I think acceptance of sacrifice (eg expensive electricity) will occur when a majority are affected. The middle class see their peers lose homes to firestorms, floods and mortgage defaults but enough survive to uphold the status quo. I think the Brits call this attitude 'I'm alright Jack'. As I said in an OLO comment yesterday there may be escaping some effects of AGW but there will be no escaping Peak Oil. A double whammy could occur when water shortages and farm energy shortages (diesel, urea) occur in sync. The middle class will be faced with barely affordable food and fuel bills. They will demand action and will give little time to those promoting business as usual.

The good/bad news is that I think this BAU revolt will occur in the next five years. For example prevailing anti-nuclear attitudes may fade to the background. Anti-immigration views may harden. Whether it is too late to maintain basic living standards is not yet clear but there must be some least worst path out of this dilemma. Now wait for the usual suspects to tell us it's-gunna-be-OK.

I note that this article was written before the release of the UEA CRU emails and data files.
It appears that one of the main temperature reconstructions that the IPCC relies on has been a mishmash of bad programming and fudging.
With the release of the inside info I think that it will be harder for the alarmists to convince the general public that there is a urgent need for action.
In fact it is the rush to Copenhagen that is sending warning signals to the BS detectors of the general public.
Cant wait for the rest of the CRU data to hit the public blogsphere.
Maybe it will have GISS data files as well.
Thank God for little whistleblowers!

What's the collective noun for catastrophists?

We need one to describe the collection of fatal types all flying to Copenhagen next week, hopefully doing something there so we can get on with life knowing the world is "saved". I know I know, they are all FLYING to Copenhagen .. what hypocracy, and our Kevin will fly his private jet with a planeful of worshippers, the Canberra Press gallery as they are also known.

If they don't get an agreement, does this mean we have to endure more doom stories and fudging of data till the next UN opportunity to get money in a year's time?

Even though most all the alarmists are screaming that if we don't get agreement, the world will burn, reefs will dissappear etc, they all seem prepared to do it again next year - won't it be too late?

If it's not too late - why not? Does that mean all the extremism now is just more exagerations.

Yes, exageration overload is what we have from the fatalists. So much BS, so much of you money, so little time to get it.

let's hear a solid round of applause for the hackers outing the global warming hoax and for the whistle blowers now coming to the fore.
Al Gore has made his hundreds of millions of dollars on jetting all around the world telling all the non-scientists and easily persuaded that we need to pour billions into his (unrevealed) investments to save the planet.

now Crudd and his collective sillies are demanding to go to Copenhagan with a plan to cost Australians billions so he can strut the world stage and show everyone the dills they really are.

The biggest hoax this world has seen is religion.
So any hoax about global warming will have to stand in line.
Instead of saying what it's not, how about telling us what it is.
There is deffinate change going on, so what is it.

What will it take to rally people behind the need to take strong action on cutting carbon emissions?

Well, that's a very simple question to answer:

Apocalypse!

Ooeee, way to go Ludwig, don't bother with just a reef or glacier disappearing, go for the GOLD!

That's the hysterical statement of the week I believe, if not the month, well done that man. You should work for The Age, or do you?

I think the reason for the decline in public interest in AGW is the fraudulent attitudes adopted by the vested interests involved, the fact that the earth isn't getting any hotter, and the release of the hacked emails.

The public revulsion that 30,000 bureaucrats are going to the Copenhagen wank is another factor. I am sure that many feel that a large fan placed in the top of the meeting hall would generate enough clean electricity from the hot air to supply Denmark!

In addition, the fact that the subject has been hi-jacked by the lobby pushing for more aid to the third world, which is an issue totally unrelated to AGW, makes a lot of people think twice.

This is all good, as the real problem we are going to face over the next decade is Peak Oil, which is inevitable, immediate, and which will convulse western society, making possible AGW effects trivial in comparison.

The things that should be done NOW to grapple with these problems are:

1. A considerable increase in the tax on petrol, but not on LPG (because we are running out of oil, but have LPG for a few decades), to encourage people to convert their vehicles while we still have time.

2. The third world should be opened up for TRADE, not aid. If the Fourth Reich (otherwise known as the EU) were to abolish its common agricultural policy, and allow third world countries to send cheap food to Europe, this would achieve far more for them than all the aid already given.

