All good stuff, Valerie. But you haven’t mentioned the P factor – population.

This is surprising as I know you are very concerned about continuous population growth.

Addressing the A and T factors (affluence and technology) without addressing the P factor, on the global scale and the Australian national scale, will simply NOT work.

I’m referring to Paul Ehrlich’s famous equation – I = PAT, where I is the overall impact on the planet, environment, resource base and our quality of life.

We need a complete sustainability strategy, not a ‘technofix’ pseudosolution!

<< We have to do these things ourselves. Governments dare not presume to dictate or even suggest. >>

Can’t agree with that. We need to strongly support those rare people in government – Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson - who are on the right track, and just push really hard to get government at all levels to take up a real sustainability plan.

Afterall, the government is part of ‘us’.

...Val, be careful, age is the poisonous insect of time with a stinging tail. Nice people such as yourself also fall victim to the excesses of cynicism.

Perhaps our greatest excess, Valerie, is that of the fools, who can't understand the math, & won't read what is available, but who still believe in & promote climate change.

Perhaps it is in all those people who not understand, but run around promoting that which they don't understand.

Perhaps it is those who have never produced a single thing in their lives, but continue to see themselves as superior beings.

Perhaps, as Ludwig continually insists, it is those who continue to fill the landscape with kids. I might actually agree there.

Perhaps it is in the gravy train of the United Nations, & all the hangers on that the corruption support.

It is definitely in those who do not have a clue, but continue to pontificate as if they actually do.

Hasbeen,

"It is definitely in those who do not have a clue, but continue to pontificate as if they actually do."

Oh the irony!

How's your math Poirot?

What are your qualifications in one (or more) of the areas of climate science, Hasbeen?

Poirot pontificates; climate science doesn't exist so one can't have qualifications in it; related areas such as meteorology or hydrology perhaps, but climate science as espoused by the likes of Steffan and the rest of the elite academics and CSIRO little indians is nothing more than computer gaming.

Let me add the thought that since we already have more books, more films and and more music than anyone could get through in several lifetimes, it would be an enormous economic boon if people stopped making new ones and did something useful instead.

Hasbeen you state "Perhaps our greatest excess, Valerie, is that of the fools, who can't understand the math, & won't read what is available, but who still believe in & promote climate change."

Beg to differ, it's more likely those who obviously don't understand chemistry and physics that clearly show the climate change occuring and the alteration of our oceans, ice caps, extreme weather events, etc etc.

Fire away, broad-side obviously going to be unleashed against me for stating the obvious.

Valerie Yule's trip down memory lane is of some interest but of little use, and her historical analogy is very shaky indeed. Excesses lead to the collpase of the Western Roman or the Assyrian civilisations? I think where that can be said to have happened Yule means the excesses of the ruling classes. The lower orders certainly didn't get any excesses, and that's where her analogy gets shaky.

You can point to a collapse of production systems in the Mayan and Kymer civilisations (please no one respond with Diamond, his writing is in the same wako catagory as that of Toynbee), but its not a universal rule by any stretch of the imagination. Western Rome collapsed for a host of reasons, the Assyrians, from memory, came to be hated and over-reached themselves. Other failures can be put down to dynastic problems.

Another part of the problem is that you're facing a situation where the rate of innovation is very much higher than in previous periods, and the benefits of civilisation are far more widely spread. In any case, the civilisation to which Yuke refers is worldwide, or nearly so..

Best to dump the dodgy analogies.

Excess is followed by collapse etc...

The title and byline got me quite interested. Unfortunately the text left me disappointed. In fact I left off reading half way through. Never mind - I guess the sentiment was there.

On the other hand, cohenite's post above is very good. He raises a valid point about climate science and subject titles. I was thinking about this exact thing, just this morning.

I was wondering if the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) might change their name to become the Bureau of Climate (change) - BOC.

Then I realised that that's already the name of a global "polluter" who bottles and sells CO2 gas, liquids and solids. That must be shockingly disappointing for them.

Geoff of Perth and Poirot

Guys, the only qualifications you need is some knowledge of arithmetic, a basic ability to read graphs and commonsense.

