Alan

I was going to compliment you on your response - even though we are on opposite sides on this subject - but I don’t suppose you are interested in someone who has a ".. moribund moronic calcified brain's apathetic belief system" who should bury his head.

This section of OLO, unlike the Forum, receives outside opinions; and plebeian posters like us, generally, respond with reasonable politeness.

It is disappointing that the bar-room brawler tactics have arrived here, in the form of SteeleRedux, and that you, Alan, have copied him.

Further, the 'evidence' of man made (CO2) climate change is NOT "irrefutable". It is refuted by many scientists, many of whom have been cancelled, and by a great many intelligent lay people.

Less intelligent people have fallen for the slogan that 'a consensus of 97% scientists' should have the last say. Well, consensus is not science; and 97% of scientists agree with whoever funds them.

Remember: the contributors to OLO are just expressing opinions like the rest of us, even when they are qualified in a particular area. You will note that Gwynn MacCarrick is a lawyer, who is no more qualified in climate science than you are.

Next time you take your nasty pills, ask the particular contributor how he or she came up with the stuff that they preach as gospel; don't waste time and words on the genuinely educated and sincere beliefs of people who are not confined to the legacy media, Google and Wikipedia for their information because they have the means and the intelligence to seek out other sources.

Hello attaday and Alan B.

Well said attaday.

Regardless of anyone's opinion on climate change we need to be address consumption.

Alan B. - I enjoy your input regarding nuclear energy. It appears to me that the argument about nuclear energy was side-tracked by competing factions in the 1970s.

Some could not imagine a world with any nuclear power because the only options being pushed did not include MSR thorium. Others had a vested interest in different technology.

Did China recently add MSR thorium to their energy supply?

"we need to be address consumption."
And POPULATION growth...worldwide, not just OZ.
We are the consumers, without home sapiens there would be no consumption to take it to the final end (which is probably where we are heading.). A sustainable population will result in a sustainable balance one hopes.

Obviously Pocock got a few too many hard hits to the head on the rugby field.

I wonder what caused SRs & Pauls problems.

There is absolutely no need to do anything about climate change, nor can we do anything about it. All we an do - or rather, have done to us - is get less competitive with manufacturing countries not as stupid as our politicians and many of our voters are, pay more for our domestic electricity, and watch our environment and farmland destroyed by Blackout Bowen's windmills and solar panels, all making China richer as they produce the things with coal-fired power. And, of course, cringe at low-information Australians agreeing with all the twaddle, and repeating the same twaddle - that they don't even understand - here and elsewhere.

The biggest threat from stupid people is that they think that they are smart.

"How stupid can people get with this climate nonsense" ttbn, the deniers despite the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real are pretty stupid. Like the flat earth folks, they are mostly the ill-informed from the far right of politics. We have several on this very forum. "how really stupid people can be elected to the Senate", got to agree with that one, The Lovely Pauline is a Senator, and when it comes to stupid she's up there with the wackiest of em'.