I like the author found the ABC airing distasteful. The way it was handled didn't put anybody in a good light. I turned the thing off halfway through the discussion.

But I take exception to the authors statement: "But the aggression is all one way".

The opening statement of the piece effectively said "Climate change supporters are liars". If this isn't open aggression then I don't know what is.

As for the asymetric reaction, a scientific documentary does not usually start off by calling everybody who disagrees with it liars. Certainly Gore didn't, Stern didn't, Attenborough didn't. This might go some way to explain why they were handled differently.

Finally, although the reaction was unfortunate, it was understandable. If you go around calling 90 odd percent of a community liars then expect a reaction. In this particular case one of the people tagged as liar was the show host, Tony Jones. I imagine that was in the back of his mind when he did the interview with Durkin.

The bottom line is that in science one is meant to address the issues at hand. Attacking the messenger is technique used in a different profession: politics. Yes, the ABC response wasn't appropriate for a scientific documentary, but it was par for the course for a political documentary. As the title implies, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was a political piece, as as such I think the response was appropriate.

If global warming is a swindle, only history will tell.

There has been some beaut scientific swindles in the past. Once it was believed that exposing a person to radiation made them radio active.

It was once believed that if man were to travel faster than about 35mph he wouldn't be able to breathe or if man were to be more than about 12 feet off the earth that he wouldn't be able to breathe.

Sure scientists have been wrong, they have also been right.

I agree with the author that the inconvientent truth was not subjected to same level of debate as the swindle is, but then sometimes the first cab off the rank has the advantage of shaping and forming public opinion.

We need devil advocates, because sometimes they can prevent mistakes being made.

I think we are all spin-doctors, all of us without exception.

I think we are all responsive to ideas that fit into our personal world-view. I do it all the time. Surely this is the basis for my religious, social and economic preferences.

When one is "sitting comfortably" in society, it is easier to defend one's comfort zone than to examine and take issue with it. That would be akin to self-flagellation, and who would be so silly? The earliest thing we learn in babyhood is not to pooh in the nest - it is the first lesson we learn in polite society.

So is it any wonder that the simple measurement of our environment by yardstick, stopwatch and thermometer should encounter so much disbelief when it turns up such a steaming pile of pooh?

Hell man, I didn't do it! That's not my pooh! It doesn't look like one of mine! It smells like someone else's!

Alas no. It is definitely ours.

Time to take off the suits and ties folks. Come down from those ivory towers. We've got some serious maintenance to do.

I am glad to see that a young bloke like this author is onto the shocking bias of the ABC and, in particular, that of the unpleasantly querulous Mr. Tony Jones.

Part One

Even if these critics of global warming warnings prove half right, will the efforts to prevent pollution and over-use of limited power sources such as oil and coal and woodstocks be a waste of effort in the long run?

As a retired farmer, when one views millions of acres of landscape including freshwater lakes gone salt, makes one personally wish earlier settlers had taken more notice even before WW1, of an early surveyor, Nunn, who became Dr Nunn, who before WW1 warned about over-clearing an extremely fertile pink soil gully, covering thousands of acres, actually now known as Nunn’s Gully, but now pitted with salt pans.

But those rich pink gullies were so easy to clear, unlike the sloping reddish country which grow the lofty salmon gums, the gullies mostly covered in ti-tree scrub with only the occasional York gum. Also such gullies needed far less fertilizer than the higher lands, the rural bank Johnnies advising the new cockies to stick to the rich lowlands, otherwise the banks might fore-close.

Now old and in retirement having gained Honours in philosophical-style observation in Third World problems, one looks at characters like Martin Durkin and even Alexander Deane and wonders what they
are on about?

Judging from the people I know, most skeptics of global warming are right wing voters.

So I can take comfort that the skeptics are right, if only politically.

I just wish the skeptics were really right.

Further, one is shocked by the opinionations of so many of our OLO contributors. Instead of admitting that what the Greenies and Demo’s are on about could concern a safer future, they are so smart-arse and sure of themselves, many seem as if they too have dropped down in the last shower, drilled like some of the young dim-wits who have been caught in our long-running real estate boom.

The lesson is, of course, that to try and hold back something preventative and beneficial as our OLO smarties are doing to the Greenies et al, is breaking the same natural laws, as when the smarties get caught in real estate booms.

So what will be the gain if types like Durkin and Deane are proven right? What sort of world will our great-great grandkids inherit if they get their way - hold things up, and are proven wrong in the long run?

rstuart shows clearly the mentality of many on the side of AGW. He comments "The opening statement of the piece effectively said "Climate change supporters are liars". If this isn't open aggression then I don't know what is."

A quick perusal simply shows the author of the article stated he was skeptical about AGW. To many, like rstuart, to disagree with them is to call them liars and an act of aggression. Such an attitude is certainly an effort to stiffle debate and in no way a scientific or rational approach to investigation.

rstuart also throws around a suggestion that 90% of a 'community' (assumedly the scientific community) support AGW. This is somewhat unsupported and more than likely false.

I agree with brushbred that we need to ensure we are always moving forward to more efficient, less polluting sources of energy and not simply being wasteful. However, I am also skeptical of AGW. The 'solution' that many AGW supporters are pushing is more harmful than all our wastefulness and pollution.

It is ironic, that the very environmentalists who argue that our natural resources are limited, seem to ignore that our financial resources are also limited, and that spending trillions of dollars to combat an uncertain somewhat small temperature increase, necessarily takes resources away from combating poverty and helping the developing world develop.

"A quick perusal simply shows the author of the article stated he was skeptical about AGW. To many, like rstuart, to disagree with them is to call them liars and an act of aggression

Posted by Grey, Friday, 13 July 2007 2:21:58 PM"

A quick perusal of what? The statement that people who say GW is true are liars is in the first minutes of the "swindle" "documentary".

I too watched with some interest to see how our pathetic media would handle this doco and was not surprised. The stand out was Bob Carter who looked so out of place surrounded by an incredible assembly of truly loopy and whacko people including Tony Jones. Jones simply doesn't understand how to interview nor moderate in a debate .... being more concerned with his precious self than being productive. Much the same with another member of the crazy media priest class....... Robyn Williams ... a no nothing if ever there was one.

Quite frankly the ABC's loopy, laughably alarmist treatment of Durkin's doco offered a sneak view into the madness, power, politics, funding and control of the global warming industry. e.g. After the doco, wacko Jones inserted some crazy scientist making an analogy to the small quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere with the Ebola virus. Boy that certainly was top shelf derangement and only matched by a real fruitloop ... David Karoly. He looked off his face with all this CO2 original sin.

People should be seriously embarrassed with the manner in which our national broadcaster handled this doco but it points to weak people, a weak media and an outcome where science faces a diminishing role in public policy.

