Quick response

Since you state Rudd and Turnbull are clearly not up to the diabolical challenges and should be replaced with leaders that we can be proud of, I would like to know who you would be talking about, what would be their policies, and how long would they last in power if they offered dramatic solutions (albeit they are necessary). After all, successful politicians are merely a reflection of their societies.

What's worse?

1. Acting on the premise that there is a humanity-induced factor in climate change, causing a degree of economic inconvenience and later finding out you were mistaken or

2. Ignoring advice, doing nothing and later finding out the premise was correct when it's too late to do anything about it?

Caution vs arrogance? A short period of economic upheaval or a longer period of economic devastation?

Runner, Israel is actually the one with the nukes, not her enemies and I know what industries are funding the GW Skeptic scientists but who funds the others?

no surprise the economic section is so slight. The writer doesn't have a clue. Whatever the cost, ay? Let's pull all the money out of health, education, aid, everything, and spend it on AGW mitigation. Perhaps we could start with the Hollows Foundation and immunization programs and fresh water. And to suggest all we get is a cleaner, healthier world! What we spend here, we lose there. There may be OTHER risks to life out there - war, viruses... The 'we' he uses clearly doesn't include the poor, cold and starving.Open your eyes. To continue the religious theme, this is the guy who chooses to believe in God, 'just in case'. It is also another example of the AGWists repositioning themselves - yet again - in the face of failure. The chaos stuff, presumably from Young reading Gleik over the Xmas holidays, is just to camouflage the flaws that leap from the page and that Col picks up on above. Laughable and dangerous rubbish.

When are you going to join me in lobbying for giant springs to be constructed across the country, just in case the sky falls on our heads? Better to be safe you know...

Two little comments. First of all to Col Rouge. Does everything have to be isms? It makes no difference when you are dead.
And fungochumley . You make the assumption that I know nothing of the science of scarcity (Economics to you). There is a current line of economic thinking that says that by going green in the present economic climate is a perfect way of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. It could be an economic shift akin to the sedan chair makers moving aside for the industrial revolution.
If you look at the current economic trends in the USA there are enormous amount of venture capital going into green/sustainable projects. If the home of greed is going green a very fast rate that must mean something. If Australia does not get going soon we are going to lag behind America and have to by our systems from them. The economic cost of not going green/sustainable in Australia could mean we get left behind.
The point of the article was precisely that we do not know. There are no experts on climate change because experts come after the event and it hasn't happened yet (and may not). Is it worth the risk?
David Young

Col,

Galileo was up against the fundamentalists – much the same as today’s climatologists are up against those with their heads stuck in the sand.

There are extreme fundamentalists on both sides of the fence – you are representative of one.

Smart and intelligent people of the world realise that there is no logic or sense in having extreme views from the Right or the Left. There is a better way of solving real problems – by working together in mutual respect ... if you want to call it “Socialism by Stealth” so be it, it really is a no-brainer.

Over a year ago I sought your input on risk assessment/management – you declined. Science is about probabilities (the Sun may not exist tomorrow) and those with more expertise than you are very well aware of the risks.

http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/climate_change_and_insurance/default.aspx

or this from the Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa034360-d612-11dd-a9cc-000077b07658.html

You want absolute certainty before you will act ... like, you are really stuck in the mud.

_____________

David

We have only one test tube to experiment with and we are conducting an experiment that has never on Earth been tried before - it would be prudent to tread carefully.

This in itself explains why the smart and intelligent different "isms" of the world are working together in the lead-up to Copenhagen later this year. Unfortunately, economics muddy the waters.