An impending vote on cap and trade legislation has caused a revolt in the Australian parliament which could spill leadership of the key opposition party as the government attempts to stitch up its position ahead of Copenhagen.
Abbott to challenge Turnbull
This revolt is led by climate change skeptics who don't see the need to set policy in concrete before the actions of the major carbon polluters are known and become binding.

It demonstrates major divisions in conservative ranks about the fact of the cause of climate change and the need for the general population to carry the cost through higher energy and food prices

Since it has been revealed that even data from New Zealand was manipulated to advance a predetermined outcome ;why should anyone trust the scientists, that politicians have hired with taxpayer money, to provide them with accurate information ?
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...-417809-6.html (#58)
I submit that if there was any reason to trust the conclusions then it would be much easier to create a political consensus regarding future policy.

On a related note ;President Obama has buckled to European pressure and will go to Copenhagen(scene of his Chicago Olympics debacle )to make a self-aggrandizing address while he's in the neighborhood picking up his undeserved Nobel Prize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

On a related note ;President Obama has buckled to European pressure and will go to Copenhagen(scene of his Chicago Olympics debacle )to make a self-aggrandizing address while he's in the neighborhood picking up his undeserved Nobel Prize.

---

There is no consensus on climate change, Tom, there are theories and there are lies but the truth is not known. If the heads of state of the world have agreed to meet, why shouldn't Obama condescend to join them. I expect he was reluctant to go because he had nothing to offer, no leadership position to assume. But this thread has nothing to do with that American loser, the recipricant of an undeserved award, but with a number of local politicians who are also about to become losers, victims of climate change

The Copenhagen meeting is based completely on consensus thinking. Why would they converge on Copenhagen to craft Kyoto II if there wasn't a consensus on the issue?

We now know what we always suspected;the the consensus was built on a foundation of lies.

If supporters of this charade are taken down I'll be the 1st to cheer. But I suspect the price will be paid by the skeptics of the orthodoxy.

Hello again, tom:

Do you mean to tell me that the world is not yet aware of the scam you've uncovered?? Stupid world.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Copenhagen meeting is based completely on concensus thinking. Why would they converge on Copenhagen to craft Kyoto II if there wasn't a concensus on the issue?

We now know what we always suspected;the the concensus was built on a foundation of lies.

If supporters of this charade are taken down I'll be the 1st to cheer. But I suspect the price will be paid by the skeptics of the orthodoxy.

---

Consensus, Tom, a consensus of self protection. You know as well as I do that just like Kyoto, Copenhagen allows the politicians of the world to say look what we have done. It's a "peace in our time" initiative. But look what the US has done, effectively nothing, a fine opportunity for Obama to grandstand without the backing of the Congress, and in my own nation consensus doesn't exist on this subject, the skeptics are indeed paying the price. Europe is leading the charge because Europe has an energy problem which means their energy is very costly

Hey it's a first, the skeptics won:D

Yes read some of the details . Hit the road Malcolm Turnbull .You are what we call here a RINO . Your liberal party (sorta the Republicans ) picked a new boss who doesn't buy into the proposition that the Australian economy should be ruined with killer cr@pandtrade to decrease Australia's massive 1.5% of the worlds greenhouse emissions. Meet the new boss... Tony Abbott !

Is it true Rudd is so obsessed with this stuff that he is willing to let the government go down ? He should suck it up and go to Copenhagen with nothing in his pocket... just like the rest of the world. Rudd is the next clown to go down. His devotion to the phony AGW proposition is like religious zealotry .

Tom, I will be VERY surprised if the Rudd Government go down on this. The Liberals have moved from moderate to the right and they are about to be slaughtered for that very reason... again!!

P.S. I am a climate change skeptic.

I had heard Rudd had threatened a double dissolution election. But now I see he is denying it .

I've been out of the country for 3months Tom so haven't seen where he is denying it? Do you have a link?

An always sensible analyst from the SMH has some interesting things to say on the topic below.

