I can’t get enthused about the whole climate change thing. While I believe that AGW is real and very significant, it is patently obvious that we are not going to get anywhere in our efforts to deal with it, for a bunch of reasons:

• Too many people are not convinced or are ardent denialists.

• Too many people and powerful lobby groups have short-term vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

• Too tiny is the part that Australia can play in this global issue.

• Too tiny is the impact that we could have even if we did get our act together globally and addressed this issue with as much effort as we could reasonably apply.

The motivation for action just isn’t big enough or clear enough to galvanise us into meaningful action.

But, as I’ve said quite a few times on this forum, there is another motivation that should get us hopping. And if we did this, we would be reducing GHG emissions much more effectively than if we addressed climate change directly.

This motive is to wean our society off of oil, with great urgency, because we are currently so totally and precariously dependent on it and on its price not going too much higher.

If the price of oil jumps markedly, let alone if there are any shortages of supply, the very foundation of our economic system and society could come under threat. Massive unemployment, civil strife and the breakdown of the rule of law, severed supply lines for food and other essentials….

So let’s put the whole climate change issue aside in Australia and start working towards securing a strong society that is not addicted to oil, but is fuelled largely by carbon-neutral organic fuels and other energy sources. Oil is the primary issue. We can address coal with a little less urgency.

In so doing, we would be addressing climate change more meaningfully than we could ever hope to do otherwise.

Jon J (and Geoff):

Thank you.

Perhaps you could invite people to read the Climategate 'Inquiry' References posted at this site:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/climategate_references.pdf

To summarise supposed 'Inquiries' into Climategate:

British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigation finds breach of the law by UN IPCC scientists at Climatic Research Centre (CRU). Expiry of Statute of limitations (time limit) prevents prosecution. ICO seeking to amend law to prevent recurrence;

British parliamentary Select Committee inquiry abbreviated due to British election. Entrusted investigations to University of East Anglia, UEA (home of CRU);

Both of UEA’s ‘inquiries’ (Russell ‘inquiry’ and the Oxburgh Science Appraisal Panel) have been revealed as flouting Britain’s parliament. ‘Investigations’ were conducted secretively by panellists with serious conflicts of interest and avoided main issues of concern. Panels’ funds and operation were controlled by the University. Panels failed to interview experts making claims against CRU. Science Appraisal Panel chair later admits to not investigating the science. Leading Parliamentary committee members have publicly expressed their anger;

Pennsylvania State University, where Mann (fabricator of the hockey stick fraud) is now located claims to have conducted its own internal ‘investigation’. It dismissed three charges apparently without investigation and found no fault in the fourth after simply accepting Mann’s word and hearing no alternative views;

State of Virginia Attorney General currently pursuing Mann. The University of Virginia, where Mann worked until 2005 refuses to release documents related to global warming research. The university received five grants during Mann’s tenure.

Both universities (UEA and Penn State) have received millions of dollars worth of grants through the work of CRU and Mann. Many commentators say the sham ‘inquiries’ raise more questions than they attempted to answer.

Geoff, in future, please get the facts and present them accurately.

Malcolm

:)

"It is time we moved forward from our recent, perilous indecision, and commenced immediate action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions"

Take it to the world mate, and see how many people give a crap .. very few.

BTW - ranting at people who disagree rarely gets them onside, but I'm sure you know that but rather enjoy ranting..?

Geoff, you really should not permit articles such as this to be published on this forum

[Deleted for abuse].
Then we have your utube rubbish Chris Shaw. Where did that muck come from? It could only be a primary school, any of the kids in high school would laugh you out of the room for presenting such simplistic stuff. A few simple fact designed to hide the one bland, totally unsupported claim that the surface can only loose heat by radiation, & we have a CO2 blanket that stops that. If you warmists have to resort to such mistruths to try to catch the kids, please try to hide them from the adults.

I suppose some of the green voters from Saturday may fall for this tripe, they probably want to believe. However I don't think even most of them would believe such bare faced spin.

From all the rubbish I see coming out of ANU, I can only believe the general population are a bit too bright for you.

Climate change - what would scientists know about it?
The proof is all around us that they are off the planet: we have had ten thousand years of the best climate that has ever been - never had it so good.
Six thousand eight hundred million people can’t be wrong.
Yet those scientists, armed with all the sophistication you could imagine - tens of thousands of terabytes of data from satellites, ocean buoys, and land instruments measuring gravitation, temperature, and gas concentrations; all hooked up to the latest and greatest data processing gadgets - say changes to this ten thousand year climate regime are on the way! What rubbish, when compared to the simple fact of these benign times.
Never before have so many people had it so good. Human beings altering the climate into a similar state to that of some millions of years ago when it was utterly unfriendly to mankind? - Unbelievable. Who wants to believe that rubbish? Better to listen to people from the real world we occupy - those who have a proven track record in providing direction to society and politics: There are plenty to choose from, -including in this forum.
There could be a wait of 150 years for the availability of the most popular of his time: Berni Madoff and his Advisory Firm. However, that wait would probably have more appeal than taking notice of the scientific mob; and certainly not The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers released last week by the Australian Academy of Science.

Good article Geoff - the usual denier dropkicks responding.I will not waste my time refuting your idiotic arguments.