Ah ha, sonofeire,

Coming from the horses mouth in America, which consumes something like quarter of the world's resources, we are told not to worry, there's plenty of oil left in the ground if only environmentalists hadn't curtailed its development. Hmmmm.... a bit rich.

I could swallow your argument that dramatic climate changes have happened before therefore we, like the dinosaurs, just have to wait and see our fate.

Trouble is that's only one argument out of the denialists lexicon of arguments.

Look, I've heard everything from it isn't happening, to so what if it is to its a natural phenomenon to the real problem is population stupid let us get on with our rampant consumption without all those Asian hordes gobbling up the resources we are squandering.

Fortunately the majority of folk around, seeing that climate change no longer threatens some distant 'future generations' but this very generation (i.e. us) have their eyes open and at least want to respond in ways that lessen the threat. Many find this a difficult challenge because we are not only hooked by habit, all of our institutions and infrastructure goad us into a life of rampant consumption. But still, they are courageous enough to face the facts.

Whenever there is significant social change some folks don't like it. They get bitter and twisted and develop all sorts of conspiracy theories and hatreds. This is a natural response to social change. I remember well the bitterness and social division that surrounded the gender debates that eventually liberated women from the worst of domestic violence and servitude. I have read about how bitter and twisted some folks got when slavery was abolished.

But at the end of the day it all settles down. And we wonder what all the fuss was about. And we look back with wonder at the ridiculous things society did only half a century before.

So cheer up folks, I am looking forward to the new low-carbon society. There will be many more gains than losses.

Sonofeire

I have not seen the television documentary you mention so this statement needs clarifying;

“in the known geological record of human history, world-wide average temperatures have varied by as much as 27 degrees.”

This may seem pedantic but so many comments in the media and blogosphere get distorted by misrepresentation.
What is your (or Discovery Channel’s) definition of “world-wide average temperatures”? Is it the same as Global Mean and is it differentiated between regions (NH, SH, land mass, oceans, etc)?

My understanding of the Holocene era is that temperature anomalies did not differ “by as much as 27 degrees.” And are you talking Celsius (Kelvin) or Fahrenheit?

In any event, I can understand why Hansen is somewhat of an alarmist. I came across this snippet sometime ago. It was published in Fortune Magazine and was based on a report made public by the Pentagon, no doubt causing some controversy over in your neck-of-the-woods.

The “dramatic but plausible scenario” describes precisely the abrupt changes (temporal and spatial) that you say have happened in the past.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm

A figure of speech, but it does make you shudder!

"A figure of speech, but it does make you shudder!"
More like laugh....this global warming is making it frickin freezing!
Lots of "what-ifs", "maybes", "possibilities"....likely?? hmm maybe not

"Courageous enough to face the facts"?

Gecko, my friend, that word, "facts", is exactly the issue here.
You can gather "your" expert's facts, then I can gather "my" expert's facts . . . they will still not agree.
It is a paradox that contradictory data can exist simultaneously, yet all be true . . . because they all reveal a PART of the total picture.
I NEVER said that climate change is not happening. I simply have not been convinced that it is happening at the "cataclysmic" speed that some pundits claim it is. However, contrary to Al Gore's propaganda, it is manifestly untrue for anyone to claim there is an "overwhelming" consensus that the causes of climate change are PRIMARILY man-made. If you type a few key words on the Internet, you will find a number of investigative reports detailing what went on BEHIND the creation of the so-called "unanimous" U.N. report on climate change. It appears that the real "consensus" was anything but unanimous, and that dissenters were pressured, intimidated and cajoled by diplomats and politicians -- from various authoritarian regimes and the U.N. -- to "revise" their opinions . . . . even to the point of being threatened with a loss of funding for their research. "Nanny-state" governments have an obvious incentive for pushing more state control.
Yes, the U.S. does consume a large part of the world's resources . . . more than it should. It also has produced, and still does, a huge amount of the world's technical research, as well as innovation in medical and industrial technology . . . including environmental technology.
Is your beautiful country of Australia prepared to spend endless billions of dollars, at the risk of damaging the stability of its own economy and the welfare of its people, in order to halt the release of an element that may very well be only PART of a much larger equation . . . even as China has just surpassed the U.S. in the production of carbon emissions?

sonofeire, from the US, are you? A piece of advise mate: Australians are less likely to swallow outright bull than some of your countrymen, so try not to lay it on too thick.

Not sure what you are referring to as the HUGE Gulf of Mexico oil field. Every major oil field in the gulf is in decline except Jack 2. Jack 2 may contain around 15 billion barrels. The US chews 318 billon barrels a year. On that basis 150 years looks a tad optimistic - 15 days would be closer.

And the other thing - that consensus. Climate change seem seems to be ideal territory for a good argument. You could take just about any position and then find a weather pattern in some part of the world supporting it. But a consensus - well its real easy to measure. No need to argue about it. You just count the for's and against - and there you have it

Happily someone has already done the counting. A survey was taken of scientific papers on climate published in a range of journals between 1993 and 2003, there were 0 (ie, nil, none) out of the 928 found arguing that the current climate change was caused by natural events. Now I know you Americans have had your problems with counting things like votes recently, but 0 isn't a very hard number to count to. Even allowing for the inevitable politicking you mention distorting that 0 a small bit - or even a big bit, it still looks like a consensus to me.

Gecko “then we can forget about any social justice issues,”

Wasting time on so called “social-justice” is like masturbation, it provides some momentary satisfaction to the practitioner, whilst achieving sweet F.A.

“I tend to believe the overwhelming scientific consensus that 1) it is happening and 2) we are the cause.
Even if only 1) is correct then our response needs to be much the same as if both are correct.”

Dumb idea because:

basing a strategy on the possibility or otherwise of “2)” alters the range of available and effective potential options which can be contemplated.

Add to that, the fact that the scientific community is not in consensus plus the scientific community is not the only “stake holder” further invalidates the preface to your suggestion.

“On my estimate the clock has already run out,”

Your “estimate” I would suggest is a parochial instinct, based on emotional knee jerking?

“In fact the only mature and sensible thing for society to do is put on the brakes anyway and try to avert the worst.”

So you are going to be employed 3 hours a week, mulching grass clippings to recycle back into the nature strip?

You might be putting the “brakes on” but I will be going “full bore”, as usual.

As for “The “dramatic but plausible scenario” describes precisely the abrupt changes (temporal and spatial) that you say have happened in the past.”

More drivel from the pretentious wannabe, who cannot produce any scientific credentials.

Some would suggest Oscar Wilde’s play “The Importance of Being Earnest” presented a “dramatic but plausible scenario” and a better amusement than the doomsayers of the climate-change movement, who could have come from Brazil, as Oscar wrote “Where the nuts come from”.

Sonofeire “that word, "facts", is exactly the issue here.”

Exactly.

Just a bunch of theories which wax and wane with the moon, the scientific luminaries appearing more like scientific lunaries. The source data is sparse and the significance of individual measure undetermined. There is no “science” of climate change, just wannabes seeking soft government grants.