Australian emissions rising towards historical highs and will not peak before 2030, analysis finds

Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions are set to keep rising well beyond 2020 on current trends, with the projected growth rate one of the worst in the developed world, a new analysis has found.

An assessment of recent government emissions data, carried out by the carbon consultancy firm RepuTex, says that in the 2014-15 financial year Australia's carbon pollution rose for the first time in almost a decade when compared to the previous year.

From there they say separate government forecasts, also released late last year, show Australia's emissions are on track for a further 6 per cent increase to 2020.

RepuTex's own projections find that on these trends Australian emissions would still not reach a peak before 2030, taking pollution beyond the historical high set almost a decade ago.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/australian-emissions-rising-towards-historical-highs-and-will-not-peak-before-2030-analysis-finds-20160131-gmhw7y.html

A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic.

However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky:

It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246

When will the Greens stop supporting real terrorism?

When, if ever, will the Greens support a real ETS?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:27am:

When will the Greens stop supporting real terrorism?

Real terrorism !
Don't believe in the science of dangerous climate change ?



System Collapse ~ Latest Stage Of AGW

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454149439



Quote:

"We need for people to understand that this is not a natural event." Ecologist Professor Jamie Kirkpatrick is also upset by the loss of alpine flora. "They're killed by fire and they don't come back," said Professor Kirkpatrick. "It's a species that would have been around in the cretaceous period. It's regarded as one of the main reasons for listing Tasmania as a world heritage area."

---

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:38am:

When, if ever, will the Greens support a real ETS?

Why Greens Rejected The CPRS

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1449746328

And there will no doubt be more bulldust said about the next ETS. Greens want to protect their wealthy inner city base so don’t want to tax them to reduce emissions. That is pretty obvious.

The greens are climate terrorists.  They systemetically destroyed the debate in Australia.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:30am:

The greens are climate terrorists.  They systemetically destroyed the debate in Australia.

Pretty much.

When will Armchairs brain grow or was his mum bitten by a Aedes aegypti mosquito before his birth.

Small head, small brain

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:30am:

The greens are climate terrorists.  They systemetically destroyed the debate in Australia.

That particular debate was between Labor and the climate denialists in the Liberal party, so to stitch up a deal where coal emissions wouldn't be effected until after 2033.

Well done Greens for destroying that debate ... however they were supposed to have achieved the two old parties falling out when Greens were not present at the dirty dealings  ... me think the climate terrorists here in this thread ~  trying to blame the Greens ~ don't have very good memory recall.

The Greens are the reason we have no ETS right now.

The Greens will oppose safe nuclear just for the sake of picking up the votes of some NIMBYs.

Greens are opportunists and sellouts.

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:05am:

Australian emissions rising towards historical highs and will not peak before 2030, analysis finds Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions are set to keep rising well beyond 2020 on current trends, with the projected growth rate one of the worst in the developed world, a new analysis has found. An assessment of recent government emissions data, carried out by the carbon consultancy firm RepuTex, says that in the 2014-15 financial year Australia's carbon pollution rose for the first time in almost a decade when compared to the previous year. From there they say separate government forecasts, also released late last year, show Australia's emissions are on track for a further 6 per cent increase to 2020. RepuTex's own projections find that on these trends Australian emissions would still not reach a peak before 2030, taking pollution beyond the historical high set almost a decade ago. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/australian-emissions-rising-towards-historical-highs-and-will-not-peak-before-2030-analysis-finds-20160131-gmhw7y.html

http://s25.postimg.org/celgvqy9r/12507295_1065645760152246_5463851513630707175_n.jpg


http://s25.postimg.org/hde17e8e7/12246645_10207645603475505_4510131644863356596_n.jpg

Is this Kevin 747......nah its SHY the green nutcase "rescuing" refugees whilst enjoying the taxpayers dollar in the warm sunshine of the Mediterranean........

Why tag onto my opening post with your propaganda pictures.

Not even in the same league.

