watch my lips(so to speak): it doesn't matter.

oil will be gone as a large scale fuel source in the life of people now living. coal will not last much longer. yellowcake will disappear soon after that, if the human race is stupid enough to let the pollies and miners dig it up.

planet earth is not an inexhaustible mine. we will use renewable energy sources because that's all this grossly overpopulated planet will provide. the sooner we begin the transition, the less painful it will be.

it may be that immediate and rapid transition will save the planet from a metastable irreversible translation to 'venusian' conditions, but since few people believe this, concentrate on the necessity to preserve as much oil as possible for the non-energy uses which also underpin our economy.

conversion to a low energy lifestyle is simple and cheap in the initial stages. listening to pollies talk about preserving the economy is going to be disastrous. ..and your choice is?

Demos, you really shouldn't spell out the fundamental truths in such a brutal way.

Yes, the oil, coal and gas will soon run out (perhaps a little slower than you say, but inevitably).

Yes, uranium ores will make little difference because there just plain isn't enough of the stuff.

Yes, that will leave us with solar, wind, geothermal, and crop fuels. These, maxed out with our current technologies, could only supply a fraction of our current energy consumption.

Undeniably, there is a great deal of pain ahead.

But why deny people hope when, as you say, it makes no difference what we believe or dream.

And maybe there is hope. After all, there's still a modest chance Santa, or fusion technologies can save us

We have a few hundred years of coal left, then there's shale. More than enough time do some damage.

Why should anyone give a stuff about what will happen (or not) in 50 years time? Who can possibly know? Tell me what will win the Melbourne Cup in November! Or the 5th in Sydney on Saturday.

Should you regard this as trivial and absurd,having absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming/Climate Change, I'll make it more relevant for you. There are some very exhaustive Form Guides for the races (Sportsman,The Wizard,The Winning Post) and hundreds of websites, radio programmes,TV channels etc etc examining every variable and factor known to influence the outcome of a horserace. For more than 300 years the greatest scientific brains have studied and expanded, and expounded upon, the discipline of Puntology. We've got computers working on it day and night. Modelling galore. We've got every sort of analysis, rating, probability theory applications, mathematical investigations. We can elaborate and extrapolate every conceivable possible outcome, and even assign odds on every one of these outcomes occurring.

So, who believes we can foretell the outcome of the 5th Race in Sydney on Saturday? What about the 5th race in Brisbane....in 50 years time? cheers.

If Bob Carter fails to persuade the world to ignore global warming and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and he is right, then no real damage will have been done. We will have learnt to produce energy more efficiently and use it more effectively. But if he does persuade the world to ignore global warming and he is wrong, then Professor Carter and his followers will be responsible for the greatest human catastrophe, even the end of our species. He should bear this in mind.

David Whitehead,
Point Lookout

What an absurd argument to make on a politics forum. Not being able to predict the future in fine detail is no reason not to try to make the best of it.

Interesting comment Freediver, though I'm not 100% sure if you meant it ironically. If not, then it's really case closed; either this is a science-based discussion, in which the accuracy of the predictions is paramount OR, as you tell us, it's all about politics; this is a "politics forum" to use your words. Is this really a Political matter with a group of people attempting to grab power via a (bogus?) scare campaign. Ah, those little Freudian Slips, freediver! Care to retract?

As for David's idea that assertions of impending doom have to be met with action regardless of their veracity (better to be safe than sorry), most people nodding in agreement would thus be strong supporters of GW Bush's invasion of Iraq since it was using the same rationale with a (seemingly) much more imminent danger. Or....am I missing something? Cheers.

Punter57

You are obviously a betting (wo)man.

Tell me, is there such a term in the racing vernacular as "hedging your bets"?

If so - would it not be prudent to think:

If a horse is 90-95% very likely to win, have a bet on it (is this hedging?)

Or do you require 100% certainty of winning before you placed your bet?

It's a balance between the chances of it happening and the cost, Davsab. If something seems unlikely (say 100-1 = 1%) you would not put very much on it (ie $1 will bring you $100 if correct). If it seems very likely (say 10-1 ON = ) you would need to bet $1000 to get the same $100 BUT with almost "certainty". The $1 I've allotted to Global Warming being human-induced has been wasted on my Internet connection reading articles on the subject. Wasted, because at a million to one I should've put only a ten thousandth of a single cent toward the task !

There are so many possible causes of death/injury/misfortune that any prudent person would prioritise them according to the actual possibility of them happening. Should I invest 40 bucks on a hard-hat lest a frozen turd falling from a passing jetliner crack my skull? Should I spend the money for a moat and drawbridge lest I be home-invaded? Should I buy an iron neck-protector lest dropbears truly exist? Maybe. Would you? If not, why not? Cheers.

Thanks punter57

The way I see GW then is this:

9 to 1 on (because that is what the experts are telling us)

Governments and businesses (including insurance companies) all over the world are adopting policies and strategies to address climate change, whether they believe in it or not – hedging their bets then.

