The debate was a nonsense, in close parallel with the demand for a yes/no response to the question “when did you stop beating your wife?”
Climate change is not the big issue. Instead, it is probably the most frightening consequence of the big issue – which is Homo sapiens’ continuing proliferation of numbers, and accompanying fulfillment of both aspirations and reasonable needs.
We have been mining environmental resources and biological processes, and throwing waste into the atmosphere for two hundred years at a rapidly expanding rate. Perhaps the most pressing, immediate, issue is the continuing dream by society of finding new ways to maintain expansion; of finding more efficient ways to continue over-exploitation of the environment (including the atmosphere) upon which we depend

The debate was a no brainer but quite entertaining all the same. If the proponents against climate change were to select someone to press their case there is no way they would choose Austin Williams. He is the only person I have heard discussing this topic who is capable of shooting down his own argument whilst shooting himself in the foot at the same time. A class act.

Colinsett: I am with you on this one. But truly it is obvious as the descriptor “climate change is but the “big tent in which they (connected issues) all dance” ascribes to, "If the skeeters dont get ya the gaters will".

As succinctly pointed out recently by a fellow subscriber, climate change will herald the end of civilization as we know it. But in which cataclysmic event, and in what time will we each meet our individual “Waterloo”?

That question leaves open the field to any scenario. Cyanide pills issued on the free pharmaceuticals benefits list, does sound attractive, looking from this distance out

I was interested in this curious one: "....scientists warning of climate change had exceeded their brief in stepping beyond presentation of the science to make recommendations for action".

What is the brief of scientists? To record information dispassionately and not allow themselves to become concerned about what they see. Has the driver of a bus exceeded his / her brief if they foresee an imminent accident and then warn the passengers of their danger?

What nonsense.

But the debate is very valid. One of the most stupid presumptions going around is that climate change is so serious that we have to put it over and above all other environmental concerns. We know that planet earth is suffering a death by a thousand cuts - deforestation, marine pollution, species loss, desertification, chemical pollution - not just one.

Elevating climate change over and above every other environmental threat is a mistake. In our rush to resolve one (real) threat we are likely to exacerbate many other environmental problems if we are not careful. Citizens who oppose wind farms that kill raptor birds, or disapprove of woodchipping native forests for bio-fuels, are overridden by the subliminal chorus: "Get out of the way. We need to destroy the environment to save the environment".

Climate change is really serious business, but the responses to it can get out of hand.

Yes, I agree regarding scientists supposedly exceeding their brief. Another example would be precluding public health researchers making recommendations on disease prevention. It's a flawed position, and scientists would be failing if they didn't attempt to open our eyes to the dangers of climate change.

Re climate change being the only issue, I'd emphasise the value of seeing a range of issues as implicated in climate change action, rather than in competition with it. The woodchipping of native forests for 'bio-fuels' would run foul of climate change measures in any case, as such forests are valuable carbon sinks as well as being critical to our broader ecology. Wouldn't you be burning the wood chips and releasing the carbon? The other issue, apart from deforestation resulting from the production of bio-fuels (e.g. palm oil), is of course the diversion of existing agricultural land that would be better used for food production.

As for wind turbines endangering birds such as the orange-bellied parrot (or raptors, in your example), I think one can make case-by-case judgements regarding environmental impacts while preserving the general principle that we should be moving towards the adoption of renewable energy.

For me, the interpretation of the motion that 'climate change is the only issue' that I find most compelling is the one that accords climate change centrality within the challenge of a sustainable planet, without eclipsing related issues such as preservation of the environment, food production and social justice broadly conceived.

Claim that “climate change is the only issue” is nonsense. Nonsense is incomplete debate and science excluding cause of coral bleaching and catastrophic world ocean ecosystem degradation and impact including poverty and unrest.

Global warming may soon stabilize and even reverse, consequent to impact of world famine, disease, civil unrest, nuclear war, fallout impact including population and industry reduction, and impact on the world environment.

