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.