Go and look at some of the projections now being issued. Now go and look at the temperature charts for past increases on the Bureau of Meteorology site. The minimum temperature increase requires a far greater increase per decade than anything we have experienced since the start of industrialisation.

If even the minimum projected increase requires a major change on anything we've seen to date then maybe we should treat the projections with caution.

Curmudgeon you need to understand 'forcing' and 'logarithmic function and impact', arithmetic might be handy for graphs but not much use when understanding and interpreting the physics and chemistry side of climate and weather data.

As a teenager, excess certainly followed collapse. History taught me not to get mired in nostalgic analogies.

What people can do ourselves to conserve resources and to stop pollution and emissions is still a topic we avoid thinking about. We can talk about everything else.

Geoff of Perth, no broadside mate, just a mild little shot across your bow.

No less an institution than the IPCC has stated in a very recent release, that no connection can be found between CO2, & extreme weather. Could it be that they hope to gain some legitimacy by telling the truth occasionally. Perhaps they are actually hoping we will die of shock.

There are a number of recent papers discussing the fact that there has been less extreme weather in the last 15 years than previously.

These papers don't necessarily agree that this argues against global warming however. Some other research suggests that a warmer earth would have less difference in temperatures between the at the equator & the polls, which will mean less energy to generate extreme storms.

Very confusing, but at least it is genuine science not the which doctor stuff that comes from the East Anglia mob, & their mates.

Geoff of Perth

no its you who need to look at the forecasts in the light of commensense.. the models are forecasting massive increases on anything we have seen to date with no real justification. If any of the forcings are as important as they seem to think they are, then why haven't we seen these effects to date? That is, why have the increases to date been so much smaller than the projections? What is going to change?

You should concentrate on answering those questions rather than sneer at those who raise them.

Some people here over simplify, to obfuscate – no surprise there.

Atmospheric physicist

Meteorologist

Glaciologist

Climatologist

Biogeochemist

Paleoclimatologist

Geologist

Hydrologist

Oceanographer

Etc. – all ‘climate scientists’

Some more so than others, depending what they work/research.

At the end of the day ‘climate science’ is assessed on the ‘weight of evidence’ (not judged as in a court of law) - albeit only one counter argument can turn the ‘science’ on its head (but it takes years).

It hasn’t, despite the shrill to the contrary.

Moreover, just because someone has ‘googled’ something, or read something, or can do math, or sail a boat, or is a brilliant lawyer or brain surgeon, whatever … doesn’t make that someone expert in any of the ‘climate sciences’, no matter who that someone is.

Furthermore, I for one suspect very much someone who claims to be a ‘climate scientist’ based on minor undergraduate work done decades ago at either a technical college, or university, or who is involved in a political party - no matter what politics they hold true.

Hasbeen, you claim to be a scientist and engineer (so would know about math and probability) - would you please provide links to the "very recent release" by the IPCC you reference so that all readers here can judge the veracity of your claims.

Also, as a fellow scientist, I (and some others) would be interested in the other papers you reference. Hasbeen, with one caveat ... unlike last time, please don't link to your favourite anti-AGW ideological blog-site. The journal/paper/author will do - thanks.

Anthony Cox/cohenite (secretary for the Climate Sceptics Party) - please allow Hasbeen to speak for himself, if he can.

Yes, excesses have always proceeded empire and or financial collapse?
Nero had been Emperor of the Roman empire for just two weeks, when he was alerted to the fact that the largest standing army in the ancient world had all but emptied Rome's coffers!
His fleet was anchored near Egypt and standing by to load grain for the staving masses; or, sand and slaves etc for the arenas, where gladiatorial contests and the rape of 20 virgins by Jackasses; etc/etc, were planned.
You guessed it, insanity prevailed and sand and slaves were loaded and the guaranteed downfall of the Roman empire set in train?
The Great Depression and the more recent GFC were both preceded by the concentration of to much of our finite wealth in to few hands; and the inherent excesses of unbridled rat eat rat, extreme capitalism! Learning from history?
Well, the one lesson we learn from history; is, nobody learns the lessons of history.
But particularly those who believe that greed is good or has any justifiable place in business and commerce, which would be far better served by a cooperative approach/market regulation/the outing of all power hungry corporate psychopaths; and, genuine profit sharing win/win outcomes!
Excess as described. is arguably only available to those who have more money than they genuinely need; or, those who have too little and substitute good nutrition; for money saving high calorie lower cost substitutes!
Queen Antoinette, when told that the masses were starving and had no bread, replied, well let them eat cake.
This demonstrates just how far the better off are divorced from literal reality, which probably applies to an idealistic author, who arguably approaches the subject, with a head filled with intellectual concepts; and or, has never ever done it really tough; or struggled to survive?
Minimalist lifestyles? Try managing on the pittance we call a pension, while supporting a mortgage and ever increasing utility costs etc/etc. Rhrosty.

