John Avery loses me in his opening two paragraphs. He says Greta is right is saying the world ("our house") is on fire and then goes on to say these fires are the result of climate change. However the examples he provides make no sense. Avery writes of fires in the Arctic but doesn't explain whether these fires were the result of drought or rising temperatures - the causes most readily attributed to climate change here in Australia. His following examples are the Amazon and Indonesia where he says all fires are deliberately and illegally lit. Given it is unlikely the Artic has experienced the same climatic conditions as Australia - which has always been a country of drought and high temperatures, it seems Avery fails to produce one example of how climate change contributes to the condition Greta complains about. Accordingly the rest of the Article has little basis.

Hasbeen, I apologise for using the word 'rubbish'.

Atrav, I looked at one of the you tube videos. It sounds impressive, albeit I am not a science expert.

However, even if I am wrong about the role of human activity, I would argue that it is not worth the risk to go ahead.

As Warwick McKibbon states, if we are wrong we merely have promoted new forms of economic activity, but if we are right, we may have saved the planet in terms of being much more sustainable for present forms of life.

Do I believe that termites and other life will long exist even with rising emissions? Of course, but I think it is much better to do more than simply pollute more, hope for the best, and adapt.

Chris, with the greatest of respect - and to Warwick McKibben also - 'merely creating a new form of economic activity'is not in itself an answer. Rising electricity prices merely increases economic activity but doesn't explain where pensioners get the money to pay their power bills. Closing down our productive sector shifts economic activity from manufacturing to importing but again does not explain where the money comes from. The only economic activity that makes sense is where Australians are generating income and growing wealth. Currently renewables are dependent on subsidies. Not only must we generate the wealth to pay for the renewables we must also generate the wealth to pay the government so they in turn can pay the subsidies having in the process creamed off a good margin to pay the cost of government.

yes, but both of us agree that human activity is linked to global warming.

however, how we remain prosperous and environmentally responsible is a key policy question

Chris, I must clarify and correct you.
Humanity is NOT responsible for GW or CC.
Burning of fossil fuels is insignificant regarding GW or CC, therefore again, we are NOT responsible for GW or CC.
So if your linking either human activity or burning of fossil fuels to GW or CC, you would be wrong.
Just check out the videos explaining and debunking all the alarmist theories.
The planet is warming (allegedly) because it is going through it's 'warming' phase.
It is simply a coincidence that aw are here at AROUND the same time.

They won't go for it. The Marxism thing.
Won't matter how it's wrapped. Won't matter how much they're terrorized about impending doom. They won't buy it.

The environmentalism thing's worked pretty well as cover, so far, to get the laws and structures in place but the inevitable failures are already being seen for what they are.

But what I want to know is in this green new deal, or sustainable future, or Steady-State Economics or whatever we're calling it today, am I going to be freeze zapped by Box if I try to escape out the side door?