bonmot

Somehow I don’t think it would be much use me referring Mr Aitkin to peer-reviewed papers or to the findings of reputable institutions. Its all very well quoting Hansen et al 2011 and Shakhova et al 2010 to refute the “skeptics” view that there is no danger from rising sea level or slow feedbacks, but you know as well as I do that such papers can be difficult to understand and are unlikely to be read anyway. Why would a “skeptic read a paper, no matter how lucid (and Hansen is lucid) unless it reinforces his/her beliefs.

And I accept that the material published by Skeptical Science is not going to persuade AGW deniers like Aitkin to go to that source either – even though their material is accurate and usually easy to read – or do you question that?

Well put Squeers. Definitely on the right track. Now all we have to do is find the right way to introduce the new husbandry paradigm, without throwing the first world into chaos, and the third world back to hunter-gathering.

Saw Dick Smith talking on TV about trying to set up a $Billion "Fund", I gather to foster sustainability (including education of third world womenfolk, with a view to smaller families). Sorry I don't remember his whole thrust, but it certainly included moving away from continuous growth and expansion. I think he puts forward a lot of good ideas for moving to sustainability - though some viewers can't look past his capitalist background. He apparently approached Rupert Murdoch, but got a no (on a $1B investment in the "Fund"), and is now going to approach Gina Reinhardt. I wish him luck. Ok, it's only a spit in the bucket, but if anyone can get the best out of such a fund, I think he's the man, and the longest journey has to start with a single step - just the right step.

My start-point for sustainable husbandry remains for governments to support "friendlier" technologies, in eco-cars and public transport, home solar (HWS & PV), home veggie gardens, cycle-ways, forests and better farming - and then moving on to bigger things. If some technologies can get over the initial start-up costs they can move on to full viability, but they just need a hand to get started. We should also be looking for water-sustainability, and not going ahead with desalination plants - which would be enormously non-green.

For population, I believe we need to remain relatively "snug" in Oz, and maybe the baby bonus should only be paid for the first and second children, and then only after the mum has past the "hot flush" stage of life.

We desperately need to develop third world education and "green" industry, partly so they will move to smaller families, and partly to utilise the third world advantage in producing good quality food sustainably, and with a minimal "footprint".

Notice that Andrew Glikson, having posted his biased, inadequate arguments, never bothers to respond to genuine questions.

At least he is consistent. So far as I know, he has NEVER responded to any questions posed of him when he has posted on OLO.

Herbert

How naïve can you be? Do you seriously expect Dr Glikson to respond to people who have no credentials in the field of climate change science and are incapable of even framing a specific criticism or putting forward a reasoned argument of their criticism?

His article is sound, well reasoned and science-based. If subject to peer review it would not be successfully challenge. Yet you expect him to respond to criticisms that: its not right, I don’t like what it says, there is no global warming, it’s a load of warmist scaremongering and similar meaningless vituperation.

Put forward a well reasoned critique supported by empirical evidence or other accurate scientific data and that will certainly produce the response you seek.

agnostic I put it to you that making statements like this "those who question the science need to try and formulate their claims in scientific format submitted to scientific journals.", is not science but arrogance.

In other words, anyone who questions me must be able to show higher qualifications, not jump on the bandwagon I'm on, come up with something better, get grants from it and publish .. against the HUGE AGW road train of funding (sorry, that should be gravy train)

oh, so end of all skepticism, that would be nice .. for dodgy climate scientists who cherry pick data and use models as their basis of belief.

This is exactly why climate scientists, and this is spreading to other areas, are losing credibility.

Lack of communication skills is only one part, and this is clearly a lack of those skills to make such arrogant and sneering statements.

Do you think everyone out in the community is going to swallow this argument .. believe me, I know more than you .. let's compare degrees and published papers shall we? Hence you should believe anything I say because I'm better than you.

That's it .. that's your stance?

You have got to be kidding. It will be seen as the pompous hysterical pap that it is.