Steven, this may help put Geoff's last post in perspective.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Clownfish -
Nordhaus, for one, has been on record for a long time claiming that reducing emissions would be hideously expensive, even though people have been demonstrating he's wrong for a long time. "Never mind the facts, what does the theory say?"

My view greatly precedes the Zero Carbon Australia report, and there are many other and better accounts, which you could see at the links I provided if you cared.

For the rest, I don't propose to rake over all the same things that have been well raked over. You have your view of the people involved - the great conspiracy. Scientists are imperfect and your kind take any imperfection as reason to dismiss all of their, and everyone's, work. You didn't respond to my query about the imperfections of ExxonMobil.

Steven, Geoff and others

'Climategate' a year on:

http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/

Quite a good precis'

Geoff: The issue is whether any set of tree rings replicates the instrumental GMT since 1960. If not, then a set for 1000-1300 cannot be used to eliminate the MWP.

Congrats Steven on your first article on OLO. I note that you’ve been a poster for a long time, since May 07.

You wrote:

<< Yes there are many uncertainties and anomalies but, taken as a whole, the evidence tends to support the physics. The case for anthropogenic global warms (AGW) has not been made beyond all reasonable doubt; but the preponderance of evidence points in the direction of human induced global warming. That is the best we can ever hope to do. To expect more is unrealistic. >>

Agreed. That is about the best we can hope for.

<< The definite albeit difficult to quantify risks coupled with the difficulty of reversing the effects of extra CO2 in the short term suggests that the only prudent response is to begin to take steps to reduce CO2 emissions. We may not know everything but we know enough to say that the risks of continuing with business as usual are high. >>

I find it absolutely crazy that anyone can suggest that AGW is not real or if it is that it is not significant and we don’t need to act on it. The physics and the simple fact that we humans are releasing carbon that has been locked up for millions of years at the most massive rate has got to point in one direction – probable significant climate change, and an urgent need for us to change our ways.

Of COURSE we should be erring on the side of caution when dealing with things that we don’t fully understand or can’t fully quantify but which have huge potential negative consequences.

I see the whole denialist camp and the skeptic's-let’s-do-nothing-until-the evidence-is-totally-convincing camp as being off their rockers.

Of COURSE we should act on this issue.

continued

I’m a skeptic, but I think that we should be acting to reduce GHG emissions just as strongly as the most ardent climate change fearer….and that is with a totally full-on effort.

Do we really need to go into a critical examination of the data and how it might be interpreted? I don’t think so. We should move fully into sustainability mode. As it concerns climate change, this means the obvious - reducing our use of fossil fuels, implementing alternatives and reducing pre-capita consumption. Oh, and striving to stabilise the number of ‘capitas’.

Addressing climate change is intimately linked to addressing the even bigger issue of continuous human expansion and sustainability. We’ve got to address population growth and per-capita consumption rates. This sits at the most fundamental level of governance and the protection of a healthy future. Addressing climate change is just one part of this.

<< However this has to be a global effort. Australia on its own can do nothing. We should follow, not attempt to lead. >>

Don’t want to end on a negative note, but I think that we should be leading as best we can by way of developing and demonstrating technological and sociological advances, which we CAN do without putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage. We should definitely not just sit back and follow.

PS Geoff Davies, are you the author of Economia (ABC Publishing 2004)?