3. No tax on electricity, as electric cars need to be encouraged.

4. No fancy conventions for politicians. If I had my way these would have to be held at the Woomera Detention Centre. Politicians should not be paid more than the dole, and should receive no travelling expenses unless they agree to travel in the worst seat in the plane.

5. A financial climate where people were encouraged to save, so that we can begin to pay off the massive debts we and our politicians have run up.

Easy. Change the focus from 'carbon emissions' and 'global warming' to 'peak oil' and 'oil independence'.

I think the change started as plerdsus suggested, when they started to
hear about the big grants that will be made to "Developing" countries.
I am yet to see a full list, but what is the betting that a very large
percentage of it will end up in Lichtenstein banks.

There seems to be a rush for gold in those countries.
The East African states have said they will not reveal how much they
are *demanding* from developed countries till after Copenhagen.

That is what gets up my nose, they say we owe it to them !
It is not our fault they fiddled around for centuries instead of
doing what we did to get ourselves out of the Middle Ages.
Does anyone think a country with a full scale space program and a large
military establishment is entitled to put its hand in our pocket
while at the same time buying up resources and companies here ?
China in particular should stop using their over breading as an excuse.

Disclaimer - I have no evidence to support this opinion.

I think the whole thing is a ruse.

World leaders know we are running out of resources to sustain our current level of energy usage. Let alone to sustain the exponential increase if emerging nations are allowed to enter into new markets.

So, what do you do?
1. Give emerging nations a carte blanche to do whatever they want and declare publicly that we will run out of resources in a few years? That would only result in hysteria, unemployment in developed nations, resource hording and skyrocketing resource prices.

2. Block emerging nations and play the environmental guilt card. Spin it enough and people will slowly accept the need for change and go "green".

I personally beleive most people support action to save the environment including climate change, but oppose having to pay for that out of their own pocket.

Twenty years ago I bought a canal front block on Port Phillip Bay and shortly after there started much ado about climate change and rising water levels. This worried me so before starting to build my house I contacted the local Port of Melbourne Authority (or some such name) and was put onto the Chief Engineer. He told me not to worry, it being just a scam to get more government funding for scientific research. He said there were hoards of scientists who had spent many years studying and after graduating could not find work because the government did not spend enough money on research to keep them all busy. He said that the threat of climate change was just what they needed.
Well I built my house in 1988 and although the block was about one metre above high water mark nothing much has changed.

ODO What's the collective noun for catastrophists? - the Sustainable People Lobby.

Yes, the Mum's and Dad's are losing interest. One way to get people's attention is for the enviro-storm troopers to:

A. suspend democratic rights
B. institute sterlisation programs
C. de-industrialise the economy
D. stop all immigration

That would get my attention. Of course one other method is to:

A. hunt these wierdos down like dogs and sell the film rights
B. institute global sex health education programs
C. feed and educate women and kids in developing nations
D. monitor refugees - those who are genuine -stay, those who aren't - see ya later.

I await the usual end of the world comments here ..

A very good question.

"What will it take to rally people behind the need to take strong action on cutting carbon emissions?"

Honesty would be a really good start.

If we don't have proof, but have a good deal of evidence, then say so. Don't turn it into a political crusade, or media-driven circus. Simply tell us what is at risk, then help business find a solution.

Leaving it to governments to organize themselves is a recipe for chaos. Which is, of course, what we have right now.

Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Without much fuss, the Montreal protocol was agreed, CFCs were banned, and lo! the hole showing signs of closing. As predicted.

The solution was: tell business to find an alternative to CFCs. Which they did.

So, now tell business that they are too dependent upon (oil/carbon/methane/whatever). Tell them that you will start to tax the crap out of them for using (oil/carbon/methane/whatever) in a couple of years time. And give them tax breaks on their search for alternatives.

I'm fairly certain that your average Joe can understand the concept of finite resources, and would be impressed by a government with the foresight to organize itself accordingly. What they don't understand, and are naturally cynical about, is the welter of complicated, convoluted, incomprehensible and occasionally conflicting statistics that are pressed into service with the apparent objective to make them first feel stupid, and then feel guilty.

