What were the last 500 years of struggle for liberty and democracy all about then? If you can’t convince the majority of your fellow citizens to follow the course of action you propose, tough! I have no desire to go back to the totalitarian regimes of the mid-twentieth century. We should no more hand over decisions on the environment to a group of scientists than we should hand over legislation on morality to a group of theologians.

More urinating into the breeze, I'm afraid. When will people recognise that global warming is only a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is overpopulation, and any solution that does not address overpopulation is doomed to failure. A friend of mine made a very insightful comment about it when we were comparing India and China and their reactions to the population problem. The insight was that India had done all it could to minimise population increase consistent with being a democracy (i.e. contraceptive information). China, on the other hand, was able to take far more effective measures (i.e. one child policy) because of its authoritarian form of government. The other insight was that the reason there is a global wall of silence on overpopulation is that not only are there many forces against it, but there seems to be no way it can be implemented in a democratic way.

The rational conclusion to all this is that we are all doomed.

David Shearman you are a madman.

You are the latest in a long line of obsessives, generally with a scientific background, who have been convinced that a tyrannical government would elevate your bugbear to the number one, indeed, the sole social priority of the nation, over the demands of all other citizens.

That you would choose China as your only evidence for this proposition merely shows how far your feverish obsession with global warming has taken you from sanity.

As someone who has just returned from two years of living in China I can only report to you that the disgustingly polluted air and barren deforested landscape there argue more eloguently than words exactly the opposite case. Liberal Democracy is by far the best system for protecting the environment while dictatorship is the worst.

While the Chinese government may have passed a tokenistic ban on plastic bags it has also been pushing economic development at a breakneck pace and approving scores of carbon-emitting coal-fired power stations.

However, if it pleases you to imagine that a dictatorship would adopt your goals for society (which in your own mind are self-evidently desirable - why can't everybody see.. the fools), instead of exterminating minorities or class enemies, enforcing a state religion, expropriating private wealth to lavish on the rulers, or trying to build the world's tallest building, then by all means keep scribbling.

Professor Shearman's argument is of the same coin as the Neocons who sent us into Iraq:

1) There is an imminent existential threat wot is backed up authorities and all. Look, we have the powerpoints and everything to prove it!

2) Therefore, in order to protect and preserve our freedoms and way of life, we must surrender our freedoms and way of life.

3) If you have any doubts or misgivings about proposition #2, please refer again to proposition #1 until you are sufficiently panicked to accept proposition #2.

Such arguments cut no ice with me when Colin Powell put them on the floor of the UN in 2003, and they cut no ice with me today when Prof. Shearman invokes another imminent existential threat as a reason to surrender more freedoms.

Perhaps we can go back to the 1940s for an analogous situation. Private, low-staffed, low budget R&D centres realised that there was a possibility that an atomic bomb could be made. The US was at war, and realised that for its own security, it needed to develop the technology before anybody else. It did not just wait for it to evolve, using the liberal-democratic model, but the government invested millions of dollars into a few laboratories (virtually nationalising them, since they did what the government appointed and government funded leaders wanted) and were able to develop and build two atomic bombs by 1945. It is ironic, is it not, that to ensure that they developed the bombs before the Russians in particular, they changed from their liberal-democratic approach and adopted a model closer to their adversary's.
It is not until our governments, pushed by the people or led by statesmen and thinkers, have a mind to address a serious problem that these problems will be addressed and hopefully overcome.
Professor Shearman has a pretty sound point. Because of the authoritarian nature of the (say) Chinese government, it is likely to take firm action before our democracies can stir themselves adequately. I am nevertheless optimistic that our democracies can stir themselves, but unfortunately, many people will suffer first. Which is surely Shearman's point!
It is a pity that contributors to these discussions are so polarised and vitriolic. Whatever point they may have loses its impact. So let us have none of that, unless we are criticising Howard!

and besides, this guy has no notion of what democracy is. one reason we're in deep trouble is that the people do not rule, pollies do- with a corporation hand up their skirt.

that's fair, in a way. if the people can not organize, are too dim to see the use of democracy, then oligarchy is what you get. continuing with oligarchy and it's resultant looting of society and nature by the corporations in a finite world will lead to environmental disaster.

if you're too dumb to see it, too lazy to do anything about it, too cowed by your culture to rebel- then wear the disaster with a smile.

A bit of standard casuist logic from green/left. Pity the initial premise is pure bollocks. Latest science in punching serious holes in the global warming scarenario. The ice packs have recently been found to have survived extended periods of much warmer weather in the past so don't expect any "tipping points" within the extended life of your great, great, great, great grandchildren.

Tipping point theory is an intellectual cop-out that enables the venal and the vacuous to speculate far beyond those reasonably probable outcomes based on the facts. And given the numerous other holes in the fabric of climate cretinism, like the way volcanic aerosols from El chichon and Mt Pinatubo have masked the absence of any global warming for the past 25 years, the author is revealed as just another campus bollockshevik on a power trip.

He has forgotten the most important lesson of history. That is, once totalitarianism is made acceptable, the door is opened to the many forms it can take. And only a true fool would assume that his own preference will end up on top, and remain there for long.

Harry G,

I fail to see how the development of the atomic bomb by a liberal democratic government is an argument against liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is not anarchy where the government does nothing - it merely means that decisions on state action are made by an elected government.

The decisive action by the US government to develop a nuclear weapon in a time of war shows that democratically-elected governments are more than capable of taking decisive action when required.

However, Mr Shearman is not simply advocating a big government policy in response to global warming but something far more offensive - the stripping of decision making power from an elected government to an "authoritarian" one - his term. Hence his praise for the Chinese communist regime, which, it should be noted, has killed over 60 million of its own citizens through deliberate oppression or ideological mania - a high price to pay for the banning of plastic bags.

Mr Shearman does not object merely to liberal (ie. small government) democracy but to democracy per se and is a fair subject of vitriol from those whose rights he arrogantly proposes to strip

Isn't it curious how, after all this time, and after all the sorry examples of totalitarian excess and failure, in europe, asia, africa and latin america, we can still be presented with a clown who will try to tell us that this time, under this supposedly new and brilliant rationalisation, absolute power will not corrupt absolutely. [Exit pigs, flying]

But of course, if Shearman seriously thinks the Chinese Junta has done good on plastic bags, can we also assume that they have done just as good by signing up for 34 (yes, 34) new nuclear power stations.

Just watch that one go down with the green/left, like a curried egg fart in a small, slow, elevator.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947

I would rather boil in my own skin under a democracy than live under a dictatorship run by the climate change zealots.

Duncan73
I did not mean to be arguing against liberal democracy. What I was trying to say that sometimes alternatives may be needed to meet great challenges, especially where liberal democracy was too slow to act, or too cumbersome to act. Putting a man on the moon is another case in point. The US achieved this not by relying on liberal democracy and its preferred modus operandi, but by assuming part of the methodology of its antagonist, and letting centralised government take over. The fact that a government in a liberal democracy can adapt itself to a different approach when needed says wonders for the flexibility of such a system. Without going back and reading the original article again, I thought that the author was saying that a switch to this type of tactic might be necessary to overcome climate change, but the Chinese are in a position to act faster.

There will always be times when we have to temporarily forgo certain aspects of our liberal democracy - in times of war, natural disasters etc. However you need a very very strong case to suggest we need to forgo it to achieve more abstract and long-term goals like reducing fossil fuel dependency. Indeed, *more* democracy would be a better solution - were Australians able to vote on what types of energy utilities were allowed to produce and what sort of energy we'd like to run their cars on, I've no doubt the vast majority would vote for cleaner forms of energy than we currently rely on, even if it cost a little more.

There are governments in the world that can and have acted on Climate Change with true leadership. Unfortnately, Australia's leaders talk alot but very little to show.

Australians overwhelmingly want change, but our leaders of major parties are a timmid lot, preferring to wait for more reports and attend conferences before they take the tough regulatory and expenditure decisions that the situation demands.

Harry G tells us that the US developed an atomic bomb, they got a man on the moon, because of government involvement and government funding. Is there not a good chance, then, that if such funding were made available and the brains of the world put their mind to it, that alternative fuels (even clean coal!) might be developed, and that this in fact might be the only feasible way of gaining success? Do you want to leave it to the oil companies to fund the development? Or do you really think that relatively small laboratories funded by vested interests or philanthopists has the best chance of success?

I think you will find that there are already a whole heap of venture capital companies
working on the fuel story. The last thing that we need is draconian Govts wasting
taxpayers money in huge amounts. Co finance some trial ventures ok, but heading
off spending billions, when technology is moving so fast that what was invented
yesterday, is out of date next week, would be quite foolish.

http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9811702-54.html?tag=nefd.lede

is just one smart company going ahead in leaps and bounds.

In today’s press it seems that GM are convinced to have found a solution with
technology developed by Coskata, using waste materials creating ethanol
for around 1US$ per US gallon. There is a feature about it in today’s
Financial Review. I doubt if GM would make that kind of announcement,
if it was not worth examining.

On power stations we also have new technology happening, again through
Venture capital:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Solar-just-got-cheaper-AE74N?OpenDocument

Perhaps Govts should get their arses into gear and for a start, come to some
agreement that all women on the planet have access to family planning, which
hundreds of millions still don’t. Another 80 million extra mouths to feed each
year, is really not helping things. You guys can conserve all you want,
yet it only takes 90 days to replace the whole Australian population with
new babies on the planet, whether these women want them or not. The
Catholic Church has a lot to answer for here, with their obsession for
an ever increasing population.

This is where the left love the doom and gloom of climate change.The evil free thinking capitalists have ruined the planet and therefore the day of Green/Left thinking must rule all our lives.They even suck up to the extreme Islamists,trying to use them as wedge to gain power,ie the anti-religious vilification legislation in Victoria.

