Rudd however is making a run, he has every chance of pulling it off.
Belly,
I can't even imagine the silliest of the silly to go for Rudd again. No-one is that selfless in this country.

Poirot, I would rather take notice of James Hanson than yourself.
After all he is the preeminent climate scientist of the AGW movement.
He is at NASA and he is always quoted as the authority on AGW.
They don't come any nearer the top of the AGW tree than that.

I know that it might be difficult for you to back down, but there it is !

Bazz,

"I know it might be difficult for you to back down..."

No backing down involved...

Here's a little more from Hansen - and strangely he's arguing in favour of AGW.

"....the question is important because actions to stem emissions of gases that cause global warming are unlikely until the pubic appreciates the significance of global warming and perceives it will have unacceptable consequences..."

(I know how keen you are to take notice of James Hansen since he is at NASA and is always quoted as an authority on AGW)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

Well, ar'll be.......

Poirot, I didn't say he did not still believe in AGW, it is just that
he admits that the temperature has not risen for 15 years.

Dear Shadow Minister,

With all due respect there is a "gulf of difference
between a broken promise in the context of altered
circumstances and a deliberate decision to mislead
such as accusing the PM of lying to argue that the
carbon pricing scheme is based on a deliberate
pre-meditated lie in itself displays some towering
mendacity."

"The fact that it has persisted for so long and
spawned the meme "Ju-liar," ( term used only by the
ignorant, boorish, and spiteful) says more about Mr
Abbott's (and his supporters) guile and ability to
manipulate the facts for his own destructive ends
than it does about the PM's trustworthiness."

Well, well, Bazz...since you're so keen to "cherry-pick" that comment and apply it out of context to warming - why don't you buy into anything else Hansen has to say?

Could it be that his views in general contradict your "skeptical" outlook, and therefore it remains outside your brief to examine his data more closely - with an open mind?