The nutters really came out last night and on this spot as well. How some of these people function on a day to day basis is scary.

If the denialist members of the audience are representative of denialists generally, you guys are in trouble.

Following an implausible 'documentary' which claimed climate change is a conspiracy theory of the capitalism-hating left, started by Maggie Thatcher no less (not generally known for her communist tendencies), the questions from the audience were amusing.

The violinist with the funny hat in the front row was something to behold and the dude yelling "carbon 14, what about the carbon 14" clearly frightened even Duffy.

Tony Jones could have done the whole promo-thing the Swindle fans would have preferred, and just let the Swindle fans in the audience demolish denialism in their own eccentric way.

Yes, it's a good thing the ABC ran it, yes, Jones was heavy-handed and yes, the whole thing was staged to make sceptics look like idiots. But if you're prepared to be honest about it, Swindle's reputation was shot long before last night, and whatever shreds of dignity the denialists had left were gone the minute the audience was let loose.

The nutters really came out last night and on this spot as well. How some of these people function on a day to day basis is scary.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 13 July 2007 2:49:14 PM

Kenny you are such a spoilsport.

I think this is going to be an interesting debate and entertaining, In another 10 years most people would have forgotten all about it.

Must give the ABC credit that at least for once they gave some air time to people other than the wacky lefties. Hopefully this will be the start of bring just a tiny bit of balance back into our taxpayer funded Labour arm.

Note that Tony Jones committed the same crime that he condemned Durkin for. Durkin was rightly criticised for not including the post 1980 temperature and solar radiation data in the graph. But Jones then supposedly filled in the missing information with a temperature line that shot out through the top of the graph. It did not show the slight decline that has taken place since 1998. And one must ask, why?

Karoly tried to sidestep this fact by claiming that the trend was still rising. But he would have known perfectly well that any trend line, such as a 5, 10 or 21 year moving average, is primarily influenced by the earlier records. The records that will determine the true state of the trend in 2006 have not yet been recorded.

For the record, the global mean temperature in 2001 was 14.38C while the global mean for 2006 was 14.40C. Jones is to be roundly condemned as the sleaziest of hypocrites for having the gall to try on the very same distortion, in the same instance, as he was viciously condemning someone else for doing the same.

It may be news to some readers that the ABC's Robyn Williams, as well as being a renowned scientist and journalist, is also a prescient novelist:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=560

Perseus, where do you get your global mean temperatures? Both NASA in the USA and the UK's Climate Research Unit are confident with their 2006 estimates, but they don't match as the methodologies are marginally different.

NASA's latest figures are here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

And the Hadley Centre's current figures are here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

(Figures are given as anomalies from the 1961-1990 average, which NASA estimates as "very very close to" 14 deg. C. Esoteric reasons for not (often) mentioning the "absolute average" are given here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/compareNCDC.htm )

For the lazy, putting two and two together, we get the following estimates for the last ten years:

year ____ NASA ____ Hadley
1997 ___ 14.40 ___ 14.351
1998 ___ 14.57 ___ 14.546
1999 ___ 14.32 ___ 14.296
2000 ___ 14.33 ___ 14.270
2001 ___ 14.48 ___ 14.409
2002 ___ 14.56 ___ 14.464
2003 ___ 14.55 ___ 14.473
2004 ___ 14.49 ___ 14.447
2005 ___ 14.63 ___ 14.482
2006 ___ 14.54 ___ 14.420

The NASA averages are less conservative, and show 2005 to be warmer than 1998. Hadley's figures still have 1998 as the all-recorded-history maximum, but it's quite clear from all the graphs and from both sets of numbers that the cool La Niña dip after the big 1998 El Niño only lasted two years. For the last seven years, temperatures have remained above 1997 levels and, with minor wiggles, seem to be marching up again.

Hadley went out on a limb in January to predict 2007 was going to be another record El Niño year like 1998:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stm

But it doesn't seem to be happening; instead we finally got our rain back in Eastern Australia in June. Maybe next year :-)

On the other hand, perhaps the whole tropical Pacific has begun to behave differently after that big boom/bust six years ago. Forecasting is a fickle business!!

Admiral have a look at this joker ....

Robyn Williams may be an articulate and witty media savvy science bugs bunny but he simply still follows what he sees as the good fairie dust of the the big bang hypothesis and its high priests. For all the years he has been in the media interviewing scientists he still hasn't progressed from these old faked up, gravity-only, closed cosmological models that a thirteen year old can see through as non science because it is quite illogical. e.g. We see an entire zoo of invented fictional entities and forces tossed to these media bugs bunnies .... such as a speck appearing instantaneously from nothing, an expanding universe or is it inflating, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, accretion disks, ultradense objects, gravity warping of space-time, "visions of God", string theory, multiples of dimensions, time travel, etc, etc.

No wonder he has now found the need to write some fiction. But if he could only grasp the essential basis of science that has been so well put by Bob Carter here in OLO .......... "For you see, science is not about the triumph of the weight of numbers, nor about consensus, nor about the will of the social majority. An idea such as the greenhouse hypothesis is validated not by shouting but by experimental and observational testing and logical analysis." ... "Rather, science requires that to be successful a hypothesis only needs to be clearly stated, understandable, have explanatory power and withstand testing. It takes one person, not an army, ...."

Robyn Williams is a clown, he admits himself.
"Although he graduated with a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in England [unspecified], Robyn admits to spending as much time acting as studying. Early in his career he made guest appearances in The Goodies, Monty Python’s Flying Circus and Dr Who and stood in for Tom Jones for four months in his TV series." (ABC website).

Its got nothing to do with CO2. Its them French bombs thats done for us. You wouldn't expect the ABC to admit that now, would you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

Tuesday 10th July
'No Sun link' to climate change

A new scientific study published in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

I think a lot of people have missed the point of that programme.
It was not a debate about humanity's contribution to climate change.
That debate has already happened.

The point of screening that "documentary" was to allow the author an opportunity to challenge those findings and the onus was on him to provide conclusive evidence to disprove the established case.

I think his evasiveness on some points weakened his case considerably.

There is also an interesting article in Crikey.com that suggests 18 members of the audience were from the Citizens Electoral Council (followers of Lyndon Larouche - who believes the British Royal family are drug runners and killers). Some were kicked out before the show started because they were known disruptors.

These people were there to use that forum to promote their own alternative agenda and not to make a real contribution to the debate.(Eugenics? Nazis?) That's probably why they weren't taken particularly seriously by some of the panel.

Also, if you're on the extreme right, EVERYBODY seems to be a lefty.

Let's see how the (so-called) free-to-air media would have handled such a debate. Perhaps a phone-poll or two to get a scientific result?

