Don Aitkin says in “An initial reaction to Garnaut”:

‘Climate change occurs everywhere and is a slow natural process…..I could accept that the existence of AGW was taken as given by his (Garnaut’s) terms of reference. But its extent? Surely that is the nub of the question?”

Is it the knub? Why not a bet each way? Forget the vitriol in general debate. Let’s get on with practical ways in which we can save energy or use energy more efficiently, and devising practical solutions to rising sea levels.

Much “climate change” debate is akin to debating the cause of the sinking of the Titanic while it is sinking! Why debate the cause – why not try to minimise the effects of the sinking?

Unless we get policy-makers to think in a more strategic way, we will end up as experts in gymnastics (jumping up and down on the spot) but without any plan as to how we deal with the immediate future and the proximate challenges of climate change.

I have to declare an interest in constructing composite seawalls to protect coastlines and sea-side communities against inundation and erosion by rising sea levels. We are talking about every harbour, bay and canal in Australia.

There are practical solutions – education and things which ordinary people can do – which, while they may not solve the “Ultimate Problem”, contribute in a practical way which people understand. Like with “saving water”, why not “save energy” with simple things like double glazing, solar hot water systems, efficient light bulbs, better education on settings for home heating and cooling, etc. People have shown good-will with saving water, why not harness that goodwill to energy use?

To me, this is so obvious. It is something that everyone can understand and appreciate. It may postpone the building of a new power station by some years – so, what is the harm in that? The downside of not adopting a pragmatic strategy is that people get confused and disillusioned by quasi-theological debates about “how many climate change angels can you fit on the end of a pin?

Don Aitkin: " measured global temperature has faltered since 1998, and that there has been no sustained increase since."

Sorry, this is wrong, unless DA can provide an up-to-date reference. DA seems to be sadly out of touch with modern climate science. This is why we should listen to climate scientists, not economists, when we want scientific interpretations of climatic data. Perhaps DA refers to this old chestnut:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
that seemed to show, just for a little while, that one layer of the atmosphere might be cooling slightly instead of warning. This turned out to be incorrect. Even if it hadn't, so what? Does DA deem that all layers of the atmosphere must increase in temperature monotonically, or else ACC is a bust? Do we ignore all of the other rising temperatures? Do we leave it to hacks to decide that this means that ACC is a myth? I don't think so.

DA: "Why cripple the economy for an increasingly doubtful theory?"

Firstly, there is no basis in fact that it is an increasingly doubtful theory, unless DA can show evidence - perhaps he can show increasing numbers of counter-claims in peer-reviewed climate science journals. I'm prepared to be amazed. Secondly, we are not going to "cripple the economy" unless we keep delaying. Thirdly, even if it would cripple the economy (which it won't) we are probably all going to die unless we do something.

DA: "Remember the Y2K millennium bug scare?"

I remember many IT companies spending a lot of time and money making sure that they were prepared.

DA: "Australia's portion of global CO2 emissions" ...

Australia's pollution is its pollution to deal with, regardless of how much. Granted if China doesn't clean up its act, we are in deep trouble, but its hardly going to do so while we sit back and do nothing, so what are your options?

To Q&A: I'm sorry that you see my writing as 'sneering and sniping'. That was not my intention. To you (and Sams), there is ample evidence that the upward rise in temperatures from 1975 to 1998 has faltered in the last ten years. All the standard measurers show this in their data (GISS, Hadley etc). They differ a little in detail, but not in substance. In other writings I have made the point again and again that oil-based energy , water management and population pressures are the source of our problems, and we should deal with them. It may be that AGW makes things worse, but as yet there is no compelling evidence of the extent to which this is true, if it is true at all.

To geoffalford: If climate change as we are experiencing it is caused through forces external to us (orbit etc) then we simply have to adapt to it. If it is human-induced, then we can do something about it, or try to. It seems important to me to find out first.

To Sams: You put me in quotes four times. The first is a direct quote, and I've dealt with it above. I don't recognise the others and won't comment on them. They are not drawn from this article. The fourth might be from another article but is not directly connected to what i wrote here.

I don't regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant.It is one of the sources of life on earth, and indispensable to plants and animals. The more of it the better.

What better demonstration of the worth of Don Aitkin’s pontifications is his statement: “I don't regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It is one of the sources of life on earth, and indispensable to plants and animals. The more of it the better.”

Even half a millennia ago there was recognition, by Paracelsus at least, that the difference between a remedy and a poison might be the dose rate.

Phosphorus is also “indispensable to plants and animals”, and it did terrible things such as “fossimouth” and early demise to the match-factory girls a century ago. It has also provided useful service as a rat poison.

Was carbon dioxide so beneficial when it drowned every living beast it enveloped when it burped up from below Lake Nyas in the Cameroons’ in 1986?

Clearly this carbon debate is a lie
YES global warning is undeniable!

but the point in debate is
ARE WE CAUSING IT ?
NO WE ARE NOT

plus will this 83 trillion NEW tax cure it !
NO
CLEARLY europe's experience has proven the tax changes nothing
thus this NEW TAX wont fix anything!

YES some MIGHT go to alternatives
[but very very little]
most will be going to just WHO EGSACTLY?

HOWARD was against it

just as busche is now AGAINST it

BUT that is the old brair rabbit [2 party quick fix

THEY know they are disbelieved ,
thus hope to con- fuse us via their unpopularity !
to convince ourselves it must be good
IF THEY are against it.

IT isnt [this is across party !
we are being conned yet again]

the two party farce BOTH push the same adgenda!

if we hate howard
up pops a rudd or a keating [or a brendon nelson]
that takes over and does the next stage!

look at the camels we have swallowed gst ,super contribution, deregulation, privatising our comunity assets [our water ,electruicity [its all an ONGOING con game]using the media to sell us lies

its the same adgenda
the NWO adgenda

when we going to wake up
and tell these servants of the new world taxation reordering
their collusions are over?

stop stealing our farms
stop gmo
stop polution

so here is the new guy !
with his same old EXTRA tax think tanked idea

dont keep being fooled by the new faces
its the same old lie folks

the sun puts more energy intoi this plannet in one day
than all our coal fired stations
cant you see how fast they are stealing it from our ground?

this tax grab farce must end!
dont be fooled by the worlds braer rabbits AGAIN

Australia HAS to do its part
right?

so here is the plan

we stop exporting coal
phase it out gradually
NONE AT ALL by 2020

its as simple as that
if coal IS THE PROBLEM
do like we did with uranium!

that is all!

no new burdon
no new cash cow
we stop supply of this EVil substance killing the world

of course it isnt evil it is just being villified
by great decievers

but if it is the problem
lets just fix the problem

how easy is that
or put the full BURDON on the PROBLEM
if coal is the problem
tax that

not create the next proplem [ie the neo con tax grab]

if coal is the cause
shut down the drug supply at the source
right here
right now

we will learn to survive
without the 'income' we get from coal
its clearly not worth the guilt

if it is the REAL problem
lets fix the REAL problem [at the root]
leave it in the ground

and claim the carbon offset for leaving it in the ground
same with clearing our forrests [the real cause for co2 going up
trees use co2 to make oxegen

go figure cutting them down has increased the co2

so step two is stop logging old growth

step 3 is retrain those affected
into tourism [eco tourism]

not nwo eco TAX terrorism