It's easy to see our world has grown increasingly complex since industrial revolution and introduction of energy subsides ergo fossil fuels. Not just the explosion in population, but also dramatic growth in almost all aspects of human society. The amount of resources we use, the number of artefacts available, the amount of waste produced, the size and complexity of our political and financial systems.

People hold a variety of viewpoints on the future of these increasingly complex systems, from the extreme optimism, technological progress to the extreme pessimism, imminent catastrophic collapse followed by a future of post-apocalyptic hardship. However, as the inherent un-sustainability of our current system slowly becomes ever more apparent, seldom more starkly so than the near total collapse of the financial system in 2008, then so too the question of risk becomes important. Risk can be hard to quantify, especially catastrophic risk, one way to approach that question is to model density.

Next, it's important to understand the difference between direct and contextual tipping points. The example of a straw that broke the camels back is a direct tipping point, whereas a forest fire is a contextual tipping point. Increasing the density of the forest by one more percent does not directly cause a firestorm, but it does cross a threshold where the chances of a firestorm greatly increases. Beyond that point all that was needed was a spark for catastrophe to follow, much like the spark that melted the global financial system.

There is another kind of tipping point, which engineers call "phase change." The load can be increased far beyond the point of equilibrium before it reaches a toggle point. An example of this might be the Greenland ice sheet, which can decay pretty far without substantial movement. Then, suddenly and without warning, the whole thing goes, something everyone thought should have happened much earlier. Or, using the straw-loading example, the calculated toggle point might be far exceeded before the camel's knees actually give out.

A sense of complacency might be a likely result when expected overloads do not result in collapse

And of course the beauty of claiming there is a 'tipping point' is that you can't possibly be proved wrong. Something happens? I told you so! Nothing happens? That just means we haven't hit the tipping point yet.

There are still diehard Marxists out there waiting for the 'inevitable' rise of the proletariat; I suspect the diehard alarmists will be waiting just as long for their 'tipping points' -- and with the same disappointing results.

Perhaps you did not see this in the other thread Jon J, or perhaps you did not understand what the research has shown:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1920168,00.html

In any event, things happen before we experience "tipping points" - the planet is "squealing" now.

Don't believe it? Ask population ecologists (a.k.a. 'climate scientists') about the impact of global warming on biodiversity, for example.

Hay bonny, perhaps if you spent less time waffling on here, you'd have time to keep up with the rush of science.

Or is this your assignment for the month.

Anyway good luck with your research.

Morning beeny,

I expected your small minded reply ... demonstrating yet again you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Anyway, thanks for the best wishes - the research is going well.

Haaahahahaha! You mob crack me up!

Beeny you’re a bunny if you are going to keep insisting that climate change is not real or not anthropogenic.

You can’t assert that! You just don’t know. No one knows for absolute certain. But the weight of evidence is strongly on the side of very significant anthropogenic global warming.

In the face of such uncertainty, the pertinent thing to do is to err on the side of caution, well and truly. It is just absurd, bizarre and ridiculous to blunder on in the same old ever-increasingly overconsumptive manner, and let our whole society remain utterly dependent on fossil fuels.

But as I’ve said to you numerous times in the past, Even if it isn’t, we should still be doing our damnedest to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, first and foremost oil, for sustainability reasons, in the face of peak oil and a constantly growing global demand and declining ability to make supply meet that demand.

You agree with me that population growth is a major global concern. You agree that we should be striving for a sustainable society and planet. But you denounce AGW and any efforts to reduce our use of fossil fuels. It just doesn’t compute!