I thought the post "Documentary" debate could have been adjudicated better. Making sure the panellists had equal time and did not interrupt each other would have made the show better.

Nor did the audience do the show any favours.

For such an important subject it would have been nice to see the ABC use the highest journalistic and editorial standards.

The day after the documentary was aired a heated discussion was going on in the boardroom at my workplace. The mood was lightened with the comment "You're doing a Durkin". To which there was uproarious laughter.

Most of you buggers appear so smart and sure of yourselves, reckon in a country town in the old days you'd be run - out of town - .

Only let us hope you don't eventually dominate this OLO. You are making me myself worse, also, feeling if I wasn't so old, I'd enjoy knocking you off one by one.

Please to remember the ancient saying From Deserts the Prophets Come.

In this crazy modern age of Mobiles, Computers et al, it is becoming all to true that persons have not got time to take time and really use their brains to analyse.

Instead most of the thought processing these days is just behind the eyes and ears, as happens in the military when one responds to immediate commands, and never got time to really think - the reason Socrates gave away his job as a top military man, a Hoplite like a Spartan, in these days winning all the awards.

As Socrates explained, he let his reasoning go down deep, or rather more deep in the skull, where he was able to find true compassion for others, which can never be found in the crazy electronic rat-race we are living in now - under the command of the ersatz reborn Corporate Culture.

Cheers, BB - W

Most of you buggers appear so smart and sure of yourselves, reckon in a country town in the old days you'd be run - out of town - .

Only let us hope you don't eventually dominate this OLO. You are making me myself worse, also, feeling if I wasn't so old, I'd enjoy knocking you off one by one.

Please to remember the ancient saying From Deserts the Prophets Come.

In this crazy modern age of Mobiles, Computers et al, it is becoming all to true that persons have not got time to take time and really use their brains to analyse.

Instead most of the thought processing these days is just behind the eyes and ears, as happens in the military when one responds to immediate commands, and never got time to really think - the reason Socrates gave away his job as a top military man, a Hoplite like a Spartan, in these days winning all the awards.

As Socrates explained, he let his reasoning go down deep, or rather more deep in the skull, where he was able to find true compassion for others, which can never be found in the crazy electronic rat-race we are living in now - under the command of the ersatz reborn Corporate Culture.

Cheers, BB - WA

BB, with respect and affection, you're letting your own side down. Think about it.

How many times have you seen an OLO thread get colonised by nutters with a single agenda? Every time abortion gets mentioned the pro-lifers do their machine gun keyboard thing and it looks very much as though they're in the majority, and if you're not paying attention to what's going on in the wider world, you'd form the impression that Australians don't support abortion, which is not true.

It's no different with climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it. A majority of Australians are concerned about it and many other issues that fall under the humanitarian umbrella. Look to the younger folk and you'll be pleased with what you find.

In my opinion, OLO is one of the better examples of online public debate, but like any other online space it's vulnerable to nutterism and the generation about to inherit the mess is not here. They're over at MySpace talking about how disappointed they are that we're not taking an Arnie Schwarzenegger view of the whole debacle and peppering the outback with solar energy collecting paraphernalia.

The public debate has already been fought and won, and won by your side. For all I know, not being an expert at climate science, the denialists could be right. In a democracy the demonstrable truth is beside the point. What the majority believe is the decider in an election year. This is an election year and the majority believe the environment is in trouble.

Cheer up old chuck. You're on the winning side. And with your education you should know better than to draw conclusions on the basis of a single source.

My marks out of 10

David Karoly - 8
Bob Carter - 6
Greg Bourne - 7
Nikki Williams - 8
Ray Evans - 4
Nick Rowley - 8
Michael Duffy - 6
Robyn Williams - 5
Tony Jones - 6
Audience (questioners) 2
ABC - 8

What do you think?

ALSO,

Let’s do our own poll, I’m sure OLO can do the number crunching – might be fun!

There is only one assumption – GW is accepted by most scientists as fact.

IF you don’t accept this assumption, ONLY vote UNDECIDED (keep it simple)

Answer only YES, NO, or UNDECIDED in replies to:

GW is happening and we can do something about it

davsab,global warming is not the main issue,it is a matter of which human activity is the main culprit.None of the evidence is conclusive and it just depends upon how the evidence is compiled and whose bias interprets it.There is a lot of evidence saying that CO2 does not influence average world temperatures and thus we should all remain sceptical.

In the realm of improbability believe nothing you hear and only half what you see,but with probablity remain sceptical until all outcomes fits your hypothisis.

We should act on all forms of pollution including addressing third world population explosions.We should not in the short term be panicked by the religious Greenies since the way forward is through science and technology supported by a strong economy.

Consider this.The industrial revolution began in the West.Medicine and food technology was given to poor countries whose populations just exploded with no disease or lack of food to curb this expodential pop growth.Now according to our leftist Greenies,the West are the priahas who pollute the planet at will and therefore must be punished.Neither China or India will curb their burning of fossil fuels but expect the West to once again to become troglodytes to appease their perceived past injustices which were primarily self inflicted anyway.China has stated recently that it will not curb it's industrial expansion by limiting co2 emitions.

The ABC are just locked in a time warp of the evil West being the root of all evil which has affected all humanity.

The ABC have their own biased agenda.They want a leftist high taxing Labor Govt in power so they will get a lot more public funding.They are guilty of the same avarice of which they accuse business.The main difference is that they do not want to put in the same effort or risk going broke.Riding on the back of the tax payer is a far easier option.Who are the real cowards?

Ok, it looks like light banter is not “cooling” Global Warming.

Arjay, “global warming is not the main issue” as you say. I try to make a case for the real problem in the following posts on OLO here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6038#86163

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6038#86185

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6038#86277

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6038#86279

The real problem is not about the science albeit a lot of ‘non-scientists’ are prepared to have some sort of ‘expert’ opinion … hello!

The real problem (of which you seem to be exemplifying) is that of a ‘divergent world’ – you have expressed it yourself in statements such as “religious leftist greenies”, “troglodytes?”, “evil West being the root of all evil”, “leftist high taxing Labor Govt?”.

This will attract responses such as “religious rightist capitalists” and “neo-cons and the new-world order fascists”.

Can’t you see these views are not helpful in resolving the problems we are facing?

To solve these problems, opposing ideological views (you/me, us/them, right/left, liberal/labour, east/west, Islam/Christianity, socialist/capitalist, etc) must agree on a solution.

The UN tries, The APEC summit will try. Indeed, countries around the world now recognise Global Warming as a serious threat, as do businesses, research institutions, NGO’s and lots of individuals.

I am an environmentalist and it encourages me to see politicians of all persuasions (even Howard and Bush now it seems) take Global Warming seriously. It has been difficult for the ‘rightists and conservatives’ in developing a so-called exit strategy to their opposition of the Kyoto Protocol, but if APEC works – that will be good (they should not undermine the role of the UNFCCC).

