100% agree. It's a bloody mess. Too much of our debate - thanks to politicians chasing short-term votes and attempting to appease the media - is based upon polar debates. It's either black or white and nobody ever accepts that it could be grey. In fact, we have to go for the grey areas, because...
I'm not too concerned about GM to be honest. I'm a pragmatist. My point is that this is where we should be taking the debate. Not is climate change happening or is it not, but rather what are we going to do about it. That's where the real debate should be had.
One of the issues is how this gets paid for? But, of course, this assumes we're going to keep our levels of consumption at the levels they are at right now. Perhaps we should be look at mass behaviour change as well as the provision of cleaner forms of energy and changes to the food change. Is...
But that's it then. Wade in with these arguments. Don't question climate change - instead start asking these questions so we can do something about it.
There is a massive debate to be had. For a start, how do we kick start the process of generating clean energy. We can't do it using alternative energies alone, so where do we stand on carbon capture and nuclear energy. We'll know about the effects of carbon capture by 2017, so should we wait...
Oh, because I was interested in seeing what reaction it would bring. And because, there is a prevalent attitude in Australia that rejects climate change besmirching it as 'green science' and 'scaremongering' none of it which helps in debating an issue that is affecting our lives and will...
I didn't say it did. You have just said that.
I said, "says the Australian."
Why do you raise this? Does the fact you are posting from Australia affect your attitude towards climate change?
This is The Register though. It's known for it's climate change denial and I'd say it's a pretty dangerous stance to take.
You can't doubt that the impact we are having on this planet is affecting the climate.