Certainly,
1. the climate has been warmer in the past,we live in a relatively cool phase and
2. the higher average temperatures in the past couldn't have been caused by anthropogenic factors.
3.self interested individuals are exploiting concern about climate change,so what?

these are not necessarily arguments against the hypothesis that industrial carbon dioxide emissions are causing warming currently.

Criticisms of computer modelling of climate change are essentially straw man arguments. There are papers published every week by biologists and physical scientists which describe changes in the environment as a result of increased temperatures around the world,no rubbery models are referenced in those cases.
It is precisly the historical record that indicates the catastrophic results of climate change or environmental degredation on ancient civilisations,that is the appropriate lesson of history and archaeology.Since the earth's population is now about 6 billion we can't be sanguine about the possible consequences of global warming.
So, until the experts(climate scientists) change their minds I'll accept the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

I doubt if there's any area of science that is so infested with commentators who really don't know what they don't know.

Too much looking at books and not enough thought.

(1) How about some concrete facts and figures: tell us the following about previous changes: how quickly did they happen? were they worldwide (_global_ climate change) or local (ie, changes in weather patterns rather than in worldwide temperature) ? how many degrees in how many years ?

(2) so what if it has happened before ? Were the societies then as unadaptable as ours is (eg, with cities built by the seaside, with most of the world's suitable land already used to produce food) ? How uncomfortable were those changes to the societies living then ? In short, should we accept that those events be repeated ?

(3) Why on earth does wine-growing in north England then and not now mean it was warmer then ? Isn't wine grown at present in places that are colder than the north of England ? Might not the capability of present day society to transport wine from France and Germany to Leeds have something to do with it ?

Finally it's noteworthy that most of the article isn't on a single topic, but a collection of any action or suggested action in regard to climate change. Eg "Will anti-CO2 legislation deal with oceanic pollution, such as the plastics which destroy marine life en masse and work their way at a bio-molecular level into the food chain? No" Of course not - why should it?

i think the article is a parody. i dearly hope so.

James,
This 'debate' is no longer about the facts. You may as well explain to a fundamentalist Christian that world is more than 6000yrs old as explain to a AGW true-believer that the changes we see in our climate are neither extreme nor unusual as compared to the past.

There are now so many people whose careers and reputations revolve around the AGW faith-system that there is no chance that we can rationally back away from it. We are no more likely to see Gore/Hanson/Garrett break down and declare that they got it wrong than to see Castro grab the mic and opine that communism might not have been the best choice.

All we can do is wait for the climate to do what it is now doing and invalidate the hysteria by actually not warming. Then the high priests of the Gaia will simply slink away (as all the leaders of those lesser mass-hysterias such as SARS and Mad Cow disease etc etc did).

You will find this online recorded lecture by another Western Australian, Jim Buckee very interesting:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cops/events/energycontroversies/natural-causes-of-climate-change.php

It deals with climate change over time from a scientific viewpoint and shows some very interesting data. However, from what I have seen most of the current concern is what has happened with CO2 levels in the last 50 years and how the models can only explain this by incorporating CO2 data. Jim's lecture seems to largely ignore the last 50 years when the data is displayed.

On the temperature and CO2 concentration front, you need to realise that scientists measure temperature from absolute zero and so, in that light, a 2 degree change from our current temperature is not a huge proportional jump - just as the change in CO2 concentration relative to other gases is not great.

Regards,

Michael

Good article again James, we need more of these not more catastrophic, doom laden, fire and brimstone, world is ending rants.

mhaze, totally agree with you - our AGW brethren are in complete denial that we need to accept and adapt, not try to reverse or control.

I'm guessing in the past when the climate changed, they sacrificed whatever was handy, prayed to gods, whatever the substitute for lack of knowledge was then, ignorant fools - of course now we know everything there is to possibly know about climate don't we? (/sarc)

There are a lot of things we can do to improve everyone's lot in life and paying taxes for various governments to decide how to redistribute the wealth is not acceptable to some of us.

Most of the developing world needs cheap energy, not monetary compensation to their governments from wealthy countries. We know where all that good will, CO2 abatement money will go don't we, into rich people's pockets and not into the community.

The focus has been turned into grants, CRPS and various other schemes which sound a lot like "indulgences" from medieval European religions. So today you get to calm your conscience with "offsets", and go on not having to actually think any more about the environment, because you've paid someone to compensate for your guilt.

Copenhagen at the end of the year will produce some feel good press releases, but nothing to change the world, but all the eco types will puff up about how wonderful it all is, rapture is coming! See all the pilgrims dancing to Denmark!

Some folks wonder why some skeptical people liken the AGW believers to a religion but it seems so obvious I can't understand why they can't see it.

Of course we'll get abuse and bullying for being heretical, but that's OK, I can take it but wonder why some AGW believers cannot entertain any questioning of their beliefs, that's not science any more is it?