As far as GW is concerned, the IPCC has given us a message and policy makers are trying to converge on solutions. We can work together to adapt to GW and mitigate GHG emissions – however, my fear is that greed and self-interest of some societies and groups will sabotage it.

And Arjay, alarmist greenies don’t do their cause any good either.

“Alarmist greenies don’t do their cause any good either”
Alarmist Greenie? - a definition up for grabs.
And the assessment of whether or not we think we are being swindled might depend upon our take on that definition. Is there a sharp dividing line, or a steady gradation, between extremes?
It might be possible to get some agreement that Harry Potter, Bob Carter, and John Howard, are together out on one limb in the science stakes, while Tim Flannery, James Lovelock, and Maggie Thatcher reside towards the other.
That is the comparatively easy part.
But, what agreement is possible in this “debate”, as to their position relative to the “alarmist greenie” line, for such people as Ian Lowe, Tony McMichael, Frank Fenner, Kurt Lambeck?
It would be interesting to get some feedback on this from the author of this article, and Davsab, and others who have not already flagged their positions

Well anything which challenges the internationalist mantra will be demonized by the ABC. It is a piss-hole for lefties and levelers, we can look at the assent of labor wannabe politicians originating from its ranks to see that.

I used these words on another thread and will repeat them here

Re carbon emissions / Carbon trading “this is socialism by stealth (the scientists and politically motivated socialists being the beneficiaries of funds and power, respectively).”

If anyone thought a view which counters that of the internationalists would get a fair ride from the aforementioned urinal keepers, then it just shows their gullibility.

Better the left and green politicians and money seeking scientific academics start to model the effects of a world wide depression on carbon emissions within their climate models. For that will be the first outcome of their meddling in matters commercial. The problem is they can all sit and look down upon the rest of us, endure our imposed socialist poverty, from their positions of “tenured” security.

It seems to me that climate change deniers fall into three groups. First are the loonies - The LaRouchites who think Prince Philip has something to do with it. Then there are the academics with huge chips on their shoulders. Finally, there are the politicians and their hangers-on who see this as an opportunity to beat their opponents about the head with accusations of being anti-industry, middle-class trendies, want to triple fuel bills etc, etc. It seems pretty obvious to me which category the author of this article fits under.

Anyway, replying to the substantive issue of the article and the ABC's alleged tough handling of Durkin. Every reputable climate scientist in the world says that climate change is happening and that humans are causing it. Since Durkin has come up with a pretty vicious documentary accusing them of fabricating this issue, it is entirely appropriate that he be given a thorough grilling. In particular he should have a pretty damned good explanation as to why he omitted data from the past thirty years that demolishes his thesis.

I'm so sick of the way this issue is being exploited by the political classes. Robin Williams has it right. Even if you were only 20% convinced then it would still be a very good idea to do something about it.

Putting the whole Co2 cause or effect issue to one side for a moment.

Does any reasonable person still believe that we are not having a detrimental affect on this planet?

70 - 80 million barrels of oil a day...
Christ knows how much coal being burned...
Agricultural land turning to desert all over the worlds brittle landscapes...
The last point alone is not even mentioned in the whole debate even though bare soil creates greater evaporation, adding to the major green house gas - water vapour.

Has anybody seen the email showing various parts of the globe at night?
Two things stand out that directly show our huge impact. The massive amount of light (energy) being consumed, particularly in Europe and North America, & the deserts of the world. The middle east and northern africa which were the hub of civilisation only ten thousand years ago.
We havent been here long, but we sure are having an impact.
If the denialists could realise this then maybe we can get on with dealing with the issue. That includes governments, large and small corporations & others accepting the true costs of business.
Until the environmental aspect of "the economy" is fully accounted for in policy, then using the scare campaign of not wanting to risk an economic downturn by actually doing something worthwhile will simply be putting off our inevitable "major audit".

A few months ago I remember Peter Garrett being interviewed about the impact of reducing our carbon emitions on our living standards.He was asked if our living standards would significantly fall if his policies were implemented.He tried to circumvent the issue of falling living standards,but when pressed by the reporter eventually relented with a simple contrite nod.No the rich Peter Garrett will not suffer at the hand of his own policies.We will suffer significant falls in living standards with no impact on pollution while third world countries increase their emitions with gay abandon.

Now to me,this is the real deivisive issue.It is either all countries do something to curb their emitions or nothing will be achieved.Part of that mix is also doing something about expodential pop growth happening in poorer countries.

ARJAY may be correct about living standards, but if that is her genuine concern she should listen closely to Nicholas Stern. Living standards will suffer much more if we don't do our utmost to avert climate change.

When climate change was just an environmental issue - huge chunks of Antractica breaking off etc - it caused ripples of concern. But not enough to create waves in the suburbs.

When Al Gore changed it into a moral issue - millions of environmental refugees on the cards - it became very relevant to our human centred social culture.

When Nicholas Stern made it an economic issue - better to spend millions in prevention now than pay zillions later - then it hit the media big time. Our society is, after all, first and foremost an 'economy'. Money speaks.

The inertia of all these three relevations has turned the tide of public opinion. We can almost forget the environmental impacts, only Greens have that on the top of their issues of concern.

But potential human suffering and economic chaos are causes of great concern for Christians, humanists, socialists, capitalists and environmentalists alike.

It's is probably too late to stop serious climate change, but at least we can minimise the damage - if we, as a global community, act quickly enough.

If we want any sort of living standards for our kids in the future, it is prudent to respond rather than stick our proverbial heads in the sand and hope it will all go away.

I am often accused of taking a negative and cynical view of stuff like this, but honestly, what else can a sane person do?

>>If the denialists could realise this then maybe we can get on with dealing with the issue. That includes governments, large and small corporations & others accepting the true costs of business<< (Bushrat)

>>either all countries do something to curb their emitions or nothing will be achieved<< (Arjay)

Easy to say, hard to do.

We (the developed countries) have set a standard of consumption that the rest of the world is hellbent on emulating. They will be mighty resentful if we now turn around and tell them they shouldn't do it.

Wouldn't you be? Here we are with a per capita standard of living way beyond the dreams of the average Chinese. How do you think they would respond if we told them to stop developing? Stop building two coal-fired power stations a week. Stop trading in your bicycles for cars. Stop trying to repeat the mistakes we have made, be sensible. Stay poor, so that we can stay rich.

Alternatively, try asking our government to actively reduce our standard of living to their level, so that we can solve the problem together from common ground. See how far you get. With either party.

