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?