Why tag onto my opening post with your propaganda pictures.
Like your "propaganda" picture?
Not even in the same league.
Not a competition lovey......

Fuzzball wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:05am:

Why tag onto my opening post with your propaganda pictures. Like your "propaganda" picture? Not even in the same league. Not a competition lovey......

Tasmania fires: First images of World Heritage Area devastation emerge, show signs of 'system collapse'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454149439

An actual photo of the face of dangerous climate collapse.

Not propaganda that you posted.
Perhaps you should frequent the kiddy section of the internet.

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:46am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:30am: The greens are climate terrorists.  They systemetically destroyed the debate in Australia. That particular debate was between Labor and the climate denialists in the Liberal party, so to stitch up a deal where coal emissions wouldn't be effected until after 2033. Well done Greens for destroying that debate ... however they were supposed to have achieved the two old parties falling out when Greens were not present at the dirty dealings  ... me think the climate terrorists here in this thread ~  trying to blame the Greens ~ don't have very good memory recall.

Keep telling yourself that.  History sees it a different way.  The greens said no to an ETS and then brought in the same, only with a much higher price that was denounced by even the Grattan institute.  As a result of this the greens destroyed any hopes of proper action.  Well done greens. The real terrorists.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:34am:

____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:46am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:30am: The greens are climate terrorists.  They systemetically destroyed the debate in Australia. That particular debate was between Labor and the climate denialists in the Liberal party, so to stitch up a deal where coal emissions wouldn't be effected until after 2033. Well done Greens for destroying that debate ... however they were supposed to have achieved the two old parties falling out when Greens were not present at the dirty dealings  ... me think the climate terrorists here in this thread ~  trying to blame the Greens ~ don't have very good memory recall. Keep telling yourself that.  History sees it a different way.  The greens said no to an ETS and then brought in the same, only with a much higher price that was denounced by even the Grattan institute.  As a result of this the greens destroyed any hopes of proper action.  Well done greens. The real terrorists.

The damage had already been done by Labor ... your argument is false.

Labor was terrified by the majority desiring real action on dangerous climate change and so they created a false prophet in Kevin Rudd, who crashed that support onto the rocks with a dirty deal with the denialist in the coalition. Labor then ran away from any action on dangerous climate change.

It's about time you educated yourself on this issue ... and if you are educated, then stop lying.

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:03am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:34am: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:46am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:30am: The greens are climate terrorists.  They systemetically destroyed the debate in Australia. That particular debate was between Labor and the climate denialists in the Liberal party, so to stitch up a deal where coal emissions wouldn't be effected until after 2033. Well done Greens for destroying that debate ... however they were supposed to have achieved the two old parties falling out when Greens were not present at the dirty dealings  ... me think the climate terrorists here in this thread ~  trying to blame the Greens ~ don't have very good memory recall. Keep telling yourself that.  History sees it a different way.  The greens said no to an ETS and then brought in the same, only with a much higher price that was denounced by even the Grattan institute.  As a result of this the greens destroyed any hopes of proper action.  Well done greens. The real terrorists. The damage had already been done by Labor ... your argument is false. Labor was terrified by the majority desiring real action on dangerous climate change and so they created a false prophet in Kevin Rudd, who crashed that support onto the rocks with a dirty deal with the denialist in the coalition. Labor then ran away from any action on dangerous climate change. It's about time you educated yourself on this issue ... and if you are educated, then stop lying.

Who's lying? If the ETS was so bad why did the greens bring in an exact same policy, except with a higher price that was too high?????  Greens destroyed the debate. They are the true terrorists.

You are.

Labor destroyed majority support for action on dangerous climate change and then walked away from a Double Dissolution since their trickery would of been exposed.

Labor crashed the debate.

Greens voted down the CPRS because they do not want an effective, permanent ETS.

Their behavior since Rudd’s CPRS confirms this.

Greens are Libs in green coats really.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 11:43am:

Greens voted down the CPRS because they do not want an effective, permanent ETS. Their behavior since Rudd’s CPRS confirms this. Greens are Libs in green coats really.