There is no dispute in their view, as to the reasons for recent global temperature increases,it is all due to CO2,and any detractors are heretics who need to be silenced.

If ever the Green Gestapo get real power,they will be no different than all the other totalitarian regemes of the past.

Something in this article seems to have inspired an unusually excessive level of angry (almost barking mad) responses.

I think we can afford to lighten-up a little in this case as Prof. Shearman seems to have posed something of a false dichotomy.

Liberal democracies can be just authoritarian as China or anyone else once they have decided that a particular matter is important enough.

Take "national security" for example. Long ago it was decided that the Cold War, international terrorism etc. presented a threat that could not be managed by normal civilian & democratic processes so we created special agencies that existed outside of the regular bureaucracy.
These agencies have been given 'special powers'. Although normally responsible to a minister & a charter these agencies tend to be something of a law unto themselves.
Britains Official Secrets Act for example, is probably one of the most undemocratic pieces of legislation ever drafted.

Given that the scale & urgency of the climate-change issue requires a certain command & control style of management, chances are that it will be only a matter of time before national (& international?) agencies are created and endowed with 'special powers'. They won't be spies necessarily but they will enforce rules & they will need to be beyond the direct influence of lobbyists or interest groups. You won't be able to sue them.

On another level we already have institutions that make policy independently of the elected government - monetary policy for example. The Reserve Bank like the US Federal Reserve is given a charter to set interest rates regardless of the government's specific wishes. It has been agreed that these decisions should be ‘above politics’ (above & beyond short-term vote grabbing that is).

Once it is decided that an issue is ‘above politics’ our liberal democracies find ways of making provisions that are every bit as authoritarian and undemocratic as they need to be (& more).

The era of the green police may not be far away. We can only hope for the best.

Mr Smith

Arjay, I'm a great respecter of the potential power of capitalism, but the attempts by various corporations with considerable vested interest in the status quo to fund efforts that muddy the debate with exaggerated claims about the level of doubt among scientists regarding the CO2-warming link has suggested very strongly that allowing corporations unlimited power is in many ways quite incompatible with a liberal democracy. A company such as Exxon-Mobil has more wealth, power and influence than most democratically-elected national governments, yet it effectively acts as a totalitarian entity, answerable only to the select group that own the bulk of its shares. While there will always be a need for large corporations capable of coordinating global efforts, the "socialist" position would be that such corporations be based on democratic ideals, where the people have at least some say over its operation. This could even mean laws to ensure that publicly-listed corporations over a certain size hold elections to determine the leadership - which is a logical enough extension of current laws that require all shareholders be able to vote on certain major decisions. With such an arrangement in place, we could imagine that a new leadership team pledging to take Exxon-Mobil in a new direction by significantly funding R&D of new fuels would attract the vote of a majority of shareholders.

What's totalitarian about that?

Wizofaus re corporations “yet it effectively acts as a totalitarian entity, answerable only to the select group that own the bulk of its shares.”

Corporations, be they local or international, are required to operate within the laws of the country in which they were operating, regardless of their domicile.

I do not recall any corporation ever receiving an “exemption” to the laws of Australia.

I do know some corporations who exercise sufficient influence (of any type or nature, just like any other lobbyist) that the merits of their goals might occasionally effect a change to laws.

I also know of many government owned companies whose very existence is a matter of statute.

I recall the illegal actions of the CEO of HIH resulted in his imprisonment, the illegal actions of Visiboard saw the issue of massive fines and similar fines and parties named at Qantas in USA and the imprisonment of Enron and Arthur Andersen Executives for their criminal conduct.

None of these things suggests that corporations are considered “above the law”.

The nature of all joint stock companies is, people and other institutions (ultimately owned by people) own all the shares in all the companies and they are all subject to the law. All those people who own the shares are subject to “law”.

A corporation is, reasonably, not required to consider the feelings or needs of non-share holders as prominently as share holders, despite the wealth of legislation which forces companies to comply with health and safety and public liability issues.

Every company is regulated more strictly than any private individual. Your hypothesis is a myth.

you want a say, buy some shares.

The article

I will support moves away from this “libertarian” society if, under some form of tyranny

the tyrants name is “Col Rouge”.

Now, that might not suit anyone else but I figure you agree that you yourselves would not tolerate "totalitarianism" unless you, personally, were the pinnacle of dictatorial authority.

First, I would see David Shearman sent to a seriously nasty place to some compulsory “re-education” in the “CR libertarian appreciation programme”.

Ok, I'll play, and not be 'polarized,' for a few words:

What the Soviet Union did to their environment:

http://tinyurl.com/34fwsy

Books to read before you vote:

http://tinyurl.com/2vp6rm

OK, now I'm through being nice, because it doesn't work on the global communist insurgents who will do/say anything and eventually kill anyone who gets in their way of establishing their utopia.

Another eco-commie considers returning to their violent revolutionary ways to force their global socialism on all of us:

http://tinyurl.com/2kn673

You Aussies were stupid enough to turn in your guns when your "Liberal"(socialist, communist, fascist, authoritarian) govt. demanded them so you fully deserve what these freaks to do you, just like the Brits.

However here in the good ol' USA, which isn't a 'democracy' by the way regardless of what garbage Dubya spews forth to the newswhores, see my quotes page:

http://www.willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

We plan to not put up with this crap much longer:

http://www.willowtown.com/promo/links.htm

You sheeple need to wake up. The eco-commie groups, most of them, are worth billions. They get billions in funding from the global corporations. Why? How can they afford to spend millions on constant fear mongering commercials on the telly, or as I prefer, the weaponvision? Who really wants us to be this stupid?

waypasthadenough:

Are you trying to engage people in thought? Are you trying to encourage people to your point of view? Or are you into self-degradation?

I might go back and read what you said later, but for the life of me, at this stage of the game, I think I have wasted part of my life in reading your post. I am probably wasting even more by responding.

What I would like you to learn from my post is that you need to revamp your attitude, your style, your whole approach, if you want people to read, analyse and think about what you are saying.

You can take comfort, I suspect, in realising that my voice is only one voice, and perhaps I am the only one in the world who reacts in this way to your post.

Um, haven't you heard the news that the population bomb is now a fizzer.
The family formation rate in wealthy democracies is plumeting and populations are imploding.
Wealth is the most potent contraceptive followed by female literacy.
The populations of France, Spain and Italy halve over the next thirty years or so.
The total global population goes into population decline around the middle of the century.
The best way to reduce family formation rates in the rest of the world is to promote economic growth and development and education.
In most cases that means getting rid of tyranny - not entrenching it.

Climate change has as much with democracy as democracy with justice or love with sex.

Playing English, not more.

This kind of thinking is extremely dangerous.

Authoritarian government are relatively free to do good things - but also to commit genocide or send their people to re-education camps to eradicate their 'erroneous' thinking.

As always the problem is that those governments think they know best and anyone with a contrary perspective is 'incorrect'. This can lead to them making horrendous mistakes such as Mao's Great Leap Forward, which is estimated to have brought about between 14 and 43 million deaths.There is no self-correcting mechanism that can prevent such disasters.

Has David Shearman not noticed, for heaven's sake, that Peter Garrett is considering the exact same measure - banning plastic bags - which he raises as an example of a radical measure that democracies couldn't contemplate?

Dangerous-whom for/to?

Please, do not threat us with commies: last 11 years in Australia were not much better.

Scientific Consensus, and equally important engineering consensus relative to implementation methods and procedures, exists for the following.

1. Nuclear irradiation of all organic food would save lives and reduce the resources needed to produce foodstuffs by reduction in food wastes.

2. Nuclear power is at present the best alternative fuel source to fossil fueled base-loaded electricity production.

3. Genetically modified food crops have the same benefits as listed in 1 above.

4. Use of biomass crops to reduce consumption of oil for transportation has adverse impacts on the environment and on human populations through higher costs for food necessary for health and safety.

5. The proper use of DDT can significantly reduce unnecessary deaths in less-developed countries.

6. Development of lesser-developed countries through easy access to abundant electricity will significantly reduce unnecessary deaths and reduce unnecessary use and destruction of natural resources.

It is interesting that some (many?) of the people who constantly remind us of the dangers of continued destruction and use of natural resources are the very same people who object to the Scientific Consensus listed above. Very much more importantly those listed would result in a significant reduction of the loss of human lives and the suffering associated with those who do not have access to the riches of developed Democracies.

This is especially ironic given that the author of the opinion piece state: "If you say “yes” then you fly in the face of a track record of persistent failure in a wide range of environmental management leading to depletion of natural resources and fresh water, biodiversity and ecological service loss, loss of productive land and depletion of essential food sources such as ocean fish."

I do not know which, if any, of these the author might be in agreement with, but as none have been implemented almost everyone seems to be in disagreement.

In contrast to the list above, for which implementation plans are readily available, there is at present no proven methods for reduction in CO2 emissions to a level that even begins to approach those that are said to be necessary.

Owen,

There are only 13 countries that are actually experiencing negative population growth right now. Apart from Germany, they are all in Eastern Europe, where economic conditions have been difficult, to say the least. For most of them the rate of decline is only 0.1 or 0.2%.

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/zero.htm

Having a birth rate below replacement level only results in an immediate drop in population when the country already has a stable age structure and there is no net immigration. In a country like Australia where there was strong population growth for a long time, it can take up to 70 years for population growth to stop or reverse, even with no net immigration, and 100 years for the population to drop below what it was at the time when fertility dropped below replacement level. This is because of the skewed age structure. The deaths are mostly occurring in the small elderly generation and the births in the big young adult population. Believe your lying eyes about whether Australia, or much of Europe, is running out of people.

