The Big Fish I’m just a lay person with an interest in science so when 8 of the worlds major science academies come out to say human induced climate change is no longer in doubt, and consistently, the quality science publications come out that this is now a mainstream view, my money is on them. The selfsame academies BTW, that the G8 governments look for main science advice. Ok on other subjects but they are biased on GW?

I've just had a look over at Margo K's blog where there has been a debate between the creation science advocates and the mainstream evolutionary view. Seriously there are PhD’s and a Sci Hon arguing that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that humans walked with dinosaurs.

If Big Fish you have time to check ever fact or alternative minority viewpoint that go against the mainstream, be my guest. But first have a go at the CS advocates and see what its like to see people argue against mainstream science and evidence and still think they are on a winner, that evolution isn’t beyond doubt and there is strong evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

Yes I know the problem of an argument from authority but when with something as serious as this isn’t the best bet to go with those most qualified? You want to take the view of 5 doctors who say you have cancer or the Homeopath who says it just chemical imbalance.

It would be nice for a change, to just for the sake of argument take it that, OK we do have GW, it will be a problem, can we find win/win solutions.

I for one am not going to debate whether GW is happening any more, anyone here want to discuss their solutions including the nuclear option, how we respond to GW refugees, and what a rise in sea levels and climate change would mean for Australia

There seems to be no recognition of population growth in the developed countries as a factor in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. US consumption per person of energy and most other resources has actually been flat or declining for more than 30 years. (I refer you to 'Sustainable America', the March 1996 Task Force Report of the President's Council on Sustainable Development). According to ABS figures total household energy consumption in Australia grew by 50% between 1975 and 1995. 24% of this was due to increased individual consumption and 76% due to population growth. The US reached replacement level fertility in 1972. More than half the growth from 203 million in 1970 to 293 million now is due to mass migration, which also accounts for half of Australia's population growth. This population growth has been rammed through by the business elite and its political puppets (with the able help of organisations like Friends of the Earth that have been captured by multicultural ideology)against the wishes of the majority of the population.

Bringing in many more people to emit greenhouse gases at developed country rates is part of the problem, not the solution. Of course we should pay compensation (from the people who benefited from the population growth) and take Pacific Islanders who will drown otherwise, but this is only a few thousand people. The only real solution is reducing population numbers, particularly in the developed countries that account for most of the greenhouse gases. A world population of 2 billion would allow everyone to live decently, but not lavishly, without trashing the environment.

Dear Editor,

Pressing the hidden costs of climate change as exempified is admirable, but we could just wonder whether it will get the main message of climate change to our Prime Minister, as well as the US President and the corporate power which the US so much represents. It is believed therefore, that the groups which should be continually made aware are among our young people who are those who will inherit this ever worsening climate problem.

Our brightest youngsters, especially the femine gender, are no doubt already aware that the corporate-minded groups now running our world, have minds mostly only conscious of monetary profit, treating life more like an exciting dangerous game, either not knowing or having forgotten what true wisdom and understanding is all about.

Climate change hs been a worry since the 1950s, and in the 1970s there was talk of big aluminium companies being charged for the discharge of pollutants. It can still be read in a 1980s economics manual edited by Baumol and Blinder how as industrial pollution could be a burden on the taxpayer in the future, it was suggestd that all offending companies should have charge monitors fitted to their smoke-stacks.

It is no surprise that corporate power had the suggestion by economic editors pushed aside, and just lately there was a talk over the TV media that by 2050 attempts to allay climate change will have been left too late. So who will our inheritors, among our now brightest youngsters, later blame for the climatic disaster now predicted? No need really to say. The blame will be, and rightfully laid at the feet of the types of corporates and individuals who are now trying to run the world.