Ludwig -- the best possible evidence for 'very significant anthropogenic global warming' would be global warming. Without that, you've got nothing.

And you haven't got that for the last fifteen years, during which time CO2 levels have been going gangbusters.

I hope to be around for another thirty years or so, and I confidently expect the few remaining alarmists in 2142 to be telling us that forty-five years of no warming just isn't enough to allow us to conclude it's not happening. We need forty-six, or forty-seven, or....

Jon J, is it really that painful for you to see the long term trend?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

Bonmot, that graph puts it very nicely.

Jon J, what about the other points in my last post?

It really doesn’t matter if climate change is real or not. We should be doing just the same sort of stuff regardless, yes?

Bonmot; You're are right; the trend line ambient temperatures have been very steadily rising, since the industrial revolution, with the last decade, the warmest on record. [CSIRO.]
Of course we need to stop burning fossil fuels, or at least offset the emission they create, just for sound economic reasons; and or the increasing impact of peak oil and the economy destroying price hikes.
After all, every western style economy rests on just two pillars, energy and capital; and, excessive cost flow ons; [and excessive debt,] in either, can and will wreck most western style economies!
Therefore, we can expect another European Great Depression by as soon as 2016, with all that that implies for the Chinese economy/growth; and in turn, its impact on us, with our now excessive dependence on Chinese economic growth.
Were we well led, we would by now be almost totally self suffient in locally supplied alternative fuel and energy, which can and ought to be supplied for a lot less than we currently pay!
Who then would choose to keep using the older dirty fuels; and, which major or emerging economy would refuse to follow our much more pragmatic less costly example?
Algae absorb twice their bodyweight in Co2 emission; and, under optimised conditions double that bodyweight every 24 hours! 100 tons today, would therefore; be 200 tons tomorrow and able to absorb 400 tons of Co2 emission; and 800 the day after; and so on, just as long as the nutrient flow was also doubled, not a big ask given the billions of tons of bio-waste, we humans regularly flush annually into our oceans, with disastrous consequences for the marine environment.
Some algae are amongst the most nutritious and complete foods on the planet, others, the more toxic varieties; are up to 60% oil; and, very easily extracted as a virtually ready to use bio-diesel! Algae can be grown utilising borrowed waste water which can then be returned to the environment, cleaned of all problematic nutrients and pathogens! Cheers, Rhrosty.

- the research is going well.
bonmot,
that's great to hear. How much have you discovered by now & how much are we paying for what you haven't found yet ?
By your own admission you're good at maths so it shouldn't take that long to give us the figures already in the books.

@ Ludwig,

You make some eminently sensible suggestions, as we have come to expect.
----“ It is just absurd, bizarre and ridiculous to blunder on in the same old ever-increasingly overconsumptive manner, [ TICK]
--- “we should still be doing our damnedest to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels… in the face of peak oil [ TICK]
And I would add reduce pollution and waste.

But we can have all of the above WITHOUT acceding to the leftwing lobbies that now campaign under
conservation and climate change “prevention” banners (or push their agendas on OLO) and whose initiatives have included:

--Saddling Australian industry –one of the cleanest in the world -with the worlds highest carbon tax, while many of its dirtier competitors carry on unimpeded.
--Proposing a massive fund to “compensate” underdeveloped nations for "climate change damage”. When the real issue is overpopulation and/or bad governance which has moved them to clear mangroves from deltas/flood-plains.
--Having an open door policy to anyone who whimpers “I’m a climate refugee”

..............
@ Bonmot

Come now Bonmot --despite all its gimmicky graphics -– your little 1973 to 2012 presentation is hardly “long term"!

This is a better long term perspective:
http://tinyurl.com/6og8amu

As is this:
http://tinyurl.com/7m9f5ce

And this:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

(sorry to spoil your puff piece)

SPQR,

Regarding your last link...is that meteorologist really named 'Randy Mann"?

: )

Don't build your hopes up,Poirot!
I'm sure he's spoken for.

SPQR, glad you agree with my assertions that we need to do take the sort of remedial measures necessary to address climate change regardless of whether it is real or not, in the interests of a sustainable society.

But I see the carbon tax quite differently to you.

You see it as the biggest tax of its kind in the world (is it really?) which is a big imposition on Australian business.

