We are also responsible for the millions of tons of coal we export to those countries which then burn it for energy, thus contributing by default.

Why can't we, as a wealthy nation, demonstrate and put in place a strategy for living within our REPLENISHABLE resource limits. We can evaluate those limits fairly easily. We can then work out a strategy to reduce our population and maintain our standard of living.

All this can be done while we live off the income derived from selling coal to our neighbours. When the rest of the world wakes up we are in the position with the experience and expertise to roll out the technology we have developed.

We have done it in the past. The Snowy Mountains Scheme/ Corporation to name one. If we elicit the help of the coal lobby and use their financial and considerable technical clout we are perfectly positioned to do this.

Why wait till we have to follow along in the wake of America and do what they do. I am sick of this country being a follower of America and Europe. How do we get politicians that will not roll over when the coal lobby comes knocking?

How do we develop an economic model for enhanced prosperity while reducing consumption and population?

I would like an "economist" to answer that one please.

“Why can't we, as a wealthy nation”

That I do suppose is the post scripture of intent: the fact remains a great deal of wealth is headed to wards the new Barons who in turn hijack commodity and Raw material industry, only because it is in great demand;

Then we have the Proletariat Lobotomized who loots more money from stupid useless idiots in Government as Perseus points out above creating their own science and fudging the numbers to get more grants; and we are not talking a few thousand.

And NASA is just as guilty of exactly the same tactic; well, have a guess who funds project SETTI; yes NASA, only because it attracts more funding from Mystery; you see, it is Looting hard working tax payer money and nothing to do with science or fact.
The only fact you can extract is it is criminal.

Reading some of the commentary, some of the theories explained in the Catastrophe theory may well have some credence in regards to Psychology; a full moon scenario seemingly appears minor compared to this phenomena.

Well if you’re lucky, I will visit you in your cave and remember one other important thing; someone famous was a Proletariat Luddite and a Green;
Give you a hint; Zig Halle.

Our only redemption will be the religion of science and logic.To know your god is to know the rules of his/her universe.It is the endeavour and good will of the human race that makes civilisation possible.The religion of superstition and absolute truths that portrays a static universe with paedophile clergy lurking in the pews,makes a lie of the concept of god.

As Dave Allen used to say,"May your god go with you."

Perseus you seem to replace scientific consensus with wild fantasy, 11,000 years indeed. Are you ignorant or perhaps fearful? I am fearful but I must accept the most likely outcome and update constantly. You on the other hand read like an Exxon Mobile acolyte, are you?

Do the numbers yourself, Whispering Ted. The average thickness of the ice sheet is 1.5km, google the area of ice, multiply the area by 1.5 to get the volume in km3, google the current rate of ice melt and then divide the volume by the current melt rate. You will actually get 14,000 years but if you adjust for the past few decadal changes in rate you will get 11,000 years. Go on, clown, it is year 4 maths that even you could do.

And no, I am not in the pay of any oil company and am sick to death of every bombed out plodder that leaps to that intellectually lazy cop-out whenever they see some facts that contradict their climatic religious beliefs.

The Greenland Ice sheet will not melt anywhere near as fast as sea ice because the rock underneath it does not circulate heat in the same way that water does. And the un-scientific spivs that extrapolate from the rate of ice shelf melting to the land based ice sheets know full well what sort of sleazy scam they are trying on.

I look forward to you presentation of results.

Beats me what this article is trying to say. Altruism is a furphy? Being green is being selfish? That if you don't aspire to own a house, only then is your concern for the environment valid?

Scott you've listed all the reasons we should care, and why change is difficult. You even sound a little envious that people have flocked to this new 'religion'. But couching your argument in religious terms only confuses things.