>>Part of that mix is also doing something about expodential [sic] pop growth happening in poorer countries<<

Another candidate for the "get real" basket. How on earth do you go about curbing another country's population? Kill them? Sterilize them? Any thoughts on actually implementing such a scheme?

First, thanks, Chainy, for the praise to an old Chuck for his possible academic success but not for his wisdom, depending of course, how one defines wisdom, whether gained
through academia or through life experience.

Personally, could say that a mixture of both when one reaches 86 or more should leave one pretty well in the centre of politics, giving praise to both sides where it is due.

That is why one gets so angry when obviously intelligent members of our group slate in the lowest intelligent reasoning, people from political parties such as the Greens and the Democrats. By their insults they not only place the said parties lower than the Commies were in our older democratic government, but to use such abusive name-saying, gives the feeling as an experienced oldie that we have here a so-called young intelligentsia hooked onto idealisms that might be far more shaky than those they abuse.

Must say that most of us ex-farmers have admiration for the Greenies, especially the womenfolk Farmer’s wives, also either admire or belong to Greenie groups. My wife, now departed unfortunately, also had a great feeling for picturesque patches of uncleared land, causing arguments with myself about over-clearing.

With the females, much of it began in our little home town of Buntine, situated in a very low-lying area, containing a roofed railway dam allowing steam trains to take in water. In 1954 when diesel locos took over, 13000 acres of sloping railway dam-catchment was opened for farming.

But applicants were shocked when three local farmer’s daughters and a son successfully formed a deputation to have the catchment saved for posterity because years previously a surveyor Nunn, who later became a Ph’d had warned about Buntine town becoming salt if the catchment was cleared

BB Part Two

The WA wheatbelt is now full of such stories, as land areas similar to the railway dam localities are everywhere now white with salt.

It does prove how much we owe the womenfolk for caring for the land, and I do wonder sometimes why there are not more females in our OLO groups. Maybe it is because our contributors are so nasty to the Greenies and even the Democrats.

One even wonders sometimes whether our male leftie-haters are mentally yet much out of diapers?

Also doesn't say much for the future of this re-fangled Corporate Culture if our Greenie and Demo' obsessed abusers belong to 'em

Alex, why on Earth are you skeptical about the effect of man’s behaviour on the Earth’s climate? What makes you qualified to be skeptical? Are you an expert on the interplay between solar physics, atmosphere physics, oceanography, geography, geology, biology and chemistry that results in our climate? Do you have expertise in statistical analysis and its application to stochastic modelling of complex systems? Have you gone through the detail of the IPCC report and identified where it has made its mistakes? Can you enlighten us as to why you are right and every respectable climate scientist in the world is wrong?

Of course you can't. You're a political wannabe who sees this as an opportunity to earn some brownie points with your side of politics by attacking (as you see them) your political enemies. The validity or otherwise of the science has nothing to do with your opinion.

Your article really depressed me. You seem to be someone who has at least a moderate amount of intelligence, yet you treat this issue like a high-school debating competition. But worse than that, you're not even generous in defeat. When you lose a debate (and Durkin sure lost this one for you) you bitch about the unfairness of the adjudicator. For God's sake, this issue deserves to be treated a bit more seriously than this.

Hey Pericles,
Contradiction in terms – sane people don’t get negative – cynical sometimes maybe.

Both Bushrat and Arjay have a point, but you are right – “easy to say, hard to do.”

On the money with your perception of the developed/developing countries' attitude to standard of living – economic growth in common parlance.

But environmental sustainability doesn't mean living in the ‘dark ages’ as you seem to imply. This is where I'm optimistic, and you infer yourself as pessimistic.

No one is asking our government to reduce our standard of living.

Believe it or not, China is very aware of the risks associated with ‘climate change’ – do you really think they are not given that if for example, the water source of their country collapses (Himalayan ice sheet)? Their food bowl for 1.5 billion people would be stuffed. Talk about a security threat or a refugee problem! You get the drift?

China has acceded to the Kyoto Protocol, in fact only the US, Oz and Kazakhstan hasn’t! China (India, Brazil, etc) are doing more to adapt to climate change than we are and per capita, they are doing more than the US or us (OZ).

The government, if it wanted to, could get rid of the huge subsidies to high energy users. The question you have to ask, why haven’t they? This is where it gets “dirty”.

Have I concerns? There are very powerful vested interest groups that want to maintain the status quo, the IPCC refers this as the “business as usual” approach, and is reflected in their SRES (projected future scenarios).

We can go geothermal, solar-thermal. Coal and gas will be a major supplier well into the future, but it will be “cleaner” – Nikki Williams said as much. We can even export this technology (China is already asking us for help in the energy sector, as well as cement manufacture). There will be a role for nuclear (not just yet for Oz) and we can export our uranium to countries like France, Canada, US, Japan and even China.

APEC will be interesting.

PAB, spot on.

Pathetic and pointless article about a pathetic and pointless documentary.

BB, you should be charged with reckless misuse of the word "documentary" :)

I don't believe in that crap about "easy to say, hard to do". Why is using methods in sync with nature and minimising pollution always equated with bad economics?
It is simply people being stuck within their limited knowledge base that allows that view to be perpetuated. If the major goal of every corporation, business & farmer was to have no detrimental impact on the environment then it will be achievable. To instigate a process with that in mind may need legislation initially for some, but already a lot of big business (and farmers) can see the writing on the wall and are taking significant steps in the right direction. To throw our arms up in the air and yell "it's impossible" would eventually lead to our own demise regardless of what you think of climate change.
Our resources will eventually become depleted and the issue will then have to be addressed.
The quality of life now 'enjoyed' by plenty in western societies is not proving to be so successful anyway. Just think crime, drugs, suicide, depression, family breakdowns, drought.... all symptoms of deeper underlying problems in our society and governmental systems that money doesn't seem to be able to fix.
I'm a supreme optimist and sincerely believe that this point in our history has given us the reason, the knowledge and the ability to connect with fantastic communications to finally get to the fundemental causes of all issues effecting mankind.
I also don't necessarily believe population will be the major problem as most western society's waste far more than we consume. The planet can produce far more, and we can teach the poorer countries to be able to feed themselves as they all have the resources (and the will). Current international economics like to keep the third world subdued and in their place, hence the push for genetic modification as the 'miracle answer' being forced down our throat. Just another crazy way for mankind to deal with the symptom of a problem that is biological by using a technology/ economic based tool.

Eventually we will stop chasing our tail....

It's interesting that Deane's bio says he "is a World Universities Debating Champion". I've always felt that if you have to _tell_ people you're good at something, perhaps you're not.

Of course, it depends what Deane's aim with this piece was. If his aim was to enter the global warming debate and put his sceptical viewpoint to it, then he failed abysmally, because he didn't mention any measured facts or analyses. If his aim was to muddy the waters of the discussion by avoiding facts and focusing on how things were said, then he succeeded admirably.

