I acknowledge and agree your well written submission. The point that I would like to make is regardless of accuracy of the Easter Island theories of over-exploitation is that how far can these 'examples' be used for contributing a sound and scientific argument in favour of global warming theorists? It's prima facie that an over-use or exploitation of a resource in an eco-system can and will be to that eco-system's detriment unless that eco-system adapts to the changes.

How far back historically are we willing to go to prove this? European colonialisation? Norse colonialisation of Greenland (as noted)? Or even further back to the pre Homo sapiens sapiens genus- a mass competetivity of food resources has been proposed for the extinction of later homo genus'. As interesting as speculating over these issues are, I see little weight in them as a specific contribution for arguing in favour of global warming. The fact of the matter is the only point these examples could provide is over-exploitation to an eco-system can lead to its demise, and this only needs to be stated ONCE. To use the examples reccuringly only serves as the 'fear' factor in the global warming argument.

The quickest way to receive priority on an issue is to bring to peoples attention the urgency of the issue. The 'fear' factor attempts to bring the global warming debate to the forefront, but as you have clearly indicated, the examples proposed to create the 'fear' factor are flawed. By continuing to dispense of the the falliable 'over-exploitation' examples, it is no wonder the global warming debate has 'cooled' significantly in the scientific realm since it was first promulgated in the 20th Century.

Mark Lawson here.

Matthew Lloyd - I sort of see where you're coming from. In fact, the history of past civilisations/cultures can give us only a limited guide to our own situation..

For example, there have been projections that global fishery stocks will collapse within 50 years due to over-expolitation (note, not acid seas but straight over-exploitation). Will market solutions combined with stringent regulation - the solution prferred in Australia - help us? What can we do to ensure that such solutions are adopted? Easter Island anologies are of little guide.

Mark

I'm not quite sure what the point of the article is. You've gone to great lengths to critique Diamond, but the connection to global warming or a carbon tax is tenuous, as far as I can see.

I mean, it surely cannot be doubted that human societies throughout the history of civilisation have overstepped the mark in terms of resource demand and supply capability and have gove by the wayside, often with the assistance of drought or civil strife.

And it is surely obvious that we are heading the same way, but on a scale a couple of orders of magnitude worse.

The nature of the crash of readjustment remains to be seen, but it is bound to be ugly.

So does it really matter if Diamond was accurate or not regarding Easter Island and some of his other claims?

Or was the purpose of the article to critique Diamond with references to global warming and the carbon tax just in passing?

BTW, nice photo. Now I can see why you call youself Curmudgeon! ( :>)

Would that Mr Lawson applied the same rigorous questioning of the accuracy of the work of Ian Plimer and Bob Carter.
But that would defeat his purpose of pro denialist propaganda wouldn't it?

Thanks for this article .... although it is several years too late. I agree that Jarod Diamond's work has been critical to developing a totally unwarranted misunderstanding of resource use issues in Australia that has simply fed the misinformation that is regularly peddled by ENGOs and which is promulgated to the public by an unquestioning media.

Australian forestry was damaged by Diamond's assertion that Easter Island pointed to what could happen in Tasmania which utterly misrepresents the facts of public land alienation and declarations of different tenures in which timber production is excluded from the major slice of their area; and disregards the planning and regulation of forest management which ensures forests are regenerated and protected.

Perhaps his analogy with Easter Island may have been appropriate to parts of Indonesia and the developing world, but the fact that he applied it to Tasmania bespeaks of him being overly influenced by ENGO views coupled with extremely lax research on his part. On this basis, the credibility he has enjoyed is highly questionable.

Mark Lawson here

Ludwig - the reference to the carbon tax is just a facetious comment. A lot of nonsense is justified with reference to Diamond's theorising. I'd certainly be interested in any examples you can think of where civilisations have over-exploited their resources. The Maya is one poss, but all I know of them is through Diamond and he is unreliable. The Kymer, maybe, as their collapse had something to do with irrigation around the capital.. but even those are far from clear cut. Any other examples?

shal - Your comments are further indication of the double standard that applies in these matters. Despite being guilty of howlers in his book Diamond has escaped all criticism, yet Plimer and Carter get abused frequently. This article goes a little way in correcting that major imbalance, but not nearly far enough.

MWPOYNTER - true, late and after much damage has been done. Policy makers must accept a great deal of discredit for not ensuring that Diamond was thoroughly debunked .. not to mention realising that even if the example was anything other than speculation then it simply did not translate to Tassie.