Greens voted against Labor and Coalition's negotiated CPRS because it locked in no reduction in coal pollution emissions until after 2033 ... locked in massive payouts to the polluters for nothing in return ... and locked in massive compensation to the polluters if the dirty scheme was retro-fixed later on.

Then when the coalition pulled out to stuff up Labor, the dirty scheme failed. Rather than take it to a DD, labor retreated because voters would of realised Labor and Liberal's trickery.

Greens were happy to green up Labor's scheme yet Labor refused to negotiate ... including a ban on meeting with Greens Leader, Bob Brown, for over 12 months.

Gingko is suppose to be good herbal assistance for memory ... increases the oxygen to the brain. Perhaps you should consider it !

Blah de blah de blah

It is because of the Greens that we do not have an ETS right now.

Poor little labor supporter ... blaming all of labor's mistakes on everyone else.

Open your eyes: the Greens have ensured we have no ETS now!

An ETS that would have done nothing and is no better than direct action.

What was the point?

On topic, One of my friends is a climate scientist and he says pretty much to us we're f**ked, humanity might not go extinct, but for real intents and purposes, the human race will likely collapse due to climate change and we're already done for and the data shows this already.

Even when I was a kid, Scientists were far more open about how dangerous climate change was and that was decades ago, the witch hunt you can tell has really taken its toll.

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:09am:

A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic. However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky: It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246

Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes.

Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:19pm:

____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:09am: A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic. However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky: It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246 Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes. Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/climate-findings-suppressed-researchers/2007/03/09/1173166991649.html

Exactly the opposite, Government agencies suppressed lots of the final draft as so they could excuse themselves not taking action on climate change.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:19pm:

____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:09am: A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic. However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky: It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246 Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes. Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc

We can always rely on Maria to pluck her evidence out of the ether. Bonus is, we all know she will never back up her made up facts with links.

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:25pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:19pm: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:09am: A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic. However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky: It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246 Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes. Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc We can always rely on Maria to pluck her evidence out of the ether. Bonus is, we all know she will never back up her made up facts with links.

The FACTS are all around you. Temperature barely changing, polar ice not disappearing, seas scarcely changing and no identifiable climate change outside of natural variation.  There is in fact NOT ONE SINGLE bit of evidence to suggest human-driven catastrophic climate change is a risk of any kind.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:45pm:

____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:19pm: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:09am: A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic. However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky: It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246 Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes. Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc We can always rely on Maria to pluck her evidence out of the ether. Bonus is, we all know she will never back up her made up facts with links. The FACTS are all around you. Temperature barely changing, polar ice not disappearing, seas scarcely changing and no identifiable climate change outside of natural variation.  There is in fact NOT ONE SINGLE bit of evidence to suggest human-driven catastrophic climate change is a risk of any kind.

Debate is over, get with the times.

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 11:39am:

You are. Labor destroyed majority support for action on dangerous climate change and then walked away from a Double Dissolution since their trickery would of been exposed. Labor crashed the debate.

If it helps you sleep at night.

But we all know the greens fcked it up

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:50pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:45pm: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:19pm: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:09am: A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic. However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky: It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246 Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes. Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc We can always rely on Maria to pluck her evidence out of the ether. Bonus is, we all know she will never back up her made up facts with links. The FACTS are all around you. Temperature barely changing, polar ice not disappearing, seas scarcely changing and no identifiable climate change outside of natural variation.  There is in fact NOT ONE SINGLE bit of evidence to suggest human-driven catastrophic climate change is a risk of any kind. Debate is over, get with the times.

BEcause a UN conference decided to hold hands and sing Kumbuya? (and nothing else of course)

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:45pm:

____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:19pm: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:09am: A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic. However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky: It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246 Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes. Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc We can always rely on Maria to pluck her evidence out of the ether. Bonus is, we all know she will never back up her made up facts with links. The FACTS are all around you. Temperature barely changing, polar ice not disappearing, seas scarcely changing and no identifiable climate change outside of natural variation.  There is in fact NOT ONE SINGLE bit of evidence to suggest human-driven catastrophic climate change is a risk of any kind.

