Thanks for the links! A quick glance at them only confirms what I suspected. For every scientific "fact" published there will always be an avalanche of online "facts"/opinion both confirming and discrediting it. It's not that I can't understand the science, it's more that I don't have the time to keep up with, let alone analyse and think about, the vast amount of information and debate (nothing like 4 kids to keep your time and brainpower otherwise occupied).

What increasingly concerns me is that while we're busy debating the scientific "facts" the real issues are being ignored. We simply can't continue to base our whole economy on the mining of finite resources and the ongoing destruction of the environment which has sustained our species for millenia. I no longer have any doubt about the reality of global warming and other issues such as peak oil - it's simply a matter of when and how much it will affect us. I don't want my children (and their children's children) to be paying the price for our current inaction.

As you rightly pointed out, what harm is there in responding positively to the challenges we face (other than upsetting those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo)? There are many reasons to change our current lifestyles, not just for fear of global warming. Unfortunately it seems even in the face of potential global catastrophe we can't see beyond our own hip pocket. So, let's have some REAL economic incentives to move towards a more sustainable lifestyle - and cross our fingers it's not too late!

Wollsue, you are advocating the precautionary principle, a flawed notion put forward by a global warming gathering of ratbags in Rio some years ago.

There are so many possibilities, of what might happen,that virtually any type of action could be advocated, based on someone thinking it might happen.

People might base action on nonsense like the IPCC Summary, a document prepared by politicians, without scientific approval, which makes nonsensical predictions. When one set is proven wrong, they produce another set, subsequently proven just as wrong.

They are yet to be right, but action is urged based on their predictions.

This type of action is a waste of time and money, which could be allocated to useful projects.

Thanks for that, Leo. Next time I cross the street I won't bother looking both ways, because I've never been hit by a car before and I've recently been more concerned about terrorist attacks.

I've never, ever heard anyone argue against the precautionary principle until now. You are truly an original thinker. Go Leo!

Leo,
Likewise, I've never heard such a vehement criticism of the precautionary principle. If the harm potentially caused by doing nothing is greater than the harm potentially caused by taking a particular action then obviously it would be foolish to do nothing. Of course that involves all sorts of value judgments (e.g. who or what is it OK to harm?), as well as a reasonable understanding of the science. There is always room to critique the scientific evidence, but I don't believe sweeping (and unreferenced) criticisms of the science help the debate.

I don't know or care what the IPCC specifically said on the precautionary principle - my own common sense tells me that we can't seriously expect to keep growing our industrial economies based on mining finite resources and pumping greenhouse gases and other pollution into the atmosphere without serious negative consequences. Any scientist will tell you we are mining the environmental capital of this planet - and surely even the economists would agree that's a bad strategy.

I live in an area where the negative impacts of global warming (whether human-induced or natural) are already becoming obvious in relation to the natural vegetation, with possible dire consequences for biodiversity and bushfire frequency and intensity. If there is even the smallest chance of reducing or slowing those impacts by changing the worst of our current wasteful practices, then I for one am willing to take action. It's important to me that future generations (including my own children) have a liveable planet - only the greedy or ignorant believe there is no room for sacrifice on the part of the current generation to achieve that. Replacing our current energy sources with renewable energy (even if it costs more) seems like a pretty small sacrifice to me.

For all your representations xoddam, you really do not appear to have done much investigation of the topic.

Your comparison of crossing the road without looking, shows you have no idea.

The precautionary principle is constantly held up to ridicule. You and wollsue seem to be equally deprived of enlightenment in this area.

In the next few paragraphs I will set out extracts of what Professor Robert Carter says about this aberration of the alarmists.

The question: “Surely because there is a risk of damage from human-caused climate change, we must apply the precautionary principle to try to prevent the change.”

The question is an acknowledgement that the audience, or at least the questioner, has run out of scientific arguments

Sensibly managing environmental issues is not about combating every single threat that can be dreamed up in the vivid imaginations of environmentally concerned citizens.

You might wish to read the whole article. He is a lucid thinker, something to which you seem to have gained little exposure.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/IPA%20precautionary%20principle%20-3z.rtf

Bazz, your comment “Hansen's figures were wrong, but by only a small amount I believe” is correct, but the alleged global warming is only a small amount, .6 of a degree in 106 years, so .15 of a degree, while a small amount makes a big difference.

It should not trouble Dr. Hansen, since 30 years ago he was warning of the coming ice age, so when the global warming scam fails, he can go back to the ice age nonsense, and still blame carbon emissions.

They have not been shown to cause warming, and were nevertheless blamed, so why not blame them for cooling.

Nick,

Bob Carter does not argue cogently against the precautionary principle, merely against the habit of not considering the costs of proposed precautions, which he believes (mistakenly, and without evidence) are very high. He also believes that the likelihood of global warming is the same as that of global cooling -- again, mistakenly and contrary to a large body of evidence.

I believe -- with justification, see http://www.oilendgame.com/ -- that the net cost of rearranging the energy economy is very low, if it is done cautiously and promptly. Certainly some commercial interests -- coal producers, owners of existing coal-fired power stations, and aluminium smelters in particular -- stand to lose somewhat if they are not protected, subsidised or bought out; but other economic interests stand to gain by comparable amounts.

On the other hand if the energy economy is *not* rearranged promptly, the economy as a whole stands to collapse, first from soaring oil prices and later -- very probably, though not certainly -- from the consequences of global warming.

Carter gives a few reasonable-sounding arguments for believing what he does, but his main premise (that all "warming believers" are alarmist frauds and none of their scientific work is credible, therefore there is no credible evidence of a warming climate) is severely flawed.

I challenge you again -- and Bob Carter, if he's listening or if he ever provided evidence -- to demonstrate why you think improving energy efficiency and adopting zero- and low-carbon energy supply technology will have unavoidably negative consequences.

Efficient technology by-and-large pays for itself over a few years of operation, and saves money for nothing thereafter. Much the same applies to fuel-free electricity generation. Subsitution of biofuels for petroleum serves to mitigate the very high cost of Peak Oil. Fossil fuels (especially petroleum) are strictly limited, and weaning ourselves off them a little earlier than high prices force us to will only save consumers from exorbitant costs later.

Please, Nick, tell us what makes you think consumption efficiency and renewable energy are such an expensive proposition.