The panzer metaphor is quite amusing.

If my memory serves me correctly ancient civilisations rose and fell and in some cases this was because of climate change. The Sahara was not alway a desert. The continent of Australia was much wetter in our ancient past.

Climate change which happened long before our level of use of fossil fuels and the subsequent increase in the release of CO2.

So the climate of this planet changed in the past, without human intervention to help it.

So what is the 'truth' I do not know, but the debate shows especially those who wish to suppress decenting opinions that humans haven't progressed very far up the evolutionary scale and still use cave man tactics to win.

Those of you who follow the global warming debate on OLO will recognise me as an avowed skeptic. I must now reveal that on further review of the available information, which isn't really much, I have had a Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus style conversion. My present view is that, while there are natural temperature variations throughout the earth's distant (and for runner's benefit, I do mean more than 6000 years) and recent history, anthropogenic effects are probably being overlain on this and what we are presently seeing is the sum of the natural and the unnatural. Here is what tipped the balance for me: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

I remain concerned that far too many people in this debate are rabid nutters or people who clearly have some conflict of interest - and here I refer to both sides. And it is certainly true that there is much flak flying, much of it having little effect because it is so poorly aimed. However I will henceforth derive enjoyment from taking the p*ss out of the nay-sayers - at least for a while. I shall watch Durkin's opus tonight with keen interest! There are arguments on both sides, and the sooner we get to a rational debate rather than the present ill-informed idealogically based mud slinging the better.

The whole climate debate is a smokescreen (darn poor pun) and excuse for the authority junkies to interfere, through justifying a carbon trading tax, with what was previously the free exchanges and trade between private individuals.

The “Carbon Trading path” is the proclaimed pill which Gore’s campaign of misinformation is intended to get us to swallow and which will supposedly make everything “fair”.

But has anyone asked the important questions – how is the process regulated and who audits the trades? bearing in mind the UN itself has proven, in the Iraq oil for food program, that it is corrupt and too incompetent to be left to run a chook raffle and organisations like the EU cannot manage the olive oil lake and butter mountain their economic mismanagement produces without the mafia and other illegal entities becoming involved.

I have said before the easiest way for any scientist to suckle off the public teat is to come up with a good scare campaign and then recruit third rate politicians to espouse the cause.

Well this is socialism by stealth (the scientists and politically motivated socialists being the beneficiaries of funds and power, respectively).

Having failed to inflict the tyranny of socialism in the last century (the collapse of USSR etc.) we have here a substitute process designed to “engineer” and “level” different nation-societies around the world into some meaningless, homogeneous mediocrity to be ultimately overseen by the UN, where we all suffer to privations of oppression and denial of individuality, which is always the down side of mixing any bureaucrats with power.

I will watch this documentary with interest, more interest than watching a failed politician muff his way through a hysterical fear campaign.

This is just the normal peer review that is going on isn't it? All it says is neither side has the evidence to prove the hypothesis one way or the other. You would expect that though because prediction of demographics, technology and other variables well into the future is fraught with difficulty.

There is a similar but lesser problem proving that smoking is harmful and tobacco companies still claim that epidemiological and other scientific 'proof' is unreliable because humans live such varied lifestyles. Tobacco companies can find scientists to agree with them.

To take the other side for a moment, does anyone really believe that we should escalate energy use (great for profits) and be reckless with the environment (no controls are also great for profits).

As regards the existence or otherwise of global warming I think that few people would support the obvious wastage of energy by developed countries like the US and most people would say that fossil fuel reserves are finite. Likewise most people would like to pass on as viable and pristine and environment to future generations as is possible.

So why not be practical while the boffins argue among themselves about definitions and proof and accept there is consensus that:

- there needs to be some thrift in the usage of the world's resource, including energy, reserves;

- the use of renewable energy sources should be encourged; and

- pollution should be reduced.

Simple changes make a world of difference. Does every american have to drive over two tonnes of metal with a seven litre engine? In Oz do we really need to build big office blocks that are so energy inefficient?

Fact is I am happy that Councils are encouraging better designed houses that will decrease energy bills and conserve water. It is good to see some big companies leading the way to conserve energy and protect the environment and yes I do consider that when buying products and investing in shares.

An interesting article in this morning's Age (quote):

Inside the broadcaster there are also reports of tension between Tony Jones, who usually hosts Lateline, and the head of factual entertainment, Denise Eriksen, over his reportedly tough questioning of Durkin when he travelled to England last week.

According to the independent news website Crikey, Eriksen also travelled to London and, without Jones' knowledge, apologised to Durkin for the "rough treatment".

"Edit suites have been resounding all week to screams of outrage from Eriksen demanding that tough responses be cut out. Jones has more than once needed to make clear he will 'walk' rather than agree to a sanitised show," an "ABC insider" reportedly told Crikey.

"Eriksen has even gone as far as demanding a written rundown from Jones as to how he intends to conduct the live to air discussion after the Swindle film airs. He has refused to comply. The stand-off may lead to a sudden change of presenter on Thursday night, so stay tuned."

*

The article is here:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/great-debate-or-swindle/2007/07/11/1183833599426.html

Things are hotting up in more ways than one. See you in the soup at the website tonight:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/

:)