Punishing people - because that's what it feels like - because no government has so far had the moral courage to address the big picture in a holistic fashion, is not the way to rally them to your cause.

The reality is that it doesn't much matter whether the planet is warming, or cooling, or whether "we" caused it (or indeed whether "they" caused it), but that we get the message across that the planet needs smarter ways to create and distribute energy.

That's something that we can all get our heads around, without being bogged down with whether icecaps are growing, shrinking, or simply behaving normally.

The wisdom of Pericles! Too right.

Bravo Pericles and Bravo Desmond! Desmond has bought up the link here. Religionists are always banging on about the end of the world. Also they are quite happy to take money today whilst helping us tommorrow, just like the wonderful folks who bought us. What is it again? It was Global Warming, then AGW now it's climate change.
The Nutters who believe this should shut off all utilities they use and show the way. Some chance, the foremost AGW scientist bought a waterfront unit on the Yarra and told us we will all end up under water, Sure sell it to me for what you say it is worth lol!

I am reminded (by climate skeptics) of the difficulty that Charles Darwin must have experienced when dealing with the creationists of his time who thought that believing in the divine creation of man hadn't hurt them so far, so it must be correct or appropriate to continue. Despite any evidence that Darwin had to the contrary.

Darwin was challenging conventional thinking with his theories of evolution and natural selection, but the big and scary one was the notion that man was descended from apes and was in fact a mammal species and part of the ecosystem.

The thing the Ted's, Michael's and little brother's seem to miss, is that the balance between man and the planet is the problem and we'll have deal with it anyway; because of overpopulation alone etc. Darwin and pre history both confirm that the planet will have say in our future, not just man. Helping the planet and therefore ourselves now (if it's still possible for us), seems smarter than waiting for divine intervention or a sign that something is wrong!.

Let's continue on steady as she goes, more jobs, more growth, more consumption, more emissions until someone can categorically prove that there is a problem. This is the position of climate skeptics world over.

And finally "Thank God for whistle blowers" ends little brother, confusing them with people who illegally hack into someone else's email and post it on the internet.

The reason people don't believe the world is getting warmer? Because it isn't. As Abe Lincoln said: you can't fool all the people all of the time. Sooner or later reality breaks in, despite all the conniving, personal attacks and data manipulation revealed in the HADCRU files. (And we only have a selection of those so far! What goodies are yet to come, I wonder?)

Here's a good overview of the bloody-minded stonewalling paranoia revealed in the HADCRU data. Anyone who can read this and still think these guys had nothing to hide needs to take a long hard look at themselves:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole

And just to make it clear that Hadley is not the only institute engaged in dubious manipulation of data:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

It's not one bad apple in a barrel of healthy ones. It's the one bad apple that's been rolled out from behind a screen of disinformation and cronyism, and the fact that it is so rotten through and through makes it look pretty bad for the other apples that are still concealed behind that screen (but hopefully not for long). Let's let some sunlight and fresh air on to these data.

Pericles Says tell you the truth about AGW. To use the famous movie line "you can't handle the truth".
In all these endless debates on AGW many people still think in terms of the Talk back radio opinions.

The scientists AREN'T talking in terms of Apocalypse, that's the media and those who want simple and absolute answers. THERE ARE NONE.

All they have is a mounting pile of evidence and a smoking gun. Most working or up to-date, Climatologists, glaciologists, meteorologists, Oceanographers i.e. relevant fields believe that the PRIMARY cause is Anthropomorphically generated EXCESS CO2 etc.

What is disputed is the actual precise details and degree of consequences. That's why the *Possible* conclusions are over a RANGE.

What is indisputable is that most of the data comes from governmental science Organisations and teams NOT the odd professor. Who may or may not have abused his/her power at some stage during the last 13 years. In addition, that may or may not have had some minor impact on the IPCC document. Which BTW is a SYNOPSIS of All published and peer reviewed data written for policy makers . The latest Data measurements (synopsis) shows that the the 'big thaw' is happening faster than anticipated.

The models problem ISN'T poor programing . Rather it's the assumptions and unmeasured factors that cause the differences.