Emissions Trading Scheme | Climate Change | Ross Gittins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

An always sensible analyst from the SMH has some interesting things to say on the topic below.

Emissions Trading Scheme | Climate Change | Ross Gittins

---

I think the description would be usually sensible analyst, but in this case, wrong on the issue of impact. The Pricing Tribunal in NSW, an Australian state, has already signaled that the ETS would raise electricity prices by 30% and if Mr Gittens thinks energy is a small part of household spending he should take the time to pay the bills or perhaps he can afford to spend his money on more important things. This ETS is flawed and unnecessary. It represents a license to pollute and the reason a big spending Labor government is keen on it is it is revenue raising and the further into the future you look the bigger the take, so big in fact that those affected will be compensated in some form. This being so why do we need a scheme that takes with one hand and gives back with the other?

Abbott is a climate change (human impact) sceptic and he has won the day over an ardent climate change believer. The risk management approach so favoured by the populist politicians of the day has been overturned, and this is good, we are not going to implement a new tax to satisfy the Europeans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

I've been out of the country for 3months Tom so haven't seen where he is denying it? Do you have a link?

---

You should research the ABC and various talk shows. Abbott made very specific statements before this issue blew up signaling that he was sceptical about the extent of human induced climate change. This whole thing is very opportunist and is also a reaction to the autocratic position of the former leader

Yes ABC is the source.
Rudd plays down double dissolution talk - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

But the Senate rejection gives him the option from what I'm reading .

The Aussies' cap-and-trade is dead for the time being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I think the description would be usually sensible analyst, but in this case, wrong on the issue of impact. The Pricing Tribunal in NSW, an Australian state, has already signaled that the ETS would raise electricity prices by 30% and if Mr Gittens thinks energy is a small part of household spending he should take the time to pay the bills or perhaps he can afford to spend his money on more important things.

---

Really? Energy is a large part of your household spending? I think I remember you saying your from the blue mountains so that might explain why, but I think a majority of Australians % of household expenditure on energy would be minimal.

Abbott is unpopular, particularly with women, because he is seen as a nasty and unnecessarily aggressive yob. Not to mention he's a bigoted Catholic.

ETS is dead and I'm here nor there on the issue. A bit like most of the Liberal Party is suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes ABC is the source.
Rudd plays down double dissolution talk - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

But the Senate rejection gives him the option from what I'm reading .

---

Correct Tom!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

but I think a majority of Australians % of household expenditure on energy would be minimal.

---

It is not minimal as you suggest and is a concern of many lower income families. In my own case it represents about 10% of household expenditure, but you forget as do many others that it is being used in some places as a revenue raising item for government. Before this year energy prices have risen 30% in the past ten years, this year 20% with the price signal given recently of a further 60% of which 30% would come from an ETS. The government in this state extracts a sizable dividend from generators and distributors

Quote:

---

Abbott is unpopular, particularly with women, because he is seen as a nasty and unnecessarily aggressive yob. Not to mention he's a bigoted Catholic.

.

---

It is too early to play the religion card, and by stating it in those terms you demonstrate yourself to be bigoted. Abbott may have been vocal on unpopular subjects but there is no indication that he is generally unpopular, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...1202-k689.htmlunlike his predecessor who was arrogant and completely unconnected with the electorate. Abbott may actually be able to grab some of the Christian vote. He has already made the mistake of talking about "work choices" http://www.smh.com.au/national/bring...ml?autostart=1and that is the elephant in the room for the Liberals and Abbott. The ETS is far from dead, Krudd will be hoping the Liberals self destruct in the next few months and another leader will emerge who will embrace the climate change message, saving him from a double dissolution election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

I've been out of the country for 3months Tom so haven't seen where he is denying it? Do you have a link?

---

Surprised you weren't on this but here is a link that gives perspective and some quotes
Climate Sceptics | Global Warming | Liberal Leadership | Marian Wilkinson