Spindoc,
I think in the case of Oz and many other places good old human nature is the prime problem, the problem of climate change is not apparent, not in your face so it becomes an academic , albeit heated, discussion.
I guess if we had the pollution like that being experienced in some Chinese cities there would be an outcry in Oz to do something about it.
Where I live the climate appears to be cooling if anything, a sea breeze blows most of the time and there is no obvious pollution. It is only what I read that advises me of imminent doom and gloom or the opposite, I cannot draw on my own experience in such matters.
I lean toward the scientific view that the climate is changing but like many have reservations as to the whys and wherefores.
For now I can only follow the debate, hopefully it will become more rational over time.
SD

Spindoc at times we have displayed some mutual respect for each other.
You can do better than this trash.
Are you ghost writing for Cory the right wing nut?
Gee even you and your extremists temporarily in control must know the world is moving in the opposite direction.
This thread should be on display in every home.
Let voters never forget the many Trojan horses your mob bought with them.
It is within reasonable thinkers sight, the fact Abbott may yet be replaced mid term by Turnbull, God help Labor if that takes place.
But your team is off to a bad start in racing terms have turned around in the barrier and are racing in the wrong direction.

its the secrecy/spin..that gets really nasty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7VD4CLUrXA

a good lie..needs some truth/lots of feaR AND NO TIME TO THINK

THE THING..IS FOLLOW THE MONEY
44 CENTS [OR MORE]..FEED IN TARIFF..ONLY MEANS THE PLAN..IS LOG-TERM..THAT EVEN THEY WILL IN TIME BE PAYING MORE THAN THAT..

fear is great..to feed into guilt
then the big payoff...your shout*

A new report
has been released from the
Australian Centre for Independent Journalism's
Wendy Bacon entitled "Sceptical Climate."

The report examined 10 newspapers across 3 month periods
in 20111 and 2012. All in all the study looked at more that
600 articles dealing with cliamte science.
Asound one third were sceptical or critical of the consensus
scientific position on anthropogenic global warming.

The Murdoch tabloids were even more pronouced.
73 per cent of the words in climate-related articles in
The Daily Telegraph were devoted to sceptical positions and
in the Herald Sun it was 81 percent.

Much of this can be explained by the dominant role of
conservative anti-science columnists (like Andrew Bolt) who
play a particularly harmful role in this debate.

This media skew along with the popularity and success of the
Coalition's anti-carbon tax campaign helps to explain the
way the public's been influenced in this debate and it also
explains the low-level of scrutiny that has been applied
to what's being esposed both in discussion and policy.

The international coverage of
climate change is so very different from the Australian
coverage. The international coverage being more detailed,
deeper, and better informed by the science.
There's less attention given overseas to scientifically dubious
claims and politically motivated false balance.
CNN, the BBC, and even Time magazine ridicule the Coalition's
climate scepticism.

Watching John Hewson on The Drum recently was interesting.
He found John Howard's recent speech to a group of climate
sceptics in London, "embarrassing," to say the least.
However, as one poster reminded people, Why be surprised?
John Howard was the man who told us that, "Saddam had weapons
of mass destruction that would kill us all, that the Iraqi
people would embrace us with open arms and we'll make it a
better place, that money spent on infrastructure is wasted
money, that billions spent on obsolete refurbished weapons
from the Vietnam war bought from the US is a cracking deal and
that the "free" trade deal with the US is good for us..."

Australia has been poorly served by domestic coverage of
climate science and policy.

Hi Folks,

My time on OLO has taught me that after taxes and death only two other things are certain:
1) If a site/group/researcher bills themselves as "independent" they are usually pretty far left,and
2) If Lexi/Foxy links us to anything it is usually on the left side of Pol Pot.

And so we have Foxy's latest:
<< A new report ...[from]the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism's Wendy Bacon>>

But when we visit (independent) Wendy's sites what do you find:

" Wendy Bacon, journalist and activist...[I'm]Voting Green because I’m a journalist – and all the other reasons"
http://www.wendybacon.com/investigations/

And if you read some of her other reports they read like New Matilda ...and surprise, surprise she writes for New Matilda!

ROFL

Nice try Foxy!

Poirot/Foxy we do not waste our time here in this thread.
Just look around and see the true extremism mixed with the true failure to understand.
I can take criticism, and read the critics of climate change ,those who bother to put a case not those who link their views to the extremes in politics.
It is worth noting they walk all over the greens on this subject.
But never tell us it is their politics that forms these extremist views on this subject.
Truth will out and even the more moderate side of Liberalism will once back in control, join in the fight to cut emissions.