples and they show a distinct lack of backbone.

I've actually been quite pleased by the carbon tax, because it at least shows they're willing to stand up for something contentious.

However, you continue to claim that Gillard's government is worse than Abbott's opposition.

My main issues with Abbott have been the ones outlined by rstuart.

If Gillard is, as you claim, worse than Abbott, I would like you to provide some examples:

1) As put forth earlier, Tony Abbott has denigrated the entire realm of climate science. He's been on record as calling climate science 'crap' but at other times he's indicated it's true. When economists pointed out that his direct action scheme was more expensive and less efficient, he simply said that the economists in Australia are of poor quality.

Can you provide any examples of Gillard rejecting an entire profession outright? Has she ever used language like 'crap' to reject the work of an entire profession?

2) Given that Tony Abbott supports action on climate change but has also said that it's 'crap' is it, or is it not, logical to assume that he has flip flopped on this issue, in a similar way to Julia Gillard and her carbon tax?

Given that Abbott has these three things:
1) Being on record saying climate science is 'crap
2) Saying it's real
3) Putting forward a direct action plan that's more expensive than the government.

How can we have any confidence in his alternative policies?

And the real question is, can you actually engage with these points, or are you only capable of denigration, as appears to be the case with Abbott?

I for one, prefer a constructive approach to politics and policy, which is why the current crop of leaders is so disappointing.

Are you capable of being constructive, SM?

Kanne, you forgot to mention that climate advisors should be just that.

TRTL,

Considering all the vitriol directed at Abbott (sour grapes at his successful campaign), and the complete lack of constructive comments coming from the pro tax side, your one sided criticism is taken with a pinch of salt.

Julia Gillard has earned the particularly apt nick name Juliar for her deceit, and it is now widely used, and widely accepted

Dear Rehctub,

Come on you're not serious talking about brown-nosing - and blaming
the PM because the Greens and the Independents chose her instead of
Tony Abbott at the last election. Tony Abbott offered Wilkie over
$1 billion to get his vote - but failed miserably. God knows what
he offered the others. The fact remains as I stated earlier - he did
not get their support - Julia Gillard did!

tlrl..quote.."" Has she ever used language like 'crap'
to reject the work of an entire profession?""

yes try yesterdays press club hard/press
her saying the media publishes[supports?]..crap

for opnce she is being honest
she means like toney says
but i recognise its what she has spun
[the media is very one eyed about getting behind the lies]

the opposing sides have been baned from buildings
ridiculed in govt..pilaried in the press

yes juLIAR..
the press is crapp
taking your half truths as all true

SM-I'll do you the courtesy of actually addressing the points you're making.

I'd appreciate the same courtesy. I put forward queries. You proved unable to answer them. I'd still like those answered.

This is my issue with Tony Abbott as well. Rather than addressing the issues, he dismissed the other side, be they Gillard, climate scientists, or amazingly economists as a profession in its entirety.

1) "Considering all the vitriol directed at Abbott (sour grapes at his successful campaign)"

Your first assertion is correct. There's been a lot of vitriol directed at Tony Abbott. I would argue however, that it's an unfair generalization to say that it's due to sour grapes at his election campaign.

Abbott has put forward erratic policy and demonstrated contempt for those who disagree with his proposals. I'm providing examples, which I'd like to discuss, if you can.

2) "the complete lack of constructive comments coming from the pro tax side" This really depends on what alternatives are being put forward.

Either Abbott does not really believe in climate change at all, and he is misleading the public with his direct action plan.

Alternatively, he does believe in climate change, but the plan he's put forward puts the government at the centre. I prefer market-based solutions rather than relying on government expertise, particularly technology. So do most fiscal conservatives, which Abbott claims to be.

How can you reconcile these things?

3) "your one sided criticism is taken with a pinch of salt."

One sided implies I've only criticized one side. I said I was unimpressed by Gillard and think she's doing a poor job. Therefore, my comment, by definition, can't be one sided. The same cannot be said of you.

4) "Julia Gillard has earned the particularly apt nick name Juliar for her deceit, and it is now widely used, and widely accepted."

Many people called Howard 'the rodent'. That didn't mean it wasn't childish, nor was it 'widely accepted'. Are there any non-anonymous, intelligent commentators using the name 'Juliar'? Can you point to some?

As I asked, would you mind actually engaging my points?