Pericles, I think that your belief that only business is able to solve the issues of AGW are misplaced on a number of grounds.

- Business always works on the cash cow mentality and only resorts to drastic change when their is no option.
- I might also point out that the international banning of CFC by governments was the catalyst to solving the Ozone issue. I remember business kicking and screaming trying to resist the changes .
- Also note the biggest polluters are the biggest objectors to change.
- business is short focused, this year's bonus/dividend.
- Governments are SUPPOSED to look after the people long-term.
- AGW is exponentially larger and more complex problem than the Ozone hole.

I like the bit about “Climate activists (blaming) sceptics for sowing doubts about climate science.”

This simply means that the so-called sceptics are fighting back after years of the activists’ sowing a load of junk science in the minds of people.

We ‘sceptics’ generally believe that, although the warming part of the scaremongering has not lived up to the claims of the activists, there does seem to be a change in the climate that needs to be watched and adapted to.

What we do not believe in the man-made mumbo-jumbo, which the Australian Government is using to inflict horrific taxes on Australians which might save them from the consequences of their rash spending and huge debt.

The Rudd ETS has nothing to do with climate change. It has to do with Rudd collecting money to cover his stimulus bungle and to enhance his standing globally. Australia (with 0.01% of global emissions) is not going to figure very much at all. All Australia will do is ruin its own economy and lower the standing of living of most Australians.

The Rudd Government has made no effort to show Australians that “…the costs are reasonable and the benefits, both economic and environmental, are well-defined.

Pericles: "If we don't have proof, but have a good deal of evidence, then say so"

Errr, but that is exactly what the IPCC does do. Including spelling out the uncertainties, error bars and so on. As far as I can tell, that is what every scientific body does when asked for their opinion.

Pericles: "The solution was: tell business to find an alternative to CFCs. Which they did."

Yes, they did. It is not that there aren't "ozone hole deniers" out there - is isn't hard to find them if you look. But they had no support (in particular no monetary support) and so were ignored by all and sundry.

The reaction to the AGW message has been a little different. Instead of meekly going off and finding alternatives businesses instead have responded by fighting the science. Well, some of them have. I hear the nuclear industry has been quietly doing the reverse. My guess the only reason is the ozone hole thing went so smoothly is the factories that made chlorofluorocarbon's could just make the alternatives. No bid deal.

This time entire business models must be wiped out, and the businesses behind those models aren't taking it lying down. They are opposing is in the true America way, using propaganda. Paid propaganda, as in paying the conspiracy theorists who are always part of the background noise to make a bigger noise. One stand out example of this for me was described at the start of this mp3 (sorry - no transcript) http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/10/ssw_20091024.mp3

The climate science true believers responded in kind, and now we are in this current slanging match. Certainly the climate science side is partially responsible for this - after all it takes two to have a slanging match. But to imply they are the primary cause of it as you just did is a bit rich.

rstuart I remember an Australian scientist saying that the holes in the ozone layer (North & South) were caused by no sun in that area in winter. Sun makes the ozone and the Southern pole has no sun for longer so the hole was larger. All ignored and changes made to propellant gases. Hey that was OK the new gases were over 3 times the price so absolutely no losers there apart from the consumer. Greenpeace and the UN say change and make a lot more money and now hey presto no hole in the Ozone? Yeah right they made their quid and us mugs fell for it!
Now ask why I think the AGW is another scam to lighten our pockets. Sign up now put in the tax and then (As they say in the NY Mafia) Forget about it lol.
Nah that little scam then Y2K and now AGW the Ny Mafia are right Forget about it!

Yes Amicus, that’s me – Mr Hysteria himself!

Oh uh, hang on, wait a minute, hold your horses….let’s think about this a bit.

I’m actually not Mr Hysteria. The real name is Mr Coolcalmandlogical…or Mr Cool for short!

If we really do stop and think about this whole climate-change issue, and also the human population growth issue and the imperative to move towards a sustainable way of living, we will notice one thing: that we are moving VERY RAPIDLY in the wrong direction.

We know unequivocally that the population is rapidly increasing, our use of fossil fuels and all manner of other resources is also rapidly increasing, and we are heading faster than ever away from a sustainable future.