Biker Trash,

No problems with most of your list. You are correct about economic development ending population growth, but don't say where the resources are to come from. It would take the resources of three Earths to give everyone worldwide (even with just the existing population) a modest European standard of living, even if all the wealth were divided equally. (See the Redefining Progress site and p. 10 of the 6/10/07 New Scientist.)

“Strong population growth in Australia”: does this Australian statistics presents local Afro-achievers or, as most references on these pages, deals with Anglo-offspring only?

Back to an article, both Hitler and Howard were elected democratically with the same outcome for environment – paramounts of excrements after both of them.

Climate change—what anger! From David Shearman, author

I believe that authors contribute and argument to “On-line” in the hope of receiving constructive counter-argument. Let me make the argument simpler. Firstly I cannot counter the climate change deniers. Denial is a form of defence to major issues that we cannot cope with. Some of us react that way when we get cancer. Climate change scepticism like any form of questioning the evidence is helpful but the evidence must be presented with the source so we can all look at the facts from which the conclusions are drawn.

The argument that I make in my article for those who accept that climate change is occurring is that the science tells us we are not mitigating fast enough. We therefore must examine where we are failing and an examination of how our governance system is working to deliver decisions is an essential part of the exercise. If some of the responders feel that liberal democracy cannot be improved then there is little more I can say. Within Australia to take one example are you satisfied with the democratic wrangling over the demise of the River Murray over the past decade? Many are now suffering with loss of wealth and health. There are times what decisions have to be made with more urgency than this. We all surrender liberties everyday in the interests of our own heath and safety and that of the community. Let us have some suggestions as to how we proceed. We don’t have to support Mr Mugabe to be able to use some authoritarian decision making processes when necessary. In relation to over population, of course it is related to climate change, but you cannot say this is the problem rather than climate change.

David Shearman-- continued
There are a lot of angry responses. Perhaps On- line is a safety valve for those who are generally angry. Look guys, vituperation doesn’t help make a reasonable argument. You are barking at situations that don’t exist. I am neither a green-zealot nor a Neocon and though I support lifelong education I don’t take to my compulsory re-education as suggested by a purported democrat. My views are tempered by being a life-long physician (please no barking about doctors—yes there are good and bad ones) I support democracy and hand out how to vote cards for middle of the road candidates. I cherish our liberties but recognise their problems. I have worked for the IPCC as a physician because at the end of the day climate change is a health problem. Let me say to you that climate change is already affecting the health and well being of many peoples around the world and also in Australia and we need to examine all means of dealing with it more effectively. I believe that it is good to identify who you are when making statements and I say to those who have troubled to respond, send me your name and email and I will be happy to correspond with you.

To a modest forum participant, the most arguable constituent of an article is a notion of "liberal democracy" as author himself was absolutely right writing “We don’t have to support Mr Mugabe to be able to use some authoritarian decision making processes when necessary.”

I ask no excuse if a real situation with democracy and human rights in Australia
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/355817.shtml

had been beyond Dr. D. Shearman’s personal acquaintance - doctor stated, “You are barking at situations that don’t exist”: denying undeniable, which is a natural process of a climate change, is seemingly his very original, grounded concern for writing an article discussed.

Dr. Shearman,

It may be politically incorrect to say so, but stopping population growth is fundamental to addressing the problem of climate change. About 80% of the greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere are due to the developed countries, but per capita emissions in these countries declined by 12% on average between 1990 and 2001.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245110190.html

In the early 1970s, when the US population was about 200 million, US fertility rates dropped back to replacement level. If you google the Numbers USA site you will find a graph showing that the US population would now be about 240 million if they had continued the pre-1965 policy of approximately zero net immigration. (The extra 40 million are due to momentum from earlier high fertility, as I explained in my previous post.) The actual US population is now 300 million. Most of these 60 million additional migrants represent a net global increase in emissions. Apart from a few missionaries, no one emigrates to reduce his or her consumption.

Some years ago, Paul Harrison wrote an article in New Scientist saying that stopping population growth is the only hope of solving our environmental problems, because the bottom fifth of humanity needs to increase its consumption and the middle three fifths are not going to be content with the odd bicycle or radio.

You tell me what measures you propose to fix climate change, and I will calculate just how long it will take for population growth at current rates to wipe out any benefit.

But Divergence, you're assuming that our current forms of technology, which generate massive amounts of waste and pollution, are the only ones capable of providing the services that make our standard of living what it is.

There's absolutely no justification for believing this, and every reason for accepting that global population growth up to at least 9 billion by the middle of century is inevitable, even if birth rates gradually drop to below replacement level in that time.

It will not be possible for 9 billion of us to use the technology we use now to provide high standards of living. There are pretty much three choices:

a) Forcible sterilisation and euthanasia of a significant portion of the population
b) Allow standards of living to drop dramatically for most of the world's population, with no chance of allowing those already at the lowest level to improve
c) Adopt and use technologies in a manner that allows a high standard of living, but that don't consume unsustainable amounts of resources and produce unsustainable amounts of waste and pollution.

Fortunately, there is every bit of evidence that c) is entirely feasible from a technical perspective, even if it does mean pinning a certain amount of hope on not-yet-perfected technologies. It's almost entirely a political problem at this point.

(cont.)

(cont. from above)

I don't assume that c) means that nobody currently used to first-world high-consumption standards of living will have to change their lifestyles. But there's every reason to believe that many of the lifestyle changes necessary will actually improve our overall quality of life. Certainly my personal experience has been just that - I now work from home 5 days a week, and I pay for 100% renewable energy. My quality of life has gone up considerably in recent years, yet my "ecological footprint" has more than halved in size. Yes, I am incredibly fortunate that I've been able to achieve this with no major effort, but a lot more people could easily do the same or similar. I also accept that halving is not enough, and that achieving further reductions will mean some deliberate sacrifices, some that might be initially painful. But I expect that it will also come from manufacturers finding more efficient and less wasteful ways of providing consumer products and services. A combination of the two should feasibly allow me to halve my ecological footprint again over the next decade. If I can reduce my footprint by 75% in 10 years, then it's not so unreasonable to expect that Australians on average could do so over 20 years. Even if Australia's population grows by 20% in that period, then Australia's total footprint has still decreased by 70%.

A typically racist, xenophobic, nazi replay by wizofaus is a perfect example of an ANGLO-mentality of so-called "true blue Australians" as one could easy understand.

Wizofaus,

Why MichaelK thinks there is anything Nazi-like about your last post is a mystery to me. I just think it is dangerously naive. I agree that we in the developed world probably could and should cut our contribution to climate change significantly, but you reach a point of diminishing returns. Please take a look at the link to see a graph plotting per capita environmental footprint (closely related to greenhouse gas emissions) against rank on the UN Human Development Index (a measure of human well-being).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Highlight_Findings_of_the_WA_S0E_2007_report_.gif

The sustainable biocapacity per person is actually less than the global average, because we are burning the furniture to keep warm. Not one of the countries consuming at or below the global average are giving their average citizens good lives. If it is easy to do this on a tiny footprint, why isn't anyone doing it?

Your faith in future technology reminds me of the joke about economists, that they don't worry about falling off a tall building, because the demand for a parachute will ensure that one appears on the way down. Try reading some of the science fiction of the 1940s and 50s and consider all the marvellous speculations about future technology that haven't come true. Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" summarises the archaeological evidence on what happened to a number of past societies that did collapse (largely because of overexploitation of the environment) rather than being saved by human ingenuity. It is true that the Green Revolution, which doubled and sometimes tripled the amount of grain that could be harvested from a given plot of land, averted the famines that were predicted for the 1970s, but we are now up against maybe 12 different limiting factors. As just one of them, grain production per person peaked in 1984, and in terms of days of supply, world grain stocks are at their lowest level in more than 30 years. Today's huge populations are an artifact of cheap fossil fuels. I expect Chinese style authoritarian solutions at best for most countries and Rwanda at worst. The universe doesn't care about what we want.

Thank you Professor Shearman.

"I do not recall any corporation ever receiving an “exemption” to the laws of Australia. (Col Rouge)

Col Rouge. Please do not make such rash statements without substantiation.

Pollutant industries are operating outside the law, 24/7, 365 days per year. The EPA agencies, established in Australia decades ago, to protect our environment and the health of communities, are an abysmal failure.

The culture within these agencies is to nurture an alliance with pollutant industries. The more these corporations pollute our environment and our health, operating under "covert" exemptions, the more praise they receive for their "productivity."

Enforcement of the Acts are performed only occasionally as a public relations exercise and to gag complainants - much like the brothels in Kalgoorlie who were always warned of an impending raid.

With regard to Professor Shearman's issue, I assure you, we live under corporate rule. It's corporations who have the freedom to contaminate our air, soil, water, animal and human health whilst manipulating community values and capturing successive, cowardly and ignorant governments.

These are the reasons why Western Australia is now officially one of this planet's environmental hotspots.

The evidence is indisputable.

But try driving your vehicle with a smoky exhaust pipe and see how far YOU get when requesting an "exemption."

The big polluters and their allies remain top dogs in this nation, denying us our democratic rights to clean air and optimal health.

Departments of Environment and their impotent senior bureaucrats should be banished and the remediation of our fragile environment should be placed in the hands of those more competent (and ethical) and those who will endeavour to secure a degree of equity between our desecrated eco systems and the avaricious corporate vandals.

These self-regulated corporations continue on rampage, here and in developing nations and are out of control, a result of the third world regulatory and enforcement standards of this country.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,20702573-2761,00.html

http://indyhack.blogspot.com/2007/06/alcoa-poison-wagerup-alumina-refinery.html

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:BTx7EF9lcoQJ:home.att.net/~thehessians/birds.html+dead+birds+western+australian+coastline+discovered+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/03/23/1071910.htm

http://s3.amazonaws.com/corpwatch.org/downloads/Barrick_final_sml.pdf

http://www.huliq.com/44227/government-found-interfere-public-health-research

*As just one of them, grain production per person peaked in 1984, and in terms of days of supply, world grain stocks are at their lowest level in more than 30 years.*

Just to make a point Divergence, grain stocks are low, not because
more could not be grown, but because of distortion of market forces, above all
subsidies by the EU and US. Many third world countries stopped
producing so much grain, when flooded with cheap imports.

