Protagoras,

It is no use arguing with these skeptics, they won't be convinced.

Their motives though for working so exceptionally hard at ridiculing the science and cherry picking the facts (or fabricating them) have me completely bewildered. Are they seeking truth for truth's sake? Are they petrified that the world might actually DO what is really necessary to combat the issue and all the other global environmental and resource issues bearing down us ie stop chasing economic growth at all costs and deal with overpopulation and continued population growth? Are they simply being mischievous or worse in the pay of the polluters?

Incidentally I believe the mass bird deaths in the Gascoynes were due as much to the plugging of boreholes on many stations by WA's Dept of Environment as they were to climate change.

Hi Kulu

The conservatives on this forum continue to spread misinformation:

Myth: “On the negative side, Arctic ice is nearly back to long-term average levels after an unprecedentedly fast regrowth,” (John J)

Fact: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html

These are the hangers on of the right wing think tanks in Australia. Their founders and members represent the most ecologically destructive corporations on the planet. These think tanks are networking with other think tanks around the globe and they don’t care where they get their donations from. Most receive generous donations from pollutant mining industries, including oil companies. The tobacco industry (which they support) is aso generous.

The objective of these gangs is to gag those who recognise the insidious connections between greenwashed institutes, big business and sycophantic governments.

These “good” corporate citizens are influential in lobbying governments to see it their way (not least Mr Five Percent) regardless of the consequences and they seek out public figures, with high profiles to throw excrement at Australia’s environmentalists while they screw the environment:

“In 2005 the IPA launched a front group, The Australian Environment Foundation, to protect the interests of the timber industry. It includes former TV presenter Don Burke, who says, “The greatest threat to the world’s environment is the conservation movement.”

http://kimkaos.nomasters.org/2005/12/11/climate-change-corporations-and-pr/

http://savingiceland.puscii.nl/?p=3185&language=en

In the US there are over 550,000 abandoned mine sites and in WA alone, there are 11,500 abandoned sites, spewing toxic muck into our precious groundwater, soil, air, rivers and oceans and these sites are responsible for the slaughter of native species ranging from precious insect colonies, plants, snakes and bats to whole ecological communities.

The costs for the decontamination of these hazards are being met by the taxpayer. It is evident that these corporations, who police themselves, can’t be trusted:

However, in recent years, mining companies are now obliged to pay bonds, placed in trust for the remediation of abandoned mines but the mining operations continue to desecrate the environment with impunity, the slaughter of native species continues and the little bloke remains impotent in his conflict with the ethics free, "big" Australians:

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=44

Whoops....apologies. Previous post - wrong link:

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=440

You have hit the nail on the head Protagoras about the right wing think - sorry - disinformation tanks and their disciples.

As far the bonds required by the miners are concerned governments resist efforts by conservationists to ensure the bond are indeed adequate to cover rehabilitation and contingencies.

I can imagine the sort of bonds required by uranium mines will come nowhere near being enough to ensure these polluters are able to cover post mining costs and realistic contingencies

That's for certain Kulu and the Ranger uranium mine, for instance, is constantly in the news where in March this year, the government appointed supervising scientist, Alan Hughes, reported that the mine is leaking 100,000 litres of contaminated water into the ground beneath Kakadu Park every day.

Last January, 17,000 litres of sulphuric acid was spilled onto the Top End’s wetlands when a truck rolled over on its way to the Ranger uranium mine. Any animal, wild or domestic (including humans) which comes into contact with this chemical, suffers severe burns but I guess one should regard that as mere collateral damage?

Emperor, Barney Rubble’s on the loose in WA too so what can one expect now that he’s formally lifted the ban on uranium mining in Western Australia where the ore is of low grade in the significant number of U tenements?

According to WA's Chamber of Minerals and Energy, U mining “will allow the state to expand its position as a key supplier of low-emissions fuels in the international fight against climate change.” “Low emissions?” I think not.

No doubt you would know that Australia has the worst record of mammal extinction in the world. Not surprising is that half the mammals that have become extinct globally, in the last 200 years, have been Australian species and many more are in decline.

The good news for the corporate cowboys is that they will now be able to blame global warming for their appalling destruction of Australia's native animals.

I notice that none of the posters has yet explained why diverting resources to "save animals from extinction" is a worthwhile activity.

As far as I can tell from a brief run around the topic on the internet, i) there are more extant species on this planet than ever before and ii) there has always been a raft of species about to become extinct, even before anyone bothered to keep a list.

And let's be realistic here. We are one of those species that will at some point in the future also become extinct.

Unless the "save the hamster" advocates are making all this fuss from altruism - "I don't care if humans perish, but for God's sake, save the Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat" - their motivation in raising the issue still escapes me entirely.

Is there some kind of ecological rule somewhere that says that it is vital we maintain the existing status quo, species-wise?

If not, I suspect that this is predominantly posturing by the holier-than-thou brigade. 'I appear to care more about fluffy creatures than you, so I must be a nicer person. Oh, and I will have another slice of that delicious possum pie, thank you'.