Solutions Individual. You can't even define the problem. GW theology is totally heretical and unscientific. Lets pour our energies into real environmental challenges rather that waste billions more on Government handouts to rent seekers.

"Alarmists & Deniers are everywhere. They both claim to know but do they ?"

What? Deniers everywhere?

No mate they aren't. You might find a little cabal here on OLO and a few down at the local RSL but on the whole the majority of Australians not only accept the science but are willing to spend significant dollars to help mitigate it.

"In 2019, six in ten Australians (61%) say global warming is ‘a serious and pressing problem’ about which ‘we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’."
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/issues/australia-climate-change

Just 10% believe "Until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs" which doesn't make them deniers but rather sitting on the fence skeptics. The actual number of deniers would be far less.

So mate proper deniers are truly outliers.

Indy, you'd have to be blind and deaf not to know what the "something" is. There is much debating here on OLO about what to do, or not do, about it.

The electorate wants something done towards bringing down CO2 concentration. There is a proven, affordable pathway, it is nuclear, and a renewables plus storage pathway that is an unaffordable fantasy down which Oz is heading.

If you would stop expending energy on opposition to any response to reducing emissions and focus on a solution instead, it would greatly raise your relevance in the debate.

Luciferase,
Thanks for the first bit of solution put forward. But, isn't it the GW warmist camp that is vehemently opposed to nuclear ?

Hi Steele,

Please correct me, I'll deserve it:

1. Average world temperatures have risen by about half a degree Celsius in eighty years, or about three degrees in the next five hundred years if we do nothing;

2. Sea-levels, taking all the ups and downs of continental and coastal changes, have gone up about one inch every decade for the last few decades. So if each of us survives for the next five hundred years, the water will be up to our chests. A bit like twice-daily tides, but all the time.

Right ? Wrong ? Give me some evidence and I'll become a believer. Otherwise I'll proudly stay a Denier.

Actually, I've always thought that pollution is a vastly more important issue.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Individual,

They are not alone, but they FEEL alone.

They call on governments because they lack the skill to recognise and communicate their feelings to those who can help. Instead they objectify their feelings and address the resulting "objective" to government because it is government which is "supposed" to be able to produce objective results, but as their feelings are subjective, no objective measures can remedy their gaping pain, so they keep asking for more. How possibly can an emotional problem be solved using physical means?