This newer issue started to become significant in the lead up to Rudd's 20-20 summit, the abhorrent issues paper for which I initially explained away as bureaucratic excess. This just adds to the point I've been making for some time: there is no evidence that dependence on our kind of language is viable on evolutionary timescales and it could well be argued that there is at least circumstantial evidence it might not be. (Why/have no previous species developed similar language if it is truly advantageous, or have they and we just aren't listening?)

Right now I'm feeling a bit overloaded with the major poor framings I'd like to try to redress, the parent post's concern about the climate change false debate providing a smokescreen across more pressing environmental resource issues and its successor post's concern with the absurd values attributed to jobs being but two. I'm not going to even start trying to list the others here, but one thing they have in common is that they all try to deny the fundamental truth encapsulated so well by H.L. Mencken's famous advice:

For every complex problem, there is an answer which is short, simple and wrong.