2003-4 wheat exports were a record 17.8 million tonnes.
Last year if my memory serves me correctly was 8 million tonnes, due to the drought which still exists in a large part of inland Australia.

The whole point of the argument is that if we don't do something fairly drastic about reducing our carbon footprint now, then the longer we wait, the more pain we will suffer, and I don't mean maybe.

We are currently living in a fool's paradise.

David

Why is it that true believers like Q & A berate skeptics for confusing 'weather' and 'climate', yet fail to berate their fellow travelers who constantly talk about the weather as if it was evidence for global warming?

Q&A, you may remember our previous discussion re .... one arrogant Dr. Pierre who prefers the pulpit to proper debate on the warmers website RealClimate. Well you may be interested in the fact that I recently volunteered out of curiosity some thoughts there on cloud cover over Antarctica and cloud forcing as a possible explanation. I need to report that, not unexpectedly, all efforts to raise a few polite questions on the RealClimate website have been savagely deleted without explanation.

Further, these warmers are not just looking foolish but are becoming desperate and no doubt the debate will become increasingly dirty. Take this economist yesterday.

Garnaut is an economist/banker who recognises that the control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. e.g. The case of ENRON is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating with a big bang display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. By the size of it this was no small hope because these rights were likely to amount to over a trillion dollars with commissions running into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities and it is no accident that AlGorithms himself is associated with such activities. No wonder AlGorithms too prefers the pulpit to proper debate.

In Australia the possibilities for corruption are immense, however there are numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed a weak media and propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view that they are carbon sinners, that they are in fact displaying intelligence and virtue.

But, with all this at stake, it is not surprising to see that jokers like Garnaut might be creating a sense of urgency, provoked by the possibility that warming has ceased for ten years. i.e. The need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed.

Well David, we may be living in a fools paradise as you put it, but I for one don't want to loose my way of life. The solution lays with finding how to deal with the omissions as much as it does to reduce them.

I think carbon trading may well be the solution however I don't know if we can plant enough trees to deal with the carbon we omit, or will omit in the future. Bamboo on the other hand exhaubs six times the carbon that trees do so maybe there is something here.

Either way to suggest that we can cut our emissions by 60% is just ridiculous never mind by 90%. 'Remember, it takes more energy to manufacture a solar pannel than the panel it's self can produce in it"s life time'. So I doubt this is the answer.

We must find a way of dealing with emissions rather than just reducing them. Sure we must try to reduce as well however China and India are going to continue their phenomenal growth rates due to their desire to become 'westernised' as it has been described.

It is impossible to reduce omissions by 60% while fueling this level of demand.

*The whole point of the argument is that if we don't do something fairly drastic about reducing our carbon footprint now, then the longer we wait, the more pain we will suffer, and I don't mean maybe.*

The fact remains that if all Australians were wiped out tomorrow,
CO2 levels globally would hardly change, as we 20 million simply
don't matter, when looking at the bigger picture.

So we'll have plenty of feelgood exercises, but if they have
real impact, is another question. Without real impact, why bother?

The world population keeps increasing at about 80 million a year,
so us Aussies would be replaced by 90 days of human breeding.

Until we get serious about this question and start to provide all
women on the planet with family planning and abortion services,
so that they can choose the size of their families, we are pissing
in the breeze so to speak.

Yabby
Hilarious, Why Am I not surprised- Your membership to the Old boys National Club keeps shining through ;)
Just the women Ah? Why not provide the people - all people and that would include the men as well. After all it’s got to be a lot less expensive for men to be given a small injection than pay for abortions. Of course you do realize I am stepping out of my comfort zone here however it just so happens I agree with your comments one hundred percent.

Its time we addressed the birth control world wide.
Well past time.