Joe, I'll simplify with a pertinent example.

China has been developing exponentially, most pronounced over the last 50 years ... with concomitant growth in green-house gas emissions.

So much so that they are now the greatest emitters of GHG's on the planet, despite them doing far more than the US to mitigate the problems - as they should.

The US has taken 200 yrs, China has taken 50. Does that make sense?

This is not to say other countries, even under the flawed Kyoto Protocol, are not doing their bit. Imagine how much better it could be under a much better global system.

Growth in emissions for China:

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Emissions/Emis_moreFigs/China_coal+oil+gas.pdf

The rate of increase increases (i.e. exponentially) particularly since about 1950.

And the Y-axis? Mega-amounts of GHG's.

Now, where were we?

>> Much of the impetus for the denial that humans (significantly) cause global warming comes from industry (and ideologically motivated individuals and) groups selfishly pursuing their own short-term interests.

They are supported by a large corps of poorly-informed "instant experts" who gullibly accept the deliberate distortions of the industry (and ideologically motivated) groups.

Much of this resistance to the conclusions of 'climate science' seems to come from those who cannot countenance any change to the form of growth-obsessed consumer capitalism currently dominant in the world, despite ample evidence that the climate problem could be solved without drastic changes to our quality of life.

The last resort of denialism is "conspiracy theories", and we can confidently anticipate claims that the Oxburgh committee, comprising scientists as it does, is part of the alleged conspiracy and not to be believed. <<

http://tinyurl.com/Back-On-Topic

Good article Geoff!

If I may summarise: The 'deny-n-delay brigade' will shout, with their eyes tightly shut and their hands clasped firmly to their ears, that the inquiry's conclusions are a conspiracy to hide a conspiracy.

Will it change anything? Nope

Goodness, I surmise that qanda has dispensed with the "I'm objective and not a skeptic nor alarmist" stance previously touted - after a gloat of this proportion, I think he's firmly in the warmist alarmist nyah nyah nyah camp.

I'd be embarassed if I'd been defended by a review like that by those reviewers, a bit like the police investigating themselves.

If you want to clear the air, that's not the way to do it, the head of the review is in the renewable energy business and they almost tanked when the whole climategate thing happened.

You use people with vested interests, it is obvious the result you want, and get. Is it convincing, of course not - so to the keyboards, attack the skeptics, if the report was any good - you wouldn't need to.

Will it change anything, of course not, it doesn't clear the air at all - and people like Geoff and qanda know that so they feel they have to prop it up now with articles and little derogatory running commentaries about what people will do.

You miss the point both of you, but acknowledge it sub-consciously, as you try to build back up the facade.

good luck!

>> The 'deny-n-delay brigade' will shout, with their eyes tightly shut and their hands clasped firmly to their ears, that the inquiry's conclusions are a conspiracy to hide a conspiracy. <<

Odo enters on queue, stage right.

qanda on cue, tries to supress any debate or response and tries to silence any skeptics.

Bullying and sneering, the Australian scientific way eh qanda?

nothing changes does it