I watched some of the lateline exchange, though not with my undivided attention and I thought Monbiot presented better than Pilmer.

That said, I can imagine that some people seeking a position on AGW may have switched off the TV while thinking a pox on both their houses. Neither came across as particularly impressive for who I'd throw my vote in without more research. The whole combativeness of the debate may be making people put it in the to hard basket.

Some people reading this thread might not know what others are talking about re: Lateline.

Well, I guess someone has to link to it. Watching is 'enlightening', but so is the transcript.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

Also,

I found it disturbing (but not surprising) that Professor Plimer (the author of the best selling Heaven & Earth) appeared less familiar with his own book than did Tony Jones, the journo who freely admits (like Monbiot) he is not a scientist.

Indeed, Tony Jones did some homework, unlike that of the 'scrupulous' academic - a tad hypocritical, if not disingenuous, if not on his own mission, hey what?

Atman and all who say that Monbiot is out of his depth,

Seriously, Monbiot published the full string of emails about the debate- when Plimer send Monbiot the questions about science, Monbiot sent those questions to scientists that were qualified to answer them and asked them to do just that, but there response to monbiot was that the questions were really just tripe and nonsensical non science so Monbiot gave that as his answer and again tried to ask Plimer for his references for the claims made in his book!

I don't know if you all watched the debate on lateline between Plimer and Monbiot the other night but when plimer was confronted with a clear error in his citiation where plimer cited a specific reference that when Monbiot contacted the author of the paper cited the conclusion Plimer came to was exactly the opposite to the one the author arrived at- now when Monbiot pressed Plimer on this specific error in his citation - plimer would not answer! he evaded, ducked and dived- again, on other specific information cited within plimer's book when asked for specific references plimer ignores the questions-

this is not what a man who can cite a legit arguement does- if you have proof that your opponent is clearly wrong you bash him over the head with his mistakes- with your proof that he/ she is wrong and why!

Plimer does no such thing- he just insults, evades and makes up stories and prejudices - this is not what a man does who is standing on solid evidence.

Climate change is real- we can see it in evidence all over the world from rising ocean acidity, to the rapid increase in rates of glacier melts- to the thawing of the tundra etc- all these alone do not confirm the theory of man made global warming- but taken together and taken with undertanding of systems theory they make a more than reasonable argument that we humans are pushing the global ecosystem into uncharted territory....

to all those who think global warming is just part of a natural cycle,

carbon is one of the most abundant molecules in the earth's system. there is a natual carbon cycle, NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS-

but if you understand anything about systems theory- which trys to explain how complex compent within systems interact then you will not be surprised to find out that even a small increase in one varible in a large complex system like the global carbon cycle is enough to change the entire systems fucntionality....

for example we are begining to see the rising ocean acidity- this is due to the natural ocean carbon exchange with the atmoshpere begining to show signs of higher concentrations of co2 in the atmoshpere- why is is this important? already we see the higher acidic ocean effects on coral reefs and other small lifeforms that form shells- for the weak carbonic acid is making it difficult for them to form thick shells- this is effecting the baseline food chain phytoplankton- the root of the foodchain in the ocean- so with the change of one varible- we are capable of having broad systemic changes through out all the subsystems that interact with the crabon cycle!

Since we are unable to see where this is going to lead, I believe all cautious and responsible people should advocate a bit of caution in continuing further increases in carbon concentrations in the atmoshpere. AKA- come off fossil fuels and define growth and value in new ways that literally does not risk the experiement of higher intelligence on Earth.

Hear hear Canadian bear! Nicely put.