Cohenite, in your second post you condemn the precautionary principle, which I must say is really quite bizarre.

Then in a subsequent post, you indicate that you really don’t understand the concept of sustainability at all, which again I find quite bizarre.

You asked;

<< So, when I read people like you go on about sustainability what I understand is that you want some sort of return to "natural" limitations put on the lifestyles of people. Is that right, is that what you mean by sustainability; and if so what parts of the modern lifestyles enjoyed by people living in Australia do you want curtailed or removed? >>

I want there to be a balance between supply capability and demand, for energy and all of our vital resources. Not a continuously increasing demand, ie never, ending population growth, and not a do-nothing approach in the face of massive oil usage while the supply capability is set to struggle in the near future, at least at anything like current prices.

It’s not a matter of curtailing any aspect of our current lifestyle, although some improvements in efficiency and reductions in average per-capita use would be good, in ways that don’t reduce peoples’ quality of life.

How do you think our lifestyle in Australia might be affected if we just continue blithely on with business as usual?

Don’t you think that it would be a much better idea to plan for the future even if it costs us a bit now, rather than blunder forth into a major upheaval, which will cost us very dearly indeed?

Actually, I’m not surprised that AGW denialists have no real concept of sustainability. If they did, they wouldn’t be pushing so hard for business as usual and be denouncing any little cost that we might incur in order to be a bit more sustainable.

continued

So what do you say – do you agree with me and Herbert Stencil that we should be broadening our outlook and addressing the overall sustainability issue rather than getting bogged down on AGW, and that AGW is effectively irrelevant inasmuch as we’d be doing the same sort of things anyway if we properly addressed sustainability?

You go on at great length with attempts to poo-poo AGW. Who knows, you might be right. But really, it doesn’t matter, if you look at the bigger picture!!

Ludwig; I agree generally with you about population; population for its own sake seems ridiculous; but apart from some advocates of a “Big Australia”, the main advocates of population seem to be religions.

More generally you are talking about planned economies; they are hell on Earth IMO; compared with the free market capitalist democracies; with our type of society, the best IMO, it is not so much population but fashion and new products. Personally I detest the fashion and fads; I drive a 10 year old car and try to invest in productive enterprises.

But people like their trinkets and accoutrements; who is going to tell them otherwise; some fashion Nazi? Is that what you want to be? How else are you going to change lifestyle decisions by free citizens?

Csteele; assume you are right about the 33C global average temperature [GAT] above what the temperature would be without a gaseous atmosphere, some issues arise:

1 What are the relative contributions of the gases to that GAT of 33C? In this respect confine your response to H2O and CO2.

2 Will further increases in CO2 have the same relative contribution to increases above 33C as they have in establishing the 33C?

3 Does the atmospheric pressure contribute anything to the 33C; consider whether an identical atmosphere in mass but constituted of different gases would have the same GAT.

4 Does the GAT meaningfully represent the energy balance of the Earth? By that I mean does a rising GAT prove a positive balance with more energy being retained within the atmosphere and vice-versa?

5 Are there homeostatic processes whereby an increase in any of the gases is ‘compensated’ by a counterbalancing force such as is anticipated by the theory of Maximum Entropy production [MEP]?

Dear cohenite,

I understand you are passionate about this subject but perhaps in keeping with our new found civility the best way foward is to take it in turns asking and answering questions.

Having responded to your initial question it would be good to get mine out of the way before we proceed further.

On the matter of global warming 'do you agree that such a mechanism exists and has a role in warming our planet?'

Cheers.

<< Ludwig; I agree generally with you about population; population for its own sake seems ridiculous … >>

Excellent, cohenite.

<< …but apart from some advocates of a “Big Australia”, the main advocates of population seem to be religions. >>

The most powerful advocates are the big business lobby, which has enormous ability to influence government decisions, not least through the despicable antidemocratic donations (decision-buying) regime. And our government whether it be Lab or Lib is very happy to accommodate that enormous bias!

<< More generally you are talking about planned economies; they are hell on Earth IMO; compared with the free market capitalist democracies >>

It is not a matter of one or the other; it is a matter of finding the right balance between government regulation and market forces. Even the freeest market economies still have a certain level of government control.

<< How else are you going to change lifestyle decisions by free citizens? >>

Not by enforcement, but by education and incentivisation.

Ludwig,

I was watching a documentary recently and was taken aback by the control corporations have over agriculture in both the West and the third world.

A couple of points caught my eye:

- that 75 percent of the world's seed commerce is in the control of 5 companies - F1 hybrids introduced, meaning that people have to pay, pay and pay for things that have in the past been common property, shared and saved amongst the people.

- One fellow displayed a thirteen volume collection on botany, describing the apples, pears, etc that used to be cultivated in France and surrounds - 3,500 varieties. There are now only 5 varieties of apples officially sanctioned in France.

- One Doctor of Science revived a variety of potato that was all but lost - and he was "fined" because that potato was not on the official list.

Free market - it appears the only freedom is the freedom of the corporate world to control the market and usurp the common man's right to share and cultivate the myriad varieties that were hitherto available to everyone.