My dear Examinator,

The thing about an on-line site like this is that you can't stand over anybody. We are all out here in cyberspace, with our legitimate opinions. We can't be bullied, you can't reach through the computer and grab someone by the throat and force you opinion on anybody. You have to talk nice and reasonable to us, and vice versa.

So what is the point of labels ? If we can ever rise above this primary school level - 'Well anyway, you're just a denialist !' 'No, I'm not, you're an alarmist !' No, I'm not, and anyway, my daddy's a policeman and he'll put you in jail.' - and attend to what people are saying, then our arguments, our cases, can be progressed civilly, and actually much more convincingly. Try it sometime. It just means that you have to really know what you are talking about, which surely is a good thing ?

Joe Lane
Adelaide

One of the biggest problems in this whole debate does not centre on the sceptics versus believers dilemma, it is whether or not the current ETS will actually have any effect on reversing or halting the consequences of climate change.

There is no point in two angry mobs berating each other from the sidelines and throwing the science around willy nilly, if the proposed solutions are flawed regardless of what anyone might believe about AGW.

The contribution Australia might make at a global level is miniscule if the developing world and others are to continue emitting carbon at the same or greater rates. The fact is the emissions will be greater overall even if Australia commits to a higher carbon emission reduction.

I cannot see how burdening the Australian economy and particularly agriculture will reduce emissions, in fact it will increase if we are pushed to importing most of our food products (and other products) from overseas. What is the point of our farmers (the ones that remain) sequestering carbon if these benefits are cancelled out by enormous food miles to bring in ‘cheaper food’. How is this scenario going to reduce carbon emissions?

Forcing industry and agriculture offshore is not going to benefit Australia or the world if we are just moving carbon emissions around the globe to another locale.

Greater investments and incentives for renewables, carbon sequestration projects and forestation will do far more than the hyperbole about ETS.

Rudd makes the same mistake as John Howard if he ignores arguments that oppose his Government's stance on this debate.

I personally think we have to act on reducing pollution and other environmental/ecological damage including emissions but a flawed ETS is not the answer. We don’t need any more symbols we need actual real investment in proven and practical schemes.

I see that many of those in these forums who used to laugh at the 911 conspiracy merchants because their claims were so fanciful and unfeasible are now the very same ones claiming some sort of global conspiracy behind AGW and scurrying after "leaks".

I think I'll go out into the paddock and (harmlessly) burn a few tractor tyres to celebrate.

Joe
It isn’t doubt that is the problem. The problem is that this isn’t an academic problem but one where the consequences of failure to act could be catastrophic. I disagree that the impacts are only going to be seen in several hundred years. We are already seeing deaths associated with predicted patterns of extreme weather and increased food shortages. The US Dept of Defense isn’t the only agency that has said quite clearly that geo-political stability and security is clearly at risks as a result of AGW. Actually, the science is clear that emissions must peak within a decade – that means acting now.
Interestingly, in our captitalist culture an individual whose negligence leads to immediately attributable death can be held culpable for homicide, while a tobacco executive who allows his product to result in millions of deaths is allowed to operate with impunity. This is neither consistent nor just…
So, if we know the potential severity of the impacts of AGW– including widespread deaths; if we know in a broad sense the steps that must be taken; should we hold our decision-makers (not just politicians) responsible for their decisions? Or their failure to act? Would we actually see them behaving as citizens and not idiots if such a system existed? Would they actually base their decisions on the best science that we have?
Finally, capitalism can’t possibly solve the problem it has been in part responsible for creating. If, for example, you look at food production, we are seeing a global trend of wealthy countries buying very large amounts of land in regions like Africa. The food they want to produce will not be for the starving of Africa but an attempt to ensure the food security of their own countries – a recipe for conflict if I ever heard one. The gap between the have’s and have nots will only grow deeper and wider as the impacts of AGW becomes more severe

It is a shame if this debate ends in sceptic verses believer. We are facing possible severe climate change and we need to start thinking about new ways of thinking for the 21 century and beyong. I have no doubt that man can influence his environment.

The readers should have a look at recent ice samples that indicates servere climate change can happen very rapidly

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm

Australia needs to make big investments in solar thermal and hot ponds technologies both for electric and desal applications.

I am a big advocate of man made salt water lakes sited in the arid regions of the world.

Joanne I hope having read the responses to your article you have the context of "debate" in Australia, and your reference to bullies is apt.