^{Every single word of Marias statement is wrong  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)}

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:45pm: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:19pm: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:09am: A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic. However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky: It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246 Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes. Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc We can always rely on Maria to pluck her evidence out of the ether. Bonus is, we all know she will never back up her made up facts with links. The FACTS are all around you. Temperature barely changing, polar ice not disappearing, seas scarcely changing and no identifiable climate change outside of natural variation.  There is in fact NOT ONE SINGLE bit of evidence to suggest human-driven catastrophic climate change is a risk of any kind. Debate is over, get with the times. BEcause a UN conference decided to hold hands and sing Kumbuya? (and nothing else of course)

because the world is acting. There is consensus. Climate Change is real. Deal with it. And move on with your life.  You fought on the dumb side of the debate, and you lost miserably. 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:51pm:

____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 11:39am: You are. Labor destroyed majority support for action on dangerous climate change and then walked away from a Double Dissolution since their trickery would of been exposed. Labor crashed the debate. If it helps you sleep at night. But we all know the greens fcked it up

Trying to be Maria's conjoined twin ... pretending your opinions are facts ?

Who in partnership with the coalition attacked the Renewable Energy Sector via attacking RET ... then included burning old growth forest as a renewable energy. Nasty old labor !

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:51pm: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 11:39am: You are. Labor destroyed majority support for action on dangerous climate change and then walked away from a Double Dissolution since their trickery would of been exposed. Labor crashed the debate. If it helps you sleep at night. But we all know the greens fcked it up Trying to be Maria's conjoined twin ... pretending your opinions are facts ? Who in partnership with the coalition attacked the Renewable Energy Sector via attacking RET ... then included burning old growth forest as a renewable energy. Nasty old labor !

none of that matters. Everything fell apart once the Greens decided they didn't like an ETS that they then re-introduced as an exactly the same policy, only with a much higher cost. Greens are vandals. Terrorists. Destroyed the entire debate on climate change.

Things fell apart when Labor tried to fool the voters with their dirty CPRS ... then chickened out of a DD over it.

This is when Labor sold out Australians.

When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?

When there are no votes in it.

____ wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 6:54am:

Things fell apart when Labor tried to fool the voters with their dirty CPRS ... then chickened out of a DD over it. This is when Labor sold out Australians.

The Greens stuffed up, get over it.  The greens pooed in their own nest.

You can not expect a government to go to a DD over every policy, there is a reasonable chance that a competent GG would reject a call for a DD over this issue. The GG has to believe that it will make government unworkable, I doubt that would be the case.

Labor had the trigger.
Labor had the majority support for real action on dangerous climate change.

What labor was missing was the policy to win the election ... and the courage.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:23pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:45pm: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:19pm: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:09am: A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic. However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky: It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246 Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes. Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc We can always rely on Maria to pluck her evidence out of the ether. Bonus is, we all know she will never back up her made up facts with links. The FACTS are all around you. Temperature barely changing, polar ice not disappearing, seas scarcely changing and no identifiable climate change outside of natural variation.  There is in fact NOT ONE SINGLE bit of evidence to suggest human-driven catastrophic climate change is a risk of any kind. Debate is over, get with the times. BEcause a UN conference decided to hold hands and sing Kumbuya? (and nothing else of course) because the world is acting. There is consensus. Climate Change is real. Deal with it. And move on with your life.  You fought on the dumb side of the debate, and you lost miserably.

The world ISNT acting at all.
Their isnt consensus at all and never has been.
Climate Change (castastrophic human-driven kind) is a con with ZERO evidence to support it.

Yes Maria  ... human activity is just an internet conspiracy.

Next Maria will claim a human caused nuclear winter wouldn't effect the climate.

____ wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 11:02am:

Yes Maria  ... human activity is just an internet conspiracy. Next Maria will claim a human caused nuclear winter wouldn't effect the climate.

You really do come up with pointless dross.