Robert LePage

Denial as a defence mechanism! Look, sorry but where have you been.. The sceptics by and large have nothing invested at all in the debate.. they don't have an ideological conviction and there are no careers, jobs or funding on the line. There is no money at all - or at least very little - on the denial side. They just get impatient with the nonsense.

On the global warming side, however, there are multi-billions in funding, lengthy careers and jobs all tied up in convincing people that the world is about to end. No wonder they get passionate..

The message of crisis has played itself out. Those likely to be swayed by it are already swayed. The only ones listening already know. The question has turned from “Crisis? What crisis?” to “OK, so now what?” When we now talk about crisis it’s become critical to also talk about where we go from here. Otherwise, people get pushed toward extremes such as numbness, panic, or boredom – not really the responses we are after.

There is no precedent for what we are facing. We are confronted not merely with a rapidly changing climate, but with a host of other pernicious issues. Along with dependence on fossil fuels and the many facets of the environmental crisis, there is militarism, war, terrorism, the continued threat of nuclear holocaust, poverty, racism, and population growth.

What is required if we are to address the issues confronting us at root level is a “Great Turning”—a shift from a life-denying worldview and society to a life-affirming worldview and society—and there is no precedent for it. Nothing that has come before, and certainly no single-issue campaign, has come close to requiring such a sweeping and fundamental shift in our thinking and behaviour. However big we make the enemy, if we make the crisis we face about an enemy “other,” we over simplify things and miss the root cause.

I challenge anyone to watch the first ten minutes of last night’s Catalyst program on the ABC to not come away with a sense of dread, these problems cannot be resolved easily, ranting and raving for or against is too late, we all need to move on and solve the issues at hand.

You really can't help yourself can you, SPQR?

Only seeing what you want to see that is.

I did not even mention carbon tax but nice try at changing goal posts, make that playing fields.

In fact, if you had understood my other post, I delineate the science from adaptation and mitigation measures.

That is comprehending perspective in any sense of the word, SPQR - you just don't get it.

This is where I have been; There are many more where this came from but this example should suffice to make the point that the corporate world is the puppet master pulling all of your denialist's strings. The amounts stated are a drop in the bucket for them.As you can see they promised to stop, meaning they are admitting that they are in the business of funding climate change skeptics.
What more does it take to convince you?
"ExxonMobil promised in 2006 to stop funding climate change skeptics after it was criticized by the Royal Society for giving money to researchers who were “misinforming the public about the science of climate change”.
In its 2008 corporate citizenship report, published last year, ExxonMobil repeated that it would cut funds to several groups that “divert attention” from the need to find new sources of clean energy.

ExxonMobil donated a total of $9 million (£5.5million) to environment-related groups in 2008.

We can chew gum and walk. We can reduce our carbon emission, while prospering the population!
We can add value and inner contentment and personal enrichment to each and every life, without making the already obscenely rich even richer; or indeed, the very richest corpses ever buried in any grave yard?
We can grow a sustainable economy without creating more poverty or disadvantage; but rather the very opposite1!
We can do this while maintaining zero population growth just by the simple expediency of ending/attacking poverty in all its guises and forms wherever we find it.
We can loosen the hold of, bottom dwelling myopically focused energy cartels, on our economies and economic outcomes?
Simply by substituting high emitting energy choices, with much lower ones!
[No possible harm can come from that?]
Preferably the ones the Greens never ever seem to want or accept, because they may cost less than current alternative options and therefore walk out the door, to prosper the least amongst us?
And that clearly won't do?
Particularly when their goal seems to include, creating a depopulated/de-industrialised world, where the only elites, will be patently parasitical Green Acolytes?
A lower carbon future?
Why not?
A world where there is more common use green space and trees?
Why not? Who amongst us wouldn't want that?
A world where we survive or not, depending entirely on fickle nature?
Hang on! Ever see just what that very artisan supported agrarian lifestyle has created in Ethiopia and parts of sub Sahara Africa? Thanks, but no thanks.
We humans have invariably solved population pressure via endless migration.
And there are likely millions of earth style unoccupied planets out there in just the visible firmament?
And, like our land based forbears, it really is only a matter of time, before we discover how we might traverse the unimaginable distances, taking such lessons as already learned with us on that next journey or frontier.
Rhrosty.

Curmudgeon (and Robert)

>> The sceptics by and large have nothing invested at all in the debate.. they don't have an ideological conviction and there are no careers, jobs or funding on the line. There is no money at all - or at least very little - on the denial side. <<

You are right Mark, "denialism" is a defense mechanism - defending the indefensible.

The 'Business-As-Usual' crowd have huge investments in denying and/or delaying action on climate change.

Remember George W?