I see it as a very small step, in fact no more than a token effort, towards steering our society off of our fossil fuel addiction and onto a sustainable largely renewable energy platform.

It needs to be considerably stronger. And of course it needs to be part of a total sustainability agenda. Doing it in isolation, especially while we still have extremely high immigration, is absurd.

SPQR,

Do yer reckon?....drat it!

75 major temperature swings over 4500 years, wow ! With that indisputable evidence there's absolutely no doubt now that Australia's Carbon Tax will save Planet Earth. Hail Julia Gillard.

@ Beeny
That "very recent release" by the IPCC you referred to (but have been having difficulty in linking so others here can judge the veracity of your claims) can be found here:

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

Seems you can’t or don’t know how to link directly to the “genuine science”.

.

@ Jon J
I see you have ignored the planet “squealing” article – head still stuck in the sand?

.

@ individual
Yup, research going good – some can be found here:

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

A weatherman’s "Climate and the Affairs of Men" – anything that floats your boat, eh?

Anyone who thinks Australia’s carbon tax/ETS has something to do with controlling Earth’s temperature is just plain wrong, or stupid – take your pick.

.

@ SPQR
- Minimum 30 years required for statistical significance, Jon J doesn’t get it.

- 30 yrs since satellite measurements began, even Roy Spencer’s graphs get it.

- Ah yes, John Daly’s blog graph finishes in 2000. Ok, got it, thanks.

- You think Central Park in New York City constitutes global warming – right, got it, thanks.

- Randy Mann’s blog? Ok, got that too, thanks.

Anyone who thinks Australia’s carbon tax/ETS has something to do with controlling Earth’s temperature is just plain wrong, or stupid – take your pick.
Bonmot,
Hmmh, What is the Carbon Tax for then ? Just plain revenue for eternal research ?
By all means call me stupid if the Earth's temperature is not linked to climate change ?
btw. your research link doesn't open. Will it open when you've finished researching ?

No ‘individual’, you got it wrong.

>> By all means call me stupid if the Earth's temperature is not linked to climate change? <<

I said: “Anyone who thinks Australia’s carbon tax/ETS has something to do with controlling Earth’s temperature is just plain wrong, or stupid – take your pick.”

>> What is the Carbon Tax for then … Just plain revenue for eternal research? <<

No, it is not. You obviously have not looked at the policy or understood it (you only want to see and hear what you want to see and hear). Granted, the government could do a better job of explaining why we have to transition to an alternative (and cleaner) energy future but quite frankly, I don't think people like you want to know anyway.

Indy, this is not to say there are no issues with the policy (there are). However, sooner or later we have to move towards an alternative (to fossil fuel) energy future – it will be more sustainable in the long run - just look at some other countries and what they are doing. How and when to do it is up for discussion, but not why - that is politics and economics, not science.

Problem is, only a progressive government will think about the future (past the next election cycle) - a conservative government (by their very nature) promotes business as usual.

PS: the link works fine; it’s just a large gutsy and informative PDF file – not a short sharp sound-bite like SPQR’s.

The promotion and practice of immorality, perversion and porn will cause our collapse a lot faster than the imaginery climate change. Many promoting the Green dogmas are happy to preach an outward self righteousness and deny the obvious failings of their own nature. Civilisations collapse once embracing immorality and finally homosexuality as normal, not because they don't believe the failed prophecies of those who are prideful enough to think they can control the weather.

"@ Jon J
I see you have ignored the planet "squealing" article - head still stuck in the sand?"

I'm sorry - when did Time Magazine become a peer reviewed publication?

Seriously, any medium that relies on reader or viewer ratings to set its advertising rates is OBVIOUSLY going to push AGW for all it's worth. Apocalyptic stories sell papers -- and magazines. How many copies do you think Time would sell if they put 'Everything OK, don't worry!' on the cover?

You'll have to do much better than that to have any credibility with me.

Jon J, this is perhaps the critical question that climate change sceptics need to answer, as I asked you previously:

Whether or not climate change is real, shouldn’t we be taking pretty much the same sort of approach to planning for our future anyway, by way of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and developing renewable energy sources?

Very lame but typical excuse Jon J, especially when a lead author is quoted in the article.

