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.