“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not consider cloud and water processes as being affected by humans through deforestation.” “The IPCC did not consider pollution as a way humans might have affected global temperatures.”
These are wild statements bearing little witness to reality.
On the other hand, it is hard to disagree with a need for continuing dialogue across a broad spectrum of disciplines. “What is now required is for scientists with a holistic perspective to join the dots between diverse scientific disciplines in which Australia excels.” If there is a deficiency here, it would be unfortunate; but is it more a perception than a reality?
The people cobbling together the IPCC material have indeed considered the fact that clouds, their various natures and elevations in the atmosphere, proclivity for rain, blanketing, etc., are influenced by industrial and other human activity, vegetation and other natural influences such as volcanoes.
It would be wrong to say that the IPCC models are false due to insufficient attention to vegetation. However, the best hope for humanity is indeed for re-vegetation of degraded landscapes where possible, while minimising the production of C02. From the 8th world mycological congress in Cairns in 2006 came statements that over 20 per cent of biological mass resided in fungi – the bulk of which was in the surface layers of soil, in symbiosis with vegetation.
If we could get revegetation, together with its fungal companions, underway on a large scale - no doubt that is the way to recovery (combined with other restraints); together with stepping off the path of ever-continuing growth in human numbers and their consuming needs. There are problems with revegetation, not with the concept - but with scale, time, and water to initiate it; and persuading a return by the fungi in the topsoil exported in such enormous quantities towards New Zealand over the last two centuries

colinsett,

Two small problem with your piece.
"Cobbled together" the document particularly the summary isn't a scientific treaties it is at best a politically intended composite for politicians and non scientific people.

My understanding is that water and water in the atmosphere are taken into account. The emphasis in the document is *excess* CO2. it a combination of how long it's in the air and how much.
I refer you to the satellite observations of Jason (1&2 soon to be &3) and Grace.There are other sources as well.

It's nice to have a number (i.e.20%) hardly a real surprise to me.
Given I dealt with regen and seedling growing.

As previously stated most people think that all that a native plant needs is a hole and water to survive and flourish. There is a *lot* more to it(including fungi and appropriate bacteria etc).

To me one of the biggest issues is the mass overly simplistic attitude to native flora. Because of the the immediacy of their impact (particularly farmers)country folk t don't understand or want to know, about the complexity and uniqueness and *needs* of our continent and endemic flora because of the uniqueness of the soil.
It's not a matter of simply plowing/ fertilizing or leaving patches. etc

The one that gets me is that pseudo farmer ad that talks about "Sunday soils". Talk about half arsed miss-information.
We as a country know far to little about nature's solutionss.

Shann, you have a simplistic and misleading take on CO2 vs water in the atmosphere which is at complete odds with what those who study climate are saying. Water vapour cycles rapidly, CO2 hangs around for centuries. I'll continue to take the interpretations made by the scientists and institutions studying climate over yours in this matter - that water vapour is a feedback whilst CO2 is the biggest added forcing and, without reducing emissions, schemes to increase the takeup by carbon sinks such as soils will fail to keep up with rising emissions let alone bring the CO2 levels down. Increasing soil carbon, even to greater than pre-agricultural times isn't going to be nearly enough to draw out gigatonnes a year, no matter that it's worthwhile for a variety of other reasons. Emissions from fossil fuel burning needs urgent reduction and no voluntary partnerships with agriculture will make a sufficient dent in atmospheric CO2, especially when those partnerships are made with the express purpose of excusing continuing emissions.

Come on Ken, we now know that was yet another Ipcc con. It is well proven that any CO2 in the atmosphere has a life of less than 5 years.

It is now pretty well established that most of those temperature rises are in the dreams of just a few con men, & the belief of the poor conned.

We don't require carbon sinks, because it's no problem, & probably doing more good than harm. It's over, get a new hobby horse.

Meanwhile we have the eastern economies doing real damage with some of their emissions, & no one cares.

Thanks to Colinsett for his informative contribution.

If I have not done justice to the IPCC I would welcome a reference to make a correction. Could Colinsett or any other reader provide a reference as to where the IPCC considered the possibility that human generated pollution and/or human de-forestation might possibly have an effect on the climate?

I did not say that the IPCC did not consider the effect of water on the climate as suggested by "examinator", but that the IPCC did not consider that humans could have affected water processes sufficiently to affect the climate.

I have been advised that any human affect on the hydrological heat processes has been neglected because: (a) they are thought to be too large for humans to affect and/or (b) they are too complex to confidently model.

Hasbeen, I'll continue to take my climate science from the scientists and institutions that study climate and, irrespective of the path of individual CO2 molecules, the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere remain for much more than 5 years. I think your clear conviction that what we do to the atmosphere won't change the climate is scientifically unsupportable belief and, widely practiced, will do serious irreversible harm.

With the world's best intelligence gathering and analysis agencies at their disposal, world leaders who desperately want Climate Science to be a conspiracy or hoax have failed to find supporting evidence. With funds far in excess of all the world's Climate Research budgets at their disposal and strong vested interest in doing so, the fossil fuel industry has been unable to fund and support science that convincingly demonstrates the current consensus on climate to be wrong - except perhaps to people like yourself who need no convincing.

The case for AGW is more than good enough for it to be very unwise to dismiss it out of hand as you do.