Another ‘threat’. Steve Watkinson used this word, which is a good one to describe the way we are being treated.

We are being threatened constantly with dire consequences if we don’t do this or that by a certain date, and in a certain way, look out!

People who threaten other people are bullies. They seek to gain control over others.

Clive Hamilton recently demonstrated on OLO that bullies can be resisted; not being able to convince people that he was right and they were wrong, he took his bat and went home. But there are still many bullies out there eager to replace him. This morning, the CSIRO threatened us with $8 a litre petrol by 2018. The media revels daily in items to threaten us with. The Labor Government, by nature of its philosophy, is a bully.

The Government has said that we WILL comply with certain measures by a certain date, even though anything we do in Australia will mean nothing in global terms, but will certainly affect our prosperity.

The chief bully in Australia was allowed 8 minutes at the G8 meeting to tell the big polluters – America, India and China – that they should be ‘following’ Australia. They politely said “up yours” to Rudd; they faced down the bully.

It’s well past time when we should face down the climate change bullies and demand that moderate voices not be silenced.

It will be too late when the Australian economy has been beggared by the bullies. They will not even say sorry when their panicked actions are seen to have no effect on climate change.

Mr. Right’s comments about bullies is absurd. People warning other people about the consequences of certain actions or inactions are attempting to reduce harm to other people or the environment. There is nothing in Steve Watkinson’s article to suggest that he is seeking power over others.

To put the economy ahead of the environment is illogical. Which is a sub-set of which?

If Australia wants to advance then we need a shared logical understanding of how the planet works and provides us with the resources we use to provide us with the lifestyle that we enjoy. As well as understanding how the planet works we need to understand how societies fail and succeed.

I ask Mr Right and any one who shares his thoughts to read Tim Flannery’s The Future Eaters and Jared Diamond’s Collapse. After Mr Right has read at least theses two books then I will be willing to listen to him.

For now I must thank Steve Watkinson for his attempt to help our species to have a future.

You are correct Joondalup. Most of these denialists have an ideological suspicion and even hatred of environmental issues (i think it's how they were raised).

However... many of the proposals such as the banning of incadescent globes and slapping on carbon taxes just simply seem like extremely cheap bandaid solutions that don't sound convincing. Populism is probably not the way to go, but outright theft is not going to be appreciated either. Where are the taxes going to go? Welfare to oil companies?

Steve,

I have read Flannery's books. You seem to think that people will change their minds just because one of your idols writes something. Not so. You might believe Flannery; I do not.

The only thing I agree with Flannery on is his 13 million optimal population for Australia, but he seems never to mention that now, having found other ways to stir the possum. If more people really mean more emissions, he should still be thumping that one. Anyone with the slightest concern for Australia’s environment should be putting population policy at the top of their lists, and should have been doing so a long time before climate change became the in thing to worry about.

The last thing I heard from him was a ratbag plan to pump sulphur into the atmosphere.

The economy and the environment are both important. Balance is needed, but the bull-at-a-gate ideas and intentions of the likes of Flannery ( a public servant who gets his pay no matter what) and the Government who listens to such people, will see our economy flattened as the world's worst polluters carry on as normal.

The blather about the costs of not doing anything is nonsense. When we have had our economy driven backwards by the costs your mates intend to levy on us, and the climate still changes back in its own good time, you and your mates will be the ones to look "absurd".

In the meantime, try reading books written by people with views other than those you seek out to justify your own emotions and beliefs.

You might even discover the satisfaction of thinking for yourself instead of hanging onto the coattails of big mouths who have proved nothing but who get all the publicity.

"Government who listens to such people, will see our economy flattened as the world's worst polluters carry on as normal. "

I think flattened is an overstatement, don't you? I would call it unnecessarily punitive, if anything.

Some companies are adapting without all the whining some in the industry and... other individuals... are doing on a continual basis.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/603/mercedes-to-cut-petroleum-out-of-lineup-by-2015.html

Where some see whining at government others see innovation and new industries. Unfortunately Australians often act like pigheaded, inbreds a lot of the time.

Steel - you confuse normal energy efficiency practices with GW reactions.

This acidification nonsense gets little attention simply because it is biologically a total non-issue. As far as I know no one seriously disputes mollusk fossils dating back some 500 million years, nor does there appear any dispute that atmospheric carbon dioxide was between 4,000 and 5,000 parts per million at the end of the Cambrian Period. Obviously these calcifiers managed to lay down shells then so levels at least an order of magnitude higher than anticipated now did not reduce ocean alkalinity (ocean acidification does not mean the oceans will actually become acidic, merely less alkaline) to the point where calcifiers were seriously troubled (in fact these creatures evolved then).
Atmospheric CO2 levels were similarly high through the Ordovician. Note that fauna of the period included large diversity of corals, bryozoans, bivalves and gastropods (we know most about these because shells and skeletal remains fossilise best). The biosphere works just fine with much higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- only people with nothing better to do worry about it.

Steven Watkinson article gathers together some of the more recent studies on the bits and pieces of the living systems of our living planet. The article shows that Watkinson is at the cutting edge of public concern about the interaction of humans and their environment.