So, does anyone in their right mind genuinely think that we can solve this enormous looming catastrophe before it becomes a catastrophe??

Come on Amicus, admit it; we don’t have a hope in hell of dealing with this stuff before apocalypse. And that’s the completely non-hysterical cool, calm and logical extent of it!

Reports by the world’s leading climate research organizations (Hadley-Met, Tyndall, NASA/GISS, Potsdam, NSIDC, CSIRO, BOM), and in thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, demonstrate the anthropogenic origin of climate change since the industrial revolution, accelerating since the mid-1970s, beyond reasonable doubt. The Australian continent, dominated by subtropical arid zones, is in particular danger from extending tropical floods in the north and progressive desertification and fires in the south.

Climate change is tracking toward levels which transcend the planetary boundaries which allowed the development of humans over the last 3 million years. These limits have already been crossed in terms of the rise in greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, Nitric oxide) and extensive loss of species1. Given lag effects, looming threats include (A) ocean acidification and phosphorous flux, collapse of coral reefs and the marine food chain; (B) availability of freshwater; (C) conversion of natural forests to cropland, i.e. the Amazon; (D) ozone depletion; (E) atmospheric aerosol loading and (F) chemical pollution by metals, plastics, radioactive nuclei etc.

The rate of climate change since the mid-1970s, at up to ~2 ppm CO2 per-year, reaching 388 ppm CO2 and ~460 ppm CO2-equivalent (including methane), is leading toward ~1.5 degrees C mean global temperature rise relative to preindustrial time. This results in carbon cycle and ice/water feedback processes, with consequent (A) extreme rates of polar ice melting, including the Arctic Sea, Greenland, West and East Anarctica which threatens accelerated sea level rise; (B) a progressive shift of climate zones toward the poles, extending the tropics as indicated by intensified cyclones and floods, and enlarging desert regions as manifested by extreme droughts and fires, including in Australia.

The consequences for human habitats include loss of arable land, fresh water supplies and extreme weather events. The loss of Himalayan snow and thereby decreased river flow, coupled with a failure of the monsoon and sea level rise, threatens more than one billion people in south and southeast Asia. Polar warming threatened the release of hundreds of billions of tons of carbon stored in permafrost and shallow lakes and seas.

Ludwig I agree that nothing will come of the efforts to reduce CO2, even if it were to blame for increased warming.

The world is warming naturally as the sea level rises as we come out of the last Ice Age, the scientific community has hijacked that for their own selfish reasons, the usual one, money. That's unraveling, we'll see how fast, but I suspect the scientific community has done itself considerable damage as far as fundamental research funding goes.

There's no grand conspiracy, just little "cartels" that naturally see the competitiveness and rewards of the research world life gone large.

I have no doubt that all the money from our ETS or UN taxes, call them what you will are anything more than redistribution of money through society. It won't work, socialism does not work regardless of intent, greed will overcome. The people in countries that are backward, will not be suddenly bootstrapped to 1st world level, it takes hundreds of years, not decades, for cultures to change and evolve, without even a mention of the primitive tribal based cultures who reject first world values anyway.

However, if we follow your line, that there needs to be a cataclysmic event before the 1st world really does something, you're probably right, I admit it. If, and only if, the world is really heating up due to additional effects from humans, then no one alive today in power is going to give it up for some abstract future benefit.

PM Rudd is not a generous man, he is pursuing this end for his own greedy benefit and ego, not some love of mankind principle.

He talks a good fight, but is he a man of principle or ambition?

This is a folly, our generation will be laughed at for centuries. All the hand-wringing and doom-saying will not produce anything towards what the eco warriors want, the money will end up back where it began or in Swiss bank accounts.

There will be much disappointment, but it does give the children something to do, to rage at the machine.

I agree with examinator (I never thought I would say that!) :)

"Business always works on the cash cow mentality and only resorts to drastic change when their is no option."

I would go further and say the majority works on that mentality.

I support action on climate change. I don't want it to cost me $3000 per year.

Whether there is or isn't climate change, I support the aim of living sustainably and using renewable resources. I'm no greenie, I also support using up the mininng resources, oil, gas etc while we have the means and the processes to do this efficently. But in the end we need to find better alternatives.