Significant food shortages are occurring worldwide right now and the whole world ocean is almost empty of available food, yet the latter situation is not debated.. If there are 20 chickens in a backyard, consider how much food is needed to feed them daily. Consider how much food is needed to sustain 7 billion humans daily.

Science is not science when restricted by exceeding a brief determined by political agenda jurisdiction? Since when can strategic planning to sustain world food supply be determined by media ignorance of other very real present day issues, to which solutions are so urgently required? See:

http://greensblog.org/2008/06/24/caring-for-our-country-or-is-it/#comments

Is food sustainability a significant issue of substance to be urgently concerned about? Should science be hindered by political agenda jurisdiction? Where will water and protein food come from to feed and sustain healthy industrial animal production? Where is the data to confirm sustainable industrial food supply and at what cost to already poverty stricken consumers? Wild fish do not involve production cost and are drought resistant.

Real solutions to collapse of world fishery resources and impact are urgently required and should be on Australian ABC media agenda. ABC’s Peter Mares opinion that, “another poll after the debate would test the persuasiveness of the arguments to be presented”, is nonsense. The Deakin Debate was impacted by one strange jurisdiction at least, and by gagging of news of substance about ocean degradation and impact. Climate change is not the sole issue that public media can contend with.

After deliberating subject of personal interest here, please DO NOT forget need to debate poverty and ocean food supply, especially for our neighbouring island people who have critically serious socio-economic consequences occurring already

Yep, the debate was a no-brainer.

The oil crunch and how to keep societies and countries that are so profoundly dependent on this cheap energy source from fracturing and imploding is THE issue of the moment.

Genuine sustainability from locally to globally is the background issue. Population size and growth is the most important part of this.

Climate change really is a side issue....and an almighty distraction!

If we deal effectively with peak oil, that is; with changing economies due to ever-rising prices long before actual shortages of supply, we will be dealing with greenhouse gas emissions more effectively than we possibly could be if we just concentrated on climate change.

If societies fall apart or become highly stressed, there will be scant little chance of united coherent efforts being made to effectively deal with climate change. Actually, whether societies do implode or whether we wangle our way out of the crisis and develop non-fossil-fuel energy sources, either way more will be done to tackle greenhouse gas emissions than any effort to address them directly and in isolation of other huge issues.

The truth is, since Australia's manufacturing industry is becoming more weaker, such as South Pacific's decision to shut down, with 600 jobs lost, most manufacturing and industry is going to China, or other countries.So industry and its pollution is going to these countries, most notably China, so the need for climate change in Australia, if implemented won't change climate much, because Climate change is a global issue, so if china is producing 99 percent of the world's goods, then whatever Australia does to change 'climate' would be minimal, and would indirectly affect normal ordinary citizens with unnecessary increases in petrol and electricity causing hardship and slowing an already weak economy.

For an interesting read on garnaut's climate change report follow the link below and make up your own mind.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:PT5Ne23HQrgJ:www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/EvansQuadrantMarch2008.pdf+fraud+Garnaut&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=21&gl=au

Australia's actual carbon footprint is not relevant, and therefore is unpersuasive, as an argument for doing nothing. As Garnaut has pointed out, Australia can play a leadership role to promote the necessary global action, and this is indeed in our best interests given Australia's vulnerability to climate change. We cannot quarantine ourselves from these effects in a global environment - including a global atmosphere - we all share. I would also argue that it would in any case be immoral to do so. As Garnaut is now doing, we must work out how the costs of effective climate action can be equitably shared within Australia, and around the world.

I am somewhat bemused that the Lavoisier Group (refer to the URL in previous post) has been cited in support of arguments for doing nothing. I leave it to readers to Google this Group's role in opposing action on climate change.

Ahhh yes ... Ray Evans and the Lavoisier Group - nuff said!

So what is it with you tag 'Climate_Change' ... are you too a front for this neo-con deny and delay brigade?