Isn't it great to see people still denying what every major government now has admitted publicly? Maybe the earth is flat after all?

The population growth is certainly a part of the problem but essentially it is greed and power that keeps the world using materials that are damaging the environment.

Oil, coal and the like have been wonderful servants of humans but the time has passed for such materials to be used, particularly when there is a massive demand for energy coupled with a dearth of available materials.

It is governments that still pay homage to those with the big money and the power ( pun intended ) that are preventing us moving quickly to alternate energy sources.

The science is there, the people who can do it are there but it is being crippled by one thing. Money. Someone will miss out on massive profits if current industries are given the flick. As usual it is money. What's new?

NEWSFLASH

Australia is not the centre of the universe. We are not the centre of the universe.

Kyoto is great, lets assume it is followed and Australia does not. Overall, to the total output of emmissions across the world, there may be 0.1% difference overall than if Australia had of signed Kyoto and we impacted our lifestlye.

Who cares, i am sure mother nature does not mind as she is being hit between the eyes anyway. the world will not tip over just because we exceed our insignificant targets.

6 billion people on earth, 4 billion living in poverty dont give a rats arse about the environment and we are worried about our 20 million waterdrop in the ocean exceeding our targets.

Go and eat some red meat guys i think your thinking is tainted. We are not important. To reduce to the ridiculous, think of us as Nimbin compared to the rest of Australia, if nimbin curved their car use, would it impact on Australias envoronment? No

Isn't it great to see people still toadying to every major government now hell bent on 4 and 5% economic and population growth rates for the benefit of their own power and a few global corporations. Kyoto is a convenient never ending crutch to stall genuine concerns about climate changes caused by wastewater mismanagement. I mean do people really believe in greenhouse gas warming when governments save trillions of dollars in waste management by dumping in coastal seas.

""The science is there, the people who can do it are there.?""

Scientists are paid by governments and corporations to feed the public what is best for Greenspanian economic growth patterns.

Solving COMPLEX biospheric systems without due regard to TOTAL energy inventories is typical of specialist scientists who are not trained in Applied Mathematics as a first tier subject. People do what they are trained for and if that means solving one dynamic within an exceedingly complex system like the biosphere then that is what they will do. This is a mistake. Scientists make mistakes like anyone.

As time goes on from here, the sheer unpredictability of imminent climate changes will all but rule out global warming as a cause. Global warming theory is very specific about the global homogeneity of it's effects and the gradual increase in its effects with time. For example the 2006 US hurricane season will be worse than 2005 and will all but squash greenhouse warming theories because the change is occurring too quickly.

And remember, the Earth was deemed FLAT in the dark ages because the leading power of the time, the Catholic Church wanted it that way to control the populace and keep it in its place.

The obvious, but for some emotionally unacceptable alternative is of course to go nuclear as the French have done. We have it, but for emotive reasons, resign ourselves to exporting uranium. What a waste!!

Another thing to consider is as the world respected economist Michael Porter has found in his tome "The Competitive Advantage of Nations" is that creating a tough environment, actually stimulates business. There are many examples such as the Italian tile industry to the Japanese micro white goods industry etc. The point? Australia should take a tough position on carbon emission and in so doing, promote SMART activities, and not the commodity producing smoke stack industies. Australia is simply continuing to undervalue itself with its soft approach.

Who here has their head in the sand?

gbyrneg50; Most supporters of greenhouse are social scientists. Climate scientists have pooh-poohed it.

There is a link to these pages ‘Tasmanian sea levels’ – ‘still waiting for green house’ - John L Daly.

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/hobart-msl.htm

John avoids any reference to say our modern base line station at Cape Grim or the old faithful such Greenwich. Today I reckon any measurement or data on the www not certified by say NATA is not worth a pinch of salt. Besides; any worthwhile measurement system must have a minimum of three known standards. So much emphasis on one old water mark at Port Arthur is not so valid in greenhouse calculations now.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/international/third-comm/chapter8.html

Col Rouge; “gbyrneg50 makes valid observation to the credibility of the basic data”. Hmmmm!!.

Col goes on to “Recovery – I would note the ability of the Earths natural processes to recover from manmade short-term problems seems very powerful. Forests grow back and once polluted rivers renew rapidly”. I almost agree with Col here as the old coast lines formed at a slightly higher sea level in recent geological times are well hidden in some places.

I spent a good part of my youth re discovering old coastlines around my part of Bass Strait. We are still at the mercy of the sea and many of our settlements are as fragile as the first line of sand dunes. Some of our questions must relate to the current rate of destruction of these modern margins.

People living on deltas and sand islands are at most risk from even the slightest change

Simon Divecha suggests that Australia’s climate change stance does not make sense. While the ticked-off conspiracy theorists have written that, nah, yeah, it does make sense because climate change is a sinister plot designed to penalize conspiracy theorists (in all their comic variety).

Yet there must be reason behind our stance, it cannot be utterly illogical. Our stance defies modern science, ethical consideration and the opinion of the vast majority of Australians, why? Why? Any thoughts?

Realist: What restrictions does Kyoto place on Australia? We are on track to meet our target of 108% increase above 1990 levels. Kyoto is nothing but a start.

Bushbred: Who says human existence will end in 100 years?

Yabby: The problem is getting all countries to undertake reasonable emissions cuts. General anti-pollution laws over the last 30 years in developed countries have had the side effect of providing competitive advantage to countries that do not have such laws. (China is currently suffering the adverse consequences of this burden). However Kyoto avoids such side effects by using mechanisms such as international emission trading.

gbyrneg50: Can you back up your astounding claim that “Most supporters of greenhouse are social scientists. Clilmate scientists have pooh-poohed it.” Perhaps, give us the name of a paper published in 2005 in a peer reviewed climate journal that supports your amazing claim? For heavens sake though, don’t post any anti climate change conspiracy web sites; your claim was about scientists; what work of which scientists?

KAEP: Are now saying that there is climate change but that because it is changing so quickly global warming isn’t happening? What?