Here’s another ‘sage’ who knows what everyone thinks and why they voted Labor.

Once again, Kyoto is the bee’s knees, but Hewitt, like the rest of them, will not come out and tell us what, exactly, the Kyoto Protocol has achieved, apart from a lot of lip flapping and grandstanding.

If, as Hewitt admits, “the impacts of climate change will continue to worsen until at least 2030” even if carbon emission cutting starts today (a further indication that Kyoto has meant nothing, so far), is it not possible that the same situation will apply in 2060, the next big date yapped about?

Is it not possible if nothing beneficial will happen in 30 years, then nothing will happened in another 30 years, and so on? Of course it is. There is every chance that nature will still takes its own course, while we are being ripped off monetarily and punished for something we never did. Hewitt’s “$54 billion global fund” should be a good start to help line the pockets of the despots ruling the “world’s poor” for starters.

All of the largesse Hewitt wants countries like Australia to provide to an already doomed Third World will have as little effect as his own organisation, Oxfam, has had in dealing with insoluble problems.

Making the developed world pay for something only another climate change will eventually fix will serve only to lower our standard of living a little closer to that of the undeveloped world, which is what so many fools want to see. They cannot lift the poor to our levels, so they reduce our levels to make themselves look and feel better.

Apart from meddling do-gooders like Hewitt, the real villains are the ‘climate change scientists’, an invented, modern job description for power-crazed witches and crystal ball gazers basking in their five minutes of fame

Actually you're right Leigh - the IPCC is all a big conspiracy organised by the major governments of the world to finally break the stranglehold of the fossil fuel industry, who have been holding back technological development for the last 50 years. Once the oil and gas companies are bankrupted, we'll have all-electric self-flying cars within a decade or two. And once the coal industry is bankrupted too, then pollution, acid rain and wholesale destruction of mountains and forests will be quickly things of the past, and new fuels and technologies will lead to a regular flights to other planets by 2050.

And at least my conspiracy theory is vaguely plausible.

You are wrong, wizofaus, in suggesting that we'll have all electric self-flying cars within a decade or two. This is because, as you should have realised, the electric cars will be piloted by flying pigs.

You are, however, absolutely correct in forecasting that the third world is doomed. Peak oil and global warming will see to that. In addition, the fact that the most important factor of all (the prospective doubling of the population of the third world over the next 30 years) is NEVER mentioned, means that all attempts to solve these problems will be futile, and that everyone is just urinating into the breeze.

What an interesting century it is going to be. How lucky we are that we are the only country in the world with the four vital things needed for survival. These, of course, are:

1. A surplus of food.

2. A surplus of minerals.

3. A surplus of energy.

4. Most important of all, a sea boundary.

Actually at least some of the third world will be the least affected by peak oil - i.e. those parts that don't rely on modern technology at all. I suspect they'll also cope to a certain extent with a rising climate, given humans in our primitive state have survived far more extreme changes (like ice ages). It's arguably modern cities with huge populations dependent on agriculture, and situated close to coastal areas that have the most to lose.

And if Australia really has it so good relative to the rest of the world, then I wouldn't be so sure our sea boundary is going to be all that much protection.

Kyoto is a waste of time.

Us being a world leader in climate change is a waste of time, we are a teaspoon out of a bucket.

We cant save ourselves from global warming we are too small and dont have an impact, there are 6.6 billion of the planet as of yesterday, 21 and a half million means nothing. Australia's future depends on the world coming to the party and most nations wont be in a realistic position to for 50 years.

we should not waste time on this, we should be more worried about improving the degradated natural environmnet here rather than spruiking about emissions crap.

You are all wrong.

Global warming does not exist. And, it is not possible to measure the temperature of the globe from within its own domain anyway.

EHS (Environmental Hypochondria Syndrome) is caused by a few things:

1. Man has always been paranoid/insecure about his destiny, such insecurity being fuelled by his atheism. He reasons that since he evolved without a designer/controller, it is up to him to stay evolved (he likes how he has ended up). (There is a logical problem with this reasoning, but we'll leave that to another day.)

2. The world's main security forces, particularly those of the U.S. (they have 16 intelligence agencies), have think-tanks with ultra intelligent experts on behaviour. These U.S. think-tanks work around the clock on manipulative strategies in the interests of U.S. national security. Their feeling is that in order for the world to stay stable, the people of the world need to be constantly distracted from looking over everybody else's shoulder, including the shoulder of their own politicians. So the agencies create scenarios and push them ad nausea in the media. Accordingly, you will note that the U.S. have not come on board (they are too busy tricking the rest of us into slowing our production down with red tape on emmissions). A new scenario is created every couple of decades.

3. Follow the money trail. The main source of EHS is the source which has the money, and which stands to make a lot of extra money from it.

Again, there is no such thing as global warming, particularly any warming caused by man's activity. The weather is the same as it always has been, and no-one would be thinking otherwise were it not suggested constantly. CO2 has never driven climate change, and never will. Sun-spots are the cause of climate change.

The whole scenario is puerile, and childish. And we are wasting a lot of emotional energy and money on it. In fact, it has become a self-perpetuating emotional faith.
The mind is an extremely tricky thing, one which can 'materialise' almost any scenario into a virtual reality.