We could produce quite a bit more grain, if it paid to do so.
What you now have however, is that due to rising grain prices,
people are rushing to produce more. Of course that needs fertilisers,
herbicides etc. The price of these is now going through the roof,
due to rising demand and no new phosphate mines able to supply
that demand. To cut it short, growing more food is quite possible,
but at a higher price then the giveaway prices of the last 20 years.

The real problem however relies with ever more babies, wether mothers
want them or not. Its a scandal and the religious have a lot to
answer for, in their seeming race to outbreed each other, never
mind the planet

Dickie “The EPA agencies, established in Australia decades ago, to protect our environment and the health of communities, are an abysmal failure.”

The only reason for that must be the failure of the state governments charged with implementation of that legislation. Since all the states are socialist run, I rest my case.

Vote for labor and you get higher taxes to pay for indolent civil servants, allowed to fill their seats and draw their salaries whilst ignoring their statutory duties through incompetent state parliament administration.

Such a failing does not a constitute companies operating with “exemption to the laws of Australia” but Labor State governments failing to enforce the laws of Australia.

“The big polluters and their allies remain top dogs in this nation, denying us our democratic rights”

I think you are getting a little hysterical Dickie.

Maybe you can show me in which statute is enshrined your “right to clean air and optimal health” actually whilst you are at it, please show me where “optimal health” is defined in statute.

Without the embodiment of commerce through joint stock companies (the real word for “corporations”) the world would have remained limited to small medieval towns and villages, with no one capable of financing the business institutions which we now rely on to generate the wealth which, through taxation, we all benefit from.

I repeat my view, all corporations operate within the laws as they are enforced by the state authorities in whom we, the electorate place our trust (in dickie’s view unwisely)

I suggest you direct your complaints to the “delinquent” party dickie, that being the labor state governments, not the corporations.

Yabby “Its a scandal and the religious have a lot to answer for,”

I agree, those who demand laws against abortion and contraception do neither the prospective parents nor their progeny any favours, they simply slake their sense of self righteousness.

The Church of Rome should use its resources to fund contraceptive education, instead of issuing threats of excommunication to those with the foresight to plan their families.

"The only reason for that must be the failure of the state governments charged with implementation of that legislation. Since all the states are socialist run, I rest my case." (Col Rouge)

Col Rouge. Perhaps you have not been in this country long enough to realise that Australian states have also been governed by the conservatives.

You don't really believe that the dire state of the environment has only just occurred recently and during the "socialist" reign, do you?

"I think you are getting a little hysterical Dickie."

Not I Col Rouge. My claims are supported by concrete evidence - yours are not.

"WA EPA Division 4 - Section 69 (b):

"Minister may make stop orders if the Minister is satisfied that:

"The non-compliance referred to in paragraph (a) has caused, is causing or is about to cause conditions detrimental to the environment or dangerous to human life or health.

Part 1, section 4 of the WA Environmental Protection Act 1986, states:

"This Act binds the Crown.

"4A: "The object of this Act is to protect the environment of the State.

"4A 2: The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

"4 (2): The polluter pays principle - those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement."

"I repeat my view, all corporations operate within the laws as they are enforced by the state authorities in whom we, the electorate place our trust (in dickie’s view unwisely)"

Ah yes....the trustworthy corporations - the innocent bystanders, the self-regulators. I almost forgot, Col Rouge:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/activists-tip-a-bucket-on-big-companies/2007/08/15/1186857593122.html?page=fullpage

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23117745-643,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/wa/kalgoor/200507/s1424462.htm

http://financialrealtime.com/stocks/otc-stock-news/smallcap527501.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-4MH8BRR-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=39ea67875b18b3e4a9c48b69bcb20d86

But I suspect, Col Rouge that the science pertaining to atmospheric pollutants could sadly be well over your head since I doubt you would know the difference between a VOC and a sock. Therefore, you will continue to argue off topic and remain in denial.

Divergence,

Climate change is a natural process occurring regardless of human intervention being a sure sort of further catalyst for. In this case, following up “preserving the nature” logic, not undeveloped BLACK they, but DEVELOPED white US should be exterminated to stop adding to a global disaster-as for humanoids.

Offering different is a mere racist even on merits of a stupid “fighting the global climate change” theory.

Divergence, why "dangerously naive"? I'm quite familiar with Diamond's Collapse and various other similar texts warning of a reliance of technological development. But I'm not *relying* on it, just pointing out that the only path forward that is not going to result in overwhelming amounts of human misery and death is to gradually move away from our current technology usage, towards new technology and new usage patterns that can provide similar quality of life, without the same environmental cost.
Given the enormous amounts of money to made from new, cleaner technologies that are able to sustain high living standards, and the fact that there are no known physical barriers to achieving such technology, I think my confidence that we will achieve success with this path is reasonably well placed. But I'm certainly not going to pretend that it's going to be all smiles and roses: there will be much human misery and preventable death along the way, mostly among the poorest nations, and there will be those that protest every little necessary change to their lifestyles. Almost any other position to me seems dangerously pessimistic and despairing.

P.S. I think we can both safely ignore MichaelK.

Anglo-racist stupidity is a sure pass to ignore a reality, which looks de facto like a clean piece of a toilet paper in a cubicle filled over a head with excrements, not always of a royal origin.

Anyway, a royal stuff stinks anyway. Enjoy.

Dickie “Col Rouge. Perhaps you have not been in this country long enough to realise that Australian states have also been governed by the conservatives.”

I assumed your claims to illegal pollution were pertinent to today. I reflected the fact which, unfortunately, prevails today.

So unless you are claiming that you were speaking in the past tense, I would suggest you are just “blowing it out your ass”.

Now back to the real issue which underlines what you are actually whining about.

Your complaint revolves around the dereliction of duty on the part of public servants, who are, obviously being under-administered by the governing body, being the state parliaments, all of which are presently run by socialists.

This issue is the same as the negligence of the Church of Rome which, instead of exposing, excommunicating and seeking prosecution of pedophile priests, covered up the corruption and thus proved the churches unfitness to claim any right to act in the name of God.

I see no difference between a state government neglecting statutory obligations and a church neglecting its moral obligations.

I have no interest in offering excuses or defenses for those individuals or corporations who break the law or abuse children.

but I reject totally, your assertion that the problem is with the offender when it is clearly with deficiencies in government policing.

Your hissing fit “know the difference between a VOC and a sock.”

Well I know this, if it came to finding a solution to anything, I would at least be addressing the source of the problem.

You would obviously be pissing your efforts out the window in a relentlessly pursuit of the symptoms, not the cause.

Wizofaus “safely ignore MichaelK.”

That is something which I too resolved to do some months ago. His post only display his inadequacies with their debilitating attempts at satire, excruciating grammar and his strangely inadequate representation of retardation.

My dear Col Rouge

It's not difficult to understand your commonplace profanities, generally postulated by the semi-literate when they begin to lose face.

However, the inane sophistry within your argument to defend corporate vandals has thrown me.

For instance, you claimed that:

"I repeat my view, all corporations operate within the laws as they are enforced by the state authorities in whom we, the electorate place our trust (in dickie’s view unwisely)"

Then:

"I have no interest in offering excuses or defenses for those individuals or corporations who break the law or abuse children."

Children aside, are you conceding there are corporations who conduct their operations in an irresponsible manner - pillaging and plundering our fragile environment and beyond?

May I now presume that you have actually perused the links I have placed on OLO?

Professor Shearman is to be congratulated. He is the only author whose writings I have accessed who clearly warns that this nation is ignoring the dire situation of its environment and at its peril.

Estimates of industrial stack emissions in this country, I believe, are drastically underestimated.

How can the National Pollutant Inventory, in all seriousness, officially estimate the emissions of dioxins and furans when the majority of companies are not required to test for them and the few who do, generally monitor and report only once a year.

Companies burning untested, unregulated hazardous waste oil as a fuel, (a federal government initiative) over unsuspecting communities, often operate their kilns with very poor or incomplete combustion. Departments of Environment are aware of this and choose to look the other way, however, so does the company who knowingly far exceeds the recommended international levels of 0.1 nanograms per cubic metre for dioxins and furans.

Australia has ratified the Stockholm Convention to address the hazardous release of persistent organic pollutants (POPS), and to eliminate or mitigate where possible, the release of the heinous dioxins and furans into the atmosphere. Various papers on dioxins and furans have been circulated by the Federal government. To date it has been all talk and no action.

contd.......

Contd......

Australian governments "regulate" by issuing guidelines. Guidelines are unenforceable.

Industry aligned governments frequently fail to include conditions in a licence to pollute. Breaches of the Environmental Protection Act are then rendered unenforceable if they are not included in a licence - or so we are told by senior bureaucrats.

I have witnessed licences belonging to pollutant companies which state "Nil" under the Conditions section. Therefore, it appears that companies are free to pollute without fear of prosecution.

The current out of control, self-regulated pollutant industries and a healthy environment make poor bedfellows. Consequently we can no longer have both.

We citizens must make a choice.

And it appears that Arnie Schwarzenegger is a little more au fait with anthropogenic climate change than our chattering Federal and State governments and their associates.

Are we to continue with our silence whilst our "democratic" leaders and their industry associates procrastinate whilst profiting from the "fruits" of a booming economy (predicted to last for at least a decade) and without regard for the ecological consequences?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/washington/20epa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogi

Ratifying any international treaty means a little for practically addressing environmental issues as a way natura occurs could sustain law (and agreements), not vice verse.

