"I'm all for environmental sustainability but not if we have to go back to huddling together for warmth in a cave."

So you would actually choose unsustainability, i.e. a system that is literally "unable to be sustained", rather than something that might be uncomfortable? How interesting.

To suggest we can go on living unsustainably forever is to betray a total lack of comprehension of the word "unsustainable". Alternatively, to hope that we can go on living an unsustainable life of comfort, if not forever then at least for the rest of our lifetime, is to betray a total disregard for those who will inherit an impoverished planet when we are gone.

Unsustainable means unsustainable. Deal with it.

Hey Alzo, hope you can join the new thread on “Coal mining will outlast green hysterics” – you have some valuable comments to make about policy and strategies – this is where the debate should really be heading now, not on the science.

We do not differ on the role of scientists, as I said;

“It is the antithesis of science itself to accept without question (scientists are skeptics) that as espoused by others. Scientists critique and evaluate, that is the process by which they publish their theories/findings and review that of others.”

Agree with your 2nd para.

Watch “Swindle”, also bear in mind that one of your so called “dissenters, deniers and flat-earthers" is Carl Wunsch, Professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT. He appeared on the program and wrote the following letter.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-27434

Professor Wunsch “thought he was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change”.

Basically, he was the one who was swindled. He says;

“What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples; it's hard to know where to begin …”

This statement by Wunsch is extracted to address your claim of “good rational points” raised by the program.” They have been “adequately addressed”; it’s just that some people would rather ignore them.

As far as “huddling together for warmth in a cave”, methinks you protest too much.

"So you would actually choose unsustainability, i.e. a system that is literally "unable to be sustained", rather than something that might be uncomfortable?"

Yes James Ward I would depending on your version of uncomfortable. During this time of "unsustainability" (not forever) technology will provide the solution to many perceived problems. As for the comprehension of the word "unsustainable" I think maybe you misunderstand.
The definition does not convey a timeframe as you imply:

unsustainable = not able to be maintained or supported in the future, esp. without causing damage or depletion of a resource

Who is to say whether our lifestyles can be sustained during my lifetime or longer, "the future" could be a long time. At present there is no compelling reason to change. So we deplete some resources and cause some environmental damage, what will have changed. You do these things even when living in a cave ;) . I don't think we will be leaving an impoverished planet behind. The future promises much more choice in terms of energy, resources and problem solving ability.

You have a blind faith that miraculous technology will deliver us from this problem and you won't have to change your lifestyle one little bit. It is a very convenient position to take as it justifies inaction on your part.

You yourself have referred to the uncertainty of the science. Have you given pause to consider how you will explain your inaction to your grandchildren if you turn out to be wrong (i.e. if the planet turns out to be uninhabitable due to anthropogenic global warming)? Will you simply say "Sorry, I knew the scientists were telling us to act, but I didn't want to change my lifestyle"?

I consider the possibility of acting on climate change and being proven wrong, whereby my grandchildren would inherit an economy that is less prosperous than it could otherwise have been. I see this as far better odds than gambling on the future inhabitability of the planet.

I don't expect to win against people like you, Alzo! I expect people like you to win, and if I turn out to be right, I will say to my grandchildren "I'm sorry, but I tried. Nobody would listen." And you can answer to them.

Most of the arguments here boil down to "climate change is it happening or not?", basically the science question; and "how much would it cost to do something about it now as opposed to waiting until better technology comes along?", which is basically the economics question.

Both miss the fundamental point, which is why do we waste so much? Now, at this point you are probably scratching your head and thinking what is this idiot on and can I get some, but hear me out.

Those people saying global warming is a non-event miss the fact that our methods are incredibly wasteful and all that waste, gaseous or not, has to go somewhere. Pollution insidiously affects every aspect of our lives. Pollution coming from waste is responsible for environmental degradation and government taxation to counter it, and it is you, the citizen and businessman, who pays.

That waste is harming the environment is not in question, it has an environmental cost. It imposes a cost on business since waste tolerance is wasting money. Study after study has shown that conservation of materials and energy is not only virtuous but makes good business sense. So the issue here whether we want to eliminate needless waste. Once we get garbage under control the world will recover everyone will profit.

So the question should not be "Should we pay for it now?". Rather it should be we shouldn't we do this before our competitors do it and put us out of business and out of a job?

The 'ancillary' benefits of tackling waste will be reduced taxes for cleaning stuff up, fewer toxic compounds in our body fat, less cancer, less IVF treatment, a reduction in the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, healthier coral, rivers you can swim in, indeed more water period, healthier and more competitive business.

Handle the problem at source and you will find it's not a problem - it's an opportunity, and unlike the trickle down effect it is a rising tide that raises all boats. We can all be better off.

Though I agree with James in principle I don't agree with him in practice. Use of the word 'cut' really sends the wrong message. It's divisive. It focusses on methods for one thing rather than on objectives.

Looking at the sources of C02 generation means looking at industry, agriculture, architecture. We need to tackle the big things first.

No home or building in Australia need be heated or cooled using electric equipment or artificially light during the day. Airflow models, natural ventilation, insulation all point towards buildings that work in harmony with natural energy and material flows. Working towards better building codes handles a lot of that.

Modern Agriculture is also incredibly wasteful. it works against nature and needs to be propped up with mind-blowingly huge inputs. There are alternatives that allow massive reductions in inputs and incidentally more money for rural areas.

Also some of the things that come across as negatives in his post are really positives in disguise. Does anyone really want to drive for hours to work or to meet family?