The climate change skeptics in the Australian Government have painted themselves into a corner because of the short term political decisions they have made. No matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, these politicians have no option, other than to mouth the same old nonsense they have been since the debate begun, derision and ridicule is their game plan. To change opinion now with the overwhelming evidence presented, would cause conservative politicians, the likes of Abbott and others, to loose face with the general public, and worse still the support of big oil, and big coal, which have vested interest in opposing any action on climate change what so ever, big business is always driven by the short term profit motive.

Beach, Bob Brown served the Australian people as a distinguished member of both the Tasmanian and Australian Parliaments from 1983 to 2012, about 30 years, unlike your own fearless leaders, the convicted criminals, Jim Salem and Pauline Hanson who during the same period served jail time at taxpayers expense. As a hypocrite with a anti Green phobia, you take the cake.

Paul, I would be careful about calling Pauline Hanson a criminal.
She was found to be not guilty on appeal as she had been setup.

You might well have left yourself open to be sued.
I have no idea who Jim Salem might be.

Even Tim Flannery has been reluctant to call the storm to be due to AGW.
He has never been reluctant in the past to nominate anything in sight
so if he won't then I wouldn't.

This b^&*dy stupid argument as to whether AGW is real or not is just
a distraction to what has to be done about alternative energy.

Both coal & oil ERoEI are falling and we will have to replace them.

The situation with oil has become critical;

Goldilocks is dead !

There is now no "Just Right" price for oil.
It is either too high for the economy or too low for the producer.

And you lot are arguing about AGW !

Paul,

Here's the transcript where Kerry O'Brien exposes Abbott's involvement in bringing down Hanson.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s933489.htm

"TONY ABBOTT: Well, I think that I can live with my conscience.

I think it was very important to challenge the Hanson juggernaut back then in 1998.

The difference is, Kerry, that a lot of people who were angry with her then feel sorry for her now, and I suppose I do myself, because I think that there's a sense in which the punishment meted out to her doesn't really fit the crime, but certainly, at the time, the reality of her so-called party needed to be exposed and I was happy to try to do it.

KERRY O'BRIEN: We know you established that fund to use Terry Sharples as a stalking horse in 1998."

"KERRY O'BRIEN: And you're saying now that wasn't a lie -- not just Liberal Party funds but any other funds?

TONY ABBOTT: I had promised that he wouldn't be out of pocket, but there's a difference between telling someone he won't be out of pocket and telling someone that you're going to have to pay him money.

KERRY O'BRIEN: What's the difference?

If you say to me, "Kerry, you won't be out of pocket for this", aren't I entitled to assume that means you're going to guarantee the funds for me?"

Read the whole interview - it's fascinating.

Trying to sue the government for flooding due to climate change would be the height of stupidity for the following reasons:

A) Australia contributes only 1.3% to emissions thus at best would be liable for 1.3% of damages.
B) The plaintiff would have to show that the particular flood was entirely due to climate change. A 50% probability would reduce this to about 0.7%.
C) To get the 0.7% of damages the plaintiff would have to show that the only reasonable action of the government would be to reduce emissions by today to zero. A 20% reduction would reduce the liability for damages to about 0.15%.
D) Finally to get anything, the plaintiff would have to show that the accident was due to no fault of the victim, and that driving through flood waters was a rational decision and that they were unaware of the advice not to do this.

Q.E.D.

When someone questions climate change and links it to environmental destruction they are often attacked - as being "rude" (in terms of the victims of an issue - like flooding or bushfires).

What many people (including government) do not realise is that people live on the planet earth, and if climate change is having an impact, the governments of Australia are responsible in many ways and in some ways the public - unless we are willing to take on serious lifestyle change.

It in many ways relates to any policy. So lets say farmers are suffering in a particular area - because there is virtually no water left, due to say to being in a drying climate - is it their fault?

So instead of playing silly politics on the issue, we need to realise the real impacts of climate change - but our federal government doesn't want to accept that. They seem to want to write the issue off, for the element of constant economic growth at any cost.

Compensation after some bushfires - are at levels as high as $10 million dollars, and if politicians don't realise environmental vandalism damages our lives - do they really care about the public at all?

I can hear it now. All the conniving greenies blaming our energy use next time we get a severe drought. Yes I said next time, because we "aint seen nothing yet".

The barrier reef cores drilled over 50 years ago on the southern reef show a period of 27 years, just before Cook & the Endeavour sailed reef, when no silt came from the Fitzroy river. Now that's a drought.

This makes anything experienced since settlement just a short dry spell. These of course have been quietly hidden away, as they show climate variability far greater than anything experienced since the development of electric power, or the dreaded motor car.

It is very embracing for greenies & the lefties riding the global warming gravy train to have to confront such dramatic evidence. Yes evidence, not some concocted computer modellers fantasy.

I really do get disgusted by these people who refuse to look at solid evidence, but keep waffling on with their global warming caused by a little CO2.

It is obvious they are fools or conmen. Which category most suits you NathanJ?