As a debater, he should know that the presentation style of an argument has no bearing on its actual truth. If I say, "the sun will rise tomorrow, you bastard", or "the moon is made of green cheese, you swine", the insults have no bearing on the truth or falsity of my assertions.

But I suppose that if you are a climate change sceptic, then the facts are all against you, so you have little option but to complain about the _presentation style_ of the facts.

In the face of such purposeful optimism, Bushrat, I can only say - you go, girl!

However, optimism on its own doesn't actually solve anything, and in many cases can make a genuine solution more difficult to find.

>>It is simply people being stuck within their limited knowledge base that allows that view to be perpetuated<<

Well of course we are stuck within our limited knowledge base. If we weren't, we would have solved the problem already. Doh!

>>If the major goal of every corporation, business & farmer was to have no detrimental impact on the environment then it will be achievable<<

That's what I mean by easy to say, hard to do. Give me an example anywhere of a corporation, business or farmer whose major goal is to be environmentally neutral. Just one.

Thought not.

>>The quality of life now 'enjoyed' by plenty in western societies is not proving to be so successful anyway. Just think crime, drugs, suicide, depression, family breakdowns, drought....<<

But all of these people have the opportunity to exchange this quality of life for abject poverty, if they choose. I haven't noticed any trend in that direction, have you? Besides, those already in abject poverty don't have the luxury of choice the other way.

>>I'm a supreme optimist and sincerely believe that this point in our history has given us the reason, the knowledge and the ability to connect with fantastic communications to finally get to the fundemental causes of all issues effecting mankind.<<

Now that is a highly commendable level of optimism, should you believe that optimism in itself will solve everything.

Because the "fundamental causes of all issues affecting mankind" surely will turn out to be i) greed ii) lust for power iii) selfishness iv) thoughtlessness v) blind faith and vi)... mindless optimism?

I'm also impressed with the logic that describes GM crops as a "a technology/ economic based tool", when all the fuss about it is centred on its biological properties.

Rock on, superoptimist! Do let us know when the first fruits of your approach show signs of appearing, won't you.

I forgot all about the doco and debate when the scary panning to and from the red screen had me and my children thinking Tony Jones was on ACA or Today Tonight!

I was really scared - the panning, the music...all too much to bear... repeatedly at that!

To Chainsmoker

Well, now, I am shocked, Chainy, that you challenge me with an accusation that I broke the code of dinkum documentation, when it was you yourself who fired me up in the first place to give a genuine reason for breaking the so-called code.

The reason is clear that as being older and more experienced than most of our contributors I reckon I had a right to complain - not so much about the viewpoints on GW but the expressions that are being used like - Demo’ nuts, left wing Loonies, et al – in order to make fools of the views of two of our political parties, the Greens and the Demo’s who long have made it their business much more than the major parties to genuinely focus on the problems of Global Warming.

Furthermore, my true account of problems caused by poor official decision-making in the wheatbelt which contributed to the Westralian Green Party being formed, and which would fit into a historical documentary anyhow.

And because I back the Greens and Demo’s so much, is a sure sign that I fear about GW affecting the future of my grandkids.

You remind me so much of certain journalists I had experience with years ago who because they were aiming to knock me out, accused me of not having prepared a genuine case in a historical novel, even though I was later proven spot on.

In fact, because in your commentaries so far you do not appear to have produced a genuine point of view either way, you yourself could be just one track like you accused me of. But still important as a very interesting practiced observer.

Finally, whether you are out to change or influence people, matey, you are wasting your time here - for I ‘aint changin’ for ‘nobody.

The best part of the ABCs presentation of the "documentary" was the Q&A session. Oh the nutters that came out of the wood work!

1 was a young earth creationist (the one going on about carbon-14).

4 were from the CEC - the Aussie branch of the Lyndon LaRouche movement, who claim that the queen of England is the head of an international drug cartel and that neoconservatism is a jewish plot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#The_.22British.22_conspiracy

1 was a paleoclimatologist from University of Wollongong who was okay. The other two questions/statements were tame by comparison.

Even Bob Carter looked unhappy with his new found allies.

All in all, not the greatest night out for the climate change denialists.

By the way, here's an interview with Proffesor Carl Wunch, the scientist who claimed to have been misrepresented in the original "documentary":

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1977366.htm

A few choice quotes:

"
What I thought I was doing, as I said, was making a film about the science of global warming. What I ended up being in is what I think is a political film. It really isn't about the science at all, and I guess I'm somewhat troubled that TV companies around the world are treating it as though this were a science documentary. It's not. It's a tendentious political propaganda piece..."

"I had never before encountered a filmmaker who clearly quite deliberately understood my point of view but set out to imply, through the way he uses me in the film, the reverse of what I was trying to say."

"Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a lawyer, politician. I don't know him, he strikes me as a very smart man who's talked to scientists and has come to be honestly worried about what the future is bringing....

There are elements in that film that I think are scientifically incorrect, but in such a complicated business, it's not surprising that somebody trained as a lawyer might get them wrong. On the other hand, the general theme of the film I believe is right on."

"Al Gore doesn't pretend to explain nuances. He's telling you why he is so worried, and I share many of his worries without sharing his understanding of all the details that leads him to that conclusion."

"The changes that we're seeing today are consistent with a great deal of what we know about the climate system, where there's very little argument about the effects. So, for example, adding carbon dioxide very rapidly that is over periods of decades, which nature doesn't do itself, we can calculate, these are calculations that go back almost 100 years, how much the earth should warm on average. We tend to see that the pattern of warming where more of it takes place at the poles are consistent with an anthropogenic input"

"Well of course we are stuck within our limited knowledge base. If we weren't, we would have solved the problem already. Doh!"

Great well thought out comeback there mate....

Did it ever occur to you that I was referring to you, and your ilks knowledge base. There is plenty of farmers and corporations heading in the right direction. There would not be too many progressive businesses that have not already begun to assess the risk and search for alternatives.
As far as farming goes... try googling regenerative agriculture or holistic farm management, organic or biological farming etc etc.

I know I'm wasting my time Pericles, but maybe there is just a little piece of you that realises that you have much to learn.

"Optimism and persistence" (and some knowledge) are not all that is needed, but they are all needed to go in the right direction.

I don't believe all our woes are driven by greed etc either. It's more about having poor decision making processes to start with. That's why projects with all the best intentions and resources are capable(and regularly do)of not coming up with the desired results.

Ahhh now where is my half full whisky glass...

The denialists lost badly on Thursday night. It was much worse than Alex's minor acknowledgment that there were "some problems with Durkin's piece". Alex, it was completely demolished. Durkin and his documentary are totally discredited.