There is nothing quite so grotesque as a 'LEADER' who is frothing at the mouth about its credentials.... that no one is following!

IDENTITY CRISIS?
Is it perhaps just a little bit of 'identity crisis' which fuels this "we, Australia, must be seen to be doing the right thing and influence other countries"?

MEGALOMANA?
or..perhaps Andrew Hewitt feels 'identity challenged' being part of a humble 20million population 'resources mine' for the serious industrial countries?
He wants to feel 'significant'... 'powerful'.. 'have an impact'

He over compensates by trying to project us as a 'leader'....but since when has an Ant led an Elephant?

MESSIANIC ASPIRATIONS?
Sorry Andrew, there was/is only one Messiah, and its neither you, nor Australia. But one thing is for sure, if we followed Him, in heart and deed, there would be no need for a Kyoto.. we would be exercising good sustainable stewardship of the world.

Why is science, an open and self-critical enterprise copping so much paranoia on this?
This topic has a history guys. The science has been thrashed around for many years now. There was actually a "global cooling" scare a few years back and the recent "greenhouse effect" worries really do have a lot of theory and facts that can be verified. Anyone who is prepared to get their minds dirty with lots and lots of detail can do this.
Now if it worries you that science occasionally changes it's mind when new evidence comes in, think of how more worrying it is that some folks DO NOT change their mind when new evidence come in. This is technically insanity, but because some religions are getting seriously undercut now (how could "my" God threaten our extinction?) the insanity is condoned.
Religious certainty does not exist in science for a very good reason: it is *always* found to be wrong eventually. The theory that man, via religion, has authority that overrides experimental evidence is dangerous and stupid.
The current spin doctoring on both sides just signifies that the two sides (dogma vs truth) have started yet another war.
I'll stick to the side that is confusing yet honest.
Liberty: your attitude is hilarious: Athiests causing paranoia? Ha!

Yes that's right: atheists causing paranoia. Christians are not the least bit interested in so-called "global warming", for they understand that God made the world far more robust than that which could be undone by puny little man with his pop-gun industriousness.

Acordingly, there is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming, nor is science able to accurately measure the temperature of the earth anyway. Science even has trouble measuring the length of a human leg from hip to foot. I'm afraid Mr Bill Gates and M/Soft have inflated the egos of the world so that we think we can do anything just because we can manipulate virtual realities on screen.

The global warming scare is simply designed to distract people so they don't use their idleness to create an ACTUAL havoc. This is particularly necessary now that the iron curtain has come down: it is one of life's great paradoxes that man needs tension to remain stable.
The intelligence agencies which recognise this and which therefore fuel the surrent scare-campaign utilise man's Environmental Hypochondria Syndrome (EHS): atheistic man is easily manipulated via EHS: he is generally insecure and prone to over-attention to detail, like a neurotic teenager worried about pimples.

Be assured all globe-trotters: there is no man-made global warming, any more than there exists a man who can pull himself off the ground by his own bootstraps. The earth's climate variation is caused by sun spots. So you can all keep driving your cars to work, and get a good night's sleep afterward. It is God's earth, and He'll decide when it will expire. In fact, He won't be allowing man the credit of making it expire: He'll be pulling in the mat when He's good and ready all on His ownsome, not before.

Riddle for the global warmers: "If the earth had been warmer from the beginning so that (playing along with your bogus data) it was as warm as you say we have made it before we had made it that way, would you have been worried about the temperature at that stage?"

Plerdsus,

Regardless of whether climate change is man-made or natural, you missed another vital ingredient we possess: Ample clean water to support our agriculture, industry and domestic needs, despite the drought. (Which this Christmas appears to be breaking across the nation).

Liberty,

I really do admire and envy your guts.

Andrew Hewitt,

Two points:

No doubt you’ll be ultra critical of Rudd’s behaviour at Bali. After ratifying Koyoto, he’s done exactly as Howard did in Sydney: Accepted aspirational goals with no targets or commitments to any.

I never once heard Rudd commit Australia to spending of S1.5 Billion per annum (neither US nor AUS) on supplying third world countries money for saving forests during the recent election campaign. Did you? (Just bear in mind our proposed tax cuts of $30 Billion are over 9 years or $3.3 billion per annum and they are suposedly inflationary).
As for this unrealistic proposal, I have six initial questions.

Will the annual $1.5 Billion commitment increase?

How long is the period of our annual $1.5 Billion commitment or
is the annual $1.5 Billion commitment similar to Howard’s Iraq commitment ie open-ended ?

What happens to our total annual $1.5 billion contribution once those third world countries cut down those or parts of those supposedly ‘saved’ forests?
Just how the hell is our annual $1.5 Billion contribution to be policed?
If those 'saved' forests or parts of those 'saved' forests are destroyed, in any way, will the total or pro rata of our $1.5 Billion annual commitments be refunded?

Where are those pigs in those electric cars?

Charting a new course for Australia

I was happy with the course we were on.

There is no where any socialist can take us which will not be a lie promoted with the faux compassion of the morally barren.

I guess I will "batten down the hatches" and "weather the storms" this new Course will take us to as we transverse the ocean of future uncertainty.