Why do you think that Rev Lusama 'knows a thing or two about climate change'? He plainly knows what is occurring in Tuvalu, but to attribute that to 'climate change', let alone to 'human-induced climate change' requires something more than a pair of eyes and a memory.

There is plenty of data about Tuvalu, and they do not support the notion that what is happening there is due to human activity elsewhere.

Unless you grapple with the real causes of what is happening there will be no useful outcome. And the IPCC did not, in its Fourth Report, highlight 'the link between extreme weather and global warming'. It asserted that there was one, but there is again plenty of data to suggest that the links are tenuous. In any case, 'weather' and 'climate' are not the same, as the IPCC itself points out (in short, climate is the average of weather).

Perhaps you could ask that poor people in developing countries get access quickly to the electrification of villages and education, as was done very well in Thailand. Oh, and educate the girls. And provide contraception. That will do a lot more good, I think, than worrying about the emptiness of the Green Climate Fund, which is likely to stay empty for a long time.

Better still, let's put a levy of say, $1000 a tonne, on emissions caused by useless hangers-on who attend climate change conferences. That would bring about a substantial reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and a 100 per cent reduction in facile juvenilia like this article.

But Clancy, we KNOW what is mooted to happen to Tuvalu, etc. We didn’t really need another article about this.

What we do need is fresh ideas on how Australia can really contribute to a meaningful legally binding agreement. Our current efforts are just pathetic:

This carbon tax business – a 5% cut to 2000 level by 2020 is so weak that it is virtually saying that we are just going to continue with business as usual, but just with a pale green veneer. If it were to be the first step in a steady tightening of fossil fuel derived emissions, then it might have some merit. But it is more likely to be the entire package, with a great deal of opposition to any further initiatives making it virtually impossible.

Meanwhile one huge factor is just being left out entirely – Australia’s very rapid population growth.

If Australia were to reduce immigration down to close to net zero, we would be doing more to reduce our emissions by 2020 than all other efforts combined.

Population growth in this country at least greatly dilutes, if not cancels out or completely overwhelms our best efforts to reduce emissions.

And it could so EASILY be addressed!

But I bet no one from Australia will be mentioning this in Durban. And I bet no one from any other country will push us on this point.

There just seems to be the most extraordinary blind spot here.

So here’s a challenge Clancy – push the population bit.

Remember this old equation from Paul Ehrlich: I = PAT. Impact = population x affluence x technology.

Well, all our efforts seem to be geared towards the T factor. The A factor might be a bit hard to do much with in Oz, but the P factor is HUGE!

Please Clancy, really push a major reduction in immigration and the achievement of a sustainable population in Australia (and globally) as a fundamental part of climate change policy. Thanks.

This horse is dead. It's time to quit flogging it.

This is exactly why I would not support Oxfam. Spending money and burning emissions to such meetings is a joke. A couple of weeks ago I got told by a young pretty girl from WWF that if we did not do something about climate change that in 30 years time the only place we could see a kangaroo would be in a zoo. And this is suppose to be the educated period. Is Government funding for these organisations tied to repeating the mantra?

The whole “climate change” fiasco is nothing more than a religion as presided over by the high priests of pettifoggery who are serving at the willing behest of politicians looking for the “next big thing” that can be taxed.

“As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit. “ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html?mod=opinion_newsreel)

As the traits of a religion have shown – this church of climate change will continue for many decades as the hangers on are unwilling to admit that there may be another god more interesting or maybe no god at all which would require these useful idiots to think, form their own opinions and take responsibility for their own actions.