Though i must say i do enjoy watching Clive Hamilton’s descent into madness. He’s writings from Copenhagen will be nothing but epic.

You fail to make a positive contribution by playing the man.

Quite likely, your opinions will soften and broaden as you mature… there are many actions available to western civilisations to reduce carbon pollution, eg reduction of useless warfare. Town planning initiatives. Modernisation of building codes. Reduction of (not necessarily elimination of) meat in the diet. Better use of water resources. Reduction of un-necessary travel, especially by air. Use of natural fibres in lieu of synthetic. Reduce/re-use/recycle. Forget trying to grow rice and cotton in Australia. Keep your consumer durables for 20 years instead of four. You know the drill.

Now, Simon, stop being such a wanker and stick with the topic. It matters.

100% carbon reduction might not be your cup of tea or mine, but surely the case for major reduction has been well and truly made and we must, for the sake of the future of this planet, join the effort.

Shall we shoot the global population of bovines first. Or close every second coal power station in China and America. You can choose the first 10 cities in China. I’ll take the next 10 cities in America. Gotta spread that moral hazard around. Better still let’s just exterminate half the human population - shall we do it by letter or age. You can choose.

Clive Hamilton is not the IPCC - he is a paid lobbyist with a political agenda spruiking a political revolution that will end in violence and economic collapse.

Sorry I’m way too young for Bob Dylan. So try another lyric maker for your poetic arrow.

Keep it going champ, bargaining with physics, telling physics to stop being impertinent, that everything is relative like your social status, effectively implying the IPCC is a social construct, and that because you sold out, it must be okay, OK?

Didn’t you listen to the Bob Dylan lyric back in the day - a highway of diamonds with nobody on it? You’re not on it, but here’s the thing champ - it’s not news.

The issue has been reduced to a continuous whine in Crikey of late lead by Bernard and others who spend every day dredging up the same we are all ruined if we follow the Wong and Rudd way to hell in a hand basket.

I rarely express my own views public or even in my own news services - beyond the occasional comment such as this dummy spit here or in the Herald.

In the last week we have had the world is heading for a runaway greenhouse disaster - with visions of Venus being offered up as some sort of realistic future of planet Earth if we don’t cut emissions. This is a physically impossible to occur within the Earth-Lunar planetary system. Any Earth Scientist with a modicum of planetary science training knows that. So why is it in official European government reports and recited here on Crikey as anything but outlandish fear mongering.

Now we have the totally crazy idea that America must cut emissions 100% by 2020.

Come on, this is simply not physically possible. But it’s offered up as some sort of serious comment about climate science when it’s simply never going to happen.

This debate has become infested with agenda politics of Hamilton, Milne and Keane and the rest of the doomsters; and the science, technology and economics of the debate appear to be the least critical part when it comes to talking about real solutions. And that applies to all sides of the debate. Just because Barnaby Joyce is totally off his rocker doesn’t hand a license to Hamilton and co to be just as stupid in reply. Hamilton and co are meant to be educated professionals with a sophisticated cross disciplinary understanding of the world. Instead they are the mirror to the nutty denialists.

And of course this was meant as a spray, a rant, a primal scream against the planet of doom that we are offered up as the only future.

Personally I have far more faith in our real world responses and that the planet will respond appropriately to the imbalances we are introducing.

But as far as I can tell the debate has basically ended and there are now three camps. The denialists, the doomsters and the realists.

In the meantime, Hamilton is spruiking the climate revolution underground as our only option to avoid the end of planet Earth. Intellectually and ethically that’s just middle class junk politics and will achieve nothing but piss off the bulk of the population who will happily leave tomorrow’s problems to tomorrow to solve as we have done for thousands for years.

I also appreciate that he demonstrates that it is possible to take an independant line on this and not be locked into the L v R adversarial framework. Some of us are very committed to the sustainability movement generally, but ‘cross the floor’ on this climate change fanaticism.

If we are serious about reducing our dependence on fossil fuel, everybody’s standard of living will fall unless technological advances more than offset the reduction in this dependence. However this process will take decades, and there is a natural tendency to share in the this in a long-run this is someone else’s problem.

How often have we been told that the poor will be compensated for the increase in carbon costs so that their sheltered existence will not be affected, and somehow the rich will pay. A long-term equilibrium position without dependence on fossil fuels is virtually impossible without a significant reduction in world population, and massive investment in new technology.

A massive investment in new technology means less for current consumption and a corresponding reduction in living standardsas well as the impact of reducing carbon consumption as a “double whammy”. This means less cooling in summer, colder houses in winter, and probably no more winter grapes flown in from California.

The process of natural selection as expounded by Darwin will in the long run led to a new equilibrium position if we fail to manage this process ourselves. In all probability beetles and ants will probably take over what is left of the world, because based on current experience we lack the political capacity to undertake the necessary correction before it is too late.

And Guy’s rejoinder is simply magnificant.

Now, tell me again… what was the question?

you were just given 300 words in Crikey - and instead of refuting your opponents’ arguments, you went on a fact-free rant about kool-aid, green fascists, deep greens, anti-civilisation, how you chained yourself to a tree blah blah. as someone who is not unsympathetic to the claim that climate change stuff is overly apocalyptic and presents probability as truth, i learnt nothing from your argument free diatribe except that you believe the greens to be guilty of argument-free diatribes. can’t say it makes me likely to click thru to your science reports. Did you think you were being handed a lifeline with this piece? Congrats pal, you were the proud recipient of enough rope.