One of the problems with bull-tish is the taste.

No matter how sincere, emotional or contrived the presenters of GW theories are when they feed the public bull-tish the public still taste the same thing every time.

Nowadays we, the real people of the planet, have been force fed so much bull-tish by the “green-enviro-GW” zealots that we can taste the bull-tish even before they open their mouths

It is no different to the previous manna-for-the-proletariat, communism, a central authority telling everyone they needed to do something for the common good

The whole things is simply “Socialism by Stealth”

A ruse, designed to increase taxes and reduce the discretionary power / disposable incomes of the individuals who actually create the wealth on which the state gorges itself.

No wonder Krudd and Co are hell bent on signing everyone in Australia up to the programme ( they are probably on some MLM commission scheme run by UN/Gore).

How can ya read socialism into that is beyond me.
This world would be far better off with a good clean up.
Oil and gas will come to an end one day, so any change now will be a head start. There seems to be a lot of people fearing what it will cost them. I suggest they take stock now to see what they can do to alleviate this.
Even diesel cars are carbon producers, so put them on gas.
Use some imagination instead of whingeing.

Amicus, I don’t buy this scientific conspiracy or ‘cartel’ theory.

I believe that just the opposite is happening. That is; effectively an enormous conspiracy from big business, governments and people afraid of us possibly steering away from business as usual. In other words, there is a huge push to continue with the same old methodology of economic growth, human expansion, overconsumption, etc….and scant little regard for any need to err on the side of caution.

We can see that something is definitely happening out there and that it is huge and global, with the melting of glaciers, ice-shelfs, more severe and frequent cyclones, increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere, etc.

But rather than try to unite in a cautious approach, a very large section of humanity, largely including those in the big business sector and others with power and influence, are willing to do whatever it takes to poo-poo it and continue with business as usual!

But even worse than this, the whole climate change debate has effectively hijacked the debate about sustainability. Rather than act as a step towards a broader debate on sustainability, as I would have expected, it seems to have diverted attention away from continuous population growth, the development of steady-state economies and the imperative for humanity to come into balance with its resource base, in a holistic manner and not just regarding energy.

We so desperately need to tackle the sustainability imperative and not just one section of it as we virtually are with climate change / fossil fuels / energy supplies.

Now the climate change debate has become terribly muddled. We’re not going to get anywhere with it for years, so it seems.

And the sustainability debate continues to be subdued and largely out of the media and decision-makers’ minds.

Bring on the apocalypse.

Examinator & all other greenies take note, having your elite left wing leadership leap into bed with right wing elites, to promote wall street's change from credit trading to carbon trading did not help us to believe all the bull dust, the mass media has been feeding us.

The ETS Economic Treason Scheme & CPRS Create Poverty Ruthlessly System are about exporting jobs, stealing from all of you and giving the money to Goldman Sachs, Macquarie Bank, etc. Wake up to yourselves, its yet another, steal from 99% of the people and give it to 1% of the filthy rich. (they have not stolen all of your money yet and they will not stop until they have impoverished all of you)

Reducing Electricity usage in oz does not need carbon trading.

Reducing fossil fuel burning may actually contribute to GW, because it would also reduce smog production. If smog in the atmosphere clears up or reduces faster than the excess co2 does, it could trigger increases in temperature more catastrophic than even the worst doomsdayer's have been predicting.

Have all of you forgotten about GD or Global Dimming or the "Shade Cloth Effect" or have all of you stopped talking about it, deliberately. It was on 4corners a few years ago.

Lugwig, on the side of conspiracy and cartels, I don't believe it is wider than a few groups of individuals who are bending things to benefit themselves, it's not some international huge organized crime for instance - for some reason many people think scientists are saints, I work with them and they are like everyone else - just as easily led astray by the same benefits that lead politicians and bankers and other criminals astray - it all starts very simply then you get on a slippery slope and away it goes - the guys at CRU are going to roll. Their "buddies" will abandon them and to save their own skins, reputations and mortgage payment upkeep, will tip them out.