So, is democracy enough for still picking out produce from over a globe while importing own pollution worldwide?

Surely, NO.

Dickie “are you conceding there are corporations who conduct their operations in an irresponsible manner - pillaging and plundering our fragile environment and beyond?”

Corporations, although they are separate legal entities, are operated by people.

Some people commit crimes in their own name. We can presume they commit crimes in the name of corporations too.

People who commit crimes are subject to the law, as it is policed. That applies equally to those who act in the name of corporations.

Criminal legal penalties do attend to directors and officers of companies which break the law.

Richard Pratt, Visiboard , pricefixing.
The CEO of HIH, recently released from prison.
Steve Vizard, debarred from holding a directorship for insider trading.
Individual employees of QANTAS, named by US FTC for price fixing.

The matter remains “policing the law”, which is the duty of the civil servants of the various state environment inspectorates who are supposed to be managed by the state governments.

Address your complaints to the state government before you start to regale us with your pet peeves.

Re “nation is ignoring the dire situation of its environment and at its peril.”

That is an individual opinion (not universally held) and no basis for suggesting the democratic processes of government be curtailed.

As for “Estimates of industrial stack emissions in this country, I believe, are drastically underestimated.”

You have a choice, prove it or take it to the environmental protection agency in the state where such abuses are supposedly occurring.

Until you do, you are, as I said before simply “blowing it out your ass”

“Australian governments "regulate" by issuing guidelines. Guidelines are unenforceable.”

Australian governments have the authority to enact legislation to turn any guideline into statute, which can then be policed and enforced by the government agencies charged with such duties.

“regard for the ecological consequences”

Get enough people to agree with you and you can lobby for change. Until then you are one opinion among the rest of us, with no greater right to be heard than me.

As for “inane sophistry”

Phone someone who cares

I've noted that with the exception of a few useless, ill-willed egocentric posters, authors of a sceptical nature are no longer writing articles on OLO refuting the impact of anthropogenic CO2.

In addition, when one performs research, one finds there is a groundswell of citizens worldwide, objecting to the desecration of this planet's eco systems.

As previously reported, California, representing 17 states in America and supported by "tens of millions" of citizens are taking the EPA to court seeking environmental justice to reduce greenhouse gases from the automobile industry - an industry, coupled with the Bush administration, vigorously protesting, it appears.

I'm not au fait with what our leaders in Australia are doing (if anything) to mitigate CO2 pollution from the motor vehicle industry, however, motor vehicles in Australia continue to emit the largest source of carbon monoxide (2,200,000,000 kgs/pa - 05/06), the largest source of the hazardous benzene and a high second to electricity for oxides of nitrogen and second only to mining for particulate matter.

http://www.npi.gov.au/cgi-bin/npireport.pl?proc=substance;instance=public;year=2006;substance=67;loc_type=national

http://www.npi.gov.au/cgi-bin/npireport.pl?proc=substance;instance=public;year=2006;substance=19;loc_type=national#Summary

Carbon based chemicals, when burnt, convert to CO2.

Whilst many discerning citizens endeavour to reduce their own carbon footprints, I remain convinced that our governments' endeavours are insufficient.

Reform within the governments' environmental agencies is well overdue and despite the spin from governments and senior personnel, pollution is rapidly increasing.

Are we to continue basking in our comfort zones or are there citizens out there, more knowledgeable on the political processes than I, who wll come forth and offer sound solutions for this nation's ecological survival?

Solutions are available. The threat of totalitarianism in seeking a fair go for this country and beyond, is silly.

Democracies have functioned perfectly well from its citizens adhering to legislated edicts by governments - edicts which are legislated for the benefit of all its people - not just those seeking capital for themselves.

Perhaps citizens should encourage and support a national formation of our country's environmental scientists, health professionals and community stakeholders - a coming together of like-minded ethical people who will collectively raise their concerns over our governments' continuing apathy on environmental matters?

Actually Col, merchants of environmental gloom such as Dickie,
can also provide new business opportunities for some of us.

Dickie pointed out that evil dioxins are released when people
are cremated, so we can't allow that. City cemetaries are
overcrowded anyway, so we need another solution.

Perhaps its time that people can choose to be buried out
in nature, with a tree of their choice planted above them,
as their memory to the world, rather then a gravestone.

There are 5 million square metres here, which means lots
of potential very nice burial sites and no groundwater issues.

At a reasonable say 5000$ a pop, this sounds to me like it could
be a win-win situation and helping preserve the environment in
the process!

"There are 5 million square metres here, which means lots
of potential very nice burial sites and no groundwater issues."

No groundwater issues? How quaint Yabby and you a farmer of cloven hooved livestock and all!

But you continue to high-jack threads of important environmental concerns where you also continue to reveal your ignorance on these matters.

Mind you, I thoroughly enjoy a good dust up with Australia's neanderthal hill-billies.

Unfortunately for you though, neanderthal hill-billies are few and far between these days!

Dickie “edicts which are legislated for the benefit of all its people - not just those seeking capital for themselves.”

Actually dickie, you are demanding more consideration for your view than you represent, which is greedy, selfish and what you are complaining about as the action of the “capitalists”.

You are no different to someone who expects to have a free ride, at the expense of those whose jobs and livelihoods rely on doing what is presently legal and accepted by the democratic majority.

I see you conform to the profile of most despots, prepared to give away the democratic freedoms of everyone, provided you get to make the decisions for the rest of us.

Very Stalinistic.

Very typical of the other ratbags who climb buildings and deface them to make their message (eg Sydney Opera House) or put nails into trees to maim lumberjacks, as they go about their legal activity.

If you don’t like the legislation, stand for elections and work your way up to where you can influence it, otherwise, you are just a whining joke.

Yabby “merchants of environmental gloom such as Dickie, can also provide new business opportunities for some of us.”

I am pondering developing some enviro software which will help compilate small business and household carbon footprints. I am also sure the growth market in carbon futures trading is a rich and profitable source for anyone with a speculative flair.

Yabby “we can't allow that. City cemetaries are
overcrowded anyway, so we need another solution.”

With dickie, I would bury him (might even wait 'til he is dead) with his butt stuck out the ground, so other “environmental warriors” can use his recycled cleft as a bicycle rack.

Dickie, you worry me, you really do. Here I go, offering a
market based, environmentaly friendly solution to your concerns
about the evils of cremating corpses and the dioxins released.
You are still not happy! Never mind, the business plan is
sound enough so that other greenies might jump at it.

*with his butt stuck out the ground, so other “environmental warriors” can use his recycled cleft as a bicycle rack.*

ROFL Col:) Actually I did some calculations. At 10 m2 per
corpse, that means room on my place for half a million,
so would certainly take the pressure off Perth's cremation
industry and the evil toxins released by them. Not only
that, but it will also mean half a million trees planted.

Its a whole new green industry and should work wonders for
my super fund at 5000$ a pop. With that kind of money around,
I could easily afford to create a bronze sculpture of that
butt crack,so as to remind me of how I came up with such a
great business plan :)

This recent survey to investigate whether companies are addressing the issue of CO2, reveals that 98 percent of those companies, turning over $150 to $350 million, "had not implemented a strategic response to address climate change risks":

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23132031-5008620,00.html

Clearly, after two decades of debate on anthropogenic CO2, corporate Australia and government regulators remain impervious to reasoning.

Since they claim to operate under a mask of sanity, can we community members also adopt the same reasoning and make life simpler for ourselves by dumping our hazardous waste and trashing the environment to save ourselves a few bucks?

Mind you, we would need to do this in a covert fashion since citizens are expediently prosecuted for polluting the environment - that's the democratic process of course!

You have got to be Kidding! Have you not the capacity to realize that a commitee of educated idiots is not the answer. Reveiw the Histories of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia before you put an Authoritarian Regime on your wish list. You will live to regret it! TICK

Global Warming is a joke and will be proven as such within a decade if not sooner. Earth's temperature is determined by solar output, end of story. Recent, record low sunspot activity indicates that global cooling is more likely a near term concern than warming.

Ice core records indicate that over the last few hundreds of thousands of years, rises in CO2 FOLLOWED rises in temperature, NOT the other way around.

It is not a surprise that GW fundamentalists are arguing for a dictatorship of scientists since the environmental movement is where much of the totalitarian left scattered when their previous god, communism, fell into the ashbin of history.

Welcome Tick and VRWC. I note this is your first attempt at "debating" matters of interest on this forum.

May I advise that the most respected posters on OLO who differ in the opinions of others, generally provide a link to support their argument. I regret that neither of you have seen fit to do this.

In addition, I care not to debate whether the weather is hot or cold!

My contribution to this thread is about rescuing our highly contaminated eco systems from a government regulatory regime which is responsible for the dire state of Australia's environment and beyond. These agencies ARE the dictators.

The Environmental Protection Acts have been operating in Australia for decades. These laws are statute - enacted through legislation. The contents of these Acts are excellent.

The Acts are breached, manipulated, ignored and exploited daily by government agencies established to "protect" the environment.

Is this the democratic process you allude to?

Rest assured community and individual appeals, complete with damning evidence (including FOIs) and submitted formally to Ministers, MPs, the Appeals Convenor, the Ombudsman, the Department of Environment, the Environmental Protection Authority and local government are a waste of time. All these agencies have been captured by industry polluters.

Recent Ministers for the Environment have been bankers, lawyers and industrial property developers. Their determinations on environmental appeals are final. Heh hem!

The environmental, man-made disasters occurring in Australia and "regulated" by government agencies, are testament to my claims.

The time in dealing with environmental problems should be before these disasters happen.

I recall Mr Howard formed a carbon trading task force, inviting some of the planet's largest polluters to be part of the committee. Experts trained in environmental toxicology were not invited to be part of that committee.

