Eric, I agree with most of what you say, especially regarding the doom and gloom, sky is falling propaganda that goes on.
I tend to think the ones in the environmental movement who do use this tactic are the ones who don't really care about the environment and have some other agenda which dovetails nicely with environmentalism.

A couple of things though, the banning of DDT has not necessarily been a good thing because of the increase in malarial deaths in third world. Scientific evidence hasn't exactly backed up the claim that DDT was a lethal chemical, unless in extremely high doses. (notwithstanding the effects of the chemical on some birds, but that is a trade off birds or humans and birds won)

Also, I am yet to read Collapse, but it is one of the books on my to do list.
I would be interested to know which society in history collapsed because of climate change given no society has ever had the scope nor the means to alter climate.

t.u.s

usual,

There have been any number of societies collapse due to climate change. The Viking settlements in Greenland were abandoned as the Little Ice Age approached and there is growing evidence that Rome was at least partly weakened in the 5th century CE as temperatures fell vis a vis the temps of the Roman Warm Period of the 1st century BCE. Lower temps = lower food output = lower population = a weakened state.

But these periods of climate change were entirely natural and therefore we are not really allowed to talk about them because we are supposed to pretend that the earth's temps have been unchanged for the last "x" millenia and have only begun to rise since 1850. If it is shown that temperatures changed all by themselves without anthropological help in the past then the small increases in temps over the last century and a half may also be natural. And that would make things like Kyoto and the Kyotoists look pretty silly.

Tus – no need to use dirty words to malign we gullible environmentalists or to impugn our integrity.

Surely it is a good thing to be sceptical of practices that could cause really bad things to happen? Prior to 'Silent Spring', there was no awareness of the damage that humans were doing to the planet and themselves, by the use of products that were meant to make life better.

Once we became aware of the potential dangers, the tendency to look for danger from this source is only natural and one of the factors that have contributed to human survival.

Perhaps the differences between people like me, who want to err on the side of caution and value the ‘natural’ over the man-made, and people like you, who are prepared to say it is all rubbish, is due to the diversity of ‘human natures’.

I know I am at least as intelligent, educated and knowledgeable as you and for me, the evidence is convincing enough to make me concerned.

Mhaze it is just silly and very revealing of your ideological bent, to say that we are sposed to pretend that climate change hasn’t happened in the past. Who are the mysterious people who are intent on hiding these things from 'us'? Is it a conspiricy, do you think?

The evidence that the current climate change is on a different scale is there for those who have the ‘right’(?) type of human nature and are ideologically capable of considering it fairly.

Climate change may be happening, and I have seen evidence that it is, and it is not.
Weather is a cyclical beast, and a few years so far are not enough to say one way or another. Records for an at least a 1000 years would be needed to determine what is going to happen.

If we are going to err on the side of caution, then re-investing back into the “wealth producing land base” and not consumption as Australia seems to be king at.

Surly the way to look after the environment would be to have more investment in it.

By this, I mean that the land managers, who are mostly farmers, be able to sustain a much larger investment in the “environment’ (the farm/land) so that the wealth extraction from the land is sustainable.

At the present moment in Australia, we seem to have created a continuing decline in their terms of trade, creating a situation where it is very hard for the re-investment back in the land to occur.

I liken this to owning a car, if the maintenance is kept up, the life and reliability is greatly enhanced, and is very much related to the funds re-invested in to the maintenance program.

After checking on the agriculture commodity prices, I have found that they have barely moved as compared to inflation over the last almost 35 years.
This is even more true if the farm gate price is used, instead of the FOB price, that includes transport, handling and levies and fees.

Thankyou, Mhaze. I suppose we better not mention the rennaisance either - when food production and culture were at an all time high and wars and pestilence were at all time lows.
Oh, yeah and the temperature was as warm if not warmer than some of the projections used in hoodwinking people into signing Kyoto protocol.

Mollydukes - you assume too much. I am environmentalist - but someone who relies on evidence and science, not mysticism and romanticism about the planet.

I have found that a lot of so-called environmentalists spend more time in cafes than they actually do on the ground. Don't know if you live in the bush but there are plenty of people out here who go about their days working on water convservation or on salinity or soil erosion. and I can bet you very few actually vote for the Greens.

I agree a little bit with you dunart about investment, especially on farms - it should not just be the farmers who have to foot the bill but partnerships with big business with a little help from government.

It would be easier to do if so many hard-core environmentalists weren't interested in non-environmental issues.

t.u.s.

tus I do not spend time in cafes talking to environmentalists. There you go again – talking dirty about people who are only 'people' with all the failings that ordinarly people have. Where does this disdain for ordinary people come from? Or are you so very very superior to the run of the mill person? I don’t get the impression that you are old enough to be a ‘grumpy old man’.

The environmentalists I refer to are the scientists, like the one who Philip Adams interviewed a coupla days ago - there are many others who are convinced and convincing that climate change is happening. This is where I get my knowledge from. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lnl/s1359672.htm

I tend to talk about what makes people tick when in cafe's.

This man came across as intelligent and well-balanced and did not use emotive words like 'hoodwinked' to denigrate the anti-climate change people who like you, do not think that Kyoto is a good idea.

He was in favour of it and his argument made sense, unless one’s emotional response was against signing such things.

Do you think your objection to Kyoto is based more on your political views than on your environmental views