The debate is only just starting.
Try this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

"After 20 years of mounting evidence, climate change is becoming a political and economic issue as important as interests rates and inflation."

Laugh. The mounting evidence is only mounting when you ignore all contrary evidence.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_real_climate_change_catastrophe&ns=PaulDriessen&dt=10/21/2006&page=full&comments=true
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/chancy_business/
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102301.html

Or how about when a climate change evangelist changes into a global warming skeptic
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
That's definitely a link you need to read as it has links to all sorts of evidence that doesn't agree with the climate change doomsayers.

And if you want to see a response to the dodgey sensationalist fear mongering in the stern report, go no further than
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009181
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

This global warming thing is a crock. There is no scientific way you can test it. Far too many variables that we can't control to have any confidence that it is true.

Well said, Andrew. Oxfam has a daunting job at the present, and it promises to get more difficult.

If we are not all to be refugees, we must look directly at the causes of the problem, and interventions which make an immediate difference.

In the interest of brevity, I will leave causes alone and look at just a few intervention strategies.

Sequestration of CO2 has been suggested, but I am surprised that no experts appear to have written it off as an unproven technology - does anyone know of any successful and economic programs? We would be better off to look at decreasing CO2 production now, fast.

This is not so impossible as it may seem. No-one has to freeze in the dark. Much valuable conservation-oriented work was done in the 1970's, in the few years immdiately after OPEC raised its prices.

Several very interesting approaches are discussed in the ABC Background Briefing program aired yesterday (Sunday 5 November. The program is currently posted on Backround Briefing's website). Below, find the blurb, and the links:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/
Sunday 05 November 2006Listen Now - 05112006 |

Electric shocks
The cost of electricity will soar in coming years - and the biggest culprit is the air conditioner. In South Australia, 90 percent of homes use them. At present, whether you have one or not, your electricity bill is higher because their cost is spread among all electricity users. Reporter: James Panichi.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1777438.htm

Intelligent electricity use, generation and metering strategies are currently being trialed in Australia, and deserve far wider publicity. By cutting electricity grid demand through currently available conservation measures and strategic co-generation, we can reduce the minimum amount of coal and gas which must be burnt to assure reliable electricity supply.

I urge all readers to visit the above link and take the time to listen to the program.

I would hate to think we have to wait ten years for unproven, dubious and/or vastly subsidised technological fixes to be up and running.

Meanwhile, we are all candidate refugees, even in Oz

We have to grasp the nettle of coal exports.

That is one of the pillars of Australia's current prosperity and also what is killing the planet. Both this country and the countries to which our coal is exported coal must drastically reduce their dependence upon coal.

Of course their are obvious and serious political obstacles to winding back coal exports. However the choice we face is simple: either we confront those obstacles or we destroy the planet for ourselves, our childeren and grandchildren.

We have to find other means to keep our economies running. The costs of winding back coal exports must be shared fairly throughout the whole community starting with the most prosperous. Other livelihoods have to be found for those who now work in the mining industry or who are dependent upon it.

We can change the way our economy works to make far better use of the reduced quantity of non-renewable natural resources we will choose to consume, however this will require that our governments begin to act to confront the problems we now face instead of taking the back seat as requied by the ideology of economic neo-liberalism that has taken control of the national political agenda in the past three decades.

Obvious ways in which our use of natural resources could be improved dramatically include:

* Use of public transport rather than private motor vehicles

* Effective town planning controlled by governments rather than property developers and land speculators. This would make it possible for more people to live close to work and ameinities and reduce the need for people to travel in the first place.

* Adoption of permaculture to enable food and other necessities to be grown locally without the use of fossil fuel based fertilizers.

* Use of the Internet to reduce the need to travel. However, this option has been made far more difficult as a result of telecommunications deregulation and the privatisation of Telstra now under way (see http://www.citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com/resources/cast-senate-submission-Oct-2003.html#footprint).

Also we have to stop growing our population in order to reduce this country's need to consume resources.

Thanks for the link Owen. The hysteria surrounding the Stern report borders on the ridiculous. Simply because a man is paid by the British Government to come up with a report of doom and gloom doesn't mean we should all jump on the bandwagon. Just last Sunday morning on the ABC's Insiders, Andrew Bolt was waving around a thick A4 sized report that was done by British scientists commissioned by the Blair Government prior to the Stern report that states very much the opposite to what Stern has said. Apparently there wasn't enough taxpayers money or votes in the original scenairo and so the Blair Government ordered another using not recognised scientists, but an economist connected to the World Bank which is a shifty organisation at best. I haven't as yet been able to find any Online reference to the previous report and have written to Mr. Bolt asking where I might obtain it. Look, I'm as environmentally friendly as anyone, but I'm not about to be hoodwinked by someone like Stern who is beginning to be revealed as someone joined to the Current British Government's hip. Something's amiss here people. Let's not join the hysteria in Australia simply because the effects of a prolonged drought are beginning to bite. When you read that ocean stocks will disappear within 50 years unless something urgent is done, well, we've got bigger fish to fry, pardon the pun. The World's population is spiraling out of control placing an ever increasing strain on our ability to simply feed ourselves. Maybe it's issues like population control that need to take first priority, but that won't happen until it's way too late. Without an ever expanding population, we can't have wealth creation and would have to live without the fancy toys that make our boring little lives on Earth livable. The World Bank that's allowed Stern to become a recognised figure in this one sided debate is one of the main beneficiaries of increased growth and wealth (for them).

Stern may be right, of course; humans have disturbed our benign and stable climate and all we can now expect is more and more warming, unless China/India curtail their coal use - and that won't happen. Sceptics may be right; the Sun drives our ever-changing climate, future solar eruptive activity can be predicted, and the next Little Ice Age cold period is almost upon us. No-one knows right now; but we should be able to tell within a decade - so let's not impoverish the world just yet. Precautionary principle, you say? But, the next "Quiet Sun" period will be fuly developed by 2030. How then will governments keep their people warm and fed ? By starting to plan right now, is the answer. Doesn't the precautionary principle work both ways?