The interesting thing to me though is the response of the denialists. You would think that such a humiliating defeat would make them reconsider their points of view. They might think that perhaps, since every reputable climate scientist in the world says we have a problem, that maybe, just maybe, we have a problem.

No. Not a bit of it. They go for the man. They accuse Tony Jones of being unpleasantly querulous and truly loopy. They accuse the ABC of being unsporting in leaving in the bit where Durkin wiped his panic stricken face. They claim Karoly was given too much time and was rude. They accuse Robin Williams of being po-faced, a lousy actor, a crummy novelist and cast aspersions on his education. But most telling of all, they claim that Tony Jones and the ABC did a hatchet job on poor Mr Durkin.

Well, I can't comment on Robin William's acting career, but let's get one thing straight. Tony Jones and the ABC didn't do a hatchet job on Martin Durkin. Martin Durkin did a hatchet job on Martin Durkin. All Tony Jones did was basic research. He went to the climate scientists and asked them what questions he should put to Durkin. And then he asked them. And Durkin had no answers.

I have to admit I was surprised at how badly Durkin performed in the interview. The questions he was asked shouldn't have surprised him. "Why did you omit the last 20 to 30 years of data from the two key plots?" "Why did you falsify a couple of hundred years of data to support your thesis?" Durkin's answers were unbelievably pathetic. I loved it when he said that an underling had done it. It sounded like a version of "my cat ate it".

It's good when irrational, opportunistic, instant experts get their come-uppance. It should happen more often.

Nice try Bushrat, but not particularly convincing.

>>Did it ever occur to you that I was referring to you, and your ilks knowledge base<<

The inference here is that people not of my "ilk" do in fact possess this "knowledge base". Is it too much to ask what they are doing with it? Apart from the grab-bag of simplistic, piecemeal token efforts that we have seen so far?

The giveaway is this comment of yours:

>>I know I'm wasting my time Pericles, but maybe there is just a little piece of you that realises that you have much to learn<<

On the contrary, I am only too well aware that we have "much to learn". The difference between you and me is that you believe that you and your "knowledge base" actually have all the answers, refusing to recognize that yes, there is a ton of stuff that we do not know, and should actually devote our time to finding out instead of poncing around pontificating about optimism being the answer to all our problems.

I notice that you have declined to answer my earlier question "Give me an example anywhere of a corporation, business or farmer whose major goal is to be environmentally neutral". Surely this is a preprequisite, if your optimism is to be justified? Just vaguely waffling about "There is [sic] plenty of farmers and corporations heading in the right direction" doesn't exactly justify dancing in the streets, does it?

Xoddam, I used the Haddley data because the nasa/Giss stuff has serious variances with our own Bom data sets, which have not been properly explained by GISS. The 30 year mean was 13.97C.

The GISS series is likely to produce another distorted picture this year because of their overweighting of North American records and gross underweighting of oceanic data, which will show reduced Nth A. precipitation, esp snowpack, in this La Nina year.

The low pressure system due in the SE of Australia this week is likely to take snowfalls into an above average annual event which is likely to ensure that Australian data is down on past records.

Pericles,
Once again you run off at the mouth with your diatribe of negativity and somehow feel the need to attack me. How on Earth have you a clue about me being a 'poncing pontificator' just because I am optimistic about plenty that we can do.

You'd do well to remember "Whether you think you probably can, or you think you probably can't.... you will be right".

Some reading if your willing:

www.polyfacefarms.com
www.fromthesoilup.com.au
www.holisticmanagement.org.au
www.bfa.com.au
www.davidsuzuki.org
www.managingwholes.com
www.rcs.au.com
www.etiwanda.com.au
www.stockmangrassfarmer.com
www.holisticdecisions.com
www.pharocattle.com
www.holisticresults.com
www.principlefocus.com.au
www.kachana.com

That's just a few sites with plenty of stories of successful operators that are greatly improving their land in the process of being profitable.
Far more then being just "neutral" in their impact.

Also the biggest private landowner in the U.S. Ted Turner manages all of his land and business that way.

I remain optimistic because I focus on the positive stories that are available, and not on fools like you....

Could agree with you somewhat, Chris C, but just be careful whom you call nutters.

Us old cockies have had a lot of experience of the countryside, which carries the verdant of not only what greedy corporates are destroying right now, but also industrially burning for power the quarry waste from rotted green growth from eons way back.

Reckon we can more than beat you with rough careless talk, matey, but reckon our OLO has so much future potential in helping to solve problems of both man and nature, it is really a pity to spoil it with juvenile slating or name-calling.

PAB” The denialists lost badly on Thursday night.”

That is a matter of opinion.

What happened was an alternative and valid view was aired. That, in no way was a loss.

It would only be a some form of control freak who would perceive a debate to be so profoundly a win or a loss.

Humanity is advanced through fair and reasoned debate. It would offend despots when their chosen view is challenged but not men and women of reason.

I guess that pretty much describes the climate zealots, despotic control freaks who work them selves into a frenzy worrying about things they cannot control.

I still believe the real problem is population growth. Fix that real “problem” and human induced climate change and environmental change is diminished automatically. But I see that topic never gets an airing by the levelers, who seem to think that human impacts have nothing to do with the number of humans, only the (zero-population growth) developed nations, whose technology has improved the mortality statistics of the less developed.

Maybe, before exporting life extending medicines to the third world, we should first export contraceptives or make development aid subject to the adoption of population control strategies (oh that would really pi$$ off the Church of Rome – an arch embodiment theologically motivated control freaks).

Amen Col Rouge.I just wish George Bush would do something about this Global Warming because in Sydney at the moment,my brass monkey has lost his balls.ie canon balls.

Could La Ninya be heralding a new Global cooling like we had in the early eighties?

"I guess that pretty much describes the climate zealots, despotic control freaks who work them selves into a frenzy worrying about things they cannot control."

Strong sentiments Col, but are you any less a zealot and despotic control freak to then say:

"I still believe the real problem is population growth. Fix that real “problem” and human induced climate change and environmental change is diminished automatically."?

Maybe you could start by banning religion in the offending countries, Col? I dont think the religious types have been terribly of birth control have they? Good luck, but my money is on disease to do the job long before any human organised strategy.

I also think that you dont understand the problem. High per capita CO2 emissions and pollution come from developed countries with stable populations. (Industrialisation seems to stabilise populations.) The great unwashed that you see as the problem are responsible for bugger all in comparison. I suspect that if you could stabilise these populations, there would be a substantial improvement in living standards and a consequent massive increase in per capita CO2 and pollution. In India you will get both population increase and improving living standards from industrialisation, but the latter will account for by far the greater amount of emissions.

The challenge, therefore, is to develop technologies that greatly reduce the environmental impact of an industrialised world. You wont achieve this end with birth control.

