I think the concentration on the global warming debate has unfortunately shifted focus from something we perhaps should really be concerned about.

At some point in time the demand for oil will outstrip supply and I surmise that once this point is reached the price of oil will continue on a upward spiral.

It the flow on effect of this price spiral which concerns me.

Will airplane travel become the domain of the wealthy. Macquire bank will off load Sydney airport to unsuspecting punters, who will see the price of their shares spiral downwards.

Will travel by car become a reserve for sundays and on weekdays every one uses public transport, simply because of the price of filling up the tank.

Plastics used in every day life become more expensive to use and to buy.

The transport of goods will more than likely be shifted back to rail.

Certainly is going to be an interesting future.

For the people who don't seem to acknowledge the world is trying to address the GW problem.

Have you wondered why all countries are adopting policies and strategies to address climate change? (yes, even the downtrodden of Africa).

Have you wondered why businesses are adopting policies and strategies to address climate change? (yes, even fossil fuel companies)

They either:

1. believe there is a problem and are planning to deal with it or

2. not sure about the problem but risk analysis says hedge your bets

This is a very simplistic view, but it can help people understand why both sides of the political and business divide are doing things to address global warming

Mr Carter you're at it again - refusing to allude to industrial pollution and its impacts on the planet and human health.

You recommend for your opponents that "such persons should be referred to the nearest psychologist and gently dissuaded from inflicting their nonsene."

Such arrogance Mr Carter when it is you who urgently requires counselling for your attempts at duping the reader in urging them to continue plundering the planet.

Sir, since you are suggesting that anthropogenic emissions are harmless, I request that I use you for a guinea pig.

That would require you to authorise and attend a monitored session where you would be exposed to industrial chemical emissions.

Chemicals in the trial could be, though not restricted to:

Organochlorines (including PCB's), polcyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, mercury, lead, volatile organic compounds (about 200 different compounds), hexachlorobenzene, arsenic, CO, chromium VI, formaldehyde, toluene, xylenes and hexane. The majority of these chemicals, once burnt, convert to CO2. All dump on our eco systems.

In addition, they all emit from industrial stacks and other man-made sources.

Should you survive the exposure to these chemicals and without any ill-effects, after a relevant period, then I would concede that you must be correct. After all, what's healthy for humans, is healthy for the planet. Or is that the other way around?

Mind you, as with the planet, there is a lag time for symptons to appear. Therefore, we may request double dosing you to achieve results in a shorter time frame.

Please respond to this urgent request at your earliest convenience.

PS: Other environmental vandals are encouraged to participate.

That's a great motto for die hard pot stirrers and other flak-o-philes.

The issue is not of climate change but a matter of cause.CO2 may or may not be the murder.The evidence so far is circumstancial.It could be increased sun spot activity,pollution of our oceans,deforestation or a combination of many human activities.

I'm a sceptic since the evidence no where near being conclusive.The problem is we now have a new religion whose existence depends upon circumstancial beliefs that are far from being self evident or scientifically factual.

The socialist left like the theory since it destroys capitalism and they just lasiviate in "We told you so" scenarios.

There are many scientists who will also get a lot of funds by propergating half truths.To those who consider their profession to be far more noble and important than us common lower life consumers,the end may well justify the means.

I suggest Bob practice what he preaches. If this rant is an example of his scientific approach then spare us. I also think that if Bob were honest he would tell us all that he was a professor of economic geology, and in his academic career received large amounts of funding from the mining industry.
Godo