The Australian Senate has rejected Labour party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s carbon emissions bill by a vote of 41-33. Interestingly, it was supported by Liberal (i.e., conservative) party Malcolm Turnbull, who was promptly sacked as party leader. Like the Waxman-Markey carbon emissions bill which passed the House back in June but seems to have no chance in the Senate, Rudd’s measure was criticized by both conservatives and by global warming alarmists.
The Obama administration has been brandishing the threat that if Congress does not pass carbon emissions legislation, EPA might impose more stringent limits on emissions (and thus on economic growth) by administrative action. But as Alan Carlin of EPA points out, EPA’s case for controlling carbon emissions relies heavily on data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which turns out to be non-retrievable and non-replicable. Carlin suggests that this increases the chance that any EPA action would be overturned by the courts, which in turn would weaken the threat the administration is brandishing.
For a bracing account of the damage the Climategate emails have caused the global warming alarmists, see James Delingpole’s summary in the Telegraph. For some interesting proposals on terminology, see Jim Guirard’s article in the American Thinker.