Tes, thank you for your answer to the article's question: "What would have been the flood mitigation impact had the Traveston Crossing Dam been in place?" Some links to the records would be good. However, as the article states, there is need for debate - the wheres and whys of new dams should be debated - rather than a blanket 'No Dams!' dogma.

Bill, the point to mitigation is avoiding the escalating costs and potential failures of adaptation inherent in the worst case outcomes. I for one will not brush aside or discount the science coming from the world's leading institutions in order to feel good about doing as little as we can get away with. I want elected representatives to take climate science's clear and repeated warnings seriously. I'm not impressed with Judith Curry's attempts to avoid coming to grips with the serious and largely predicable consequences of failure to significantly reduce emissions; we are talking about effectively irreversible changes that don't stop at any arbitrary date such as 2100. Barry York might hold great hopes for geoengineering but closer examination reveals they are excuses for failing to act early and decisively on known causes, not credible solutions.

I would also note that there has never been a time when Green objections could not be outvoted in any parliament in Australia; Oppositions that put opposing (and their short term electoral chances) ahead of their perceptions of sound governance or legitimate infrastructure planning made those choices. That the Greens - on some of their core issues - represent the views of more Australians than their share of seats may have effected the decisions of Governments and Oppositions but they've never been outvoted by the Greens. It's mainstream politics letting everyone down. I say good on the Greens; without them some serious issues affecting our long term future prosperity and security would continue to go completely unaddressed.

That said, the solutions will have to come via mainstream politics guided by best available science based knowledge and without pandering to the vested interests of their backroom backers. I don't think that Barry York's attempt to blame it all on the Greens has contributed anything of value to debates on these issues.

MICHAEL S, you like many others are toatally unaware of Traveston and the Mary Valley, Gympie is downstream of the proposed Traveston Dam, the Mary River flows north old mate.

Please list all the Dams the Howard Govt built last decade, list anything at all the Howard Govt built last decade.................?
Why was it called the wasted decade......?
Now list anything and everything, "Abbott's religious extreme right" and the other State illiberal Nationalista coalitions of the lying oppositions have obstructed!

Ken,
By climate mitigation you must mean massive CO2 reduction. China and other developing countries won't accept that. Remember Copenhagen.

The Australian public is concerned (but not alarmed) about climate change and won't accept a policy which significantly impacts on their standard of living. In that sense if Green policies become mainstream, whether directly or indirectly, they will at that point lose support. Like it or not (and I like it) we will need more much more energy in the future. Renewables can't do the job on their own. Greens oppose nuclear. The clear implication is that under their policies standard of living will decline dramatically. The public won't accept this, so what do you do then?

I would support Barry Yorks proposal for much more R&D not only into geoengineering but other energy alternative proposals as well, particularly in the nuclear direction. Transport issues need more R&D too, eg. the boron car, for one. But nothing significant will happen until energy alternatives cheaper than coal are developed. The developing world is not planning to stop developing. Hence a moderate C tax for R&D is a good idea so we have lots of options available in the future. Nothing else, short of a Green dictatorship, is feasible.

You have made up your mind about the science at it seems to be closed. When I point you to a thinking climate scientist like Judith Curry you are not impressed. There are two issues here. One, scientists are divided between alarmist and luke warmists (with very few scientist deniers). Two, the connection between scientific findings and policy is a separate issue on which there is very little agreement. In a democracy there needs to be public agreement on policy.

HFR,
I think a more relevant & logical question is to list the many projects proposed by the coalition but vehemently opposed by the left & city green & because Australia was then a democracy the coalition had no choice but not to proceed ? It might also be more relevant for you to explain what the reasons were for all the opposition & where has it led us ?