Read the full article and comment accordingly:

http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_critical_transitions.pdf

Give it 20 seconds or so to download, if you can wait that long.

.

Jon J, your understanding of a cooling trend is shown thus:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

Yes?

____

Fake sceptics gladly link or quote anti-global warming blog-sites, media-shock jocks and political ideologues, but have the audacity to impugn a scientific paper without having made the effort to understand it – preferring to see and hear only what they want to see and hear.

bonmot,
I happen to agree with what you're saying about alternative energies. The problem is we don't have any as yet. Perhaps your research might one day come up with something but can we wait that long ?
Why do we need research for cleaner energy when even the village idiot will tell you that over population is the cause. Are you by any chance trying to find a technological way to curb population growth ?
Just look at the pictures of the shrinking rain forests or the Aral Sea. If that isn't enough to realise that population growth is the cause of it then no amount of research will find a solution.
I looked up wind power & found that the manufacturing of cleaner energy is more polluting than traditional power stations. Same goes for solar panels.

Ludwig, we already have a very effective tool for planning ahead and changing people's behaviour -- it's called the free market. If there are genuine negativities from fossil fuel use, then prices will go up and people will use less. If the 'negativities' are only warmist fantasies, then attempts to impose costs to pay for them will fail and the whole enterprise will ultimately be discredited.

Given that carbon exchanges in the US have closed, and the European carbon exchange price has dropped to an all-time low, which of those do you think is the more likely scenario?

And see also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/20/the-simple-solution-to-climate-change-hint-it-isnt-world-government/

"Jon J, your understanding of a cooling trend is shown thus:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

Yes?"

Well, yes, if you actually start with the first dot and draw a straight line through to the last dot. That's called 'using all the available data' -- something that alarmists are not conspicuously good at.

But if you don't like that approach, then draw a line through the first dot to the second-last dot, and I think you'll observe that we actually have a cooling trend. Bummer, eh?

Must be the sea suckin out the hot air, and raising the ocean temp and melting the ice shelf.
Adverse weather will continue and gradually get worse, as the years progress.
The world has had to much of a good thing, and nature has been compromised.

Hahahaha!

>> draw a line through the first dot to the second-last dot, and I think you'll observe that we actually have a cooling trend. <<

So that's how you lot do time series statistical analysis?

Bummer, that them there post-doctoral work was all *crap* too : (

Need more time for the Carpenter et al paper?

While we're on the subject of connecting the dots!

Why does Bonmot insist that:
<< “Anyone who thinks Australia’s carbon tax/ETS has something to do with controlling Earth’s temperature is just plain wrong, or stupid – take your pick.”>>

If this is an example of the best non-sceptical thinking (re AGW) there’s little wonder why they’re losing it (in every sensed of the word!).

Bonmot seems want us to believe that the carbon tax is simply about “transitioning” to alternate energy sources.

But why the mad rush towards transitioning?

Ah! maybe it’s because of peak oil: you know, we might run out and that would be reeeal bad. But ,no, we have enough coal to last for hundreds of years. Then we have shale oil for another hundred years. And the latest fad is natural gas which adds still hundred of years more. So it can’t be simply about transitioning to avoid peak oil, or peak coal, or peak anything else!

As I recall it, there used to be in consensusing non-sceptical circles a proposition that we needed to wean ourselves off fossil fuels because they produced prodigious amounts of greenhouse gasses and these greenhouse gasses were complicit in the warming of the Earth [ and if we didn’t act real soon –depending which non-sceptic you listened to-- the sea level would rise by six metres (at low tide) or, the dams would all dry-up] and the best way to mitigate temperature increases was to transition to alternative sources of energy.

And our present flopsies in Canberra share the non-sceptics faith. (they must, they’ve attended everyone of the non-sceptics hoedowns from Copenhagen to Durban) So you don’t have to be a Sherlock Holmes to work-out that they just might have thought far enough ahead to see our transitioning to non-fossil fuels as doing *something* about ameliorating the warming trend, however feeble & foolhardy.

But the real mystery is why would Bonmot not want us to see the connection? perhaps he just cannot connect the dots that far ahead -- yep it figures!

