ozandy - Oh dear, ignorant accusations that anyone who disagrees with the AGW POV is a trashing the environment, right wing, me me me type.

Is it possible to be politically "left" and be a sceptic? Or are the 2 POVs synonymous? (Are you allowed to be a skeptic if you are "left"?)

How do you know what I'm like, you have no idea how much I spend on recycling, how much effort goes into my sustainable vege garden, how I deal with waste and energy or what sort of car I drive, when I actually have one that is. Do I offset, do you?

Why not just call in the inquisition to deal with the unrepentant skeptics, or deniers if you prefer. Ah the intolerant religion of AGW, I love it when people reinforce the stereotype.

I don't see all AGW believers as stereotypically gullible, frothing at the mouth, self flagellating, delusional eco doom criers. You make it easy to forget that everyone should be treated as rational until they prove, as you have done, otherwise.

BTW - the climate warming is natural, there may or may not be some man made contribution - but to claim it is a "man-made extreme event" is hysterical nonsense and is typical of the mass self hatred and guilt we see about us in the lead up to the Copenhagen event.

I do wonder what will be the effect afterwards as surely many of you will be disappointed with Copenhagen. I should get some shares in anger management treatment, I can see the market is going to open up, when you don't get what you want.

Cheryl,

Do I understand you correctly that the web of life (a simplistic yet clear analogy of the interconnectedness of contributive factors)
making up the whole doesn't exist? Funny that but the principal is being taught in Biology, Oceanography, Physics, Chemistry, Brain science at University.

I suggest you actually read Chaos theory then re read my post not even close. It's a lot more than butterfly, tornado over simplification.

Almost every day there is an addition to the list of environmental issues...Pollution etc. Polar Ice melting faster than anticipated etc. Scientific evidence that the pollution levels in the sea/rivers are causing major problems, the impact on food and available water is accepted scientific fact.

Are you saying that we haven't fished out, over farmed built on much of our arable land around cities?

Do you really believe all we need to do is change the C02 levels and everything is fine? or ignore it and it'll all go away?

Are you saying that we have endless capacity to feed burgeoning populations indefinitely?

Are you saying that economics is a hard science?

Are you saying that current economics doesn't demand endless growth? or the world isn't finite?
I could have used a car as the analogy but some people know cars but how the pyramid was built is still largely conjecture. But it exists.

Where did I say we're doomed as in it's all over?

I Admit I get it wrong so in the interest of discussion enlighten me with your FACTS. Thus far your post proves my point a lot of heat and No light. I always state my opinions are subject to further information and therefore change.

RPG

I detest any absolute left/right labeling but there is a difference between a real sceptic and faux sceptic/denialist.
One is prepared to look and learn the other well they're full of abuse no counter evidence/facts.

examinator - faux skeptics and real skeptics - it's just another way to look down your nose at people who disagree with you, isn't it?

I expressed my opinion, I must have missed the criteria that any posts contrary to your opinion have to be backed up with suitable evidence.

What an ego you have, how do you get through doorways?

Manorina,

In spite of now being a signatory to the Kyoto protocol, the emissions from Aus are still steadily increasing, and there are plans to build further power stations.

Given the high level of inelasticity (small change in supply results in a high change in price) of energy demand, the renewable target proposed for 2020 will probably not even cover the projected increase in power demand, and the ETS cap and trade will attempt to limit the increase in generation.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that energy costs are set to rocket, and whilst home owners are likely to only see about a $260 p.a. increase in costs, the cost to industry and farming will see everyone pay more for pretty much everything.

Whilst it is theoretically possible to meet the emissions targets with renewable generation, unless there is are huge technological jumps in the next decade or so, the cost of this generation and distribution by 2050 will be vastly higher than what we have now.

Nuclear power would be a fraction of the cost, and is not reliant on technology leaps that may or may not occur.

The greens want to have their cake and eat it to the extent that they are not prepared to allow the government of the day to start strategising for possible nuclear plans. I suspect that the reason for this is that presently they can shout about all kinds of dooms day scenarios based on ancient technologies, and a modern strategy would rob them of this.

As the planning is likely to take a couple of years before a go ahead could be given, it is politically expedient but irresponsible not to give due consideration to all alternatives.

Examinator,

sure, with all of the polar caps melting and global warming and scorpions rising out of the earth, how come sea levels haven't risen on millimetre? Sea level over a 1000s of years certainly does, but how come it hasn't over the last 50 years? That would be proof of global warming. Zip.

I am proud to call myself a skeptic. It's an excellent practical and intellectual position. It stops me from becoming a firestick twirling airhead.

Shadow Minister

Your pessimistic assessment of renewables, especially wind power, is evidently not shared by everyone. November's Scientific American has "A plan for a sustainable future: How to get all energy from wind, water and solar power by 2030". And they probably don't appreciate the huge and inexpensive savings to be gained from dramatic efficiency improvements. See my earlier links.

Regarding your earlier comments on wind, we ought to consider the mix of wind and solar together (and others if available) as the combination performs better. The prospect of energy storage is not as remote as you imply, though I grant it's not well developed.
(e.g. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=9240). A much better prospect than CCS though, which is a fantasy - if our Govt would spend billions on storage instead of CCS we'd make more progress.

And I'm afraid CSIRO's views are compromised these days, since they got politicised and captured by the fossil industry to do its dirty work for them.