What is wrong with inviting Australia's most eminent environmental toxicologists and health experts to form an independent task force to ensure that the Environmental Protection Act is enacted and enforced?

Failure to change the "Nazi" style status quo will see more desecration to our already seriously threatened eco systems and irreparable damage to this fragile environment.

*Welcome Tick and VRWC. I note this is your first attempt at "debating" matters of interest on this forum.*

Just to inform you, our local "prophet of gloom" has
nearly worn out her google button, but I doubt if too
many read the squillions of search links. But it
keeps her off the streets :)

Hey, say what you think and enjoy. You will also
learn to tolerate slightly eccentric types such
as Dickie :)

The bias and false premise of the article can be seen in the words 'the USA (has)unbridled individual liberty (which) overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens'

That statement is obviously wrong and the writer must surely be aware of the fact.

There are many and various 'bridles' on an individuals liberty in the USA as there are in other democracies.

File under, "You just can't make this stuff up."

"Hey, say what you think and enjoy. You will also
learn to tolerate slightly eccentric types such
as Dickie:)"

Too true Yabby. They may also realise that you are incapable of remaining on topic. You and Col Rouge make such a charming couple, babbling and spluttering on all matters irrelevant to this thread.

Two little men together. Two little foul-mouthed,vulgar tossers who couldn't make it in the Old Dart and slipped past Australia's Immigration to abuse and exploit native Australians.

Yabby bragging about his live exports on the death ships, his "fail-proof" investments and expert opinion on Catholics to cockroaches and Col Rouge the “blowing it out your ass” charmer, gloating over his own genitalia.

What a disgrace you both are to National Forum, contaminating OLO with your profanities and with an arrogance befitting the moral pygmies you are, replete with bloated egos.

But what can the myriad of posters, who have crossed paths with these tossers, expect?

Though I understood that the "Motherland" had ceased granting cheap passage to its trash to rid them to the colonies.

Isn't it a shame that these "types" don't just move to Iran or Saudi Arabia where these are not pressing concerns? If course, the concerns they will be faced with may be tougher than their preaching to us.

Dikcie “My contribution to this thread is about rescuing our highly contaminated eco systems from a government regulatory regime which is responsible for the dire state of Australia's environment”

How

1 Challenge the authority of the elected government in the courts or

2 Foment revolution against the elected government? or

3 Just talk it up on OLO and hope the wind catches it?

I figure the third.

The first one would mean you were exposed to public scrutiny.

The second would leave you exposed to prosecution for sedition and I don’t think you have the bottle for that.

So by default we are left with 3; the armchair warrior option.

I think government regulation should be there to adjudicate not dictate in matters of public policy.

I prefer smaller government, leaving the resources and right of choice with the people the government is there to represent.

I have never ever been for no government or the violent overthrow of the democratic system which attempts, in am imperfect world, to “govern for us”.

What you see as “rescuing our highly contaminated eco systems from a government regulatory regime” would be, if you were to do more than just mouth words, is sedition.

Trust the system, imperfect as it is, get yourself elected to where you can influence legislation and change the system we have.

All you are suggesting through your “rescuing . . . from government” will end in disaster; firstly and foremost for yourself.

“contaminating OLO with your profanities and with an arrogance . . blah ”

So I guess you are dissenting to my view?

Good job one of us still supports freedom of speech!

“Though I understood that the "Motherland" had ceased granting cheap passage to its trash to rid them to the colonies.”

Australia ceased to be a colony in 1901. I paid for my airfare in1983, after proving I had skills in demand, proper understanding of English and monetary resources so as not to be a drain on the Australia, before I arrived.

What accident of fate resulted in you being here?

Sue64 what types?

Thank you Yabbie and Dickie for the welcome. My appologies to Dickie for not posting a link, I have never responded to an article before and it was not my intention to break protocal, and do not think there is a link that covers my objection to the ridiculous content of said article. But since Dickies posting has some good points I will make a short attempt to relate my views. I do believe that we are experiencing some level of climate change. But as for the delivery of that message I have no regard. 1) Al Gore would not know the difference between a test tube and a bunson burner and should not speak about things he dos not know. 2) I have not heard anything from this "concensous" of scientists that is not over hyped or sensationalized. 3) There is also a wide scientific community that is dubious of the science that the "consencous" scientists have put forth. 4) The UN (which is a worthless organization) has attempted to put out the Kyoto accord and more recently something from Bali last fall (incedently it is the authoritarian regeme that our author wants) that really contained no solutions, but instead was aimed at the US economy and left virtually un addressed the economies of China and India which both produce enormous amounts of polution.5) When they address the problem and put forth equal enforcement for all countries ( which the UN is powerless to enforce)then I will listen. 6) When I hear from scientists discuss this issue with represenatives from both sides the have genuinly intelligent science, then I will listen. TICK

Well what people like Dickie do, is simply blame those "evil
corporations", when they are responding to consumer needs and
wants, which is what drives the market.

Consumers are free to install solar hot water systems rather
then electric, most don't. Consumers are free to buy smaller,
more efficient cars, I notice that V8 sales are still
healthy. Consumers are free to cancel that holiday trip
overseas, clearly they are not, or Qantas, Emirates etc,
would not be buying more and more new aircraft.

Just to wave the big finger at those "evil corporations"
is rather simplistic and lacking in undersanding.

As to Kyoto, in its present form, we could simply close
down our aluminium smelters, shift them all to China
or India and re employ the people who lose their jobs
elsewhere. Our compliance figures would improve dramatically,
it would shut up the squalking left as the figures would
look so much better, but in real terms nothing would really
be achieved, apart from shooting ourselves in the proverbial
foot. Never mind, rational arguments don't seem to
matter so much in this debate...

“Perhaps citizens should encourage and support a national formation of our country's environmental scientists, health professionals and community stakeholders - a coming together of like-minded ethical people who will collectively raise their concerns over our governments' continuing apathy on environmental matters?
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 2 February 2008 “ -“LIKE-MINDED ETHICAL PEOPLE” What a joke!

“There are 5 million square metres here, which means lots
of potential very nice burial sites and no groundwater issues.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 2 February 2008” Actually, Australia is a “lead” of the world biggest potable ocean. So, burial sites might cause a problem

“Global Warming is a joke and will be proven as such within a decade if not sooner.
Posted by VRWC, Friday, 8 February 2008” – global warming is a reality of challenging climate which is a natural pattern occurring upon all the Earth’s history.

“Isn't it a shame that these "types" don't just move to Iran or Saudi Arabia where these are not pressing concerns? If course, the concerns they will be faced with may be tougher than their preaching to us.
Posted by Sue64, Saturday, 9 February 2008” No worries, problems exist wherever.

“Australia ceased to be a colony in 1901. I paid for my airfare in1983, after proving I had skills in demand, proper understanding of English and monetary resources so as not to be a drain on the Australia, before I arrived.

What accident of fate resulted in you being here?
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 9 February 2008 Perhaps, the only differentiation is in biological backgrounds between properly understanding English: lured to Australia having got predictably different outcomes in a land of racists.

Tick. Thank you for your contribution and I agree that the current inequitable, global situation on the matter of CO2 requires an urgent solution.

Nevertheless, I adhere to the philosophy that "charity begins at home" and I continue to "think globally and act locally."

The status quo on environmental matters has "gifted" Australia with the ignominious title of the largest polluters per capita on the planet.

The author when asking: "Climate change, is democracy enough" is not being authoritarian but simply seeking our input into how we can change the status quo.

Headlines in the Australian today gave a small glimpse into how the status quo functions and of the recklessness and total disregard the "regulators" and corporations have for the environment and Australian communities. These common occurrences, which continue to expand and impact on communities, are simply described as collateral damage in an irrational quest for economic growth.

I believe it was also aired on tonight's ABC News.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23183753-601,00.html

"Trust the system, imperfect as it is, get yourself elected to where you can influence legislation and change the system we have." (Col Rouge)

And here we have Mr Naive (alias Col Rouge) et al, spruiking more gibberish and yet remaining ignorant on how to differentiate between a VOC and a sock.

Mr Naive. Included in my family are Liberal politicians. Seemingly you are unaware that there is no room for mavericks in party politics these days. Mavericks who dissent on party politics are simply left out of the next pre-selection process.

"The first one would mean you were exposed to public scrutiny."

Indeed I am exposed to public scrutiny and encouraged by communities to continue being exposed. So what dribble are you now alluding to?

"I have never ever been for no government or the violent overthrow of the democratic system...."

"The second would leave you exposed to prosecution for sedition"

"Sedition?" "Violent overthrow?"

Jabberwocky Mr Naive but spoken like a true raving lunatic!

It is not the ineqaulity that has me stirred up. It is some parts of the world scientific community and Al Gore who in declaring the debate "closed" that have me worked up. I noticed you did not address my comment about there being other scientists who have concluded differantly looking at the same science. Nor did you refer to my observation that there was climate change in the middle ages that had scandinavian immagrants farming Iceland. And you must have missed my comment that China and India are the biggest polluters and no one calls them to prudence in their power production. You see Dickie, you are sadly one of the ones who are defrauded in all this. Because it is fraud perpetrated on the whole world by hypocrates in the first order. TICK

Anyone who thinks that the US government's taking over (nationalizing) space exploration in the 50s by NASA (from GE and IBM) was a good thing should look up at the moon some night and look at the lights of all the colonies there, or pay to take a trip to an orbital casino on one of Pan Am's fully reusable space planes. Putting care of the environment into the hands of an irresponsible government like that of the Soviet Union (Aral Sea, anyone?) or 'democratic' Czechoslovakia or Rumania is just a great way to end up living in a sewer.

Tick

Thanks for the attack and I note your comprehension of the written word is poor.

