The more unequal rights for women we release, the drier the world’s grasslands and grainbelts are going to get and the more dust storms we will have.

Why?

Beacuse the more rights they have the more children they will have and its children who grow into humans who cause human caused global climate change.

That pollutitians like Rudd have hijacked the women's rights movement as an easy way to get votes and boost a nappies and GST-immigrants economy. This is less a measure of their political & fiscal skill and more a measure of the fact that they are evil trolls in $2000 suits who do not give a sh$t about the fragile landscape in which we all live and upon which we all depend for our spiritual wellbeing.

History will judge Reudd very harshly despite his self serving media spin of innocence. The man is damned, for the continent will rebound after the wars that must come from global resource conflict, but Rudd's legacy will surely NOT. The foolish notion of climate change, which is palpably only relative to an insignificant species like humans, is nothing more than an excuse for men to have sex by allowing women to have all the children they want so the women can fastrack themselves onto easy street and economists & polluticians can count more heads: bigger turnovers and bigger profits.

No one in our political system has the balls to do anything to stop the degradation of our continent until our constitution is changed to give the very land itself an independent seat in parliament to uphold its rights. In the meantime rivers, oceans, skies and soil fertility are just like aboriginals: we will keep saying sorry till they are all gone and we get all the bloody sex we are after.

Remember KAEP, bears can smell the menstruation, too!

You really have a problem with women, don't you?

You really have a problem with women, don't you?

NO I do not.

To explain:

I am an avid gardner and when it rains I go inside and leave the garden to stay dry and cozy.

Now all the flowers, of both genders, don't yell and moan that I hate them because I leave. They know i'll be back to tend.

I suppose there will be the odd WEED who raises the chant, "You really have a problem with female flowers, don't you?

There will always be weeds, but its nice to know you can dig THEM with their funny names, UP.

Well said Julian. Not everyone who reads here is a dedicated denialist, instant expert or curmudgeon.

I find Julian's hysteria about global warming a complete load of tish.

I further recall 1983, I had been in Australia for less than a month, when all of a sudden Melbourne was engulfed by a huge dust storm, followed by the Ash Wednesday fires and then torrential rains.

I cannot be bothered talking with all these namby-pamby prophets of doom.

Someone tell Julian that “meteorological phenomenon” happens and nothing he can do or suggest others do will alter that.

And promoting lies by pretending this is something to do with AGW is the same as telling children there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

John McRoberts "Two men looked through prison bars - one saw mud, the other, stars". Wish I knew who wrote that.”

I thought it might be Oscar Wilde, from the Ballard of Reading Goal but that appears not so.

It is ascribed to be by “anon”, who is famous for many other quotes.

Just as individual weight is a function, predominately, of the amount one sticks in ones mouth, collectively, our combined community weight and thus, the need for food is a function of how much we are eating multiplied by how many there are to feed.

Perhaps, addressing the numbers of mouths to feed is a better course of action than telling people what not to eat.

“Now I’m not trying to make anyone feel bad here.”

I don’t feel bad at all…

I went on a guilt trip once but got off at the first rest break, leaving all the old farts and fuddy-duddys to suffer one another’s company in their collective gloom

- and doubtless Julian would have been the tour guide on that trip.

Why, thank you Squeers. What a nice thing to say.

>>Pericles, I'm surprised, as you usually make such sense.<<

The same may be said about your goodself.

I particularly liked a comment you made on the other AGW thread...

>>Way too big an issue for our flatulent electorates!<<

So true! No election will ever be won by a promise to punish us all.

And this was insightful, too.

>>Humanity is a global cancer<<

Verily, we are a particularly selfish animal.

If you were to plot the span of humankind's existence on this planet on two timelines, one that said "this is how long we'll survive if we go on as we are" and one that says "this is how long we will survive if we all cooperate to combat global warming", I wonder how different they would be.

Because it really is a lifestyle issue, isn't it?

Of course, there are millions of people around the world - perhaps you are one of them - who would gladly sacrifice their present urban lifestyle, and instead live a subsistence existence on a small, self-sufficient plot of land.

I am also aware of billions of people around the world, who would gladly sacrifice their present lifestyle of a subsistence existence on a small plot of land, for a crack at the urban lifestyle, complete with 4WD, plasma TV and air conditioning.

Should we simply swap places, do you think?

You also pinpoint the dilemma this presents.

>>Personally, I think it is too late for us to substantially alter the course of events, but we have a moral obligation to try!<<

Does our moral obligation extend to actively preventing anyone else from enjoying the benefits that our part of the world has reaped from, say, the industrial revolution onwards?

Your ability to skewer the key issue is admirable.

>>But this is an emotive issue, isn't it, and, I do apologise, beneath the dignity of a philosopher.<<

It is most certainly an emotive issue.

And the solutions, if there are any, will come from down-to-earth pragmatists, rather than philosophers.