Janama

The Indians have released their climate change strategy as you have described, but you have left out one important nuance.

Mr Pachuri the Chairman of the IPCC has come out and said he agrees with it.

How is that for double standards and hypocrisy.

Prof. Garnaut has described climate change as a diabolical problem. In fact, it is also a pernicious problem.

We have now reached the stage where, every morning, respected Senators and senior members of Government preach gloom and doom and impending disaster and catastrophe UNLESS we do their bidding, starting off with a carbon trading scheme and any other medicine that they prescribe.

What makes it pernicious is that there is never any mention as to when we can expect any dividends! Suppose Australia were to reduce CO2 emissions to zero(!!) and the same for China, India, the United States, Russia etc. will any one of the doom sayers please let us know WHEN will any improvement in climate be expected? Will they tell let us know WHICH catastrophes will be averted?

The doom sayers want a “tails you lose, heads I win” type of bet. They say that ‘doing nothing’ is irresponsible but do not attach any promises to the expected outcome of ‘doing something’. This stance can only be maintained for a few years at best.

Climate change will continue irrespective of what we do or do not do and over time people will adapt to changed conditions. On the way there will be some losers and some winners. Once again, the survival of the fittest will apply.

Ross

There are many on this forum who don't understand the science yet are quite prepared to say the scientists are wrong. While it would be prudent to apply risk management principles to tackle the global problem of AGW, many looking (or engaging) on OLO do not.

You know that government and opposition leaders the world over are trying to tackle this 'climate change' problem - but they are failing to disseminate the urgency to those that they lead.

The science tells us we have a problem and it requires true leadership to overcome the politico-socio and econometric brickwalls that are so much evidenced on such an obscure on-line forum such as this.

How do you think this best can be done when people are inwardly afraid or just want to deny/delay or stick their head in the mud?

Ross Garnaut,

Why have you seemingly allowed your authority to be misused by those who want to hand across to private corporations publicly owned assets such as the Snowy Hydro, as has been reported in the Canberra Times article "Snowy power may go private" of 10 July 08 at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/snowy-power-may-go-private/808115.aspx?

"The possibility of privatising the Snowy scheme and Tasmania's hydroelectricity assets was flagged last week in the draft Garnaut review of climate change.

"The 500-plus-page report stated that ownership of the Snowy scheme by three governments NSW, Victoria and the Commonwealth could restrict future development and competitiveness in the national electricity market."

Surely you are not unaware that Australian publicly are heartily sick of having assets they have paid for many times over handed across to private corporations so that they can profit at their expense? That is why every privatisation that has ever been put to to the electorate in recent years has been overwhelmingly rejected both in opinion polls and at the ballot box.

As local residents have shown, this shows no regard for the role that the Snowy Hydro has in the supply of water for the environment, irrigation and community, so it would appear that your recommendation in this regard was half-baked and most likely driven by an ideological prejudice towards private ownership and market forces.

Whilst many share your stated concern of the threat of global warming, this should be cause to question your free-market prescription to solve global warming.

For more information see "Garnaut to provide cover for privatisation of Snowy Hydro?" http://candobetter.org/node/650

Comments are welcome, both here and there.

quote:There are many on this forum who don't understand the science yet are quite prepared to say the scientists are wrong. endquote:

No - there are many on this forum who read other scientists that say your scientists are wrong.

You've cried wolf for 20 years yet the wolf hasn't appeared. We are still diving the barrier reef 20 years later. They survey two polar bear habitats over 4 years and tell us they will all be gone by 2050 based on computer model projections - the same survey added a footnote that the bears might make it to 2075 if we stopped shooting them!!

We have every reason to be cynical.

What really annoys me is that the work of evangelical rapturist Dr. James E Hansen has dominated this debate, "tipping point" is his concoction, catastrophic change are his cries yet the dissenting views of US Aqua Team Leader Dr Roy E Spencer are either ignored or dismissed.

BTW, if Tim Flannery mentions 20ft sea level rise again, as he did on the ABC Science show recently, I'll damn well sue him. It's not only wrong, it's irresponsible.

yes - I'm cynical Professor, totally cynical and your outrageous statements don't help.

For "such an obscure on-line forum", Q&A, you seem to spend a lot of time slumming it down here. 324 comments and counting. It must be very hard belonging to a group you devote so much of your time to patronizing, in both senses.