Those amongst us who are fixated with the threat of climate change and apportioning blame to those who are deemed to be responsible for our greenhouse gas emotions would do well to have a look at a debate on climate change that was recently screened on Australian TV.
It included amongst its guests two former Prime Ministers, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull, who appeared incapable of learning the lessons from their own time in politics when they both experienced disastrous losses in support as a result of promoting climate change policies that were unacceptable to the bulk of the Australian electorate - in fact these policies ultimately lead to both men being removed from the office of Prime Minister.
It is also interesting to note that they were rejected by large sections of their own parties as advocates of measures that were considered too drastic, with unnecessary consequences. Yet both continue to argue for the implementation of these hugely unpopular policies, seemingly oblivious of political reality plus the fact that they were and still are out of step with public thinking on these matters.
It has been pointed out that there are more acceptable methods of achieving meaningful change in the way we operate as responsible citizens of the world community.
During the debate, references were made to the recent Queensland State election where the Premier was rewarded with a comfortable victory simply by offering a different pathway.
There are lessons too from the Aussie debate for us - particularly for our own politicians.
Perhaps it is unsurprising that there are already signs of the same arrogance emerging after Labour's one sided victory where some members of the party may have misinterpreted the result as a licence to do whatever they like.
Hopefully, wiser heads will be advising the need for calm and a direction to policy makers that plans in mitigation against the threat of climate change will only succeed with implementation if the voters accept them as common-sense adjustments that are necessary in the circumstances.
Paul Kelly, the doyenne of Australian political commentators, and another participant in the above-mentioned debate, was insulted by Turnbull during the discussion for having the temerity to question the wisdom of the former Prime Minister's arrogant pursuit of his rejected objectives.
In a later interview about the exchange he wisely remarked:
"People should remember that climate change should be seen as more than just a moral or environmental issue. For most citizens, it is equally important as an economic, cultural, spiritual, recreational and educational feature of their lives - so important in fact for all of those other reasons that they are prepared to react dramatically at the ballot box against any politician who blindly interferes with this part of their existence."
Equally, average voters will be generous in rewarding the politicians who respect the limits to that interference and will support measures that require some sacrifice if they are promoted as being in the country's best interest, if the pain is seen to be shared and the most vulnerable are protected.
Readers should be aware that contrary to the climate change sycophants' claim that the science on this issue is settled, my understanding is that this is simply not true - if it ever was!
In fact there are growing numbers of respected climate change scientists who are prepared to publicly challenge much of the current theories being promoted by the IPCC and it's followers.
There are many examples of these contradictory commentaries that are available on line or in bookstores.
May l suggest you read one of the best of the latest editions.
It has the title: ' Climate Change - the facts 2020' by Jennifer Marohasy.
It is well written and covers many of the myths about climate change including the highly controversial statements about the potential for sea level rise.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.