Dear Banjo,

Thankfully we humans are a diverse lot, that is one of our blessings. I have a great book on last century's flat-earthers. I think those who were so derisive of the them in a way are disrespectful of our species.

While scientific evidence can be subject to mathematical rigour and proofing, the ultimate acceptance of that evidence by humans is of course entirely subjective.

When you claim there is no evidence for human induced climate change then you are exercising that subjectiveness. Extensive research shows the same degree of subjectiveness is shared by around 15% of Australians, and the fact that political persuasion is such a large indicator of dis-belief in AGW reinforces the fact that straight science remains a poor cousin to belief systems in the true anti-AGW cohort of which you are a part.
http://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/attached_files_publications/Reser_2012_Public_risk_perceptions_Second_survey_report.pdf

You are one of the very few people with whom I engage at any level who say that there is no temperature data that would change their mind on AGW. It puts you in a very small subset of the 15%. That you and others like you gravitate to a political site like this is understandable and I think the rest of us should be grateful for the chance to be exposed to what is a rather rare ideological trait.

While I do despise bullies on OLO I do not despise you for your ideology because in a way it is a celebration of the human race.

More strength to your arm.

<< Luddy old mate, you are at least a warmist worth talking to… >>

Thanks Hazza. But I think of myself as a sceptic, not a ‘warmist’.

<< However I must throw it back to you to explain why we should "wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto renewables". >>

Really? Do I have to?

Hwaaaw ( :>(

Surely it is just so obvious! This wonderfully cheap oil, coal and gas is having one enormous and absolutely terrible effect, far worse than global warming; it is powering the massive expansion of humanity. It is leading to an ever-greater rate of usage… of finite resources. It can’t go on indefinitely. It is leading us straight into an almighty crisis situation.

<< … there are no renewables that work… >>

There are none that provide the quantity of energy or that are anywhere near as cheap, or don’t have enormous downsides.

So what does this mean when the crunch comes??

Wouldn’t be an enormously better idea to start introducing the various renewable but more expensive energy sources now, so that we can transition away from our utter dependence on oil and other fossil fuels?

continued

Haz, the very fact that renewable energy sources can’t go anywhere near competing with fossil fuels constitutes a damn good motive for progressively introducing then NOW. Because if they get introduced only after oil has become very expensive and/or in limited supply, then the energy shock (the sudden big change in the price of energy and all the economic and social consequences of it) will be enormous.

So we need to act now just as the warmists want us to, regardless of whether AGW is real and serious or entirely bogus.

We don’t need to forsake fossil fuels. But it would be a damn good idea to slow down our consumption of them while greatly increasing renewable energy sources. And if we did this, fossil fuels could continue to be a significant part of our energy paradigm for many decades longer than they will be at the current rate of exploitation.

As for your suggestion that global warming is actually a good thing; it could have some advantages, but I wonder how these would compare to the incredible devastation that would be caused by a metre or two of sea level rise, and by more intense weather events and some areas getting much less rainfall. Very much more damage than benefit I would think.

Banjo,

We may be at cross purposes here on global warming, considering you seem to be off the planet on this. We are talking about the effect us human are having in relation to climate change on our planet Earth. When you say there is "no evidence of human involvement" are you referring to the plant Earth, or you own planet, Venus? Because you do seem to be off the planet on the issue.
Completely separate from the climate change issue, is the renewable energy issue and the need for sustainability on that score. The majority of skeptics not only deny climate change science, they also despise anyone who would suggest that there is a need now to develop alternative energy sources. These skeptics are content to carry on as per usual in Cloud Cuckoo Land, completely oblivious to the looming crises. What is their future hope "God will provide"?

Luddy old mate, you are too pessimistic.

The old cleshay applies here. The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones, just as we stopped using gas lights, because electricity was better.

Sometime soon some smart little chap will find a way to power your transport with a tiny chip of nuclear material, installed for life on the production line.

There will still be plenty of coal to extract the chemicals required for pharmaceuticals.

There is no shortage of carbon as a construction material, & we can use cellulose instead of petroleum as a base for plastics. We only used petroleum as it was available cheaply, & now because all the development it has had.

In fact, most of those resources you worry about will not be required in the near future, & will be as much a curiosity as flint arrow heads are today.

Fifty years ago we still used kerosene to light some homes, not fly thousands around the globe. Seventy years ago we still had some Oz wheat going to the UK in sailing ships. It won't take long.

So do stop worrying old mate, you can go for a drive without all that guilt. You are not using anything future generations will value, or need.

SR, please write my CV.

Hasbeen, you certainly have a plan for the future, but I think you'll find it's "cleeshay", with a double "e" ? A tiny chip of nuclear material, eh? Geez, what little you don't know wouldn't fill the space on the back of a Julia Gillard skirt.