On climate, yes its changing, but why is that thought anything out of the ordinary? Clearly we don't understand it, but that doesn't mean we have to find some primitive type explanation, in the past of course, the "gods" controlled things. This is more of the same, except we've found a more modern explanation, it's that gas over there, yeah that's it. And if you don't believe us, you're a denier, skeptic, killer of children unborn, and on it goes .. sounds so like a primitive belief system.

It's our ignorance and arrogance that's to blame, the scientists who will not admit (except in private emails) that they don't know what's going on.

Sustainability, yep, OK I do agree it would take an apocalypse for behaviors to change. You are correct the whole climate thing detracts from us moving forward on sustainability, but why is it our scientists continue with all the doomsaying - look at the media at the moment, every scientist with a vested interest is out there saying catastrophe is imminent, it's hard for anything else to get a hearing. The Copenhagen thing is so sexy it has all the greenies and eco types in a tiz, everyone wants to be there, like our PM. Everyone wants to be a part of stopping the climate, no one cares what happens after that.

Thrill of the Chase?

Climate Change?

What have we done that is good for our Planet?

Could say most persons either would not have a clue or would not give a continental, only viewing nature from the latest most comfortable car.

So we might say that as far as Nature is concerned most Western whites are reasonably happy.

However if Nature these days acquired a human mind what should Nature be thinking?

Indeed, Nature might think that though it has been sometimes improved by humans it has also been too much destroyed by humans.

With the above in view, one might ask what is in the average person's mind that is good for nature.

Well, we might say that a district fire might be good for nature's renewal in the next season, but not always so nice for humans.

On the other hand, while clearing timber country in earlier modern times, at last a farmer clearer might gain a happier view of his homestead or even the local town.

But we now have the tussle between farmer and natural animal life, a case in point being the contract owner clearer feeling only partly happy to find his last fifty acres filled with kangaroos, mallee fowl trying to take off similar to the emus and scrub turkeys, the farmer even shedding a tear but glad that down from the thousand acre piece is a stretch of low scrub and salt for the wildlife to move to.

One now thinks back and wonders what sort of person he is that can destroy animal habitats just to make things suitable for mankind?

And right now thinking back when the Age of Enlightenment delivered its wonderful birth-child the Industrial Revolution, the so-called necessary change from hand-held - axe, rake and hoe - to miraculously powered machinery now so scientific that there is little doubt that though beneficial it has trapped mankind's mind even more, the thrill of the profit chase like sex, sweetly clouding any fear of the damage that our Never-Ending Powered Enlightenment has long been pushng our Planet probably to its end?

Burbs,
Welcome to the real world (he he he) :-)

Desmond,
Don't worry about Col he finds socialism EVERYWHERE, under rocks, in Easter eggs, even if he was alone on a desert island.

Formersnag,
You Conspiracy theorist you....You silly sausage you.
Me? a greenie? nah just someone who reads more widely than you and want a livable world. (since when is wanting to survive exclusively Greenies domain?)
PS I'm a Secular Humanist.

Hyah, Ludwig, old OLO mate.

Go for it cobber.

Anyway, I put a mixed paddock and theoro' one in yesterday ending with near the same argument you have about GW.

Might mention that my last paragraph tries to bring it altogether-

That while mankind if it tries hard enough right now has the capacity to feel danger ahead for our Planet.

Mankind sadly helped by wonderful scientific progress is heading towards an end brought on by the Thrill of the Business Chase.

Here one is reminded of Adam Smiths' warning about mankind being careful in its progress to understand the difference between greed and need.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

G'Day Bushbred.

Thanks for the support.

"...the Thrill of the Business Chase"

That's an interesting way of putting it - that is: the utterly mad push by the business community and their bedfellows; the pollies (of both persuasions) who push continuous expansionism with no end in sight down our throats, which has been boosted to new record levels by our hopeless PM, beyond the previous record levels under out last hopeless PM!

It's no wonder that we are heading directly towards apocalypse!

Dear oh dear….If only our decision-makers could respect Adam Smith’s wisdom!

Not to worry Ludwig, the word is that China will be up against oil
supply next year sometime, the price will go over US$100 and that will
be the end of growth, no matter what Kevin wants to do.

That saying, that anyone who wants continuous growth in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist, comes to mind.

Kevin is not an economist is he ? Hmmm