to continue from my last post (an hour later due to posting restrictions)

"However, whether AGW is valid of not it makes sense to clean-up our act. And it's always wise to try out/expand new technologies (solar,wind, nuclear) who knows what it will turn-up."

You're happy for fossil fuels to continue being dug up with the expectation that, as they deplete, nuclear and renewables will fill the gap. That would be my position too were it not for the incontrovertible conclusion we draw from the scientific evidence, that following this path will take us to much higher average global air temperature than earth has experienced in the last 150000 years. (At its peak, 125000 years ago, air temperature was only 2 degrees warmer than today, and that's what we set as our target. That will involve upheaval enough, but if we do nothing a ~4 degree raise will raise upheaval to catastrophe.)

"But I believe many of the ways your side is proposing to mitigate the effects of climate change are downright foolhardy, you have not considered their wider implications --one example:climate change reparations!"

So, lets avoid the problem. The first world is dragging the third world into this. We already have those needy of environmental asylum and it's going to get worse. Here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6023#173266 I brainstorm a remedy which includes implications for the Oz economy if we move unilaterally. We will not be obligated to reparations if we meet our moral obligation to mitigate AGW unilaterally.

JF Aus,

<<Do you take devastation of world fish populations... into account in your belief that [human induced climate change] is less than IPCC wants us to believe?>>

Well you hit the bulls-eye first shot.

Fish populations have declined largely due to overfishing. And overfishing (as with over cropping/over anything) ultimately results from more people drawing on a resource than it can meet --overpopulation.

In other-words declining fish stocks are not due to GHG --oh yes, the IPCC might predict all sorts of horrible future scenarios --but the current depletion of stocks is primarily due to overfishing. But herein lies the rub, the IPCC like many scurrilous corporates trying to market a shonky product have associated/linked their product with something easier to sell. Huge numbers of people have been conditioned to think that any disaster, delay, or down-turn could only result from AGW --hence, your post about declining fish stocks.

On the issue of the ABC & climate change:
Not less than 1 hour ago on the ABC Science Show I was hearing a reporter expressing dismay that AGW skepticism is strongest in the English speaking world and virtually non-existent in places like India & Brazil -why might that so? LOL

I suggest it has a huge amount to do with the fact that in the IPCC & its allies scheme of things the English speaking countries will be the ones writing the cheques and the India's and Brazil's will be banking them. And both will be playing those roles for a long time since the developed worlds problems --like fish stocks--have less to do with too many GHGs--and more to do with too many mouths to feed & shelter!

Above 2nd last line s/r: " developing world"

Lucifer

<<You're happy for fossil fuels to continue being dug up with the expectation that, as they deplete, nuclear and renewables will fill the gap>>

I'm happy to go with your *gap* strategy --if you are up to telling suburbanites that they need to get by with 2 hours of electricity each day because you have opted to forgo the use of coal to save the world. Have you run that by Shorten or Albo yet?

<<So, lets avoid the problem. The first world is dragging the third world into this. We already have those needy of environmental asylum and it's going to get worse>>

Even supposing your belief about CO2 is correct. No amount of mitigation is going to stop climate change in its tracks.

AND,AND,AND thanks to all the ranting from the left blaming everything on AGW from tsunamis to tooth ache we are already seeing AGW used as an pretext for asylum scamming.

<<Climate change refugee' fights to stay in New Zealand
Immigrant from Pacific island of Kiribati hopes to convince court he is a refugee at risk from rising sea levels>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/compose-message-article.asp?article=15530

No wonder your side couldn't stop the boats!

SPQR: “I'm happy to go with your *gap* strategy --if you are up to telling suburbanites that they need to get by with 2 hours of electricity each day because you have opted to forgo the use of coal to save the world. Have you run that by Shorten or Albo yet?”

My strategy is as very briefly brainstormed at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6023#173266 involves a phase in of thorium nuclear asap making fossil fuel fired power obsolete while enticing consumer decisions towards renewable through a carbon price. By the time nuclear completely displaces fossil fuelled power there will be a sizable renewable energy supply industry already in place (in say 25 years).

I don’t care which party brings this to fruition, a bipartisan approach would be great. Each major party has its own mountain to climb to get where I’m talking about going, so Shorten and Albo will have as many problems as Abbott and Hunt. That could mean it’s a good solution.
“Even supposing your belief about CO2 is correct. No amount of mitigation is going to stop climate change in its tracks.”
The current aim is a 2 degree ceiling above today’s temperature, to avert CAGW. I can see a future where we can reverse AGW with a global will, but it means leaving fossil fuels buried.


cont'd when post limit relaxes

“ thanks to all the ranting from the left blaming everything on AGW from tsunamis to tooth ache we are already seeing AGW used as an pretext for asylum scamming. “

If my actions harm you do you deserve compensation? If the first world cannot pull itself back to a 2 degree increase, the largest naturally occurring variation from today’s temperature known for 150000 years, then we should expect to compensate the affected in the third world e.g. http://www.trust.org/item/20121102004200-kwn23/?source=spotlight
“No wonder your side couldn't stop the boats!”

I want boats stopped but you must know something I don’t ,as I thought it was a secret! The PNG solution is what is effectively at work presently as far as we have been allowed to know.
Re my mutant gene, I simply find myself more in agreement with Labor’s most recent solutions on refugees, climate, NBN, NDIS, MRRT, superannuation and more. This is because it aligns with my thinking, not because I align myself with its. There are some daft ideas coming out Labor (eg. gay quotas) of as much as the LNP (eg. PPL). I am out of sync with both parties on welfare for single parents after children turn eight, and I support no welfare for those choosing to be single mothers. I’m no bleeding heart, that’s certain, but nor am I completely one for putting the individual way ahead of the group.

Lucifer,

<<My strategy is ...involves a phase in of thorium nuclear asap... (in say 25 years)!>>
-Are you assured of getting this by your party--let alone your allies the Greens?
-And even if valiant(masochistic) little OZ adopts this, it's going to mean bugger all unless the major carbon producers/exporters --and aspiring producers-- follow suit (no wonder you want a world govt!) And bear in mind that IPCC/left propaganda has been so effective that places like India think its none of their business.
-ASAP...(25 years)" 100 years if you use the same team you employed to oversee the NBN

<If my actions harm you do you deserve compensation?...we should expect to compensate the affected in the third world >>
How does anyone objective assess whether the desert that formed at regionX was the result of AGW , long term change, or local mismanagement?

Yet you have already given everyone within coo-ee the green light to seek climate asylum in the West! So 200,000,000 bods in Asia & Africa --in answer to your generous offer --are likely booking places with people smugglers at this very moment.

And if you are true to your principle: "If my actions harm you do you deserve compensation" how do Australian citizens apply for compensations from the left side of politics for selling us out?