I advised earlier that I care not "whether the weather is hot or cold." This is not a thread to debate whether climate change is natural or anthropogenic. The undeniable fact is Tick, climate change is occurring and is drastically affecting the lives of humans.

Since you are a new kid on the block I advise that the debate between believers and deniers on climate change has been done to death. If you want to debate it, bugger off and start a thread or find one that is relevant.

This thread has been raised by the Professor in an endeavour to find solutions for humans to manage climate change. Get it?

Climate change and pollution affects our eco systems. My concern is with man's contribution to the desecration of those eco systems - systems indispensable for human survival.

They include (and not limited to) man's decision to dump dioxins into the Sydney Harbour, pollute marine life on a global scale with heavy metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons.

Uncontrolled emissions of hydrocarbons from industrial stacks - volatile organic compounds (a couple of hundred of them), carbon monoxide, PCBs and PCDDs, (where the majority convert to CO2 when burnt), ocean "dead zones" etc.

Let's include the reckless contamination of a whole town with lead in Australia, the chemical fires caused through negligence, the disastrous underground toxic plumes invading or heading towards our waterways, soil salinity etc.

"You see Dickie, you are sadly one of the ones who are defrauded in all this. Because it is fraud perpetrated on the whole world by hypocrates in the first order."

What the......!? Tick, purchase a text book titled: "Environmental Toxicology" by John H Duffus. It's an old addition but easy reading for dummies.

This could prevent you from making a goose of yourself.

You appear to have adopted the attitude: "If China and India can pollute, so can we."

That's your perogative Tick - avoiding prosecution here is easy.

Your choice - your conscience? - your future - our future!

Dickie,

"I advised earlier that I care not "whether the weather is hot or cold." This is not a thread to debate whether climate change is natural or anthropogenic. The undeniable fact is Tick, climate change is occurring and is drastically affecting the lives of humans"

The fact that there is debate over whether or not climate change anthropogenic, and to go further the degree that it is, is exactly the reason why democracy must prevail.

We don't have all the answers now. There is the single fact right now. And it is why we cannot bypass democracy.

You've clearly bought into the dogma - whether you're proven to be right or not is in the hands of the future. But at this stage, there is still plenty of debate. Any group that tries to bypass democracy based on their beliefs (irrespective of what those beliefs are) would turn this country from a democracy into a theocracy and in this case, climate change would be the religion of choice.

If more than 50% of the public buys into it and our government acts according to the wishes of the people then fine: we're collectively responsible for our actions. However, whether that's the case or not, democracy must prevail.

Dickie; I was not attacking you. I just want you, and everyone else, to see how rediculous this all is. You will remember I told you about the coming deep freeze in the seventies. This is the same disengenuous fraud now as then. They are attempting to make us all feel as though only they can save us. Some in these postings have even suggested that it is over population, It is all the same fraud. That humanity is the culprite for the worlds ills. If you have industries polluting Austrailia then confront them and your government until they do somthing about it. That is what we have done in America. I'm not saying it is perfect yet but we have made progress. We should hold irresponsable industry accoutable for their actions.We should not have to pay the price for their incompetance. We should encourage industry to be inovative in the ways they handle these problems. I like our modern world. I like my freedom. I like breathing clean air. I like walking in the mountains. I like sparkling lakes with jumping trout. What I don't like is being lied to by polititians who are trying sell us a bill of goods in a deal that only they win. An authotitarian world Government? The price is far to high. TICK

TICK, DICK-ie - is it the same person under a nick partitioned?

Absolutely similar posts of contexts complementing each other mutually.

Dickie “"Trust the system, imperfect as it is, get yourself elected to where you can influence legislation and change the system we have." (Col Rouge)

And here we have Mr Naive (alias Col Rouge) et al, spruiking more gibberish and yet remaining ignorant on how to differentiate between a VOC and a sock.”

I am an accountant by profession. I have no need or interest in knowing the difference between a voc and a sock.

Because I do not pretend to understand (or care for) what you supposedly understand does not imply I am naïve. It might im[ply that I am disinterested and put my faith in the system of government which, despite its imperfections, is better than any of your radical suggestions.

“Included in my family are Liberal politicians.” So, who cares.

“Jabberwocky Mr Naive but spoken like a true raving lunatic!”

Cast dispersions on me.

It still does not alter the fact that you are an armchair warrior, incapable of following up through either possible legal channels or violent revolution.

Somehow, I feel more able to disprove an accusation of naivety than you could disprove an accusation of impotency.

BN “If more than 50% of the public buys into it and our government acts according to the wishes of the people then fine: we're collectively responsible for our actions. However, whether that's the case or not, democracy must prevail.”

Of course.

“An authotitarian world Government? The price is far to high.” TICK

Agree

The cold war saw the overthrow of the nearest thing to such “An authoritarian world government” and it failed because of the greater natural capacity, merit and fortitude of the democracies and the inherent corruption of all “authoritarian governmental authorities”.

"It still does not alter the fact that you are an armchair warrior, incapable of following up through either possible legal channels or violent revolution."

So now you advocate "violent revolution" eh Mr Naive?

"I am an accountant by profession."

Oh wonderful - fantastic Mr Naive. Shall we present you with a five star Hoppy badge?

By the way, when typing here, I keep both hands on the keyboard. May I suggest you consider doing the same?

Or better still, I and a few other posters can offer you a one way air ticket to the Old Dart.

So off you go now. Pack your port, put on your jack boots and don't forget the rottweiller, little man.

Dickie “"I am an accountant by profession."

Oh wonderful – fantastic”

Pleased you agree with me. It is a very good profession to belong to. It has allowed me to work and contribute to improving business processes on three continents and be handsomely paid for such. As a career option I would recommend it to anyone who has the stamina to undergo the study and training required.

“So now you advocate "violent revolution"”

I do not see how you could make such interpretation from what I said but your reasoning and cognitive skills seem limited anyway, this might be simply another manifestation of that.

“put on your jack boots and don't forget the rottweiller, little man.”

An allusion to fascism (jackboots) and I am the one defending democratic representation, you are the one opposing my view.

I think you are projecting your political deficiencies, not identifying mine.

and previously you did say “By the way, when typing here, I keep both hands on the keyboard. May I suggest you consider doing the same?”

Is that one hand holding you up high enough to see the keyboard and the other punching one key at a time?

Before making fatuous asides about me you check out how well your fingers are working and spelling.

"Rottweiler" has one, not 2. letter “L”.

“Or better still, I and a few other posters can offer you a one way air ticket to the Old Dart.”

First class? I can always buy a ticket back but happy to spend your money, after all you would only squander it on a bigger armchair (with steps to climb up and into it) from which to project your phantom armies or perhaps you could have a windmill constructed to do battle with.

Finally “little man”, no we had already resolved who was anatomically inadequate, with a logon subliminally reflecting same, “dickie”.

Ahhh........My dear Col Rouge (Mr Naive)

I do apologise for my spelling error in "Rottweiller." And who would know more about savage German guard dogs than you eh? They certainly make a little man look tough, wouldn't you agree?

And perhaps you need a lesson in anatomy. You see Mr Naive, your innuendo about the name "Dickie" has no biological vulgar reference to girls. But there you go again - shooting your mouth off.

So you bang on about yourself continuously, pumping yourself up, like little men do:

"Pleased you agree with me. It is a very good profession to belong to. It has allowed me to work and contribute to improving business processes on three continents and be handsomely paid for such. As a career option I would recommend it to anyone who has the stamina to undergo the study and training required. "

"Three continents" Golly gosh, Mr Naive. How on earth do you fit everything in?

And you, so frantically busy posting all over the country-side, including the Age newspaper, where you continue to bombard dissenting posters with all sorts of arrogant, insulting rubbish.

And still you remain ignorant on VOCs so why do you high-jack environmental threads of which you know zilch and are not interested? Why do you constantly make a goose of yourself?

Mmmmmm....must be short on clients I would say - yeah that's it - a desperate little man, hoping to lure some poor unsuspecting customer on-line.

MichaelK; Sorry, but Dickie and I are two differant people.

Dickie; It is a sad thing that your defensive and angry replys are an indication of (or maybe it is just you) the indefensable position you attempt to defend. I can assure you that an authoritaian government would most assuredly put a halt to this kind of discussion. I can further assure you that you would do very poorly in that system, except as perhaps some role in the useful idiot department. All atempts to reason with you and dialog in an intellegent manner are a waste of time and energy. I feel sorry for you and those like you who have a position but not the intelectual capacity to defend it. Common sense is an alian concept, anger and vitriol are your capacity and see no virtue in any other. You speake of jack boots and such in a cavalier way and you do not see the historical context of the real degenerate mind behind such politics and policies. You are in short, a fool, and worse a complicite fool with out the capacity to see the lie. Your attempted Friend, TICK

Dickie,

Thanks so much for the fine welcome a few days back. So my word was not sufficient? You need links to prove my veracity? Fair enough. I think the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a complete fraud, cooked up by the left primarily to gain political power and stop economic progress. That this comes at the expense of billions of people who are poor primarily because they are denied access to cheap, fossil fuel based electricity seems to trouble them not a bit.

Here's a link to a 38 part series in Canada's National Post. They highlight the views of real scientists who believe that the prevailing wisdom on GW is either complete rubbish, or are at least highly skeptical;

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx

So you know that these good folks are not cranks in the employ of Exxon, I give you the CV of one as a starter;

Dr. Nigel Weiss, professor emeritus of mathematical astrophysics in the University of Cambridge, discovered the process of "flux expulsion" by which a conducting fluid undergoing rotating motion acts to expel the magnetic flux from the region of motion, a process now known to occur in the photosphere of the sun and other stars. He is also distinguished for his work on the theory of convection, and for precise numerical experiments on the behaviour of complicated non-linear differential equations. Dr. Weiss is a recipient of a Royal Society Citation, he is a past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a past Chairman of Cambridge's School of Physical Sciences. He was educated at Clare College, University of Cambridge.