The carbon tax will cause change, you can bye green power and there is no carbon tax. Dirty power will continue to rise in price.
I don't think the timescale is that far away, in the last decade see level rise has doubled that of the last century.
There is enough ice around Greenland to rise sea level by 6 + meters.
I don't know where you are getting global cooling from, The temp; of sea water is increasing. Sea water covers more land than not.

you can bye green power and there is no carbon tax.
579,
I assume you meant buy (just a typo) green power. Explain this please. How do you make green power without polluting side effects ? Or are you suggesting we achieve that in a clean way ? I'd certainly love to know how. How do you envisage a green Supermarket or a green car or green mass transport or green airliners ? Do you already have a working model of a green refrigerator factory or a green car factory ?

>>Civilisations collapse once embracing immorality and finally homosexuality as normal<<

Really? So the Roman empire didn't collapse because of barbarian incursions? The Aztec empire didn't collapse thanks to the Spanish and all their lovely European diseases?

So why did these empires collapse, runner? Was it because they were all bumming each other or was it because they were downloading too much porn? And why don't history books contain the real answer?

Cheers,

Tony

because they were all bumming each other
Tony Lavis,
Just look what's happening to the coffer emptying left.

Ok, bout time to leave.

See ya...

Oh sorry Tony their were so many emissions back then that climate change brought down Rome!

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133143758/could-climate-change-have-led-to-the-fall-of-rome

See ya.
bonmot,
typical academic when cornered.

@ "typical academic when cornered."

Individual, if you want to engage in dialogue about "porn" and people "bumming each other" that is your choice.

Quite frankly, I choose not to.

bonmot,

Good call.

The thread degenerates into a farcical dialogue about 'bumming' and you are called out because you choose not to engage.

"typical academic when cornered"....laughable!

>>their were so many emissions back then that climate change brought down Rome!<<

Seems unlikely to me. But not as unlikely as it collapsing because they were too all busy bumming each other to maintain their civilisation. I think it was actually mostly the barbarians.

>>because they were all bumming each other<<

Really? I have been reading the wrong history books haven't I? Obviously mine have been heavily censored to make them more palatable to people with regrettably Victorian sexual mores like bonmot because they tend to focus on boring things like wars and epidemics and natural disasters whilst neglecting the anal sex. Where can I get one of these raunchy history books with a full and graphic account of the rampant homosexuality prevalent in Mesoamerican cultures prior to Spanish colonization?

Cheers,

Tony

Thanks for your reply Jon J.

We do have the most enormous disagreement. I am very strongly against just leaving it to the free market. That would mean business as usual – just allowing things to go on as they always have, until we are forced into change. It would mean no planning ahead.

We definitely need strong government-implemented regulation. Not world government but sensible long-term planning from governments the world over.

Quite frankly, I choose not to.
Bonmot,
choose not to answer, just an el-cheapo bailing out. Where's them costings I asked you about. Too embarrassed to tell those who pay for your dawdling in some research Lab ? Tell us what you've given us in return thus far. How long have you been doing research & for what & have you found anything yet ? You're pretty quick when it comes to belittling others. What have you done that you can feel reasonably pleased about.

>>Bonmot,
choose not to answer, just an el-cheapo bailing out.<<

Damn straight. Are you really so uptight and conservative that you're going to bail on the argument because you're turned off by the idea of a bit of bum-fun? I'm shocked and dismayed. Apparently even the Left fascist Tory kunts these days.

>>choose not to answer, just an el-cheapo bailing out<<

Pot kettle black. Where's them raunchy history books I asked you about? Too embarrassed to admit how you have such an intimate knowledge of Olmec gay porn?

Cheers,

Tony

Excess is followed by collapse.
Indeed. Bonmot & Tony Lavis are living proof. Their inability to answer questions hence a degeneration of the thread into a senseless academic excuse come ridicule muddle.
Highly intelligent indeed.

On the subject of societal collapse and resilience, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the seminal work of Karl Butzer, summarised in this article:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/23/1114845109.full.pdf+html

Butzer's findings are certainly worth pondering over.

Cheers,

Joe

Crikey, that article is almost as long as Jared Diamond’s book; ‘Collapse’!

Looks well worth reading though.

Thanks Loudmouth.