<< Assigning causation is a major problem in science. >>

Abslutely right, anti-green. Not least in something as complex as climate change.

So as I keep saying; we should definitely not be waiting for proof, but should be doing as much as we can now to counter AGW, or the mooted effects of AGW, or the possibility of AGW.

All skeptics should agree with this. Only ardent denialists need not agree.

But then, just as there are great problems in proving that AGW is real, the same applies for it not being real. So, no one can in their right mind assert that it is not real. No one, who wants to be taken seriously, can be a denialist.

Even those who feel that it is very unlikely for AGW to be real or significant should think of themsleves as sceptics, and should follow the err-on-the-side-of-caution line by doing what we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Taswegian "Perhaps we can all live in caravans and relocate from west to east or vice versa according to preference"

now you're talking good sense, it's called adapting .. and it's what we should do - people don't live in extreme heat or cold, the ones who want to live near the extremes, have chosen that .. fine, good for them

the people that worry me are the ones who say, well the climate is changing and I don't like it, so rather than adapting, I want the government to stop the changing .. talk about denial!

We can no more stop the climate changing than stop tectonic plate movement, but that doesn't stop folks trying to p*ss money, not theirs usually, on hair brained schemes to change the climate .. oh, unless it means something else they don't like .. like nuclear power.

what abuse?

Ludwig
I do not consider the so-called precautionary principal (PC) as a proper guide for decision making. Briefly you predict a catastrophic climate change from an increased increment of atmospheric CO2. This may be a true predication, much but more likely it is a false predication or false positive result (FP).
Now PC demands that we cannot wait to find out if we have a FP; or “waste time” on further enquiry. It is claimed that the predication if true will be catastrophic. Therefore no matter what the cost, no matter how ineffective will be the possible preventive measures; all steps must be taken to avert the remote possibility of catastrophe.
Now I would argue that the resources you would throw at a FP result can be put to better use in other areas. In reality it is less than certain that there would be catastrophic climate effects. Indeed if I am wrong there is no way of knowing what will be the manifestation of the putative catastrophe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An example of a FP prediction from Andrew Bolt’s Blog 17th Nov.
“The United Nations University’s warning in 2005:
Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of ‘refugee’.
Anyone seen those 50 million environmental refugees? Or was this just one more outrageous scare by alarmists who should be held to account?”

Hay Ozandy, remember the warmest chant in 2000 in the UK. It goes something like, "It ain't gunar snow no more no more". The CRU people said it was because of global warming, or some such.

Guess what? It's now snowing like crazy, year after year, & what do the folk at the CRU say? It's because of global warming.

Just how stupid do they, & you think we are? Don't answer that, you may incriminate yourself.

Taswegian,

According to Wikipedia,

"Death Valley, a desert with large expanses below sea level, is considered the hottest location in North America; the highest temperature in the Western Hemisphere, 134 °F (57 °C), was recorded there on July 10, 1913."

1913: was that during an earlier AGW period ?

The presupposition that Australia shouldn't have extreme weather events is bizarre. Wow huge hailstones! Never seen that before. Must be climate change! And we are paying this man good money to maintain this flimsy rhetoric.

Australia has always been a land of "drought and flooding rains" well before CO2 emissions could have even contributed. Just ask Dorothea Mackellar.