So will I.

punter57: "Why should anyone give a stuff about what will happen (or not) in 50 years time?"

One assumes that this troll doesn't have children or grandchildren. Or one hopes s/he doesn't, for their sakes.

David,

Are you going to be the one to tell the third world that their promised development will never come because we’ve decided we don’t want to take any risk, no matter how small, on CO2 levels? While your in the midst of western comforts achieved using the processes you now want to stop? Real damage, unethical damage, can be done to millions across the world by overreacting to global warming. Luckily for you and me it won’t be us that cops the brunt of it.

The end of our species? Really?. Isn’t that called scaremongering.

Tell me do you support Nuclear Power? Because it seems to me that it fits the bill perfectly if you actually believe global warming is about to wipe out our species.

On a brighter note, there are advances in appliances. LED lights are many times more efficient than fluoro or halogen lights. Cars are getting more efficient and petrol prices are driving market demand back to more efficient cars and ethanol levels are being raised in the fuel. People are buying more fuel-efficient heaters and washing machines.

Solar energy is getting cheaper to install and more efficient and effective.

Change is slow but there is change. The pace of change does need to speed up, but Demos, you do tend to get nihilistic on us.

There are so many ways we can all make a difference if only we don't give up. Once Australia shows a positive example, India and China will follow as they also want to do the right thing if they can afford it.

Good morning Saint. Don't you know that optimism and a belief in your fellow man gets you ridiculed around here? Too many people! The end is nigh! We're all gunna die! The rape of MOTHER earth!(link to expert).

In 30 years or less, when the sort of resources currently employed in the hydro-carbon energy sector are instead invested in renewables, where will the doomsayers be then? Demanding meteor shields? Locking up smokers? Banning moggies?

once you've grasped the fact that we are going to be totally dependent on renewables 'soon', the question becomes, when shall we change over?

now, and as fast as possible, are the moral answers. if gw is critically important, the moral answer may also be the survival answer.

ludwig goes on at length about the central problem of unchecked and unexamined growth, on the other gws thread. he's right, read it carefully. but he won't address the question of how to stop growth when politicians dare not even mention the problem. it's too hard for any ozzie, as the prospect of demanding democracy is simply beyond the cultural imagination.

it's not enough to cry out: "the sky is falling!" you have to follow up with: "..and so let's do something."

The other tip I picked up is the ionised fuel saver being sold on the market now. They are easily fitted on the lead to the carburettor and you can fit it in yourself, or cheap job by mechanic.

You can save from 15-29% on your fuel costs as it reduces you fuel consumption on your car. It actually cleans the fuel by ionising it, so it is cleaner for the environment.

One seller on the web in Australian made:

http://www.prozone.com.au

Ford Puma Saver:
http://www.speedydelivery.co.uk/easy-fuel-saver/ford-puma.shtml

US: Vortek Cyclone
http://www.vorteccyclone.com/savegas.html?gclid=CMGZ7uyRo40CFRX2ggodc14R6g

Just some more ways we can save on petrol and carbon emissions, and save on money. This is not an advertisement so shop around. These are for sale on eBay too.

There is an academic paper written on this by specialists.

My problem is that I cannot find the link to it.

It predicts that fossil fuels will go into decline before the crucial co2 levels are hit, thereby avoiding the most serious, but not all, consequences of global warming.

Can anyone provide a link to this paper please?

"either this is a science-based discussion, in which the accuracy of the predictions is paramount OR, as you tell us, it's all about politics;"

This is about politics, and risk management. From a scientific perspective you can just wait and see what happens, then you'll know the truth. From a political or risk management perspective that is absurd. Science is interested in the truth, politics is about our interests. Science can inform politics, but that doesn't mean politics should approach issues in such a detached way - or wait for certainty.

Lastword,
The article is/was on on On Line Opinion forum but I have not
been able to find it again. It was written by Professor Kjell Aleklett
of Upsalla University and President of ASPO.
ASPO's web site is www.apso.net but I could not find the article there.
It was published in a scientific publication so there might have been
copyright issues.
Aleklett's critism of the IPCC was that their projections did not take
into account hydrocarbon depletion. They assumed full supply.

Oh my god Demos! The end of the world is nigh, is it?
Did it ever occur to you that your constant whinging about overpopulation gets a tad tedious.
What do you, personally propose we do about "OVERPOPULATION"?
Lets just hope that a boring whinger like you hasn't contributed to this problem.

goddess, population control is not hard. it just needs educating women, that results in birth rate drop and population reduction follows. this has been demonstrated all over the world.

it is unwelcome news to corporations and politicians. they prefer ignorant cows who can deliver cheap labor and unquestioning obedience.

if these matters distress you, set your blog filter to 'good news'.

Bazz and others

the link to the aforementioned Proff. Arklett ( ASPO) article is:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933

well worth a read.

Nil carborundum