Fester, I'm not getting into a discussion on whether your layman's understanding of AGW is bigger than mine.

>>There is no mention of cooling due to ozone depletion...etc<<

Q&A has the right idea.

>>Can we discuss what needs to be done, rather than 'what wavelength CO2 absorbs at' or "they say, we say'?<<

Whatever the reality, it poses a real problem to ordinary people in Australia. Q&A's article pointed this out...

"Several scientists said the G20 summit in London, where climate change was barely considered, had convinced them the action required would not be taken."

When you have a simultaneous "crisis" in the world's financial systems - one that affects everybody, with its threat of looming unemployment - and a barely-noticeable-to-the-naked-eye potential problem with climate change, what is the most likely outcome?

Right. Fix unemployment, the climate can go hang.

We're not talking about a bunch of scientists here, but the leaders of the world's most important nations.

We can hop around on one foot as long as we like, making futile gestures until we are blue in the face.

The reality is that when faced with the choice between altruism and self-preservation, almost everyone - our political leaders not excepted - will take the latter option.

Everyone seems to be really good at calculating to the nth degree the number of millimetres the sea levels will rise by the year 2100.

Try using the same mathematical expertise on the cost of telling China and India that they are too late - sorry, you can't grow your economies in the same way that we did, the planet won't survive.

If you have sufficient power of persuasion to do that, then tell the Greenies that we should include nuclear power generation in our plans.

If AGW still bothers you, take some personal action.

Find some higher ground. Make sure you have access to fresh water. Grow your own food. Learn to make do without power.

And learn to defend yourself.

Great Pericles! In moving forward, I would be happy to partake in a new general discussion thread along those lines. Can you put it up?

Pericles

The point I was trying to make to you in may last post is that you don't have to accept AGW or even that the climate is changing.

Two facts:

1. We are running out of non-renewable energy.
2. We are facing an economic crisis.

We have new technology, that will replace fossil fuels, investment into it will create jobs that will go towards revitalising the economy. That means industries will change, just as they have in the past. Once we hunted whales for oil - apart from a few who like to eat them, whaling is a defunct industry. Oil and coal will always be needed for production of such things as plastic and we may even find 100% successful way to sequester carbon, but we do not need to be so completely reliant on them. Nor do we need to strip forests for the production of paper or building materials when we have fast growing alternatives such as hemp and bamboo. Yes, they require water to grow so we grow them in suitable climates. Instead of trying to change the natural environment to suit our needs, we can work with and adapt to climate change.

A wide variety of non-polluting energy sources is not only achievable but preferable to what we have now.

Fractelle, we are in total agreement on the stupidity of the manner in which we use the planet's resources.

My major objection to the AGW debate is that it is not treated at all seriously. Instead, each side (even that is a ridiculous concept; how can you "take sides" over facts?) appears hell-bent on recruiting as many passive loons as possible to rally behind their particular flag, simply in order to big-note themselves.

I also have enormous faith in the ability of the human race to meet and overcome the problems that are of its own making. As you say, alternative energy sources will be found, new industries will spring up, and ultimately we will be well again.

But in order to do so, we need to turn the attention of the scientists, from adding to the already mammoth pile of data and interpretations, more data and counter-interpretations, to the practical issues of "what do we do about it?"

Sadly, that's where politics rears its ugly head. Politicians can see only as far as the next election, when their obscene paypackets are renewed. I live in NSW, and have witnessed first hand how a handful of really stupid, selfish people can in a few short years turn a relatively successful State into a basket-case, complete with a non-functioning infrastructure and a paralyzed bureaucracy that nevertheless sees fit to pay itself.

It seems that we can't get their attention, or the attention of G20, and instead sit around grumbling - as I just did - that no-one is taking it seriously.

The real issue is not about having four-minute showers or remembering to turn off the plasma. It is about finding, and funding, alternate, clean energy sources. And frankly, governments are not very good at that.

This sense of frustration is probably why I so despise the tokenism that has taken over the whole debate. Plus its associated futile gestures, supported by a legion of smug self-appointed pundits whose main contribution is parrotting the latest dramatic news from Antarctica (hey, the ice is melting!) at dinner parties.

Citoyens! Pour les barricades!

Pericles

Thank you.

I understand completely where you are coming from and totally agree. It is ridiculous that there be sides to working toward using the resources of this plant in a rational and truly economic fashion. I guess I am venting my own frustration at the lack of action, through posting links to ice-melts as a way of doing something - as well as turning out lights, recycling, signing petitions, emailing and writing to pollies and so on ad nauseum.

If only our esteemed leaders would pull their collective heads out and see the bleeding obvious and DO SOMETHING!

"It is about finding, and funding, alternate, clean energy sources. "And frankly, governments are not very good at that."

Indeed not Pericles and particularly when large multi-national pollutant industries employ lobbyists to capture the attention of environmentally ignorant governments.

"Politicians can see only as far as the next election, when their obscene paypackets are renewed."

The pay packets of politicians are petty cash compared to the "obscene" packets the pollutant parasites receive whilst pillaging and plundering these fragile lands.

"I also have enormous faith in the ability of the human race to meet and overcome the problems that are of its own making." And in which century do you envisage that happening Pericles whilst we permit the parasites to remain in charge - polluting parasites who have a penchant to lay the blame on China and India?

For the timebeing, the real issue *is* about having four-minute showers or remembering to turn off the plasma to compensate for the industry barons who remain in denial, thus sustaining their obscene pay packets whilst trashing our environment (or what's left of it) with impunity!