Take your time, read a few at your leisure, then tell me that there is no debate.

The angry words spoken between some of the posters here are very disappointing, and I don't really know why I return to this topic every now and again. I wonder whether the words I have to say are just a rehash of what has been said before. The original article, if I remember correctly, was posing the question as to whether our liberal democratic society was sophisticated enough to handle the response to climate change as recommended by Al Gore et al, or whether a command society would manage it better. It brings to mind a friend who told me that the LA Lakers had spent 10 years already trying to find a new site for their stadium, but the democratic dithering had stopped any progress thus far.

I'm quite confident that the fears presented by the climate change scientists are well founded, since there does seem to be plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis. That is certainly not to say that there is no chance of their being wrong. This is hardly an exact science, and doubters should be heard and considered.

But the balance of evidence does appear to indicate that climate change is accelerating. It does seem reasonably self evident to me that by converting so much of the earth into nasties that float around in the atmosphere thus affecting the planet's "blanket" and the effect of the sun on this earth could very easily affect the climate in which we live.

If this is likely to have a deleterious effect on ocean levels, with its rather disastrous knock-on effect to people living in low lying areas; if this is likely to affect climate patterns which will require large scale migration of people around the world, and the conflict likely to eventuate from that, surely, as a matter of risk management, we must embrace the warnings of climate change until they are overcome or proved to be false.

I am sure this point of view would have been canvassed in this subject before, but has been submerged in the insults from a couple of unfortunate antagonists.

"I think the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a complete fraud, cooked up by the left primarily to gain political power and stop economic progress."

Thank you for your interesting post VWRC and I am indeed happy to debate with someone who takes the effort to perform some research on the topic at hand.

However, I did not access this thread to debate climate change and you will note that my issue has been entirely on our eco-systems and industrial pollution, where my research has been more extensive including being a member of a government initiated advisory committee reporting on the impacts of industrial pollution on community and environmental health.

However, VWRC, I hold the view that if species are being pushed into extinction because of human interference; if this country has thousands of contaminated sites requiring remediation; if whales are washing up with their stomachs packed with plastic bags; if birds are dying by the thousands around the planet; if warmer oceans are responsible for the increase in hurricanes; if whole towns are being contaminated by hazardous chemicals and hundreds of thousands of humans are dying each year from air pollution, then it is obligatory that humans should try to reverse the process.

The strategy for the above is the same for mitigating the impacts of climate change.

Reduce the emissions of fossil fuels.

Therefore, I trust we can agree to disagree.

Thank you also for the links on the "Deniers" and I like you, hold Professor Weiss in high esteem. His credentials are certainly impressive and I have in interest in his papers.

Unfortunately, VWRC, the author of the "Deniers" series (Lawrence Solomon) has been exposed as less than credible and has seriously demeaned ethical journalism. He has even been described as a "Bush stooge!" Worse, he has incurred the wrath of Professor Weiss and this is one reason why I often endeavour to contact scientists or academics for confirmation on media reports:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007020201

Dickie “And who would know more about savage German guard dogs than you eh?”

You introduced “rottweilers” originally. All I am doing is pointing out the error in your post. For myself, I choose to have no pets.

“"Dickie" has no biological vulgar reference to girls”

So you are female!

Then calling yourself “dickie” must simply be a matter of penis envy.

“How on earth do you fit everything in”

I work hard and with effect.

“And still you remain ignorant on VOCs so why do you high-jack environmental threads of which you know zilch”

This thread has a title “Climate change, is democracy enough?”

I consider any “environmental issues” subordinate to the democratic processes which enshrine our social systems.

Whilst you seem prepared to dispense with our democratic processes and the rule of law, I am not. Because, my unscientific background at least has vision which can see beyond the end of my nose.

The “political expediency” of surrendering the decision making processes to a bunch of unelected scientists, driven by massive ego and a desire to swallow their fill from the public trough, will only reduce the quality of life to the point of mere existence for the vast majority of Australians.

Myself and others who have posted recently stated the democratic processes which protect you are the same as the one which protect me. I am not surrendering my democratic rights to you or any other wannabe despot, regardless of what “scientific credentials” they may claim or even if they know what VOC is.

Btw according to wikipedia

VOC: “Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie”

Dutch east India company (Indonesia & Co)

Or did you mean VOC “Volatile organic compounds”

I do recognise that as organic compounds, they have some carbon component (distinct from “inorganic”).

I guess you breaking wind would produce “VOC”. Should I conclude “VOC” has the significance of a fart.

For a wannabe scientist, you have fallen into the unscientific practice of “ambiguous definition”,

One now is suspicious to the veracity of both your scientific credentials and practice.

VRWC; HarryG; ColRouge; It is obviuos that Dickie is just an antagonist and has not the slightest interest in being a viable part of the discussion. She has bolted herself to her soap box and anchored it in concrete, from where she can belittle the rest of us. It is a shame because she is obiously an intellegent (though bitter) person.
VRWC, That is an interesting link you provided, it actually has some stuff that i may be able to use in a research paper i am doing on the media reporting on climate change. And the sunspot conditions are an interseting scientific theory. I have heard it discussed, and confess that i would like to hear more.
HarryG; You are absolutly right about Al Gore! Just filter the rest of it through that and you'll be OK. You are also right that there are some scientists that have made good observations on the current conditions of things. But what troubles me is that they are making those observations of a phenomena and relying on that to form their hypothisis on. But in their defense it would be a gigantic task to recreate some neutral experiment to test it to find out if they are manmade or a naturaly occuring cycle.
ColRouge; I realy like you VOC joke! Good Stuff. And, Of course you are absolutly right, If the left wing nut jobs take over we are all in very big trouble. Thank you for reminding us of that.
Thanks for letting me be a part of your discussion. TICK

It appears that "deniers" are intent on taking desperate measures to marginalise any opposition by accusing me of not "being part of a viable discussion" therefore, I again submit an exerpt from the experts - experts and excerpts which continue not to be acknowledged or debated by the God botherers, the Howard and Bush blood-hounds, the "Me" generation or the Advocates for Avarice:

(1) "The new study by Prof Michael Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxfordshire, and Claus Fröhlich of the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, overturns claims by climate sceptics who say that the planet's climate has long fluctuated and that current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not greenhouse gas emissions.

"This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the sun responsible for present global warming," Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, told the journal Nature.

'A spokesman for the Royal Society said: "This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change.

"They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml

And so finally I bid you "adios" my deluded fossil fuel devotees. You remain not left, not right but backward.

And this debate too, remains backward and futile.

Slander, sneer and shoot the messengers in your naivety, for you, my friends, know not what you do.

Dickie “You remain not left, not right but backward. And this debate too, remains backward and futile.”

It is my democratic right to remain “backward”.

Especially when dickies supposed "forward looking" alternative to be subjegated to the dictates of scientific pseudo-experts and wannabe despots.

Actually I think a lot of folk must be somewhat retarded for placing their faith in any government at all; I prefer to make my own mistakes rather than being taxed so government can make them for me.

Bye bye dickie, you are lost and rest assured, will soon be forgotten.

On a more constructive note, I am personally sure the influence of mans existence on the planet is real and irrefutable.

However, I believe the solution is not to be found in the sideshow greenhouse gases or "socialism by stealth" in the form of carbon taxes.

If the world wants to “get real” about the underlying issue to sustainability and quality of life, across all the dimensions of the human experience which that embraces, it will resolve to work on reducing the number of humans populating the planet. That will produce the most significant contributory benefits to deforestation, carbon emissions, climate change, over fishing and a hundred other blights which are the result of the human "footprint".

To my “unscientific” (but I think, rational) mind, the issue is an absolute no-brainer.

Fix human population numbers and the rest of the environmental duckies fall into line.

It would be better to be dead than have some trumped up bureaucracy of the brotherhood,manipulating every detail in our lives.
The NSW RTA is a case in point.

TICK: “I can assure you that an authoritaian government would most assuredly put a halt to this kind of discussion.”

Barking dog doesn’t bite.

I agree with Winston Churchill and with miner (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6878#103643).

Dictatorships can often get things right and very often democracy gets it disastrously wrong, however the reverse is far more often the case as dictatorships most often rule in the interests of a small selfish privileged minority against the best interests of the majority of society. This is certainly true of the Chinese government, notwithstanding some of that government's policies I find myself strongly in agreement with such as its decision to ban shopping bags refered to in the article and its 'one child' policy.

I believe we came very close to becoming an outright dictatorship in the Howard years with that Government's corrupt abuse of its incumbency and a lying news-media to cover up much of its disgraceful conduct for more than 11 long years (axing of the Commonwealth dental program, the Iraq war, AWB, sell-off of assets, "Work Choices", record high immigration, the 1998 maritime dispute, mismanagement of defence equipment procurement contracts etc, etc). The vote by as few as 1 in 30 Australians (i.e. just over 3%) at the last election made the difference between some meaningful democratic content having been put back into our political system, as is now the case, and our becoming, to all intents and purposes, a dictatorship.

If as few as only 3% had voted the other way, Howard would today be on the verge of completing his project to render ineffective our most important institutions of democracy as has been described in "Silencing Dissent" (2007) by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison (RRP AU$24.95). With a bit more tampering with the electoral roles, and the odd engineered Tampa incident or terrorist scare, it is frightening to contemplate how much longer they could have held on to power and the consequent further harm they could have inflicted upon our society and our environment.

I believe our best chance of pulling through the looming environmental crisis still lies with democracy and an electorate engaged in the decision-making processes through such means as citizens initiated referenda.

James Sinnamon
Independent candidate for Lord Mayor of Brisbane
http://canodobetter.org/SweepOutCityHall