Yabby,

"You are trying to predict the future. How many have done that accurately in the past?"

I have been referring to the reseach of the world's scientific community and reports published UN Environment Program's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based on 4 000 papers and extensive mathematical modelling worldwide.

I suggest that we will burn all of them at the stake. We are back in the dark ages. This is the madness we are dealing with nowadays. We are blinded by our greed.

*I suggest that we will burn all of them at the stake. We are back in the dark ages.*

Well whatever floats your boat, Rob :)

Personally I don't think that hysterical panic is a good solution
either. I also think its not a bad idea to be skeptical and
to ask questions. Personally I wish those models could predict
the weather just 3 months ahead, in my part of the world they
cannot.

Next question, is what we do actually going to make a scrap of
difference? In Australia's case no. I know plenty of people
living in colder places like Europe and the Northern US, who
actually hope that things will warm up a bit for them, they
don't like all that snow for half the year. So they keep
burning their diesel oil to heat their homes.

So yes, the human co2 genie is out of the bottle. China, India
and others are not about to stop building more power stations.
Australia has suggested nothing but a feelgood solution so far.

Perhaps in the longer term that means that 10 billion people
all burning energy is not sustainable. Nature will then thin
us down a bit, no doubt. At some point, we'll have to adjust.

I've been claiming since the 70s that population remains the
elephant in the room. But with religious institutions like
the Vatican doing everything in their power to work against
a solution and claiming that ever more people is a good thing,
there is not much that I can do about it. Now you want me
to become hysterical?

Yabby,

It is a typical approach of CC sceptics. When a scientific evidence is being referred to and a solution provided, they challenge the science and raise an issue which can not be easily controlled, in this case population control, to justify further inaction and inertia. (I could get involved into a scientific argument about validility of contemporary earth sciences, but I will not.)

O.K., the population control is extremely important, but we can not do about it as much as we can about the energy sector restructuring. You blame the Vatican, but they have a very little influence on India, China or mostly Muslim Nigeria which are hardly influenced by the Catholic Church.

It is worthwhile noting that the rapidly growing neo-evangelical movemement in the U.S. (~ 15%) in many other countries is definitely more extreme. They do not support use of contraceptives, but they do not believe any climate change either. How could God create Earth which might be imperfect with overpopulation or natural disasters ? The rapid neo-evangelical movement's growth is closely associated with the collapse of manufacturing industry, current high unemployment rate or low-paid service industry jobs (due to GFC and globalisation).

My view is the energy sector restructuring is relatively easily achievable when compared to the effective population control measures. The previously quoted IPCC report (approved in May 2011) indicates that the most of the word's energy could easily originate from renewable sources by 2050, but only if we start gradually increasing their use. If current slow progress continues, only 15% of energy will originate from renewables. Of course, we could wait for a miracle (i.e. your energy holy grail) which will never happen.

I have been working for public and private sector at the management level for years. In my case, R&D and innovation has always generated growth and new opportunities. Germans, Britts, Dans and other European nations are gradually increase the use of renewables and still experience (even greater) economic growth. Nobody gets histerical about CC. It is just business and new opportunities

Dear Rob

Always a pleasure to read your balanced and thoughtful posts. T'will take a great deal of cooperation between nations, lots of innovation (which humans are rather good at when given the chance), reduction in birth rates tends to follow better educated people - another reason to aid third world countries.

Not giving up, because corporate greed will eventually click on corporate survival instincts - whether that will be soon enough for the majority of us is the $6 million question.

Its gonna be interesting. One is watching the efforts at dodging and weaving the many problems we have to negotiate, by those whose beliefs are 'not to be disagreed with' under any burden of proof.

I wonder how Western Australian farmers will embrace the mining industry when their lands are fracced.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/coal-seam-gas-gasland-and-fracking-making-farmers-uneasy/

"Lock the gate?

You don’t own your land.

Let’s clarify. You own about the top few inches and the soil (good for primary producers) but nothing underneath. That’s why no Joe Blow becomes rich when the mining companies find natural resources below the carrots. Sure, you’ll be compensated for them but you don’t own them. And you don’t really get a say in whether somebody can come in and dig them up, if they’re considered sovereign wealth.

Exploration companies are required to ask permission in person or by post to come and explore your property if they expect there are goodies to be found. This is where the ‘Lock the Gate’ campaign springs from, the hope that farmers and landowners can keep the companies out by not letting them ask permission to mine in the first place.

But the system seems to be geared toward letting them in. If landowners refuse permission, a mining company can take it to arbitration. As Warrick Jordan laments: “I can’t think of any examples where somebody has been able to keep out an exploration company.”

><><><><><><><><>

If only the energy industry would put as much effort into clean renewable sources... just dreamin'

*O.K., the population control is extremely important, but we can not do about it as much as we can about the energy sector restructuring*

Nonsense Rob. We are not evey trying. How much Australian foreign
aid goes to third world family planning? How many of our politicians
raise it on the global stage? Virtually zilch. Yet the global
population increased by 1 billion people in just 12 years. Its
the massive elephant, yet virtually ignored, as politicians chase
the feelgood policies, which frankly won't matter, whilst that
elephant remains. Yet rainforests around the world, they used to
call them the lungs, are being wiped to make space for another
quarter of a million people a day.

The Vatican operates at the UN and Govt level, even within our
very own parliament. So their tactics affect all countries.

I watched the Insight programme on Tuesday, which was all about
electricity costs. It made my point for me. On every level
there is a huge amount of r&d going on, investments being made
and costs dropping dramatically. It makes perfect sense to sit
back and watch to see what works, before comitting tens of billions
in investments.

The latest financial reports show that solar cell manufacturers
are selling their panels for as little as $1.40 a watt. The
question now arises, how do we get those panels from the factories
onto a house roof, in a cost effective manner. For as we see
with the PV schemes, consumers will react very quickly when the
numbers stack up.

Yabby, I seem to exactly confirm my point. What do you propose to do about the Vatican standing on contraceptives ? They are not much different than all other major religions are in these matters. Easy to change them ? (Probably it would be easier to burn a few IPCC climatologists at the stake, but we have already agreed we will not be doing it as they might be right. There is likely an anthropological climate change occurring with adverse consequences soon. )

Deforestation ? I agree it is unsustainable. What is it for ? Is it to benefit the local community or it is clearing for mining or agriculture for mass production of food to be exported overseas what has become possible with free trade agreements and globalisation? Nevertheless, it seems that melting glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas or desertification due to El Ninjo has much greater consequences for rainforests. (Should we burn these IPCC climatologists though?)

You say about substantial R&D in renewable energy going on and technology price drops. You admit that prices are low, but you still suggest to sit back and wait further. Why ? The only what comes to mind is the short-term interest of mining and energy sector.

Prices low, but still too high ? For this, we have governments with their taxes, subsidies and tax breaks or even old-fashioned regulations.