Waiting for China and India to do something about climate change before we do is a guaranteed way to cook the planet. Not to mention morally objectionable, given the west has caused that last two centuries of rising carbon emissions. Still, shouldn’t be a problem if there’s no climate change, right?

here it is again:

http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/overview/html/overview_01.htm

you mentioned housing affordability - you’re willfully ignoring the several schemes that have been introduced.

petrol - Fuelwatch, Petrol Commissioner…not enough for you? don’t think they’ll be effective? fine…but not “not addressed”.

grocery and household costs in general - income tax cuts, upping the Child Care rebate, education rebate etc

still not enough for you, still fine…you’re free to say so…but again not “not addressed” and not “dishonest”.

emission trading - read any Labor interviews/statements from mid-last year - they all point to significant cost involved and their emphasis is on determining the best way to introduce emissions trading so the cost is spread fairly and evenly across all sectors. they always said they’d be commissioning the Garnaut report for this reason, which is exactly what they’ve done.

His first budget has addressed none of this, particularly housing and changes to taxation to discourage home investment buying. His budget took away the incentive for solar conversions. He talked of an emissions trading scheme but still has not spelt out what it would cost despite having a bloody good idea that it would mean significantly higher food and energy costs. We did not hear that during the election campaign. In fact, far from it.

That is not a flipflop but It is dishonest. He faces a credibility gap and he knows it. The Libs should apply the screws so that the country knows it. The only point is that they lack the leadership to execute it.

Rudd needs leadership to sell it and so far he has come up with a zero (apparently he is waiting for Garnaut) and the longer he waits the starker the gap. Waiting for Garnaut was and is a very bad idea because it gives Garnaud and his agenda way too much say and I predict Labor could fall flat on its face at the next election if that scenario plays out.

JamesK, small point on the first and second posts you linked to…the first refers to Hansen as “not a scientist”…the second, refers to Hansen as an “Astronomer by degree but climatologist by self appointment”.

His resume is clear on his educational qualifications:

Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967
Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966
MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965
NASA Graduate Traineeship, 1963-1966
BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963

Followed by 36 years at the NASA Goddard insitute, 27 of those as its Director…and concurrently, the last 23 years as a research professor in Earth and Environmental Sciences, at Columbia University.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/cv_hansen_200702.pdf

The ‘list of 400’ from the next link is noteworthy. Many signees flatly argue against AGW theory, many others that there simply shouldn’t be a consensus view on AGW - ‘the jury is still out’, ‘we haven’t been convinced’ etc. Many on the list work in Meteoroloy/Climatology/Atmospheric Physics etc related fields, many don’t (several are economists).

But they all have interesting and educated views, and their comments are worth reading. Good on them for sticking up in support of their arguments.

On the other hand, there are 15.7 million people in the USA alone, who hold Science degrees.

Internationally - in 2002 alone - 50,644 people were awarded PHDs specific to Physics/Environmental/Bioligical fields.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/

They’re all just as qualified to hold an opinion as those in the list of 400.

Of course there are scientists who disagree with Hansen (and the other tens of thousands of scientists internationally, as well as the CSIRO, Bureau of Metereology, NASA, IPCC, UN, and every national science board, who openly subscribe to AGW theory) - so there should be.

I’m as interested as you in reading opposing views on AGW and debating the science…it’d be silly not to be.

But in terms of a numbers game - 400 is rather meaningless - and with respect for the qualifications of many of the 400, they’re a drop in the ocean.

.

thanks very much JamesK, very classy and more than a little sexist…

need I echo your “if we are to have a debate”, and add you could perhaps refrain from the name-calling in future…

Unfortunately (as Bernard is pointing out) it’s Opposition members who’ve had to repeatedly flip-flop this last 12 months, as their Party struggles to find its line…

As CC points out Malcolm Turnbull has been made to look increasingly agenda-less - so maybe Nelson’s playing the short game is not so dumb right now…

I rather suspect that greg is not a scientist nor a climatologist.
There are scientists and climatologists who do not sucbscribe to Hansens and greg’s world view :

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Lastly greg you called me both a climate change denier and a climate change sceptic and as I made plain previously I am neither.

“His first budget has addressed none of this”

Well apparently it has… otherwise the Opposition would have found more to attack than simply ‘Fuelwatch is inadequate’, and the removal of Solar Panel rebates for medium-high income earners. Oops, forgot luxury car tax. And Butlergate (what a fizzer)…smart of them to remember to check the size of Howard’s entourage before launching that paper rocket. Then there’s lifting of the Medicare rebate threshold, but (assuming the system can handle it) that does actually help ‘working families’ too.

You could try reading the budget…it’s revealing to see just how many schemes implemented aren’t coming under fire…here’s a good place to start:

http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/overview/html/overview_01.htm

Regarding emissions trading…

JOHN HOWARD - Lateline 13/11/2006: There are significant and damaging growths in the levels of greenhouse gas emissions, and that - unless we lay the foundation over the years immediately ahead of us to deal with the problem, future generations will face significant penalties and will have cause to criticise failure to do something substantial in response.

I’d guess in that case, you’d say Labor was ‘me tooing’?

But generally, just hold your blooming horses…the green paper on emissions trading will be released in a few weeks time.

At a time like this you indulge in facile semantics in order to crucify those people who have got their noses out of the ‘proverbial trough’ long enough to contemplate the incipient disaster awaiting us. You are a beacon which illuminates the appalling apathy of the average Australian. Also, you display the amazing shortfall of this country’s peoples’ ability to indulge in rational thought. Your attitude is f*ck the argument, let’s get stuck into the people who dare to think. Indeed, why think about a difficult future when you can go to the footy instead. To deny you are on one side or the other in this discussion is bollocks. You are so far right wing as to be ludicrous.

You call yourself ‘The Kid From Bondi’. I take it that your first name is Billy.

Knit one, purl one; slip one.

Bernard, whilst I actually agree that we should act in response to global warming that does not mean that global warming is an indisputable fact. It is not and moreover amongst those experts, who do agree that man made global warming is real, they disagree wildly with both its extent and the possible repercussions. Science is actually inexact and climatology is more inexact than most.

JJ is in fact correct. There is more controversy not less over the past few years. Just because you frequently disagree with him does not automatically invalidate his point. In fact, he is frequently right!
You do not win the argument by suggesting that he is ‘from planet Triton or wherever you’ve been collecting data on the case against global warming’.

The only valid point is in relation to India and China not being likely to sign up. Sign up they must although the requirements on them and so the costs are likely to be less severe than for wealthy countries. Australia per se globally is irrelevant. I do agree that it does have a leadership role and if Rudd can be restrained from making a twat of himself internationally (like Nick does on this board), Australia could have a role to play.

Finally Australia under Howard (however repulsive that is to lefties) actually fulfilled all requirements for Kyoto which is why Rudd could actually sign.

One more point: Just because I do not subscribe to Crikey’s all to frequently extreme left wing agenda does not make me a lover of the Liberal party and John Howard in particular. Rudd could still be good but…..