PAB wrote: "I have to admit I was surprised at how badly Durkin performed in the interview. The questions he was asked shouldn't have surprised him. "Why did you omit the last 20 to 30 years of data from the two key plots?" "Why did you falsify a couple of hundred years of data to support your thesis?" Durkin's answers were unbelievably pathetic. I loved it when he said that an underling had done it. It sounded like a version of "my cat ate it".
It's good when irrational, opportunistic, instant experts get their come-uppance. It should happen more often.
Posted by PAB, Monday, 16 July 2007 10:43:21 PM"

Me too, i thought neither Durkin nor Ray Evans were earning their money (see http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831 for how Exxon funds the sceptics in Swindle). It is incredible to think Durkin was surprised by Jones questions when Realclimate.org and others raised them all within days of the first broadcast.

Those points got less time than the 'documentary' and that IS evidence of bias, IN FAVOUR of the fabrications of Durkin , Ray Evens, et al.

As others have pointed out, also we're all arguing the 'debate' rather than what the f%^$ we do about it, apart from blame China, and thats more time wasted, favouring business as usual. Time is a'wasting.

Just a quick reminder, Bushrat, that it was your opening salvo "I don't believe in that crap about 'easy to say, hard to do'" that set this particular stoush in motion. Curb your language in future if you don't like a response in kind.

Thanks for the long list of "just a few sites with plenty of stories of successful operators". It may benefit you to check back that they still exist - "can't find the server at www.holisticresults.com" for example.

And although I am sure they are all optimists like you, I was looking for something a little more substantial than "family owned, multi-generational, pasture-based, beyond organic, local-market farm and informational outreach".

Mind you, some of the information sites were amusing. http://www.fromthesoilup.com.au/discussions/humans/showcat

There are, as you say, plenty of stories. But if you recall, I asked:

>>That's what I mean by easy to say, hard to do. Give me an example anywhere of a corporation, business or farmer whose major goal is to be environmentally neutral. Just one<<

While I will happily admit there are a few small, specialist farms that are keen on this stuff, I doubt they will make an impression on the concerns I expressed in the post of mine you chose to be rude about.

>>Easy to say, hard to do.

We (the developed countries) have set a standard of consumption that the rest of the world is hellbent on emulating. They will be mighty resentful if we now turn around and tell them they shouldn't do it.

How on earth do you go about curbing another country's population? Kill them? Sterilize them? Any thoughts on actually implementing such a scheme?<<

Addressing this in your next post might just bring us back on-topic.

Hey Pericles,

“That's what I mean by easy to say, hard to do. Give me an example anywhere of a corporation, business or farmer whose major goal is to be environmentally neutral. Just one”

Try Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp for starters

http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_335.html

There are many others.

Like I said, I tentatively agree with you on the “easy to say, hard to do” – but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. If good ol Rup is optimistic, that must tell us something.

Zealotry Col? A frenzied control freak? You cut me deep Col. You cut me deep.

I can't speak for others who have concerns about global warming, but I'm pretty sure I'm neither a zealot nor a control freak. However, I am furious at how this issue has been hijacked by the political opportunists, of which I think Durkin's documentary and Alex's article are good examples.

My feeling is that there's plenty of evidence we have a problem. In science (as I'm sure you know) nothing is ever one-hundred percent certain, so often it becomes a matter of risk management. The same sorts of issues crop up again and again. Lead in petrol, CFCs, smoking etc, etc. I don't understand the detail of why these things are bad, but enough intelligent people of good will who have done the research have said that they are bad so on balance I accept it.

Ultimately, you have to make a decision. Who do you trust? The climate scientists who have been researching this area for more than half a century or opportunistic cranks like Martin Durkin?

Looks like we are never going to get rid of the snipiing and name-calling in our OLO, but as an ancient who had to bring up a family in the bush, and now still well in touch with the grandkids, and already growing up great-grandkids always have in my mind what my now departed wife used to say to our nippers when they used bad language in the homestead.

'Leave the swearing out in the paddock where it belongs, but not in the home'.

But sometimes wonder which is the worst, sniping and slating other groups as we do so much with our commentaries, or straight our cursing.

As one who in the last 14 years has been taking groups in philosophical topics in the local U3A, might say that though we have certainly pulled global policies and such to pieces, we have taken care not to slate personally people from groups closer to home, meaning in Australia.

Still, there is that saying if you can't stand the heat get out of the political kitchen - which I guess our OLO more represents, Parliamentary politics - though which really has a poor reputation in socio-political problem solving.

Really wish we could do a lot better. Cheers - BB

Talk about the ABC bias swindle - what about the swindle perpetuated by our illustrious leaders?

http://www.highanddry.com.au/extract.cfm

or if you can watch/listen to the webcast or even read the transcript

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200707/s1977550.htm

Talk about socio-political problem solving - stuff like this blows it all out of the water.

Rupert, eh davsab?

Spot the difference between the press release you pointed out:

http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_335.html

dated May 9th 2007, and this presentation

http://www.newscorp.com/investor/download/DeutscheBank2007/sld001.htm

made at a conference on 4th June 2007.

Let's review this in the light of "a corporation... whose major goal is to be environmentally neutral"

The key phrases dotted throughout the presentation are "poised to be another record year... higher licence fees... viewership growth... international expansion... subscriber growth... monetization of rapid page view growth... advertising gains... rising rates... margin expansion... increase monetization... protect franchise... maintain momentum... maintain ratings dominance... continue to grow..."

Exactly what you would expect.

But, not a single word in all twenty slides about "becoming carbon neutral". Hardly "a major goal", I would suggest.

I expect that the bulk of the Murdoch push to carbon neutrality will be achieved through various carbon offset arrangements...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

This one's a .pdf entitled "Climate Fraud and Carbon Colonialism: The New Trade in Greenhouse Gases". Makes fascinating reading.

http://www.tni.org/archives/bachram/cns.pdf

"Companies such as Future Forests sell branded carbon offset products to promote so-called CarbonNeutralTM living... The allure of offset culture is understandable. Corporations, ever conscious of cost and image, seek quick-fix solutions that do not require radical changes to fundamental business practice."

And you have gotta love this one!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070306-warming-credits.html

As I said in my first post on this topic, I readily admit that I may come across as a cynical old pessimist. But I've been around on this planet for a few decades, and to me, Rupie's press release is just a carefully calculated piece of PR.

Apart from anything else, he has sufficient leverage in the markets he is in to pass the entire cost of the exercise onto us. We will be directly paying to allow Rupert to bathe in the warm glow of environmental righteousness.

Last week, I'd have told my lad to get into derivatives. Yesterday, hedge funds. Today it would be Carbon Offset Trading.

By the time he has finished Uni... who knows what the next fad will be?