Givenm deforestation was flagged at Copenhagen as a key contributor to Greenhouse Gas Emmissions, a massive increase in national Parks would be Australia’s international leadership move. Of course, financial compensation to the forestry industry would be the cost. But the cost woudl be less than the new big tax and the demise of Australi’s fossile fuel industry.

Australia would have shown leadership with this as step 1.

Followship is head-in the sand and we are then as a first world country with choice, worse than China.

If you forget the talk and look at the activities of humans over the last 100 years or so - it seems probable that we’re just going to continue polluting and overpopulating the planet until fossil fuels are exhausted.

The fact is that little or nothing is being done to address the real issue behind so much of the current destruction - overpopulation.

Why do we pretend to care, when the reality is that we probably don’t?

Apologies if I came across as patronising. I agree that the PM saying a hot day is due to Climate Change is ridiculous and doesn`t help the debate. And just because he does this does not mean that Climate Change doesn`t have a significant human component. Human`s have had a fairly detrimental impact on the environment since industrialisation - deforestation, agricultural mismanagement, over-fishing, toxic air and sea pollutants etc. - it is not beyond the realms of possibility that CO2 emissions from human actions is making the greenhouse effect worse.

To state, outright, that it is not possible implies indubitable certainty.

Relating to your point that the southern/northern hemispheres are behaving in an historically climatic accord, I would be willing to concede this maybe the case. But it doesn`t disprove the general claim that if average global temperatures keep increasing that this could have adverse side effects of varying severity. Nor does it disprove that AGW is not happening. You seem to be willing to wait and see, I believe we should act even if it turns out humans have nothing to do with it.

 — -

In the spirit of Christmas I apologise for any abuse a poster may have received. But if a person is genuinely seeking a debate, and they disagree with my position but disingenuously mis-state my position without any clarifying questions, then in the New Year I won`t respond. It is a sign of trolling not to ask questions then deliberately misrepresent a position in an effort antagonise. A humorous, obvious troll I will pay, trolling to anger will receive nothing in return.

 — -

Merry Christmas y`all: stay safe, enjoy your loved ones (even the nutty uncle - you never know if you could one day be considered the same), drink but not injuriously, and if you have to DUI try not to hit anyone : P

However, this has to be done in a genuine fashion with serious targets and costings and the early indications from the Abbott camp are not encouraging in that regard.

The denialists do not have an equivalent body of Scientific fact to draw from, so they create, selectively quote and misrepresent facts to reach their desired conclusions. How can people who do not conduct scientific research and have no qualifications in climate science be taken seriously?

That they take themselves seriously shows them up pompous, ignorant, fools.

Are you aware that there is a difference between facts and theories?

We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

The denialist campaign won’t accept that the peer reviewed scienctific facts are in, and based on the overwhelming evidence, the vast majority of climate scientists support AGW.

A thousand monkeys writing a thousand blog posts selectively quoting data to show why climate science is a conspiracy does not change the science. Believing something does not make it true.

@JamesK, you prove my point.

Your analogy of engineers condemning an office building as unsafe is false. Of course we rely on their judgement in that case, even though they may be wrong. It’s even possible that their physics is wrong (early tower blocks were often expensively over-engineered, just as the Twin Towers erred in the other direction), but we still avoid the risk. One can argue that AGW is a risk and therefore we should act (as I do)- but without being convinced of “the science”. The question is not physics and chem, but the application of basic science to extremely complex and poorly understood real-world systems. Buildings are now well understood, so no one will argue with the engineers (not even architects, who continually have to be rescued from impending disaster by engineers, because architects often have a weak grasp of the physical sciences), but there is no such confidence about immature, previously ignored and underfunded areas like climate science. Reading every one of the hacked emails will take me weeks, but virtually every email is evidence of the intense struggle by the scientists to comprehend the data, model it, pursue anomalies etc etc. It’s a work in progress.

“What MPM contributes is nothing but childish dribbling and tantrums.

The adults have reached a conclusion based on long arguments about the science, but the children are still throwing their faeces around here because no one believes them.”

See what I mean?

Quality insults are a joy to behold, but these “comments” sound like a noisy night at Taronga Park.

Why do you all bother? There must be a deep-seated tribal urge which eliminates any possibility of a middle between any two extremes. Red-arsed Baboons flashing on a rock.

Question is, there’s only a tiny number of head-bangers like MPM and Sando- but what effect do they have on Crikey readers and therefore Crikey’s bottom line? Do Crikey and similar sites end up as repositories of intellectual suppositories? A handful of simians who’ve driven everyone else away? I don’t know. Maybe people just read the articles and skip the zoo. Note that the Keanes, Hamiltons and Rundles almost never join in (true, Rundle does interject at times, but only to chuck primary school insults).

On the other hand there are usually some thoughtful posts on both sides of whatever argument. There’s real benefit in these. But there aren’t many.

Horace: Amusing to be listed with Abbott and the feral Right. Apparently you haven’t read much of what I’ve been banging on about on Crikey for months. Check the polls- even 11% of my fellow Green voters are critics of the climate cult. Both sides of it.

That’s a fact.

What MPM contributes is nothing but childish dribbling and tantrums.

The adults have reached a conclusion based on long arguments about the science, but the children are still throwing their faeces around here because no one believes them.

Sad little creatures.

You fearless warrior for righteousness.

The Pauchuri IPCC and climategate scientists are safe in your hands

You ought to have the decency to leave but as that appears unlikely I will continue to remind others of your fraudulence every time I see you making an appearance.

“A Climatology Conspiracy?”
By David H. Douglass and John R. Christy
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

“What Consensus? Public, Scientists Doubt Climate Crisis”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2514-what-consensus-public-scientists-doubt-climate-crisis
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/#more-11377

“The Climate Science Isn’t Settled”
By Richard S. Lindzen DECEMBER 1, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

Oops……

Jeebus!…….Can you not see the Light?

whilst I can’t say I agree with all of what MPM, JamesK et al are saying, there is a place for them within the global debate. But, they differ from your view so straight to the gallows.