Good science often leaves the reader asking more questions than were answered in the first place. Watkinson’s article raises many questions as the living planet earth is a complex system. Dealing with complex systems, such as a living planet will create more and more questions please refer to John Gribbin’s book, “Deep Simplicity”

Science, particularly biology has always interested me. Of equal fascination to me is people’s blind beliefs in gods and markets, religion and economics, these combinations of beliefs appear to be held by people who have a pathological hatred of the Labour Party and left wing politics in general.

The combination of strong beliefs in religious and economics have result in great tragedies such as the mishandling of the Irish potato famine in 1840’s. Now that we live in a global village, we cannot afford such mistakes. The World is now too overpopulated and our economies too interconnected to allow blind beliefs and paranoia to determine our collective future.

Mr Right reveals his paranoia with the statement “The Labor Government, by nature of its philosophy, is a bully”. Clearly the question of who is in power appears to interfere with some people’s ability work towards solving our common problems.

It is time to think and act outside the squares of party politics, greed and blind belief systems.

Now that we have a far better understanding of the planet and human behaviour should the Australian constitution be totally rewritten to include sustainability and population issues, should we go further and include protection of all that was here before the white invasion of this continent?

What should Australia’s role be in our global village? Enlightened leaders, or the poor white trash of south east Asia?

It is well over half a lifetime since I did my tertiary chemistry education but the maths of acidification has me a little baffled.
My calculation is that the oceans outweigh the atmosphere by a factor of about three hundred. We appear to be are worrying about an atmospheric concentration of carbom dioxide approaching 0.05% of the weight of the atmosphere which if absorbed by the oceans would amount to 0.00017% of the weight of the oceans. Is that significant when the present ocean pH is about 8.2?

Foyle,

The answer is the CO2 dissolves on the surface - obviously. It takes long while peculate kilometres down to the ocean floor. If you look at the Wikipedia link given in the article, you will notice they always specifically say "surface pH".

BarryH,

Repaid changes in ecosystems are almost universally accompanied by equally equally rapid changes in the life forms that use them, usually starting with mass die-offs. There is nothing contentions about that. Nor is it contentions we won't like some of the changes. As for your point that some mollusks made it OK through the last last time we had high CO2 levels, you are just repeating what Watkinson said in the article: "sea life of some kind has clearly survived much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 since the earth began". So again, no one is disputing some sea life will adapt, the concern is for those that won't.

Here we go again! Another scare from a scaremongering AGWer.

How silly do these people think we are?

Global warming is morphing into climate change and rising sea levels are morphing into acidification.

What are these people on? Acid?

Which reminds me. Since the polar ice cap has melted where has the water gone cos sea levels haven't risen? Oh that's right the oceans are cooling and water contracts as it cools ... obvious ... right.

Steve J,

One of the lessons of history, in fact probably the most important, is that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

People from the right of politics understand this instinctively, and yes maybe it is just a "strong belief" but I would argue that it is a belief based on sound empirical and historical evidence.

History also shows that for the vast bulk of civilisation, there was a tendency for political leaders to accumulate more power, not less. So if you really want to see policies "outside the square", then you should be in favour of less government, not more.

You also need to rethink your religious faith in "enlightened leaders." They do not exist. Never have. Never will. They are as real as invisible pink unicorns.

There is a need for much greater scientific understanding and research of our oceans ......... not emotional pseudo-scientific alarm. Please read this link.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#CO2_vents

Whilst we have always understood with CO2 on land showing plants actually thriving there remains the possible fact that says vegetation and sea life have been starved for atmospheric CO2.

Thought this might help the Commonsensicas?

Australia's latest climate change report reads like a disaster novel

Most of our OLO contributors seem either Climate Change Denialists or lack courage to back CC.

The CC inbetweeners seem mostly those who wish for the CC
worries to go away - those still happy with life the way it is, especially in sport or business.

Finis'- Quarry economics plus pitstock politics now Australia's lot for Big Biz racketeers. No worries about climate change.

Have Fun - BB

Bushbred,

there is also the category of 'Climate Change Fatalists', i.e.
"Yeah, the world is getting hotter, we don't know why, we don't know how and we don't care 'cause there ain't nothing we can do about it anyway. So build a bridge, and get over it."

First the Hockey stick fell by the wayside,now they are having doubts about global warming since the earth in reality has been cooling for the last 8yrs.

So to maintain the momentum, sense of urgency and panic,we need a new horror,"Acidification of our Oceans"Supposedly this is a result of CO2 forming carbonic acid.Now since industrial times ,we have increased CO2 levels by 30%.During the time of the Dinosaurs CO2 levels were 1000% greater than the present.The acidification of the oceans did not destroy life.In fact it adapted and thrived.

There is no doubt we need to curb our excesses,but this manipulation of stats by interest groups is only destroying their long term credibility.

Who will listen to the scientists when they eventually have a real doomsday scenario to express?

I'm not normally a believer in conspiracy theories, but the following has caused me to think, maybe there is something in it....There are some close links between the Club of Rome, Al Gore and many other pushers of the AGW line.

http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/200802/20080218_MTP_2_New_Man.htm

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us [all of humanity], we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." - Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome (1991).