A bit curious Jon as that is not the formulation of the precautionary principle.

While you might not agree about the evidence re carbon emissions and global warming, policy operates on both possibles and probables. For example, China recently launched a new aircraft carrier last month - its first. Does that mean war? No, but you can bet Washington factored that in to its models re its China policy.

The quote you mention was written by Herman Wouk in the 'The Caine Mutiny'.

Ridd makes a fundamental error in his first line. There are not ‘two main lines of argument that are used to show that CO2 induced global warming is a likely proposition’, as he states, but three. The missing argument is the original and still fundamental piece of evidence: as demonstrated by Arrhenius in 1896, the CO2 molecule absorbs long wave radiation such as the heat reflected back into space from the Earth’s surface. On the basis of this alone Arrhenius predicted the greenhouse effect. This fundamental physical argument puts the relation between theory and evidence the other way around from what Ridd imagines. If the climate is not warming due to humans burning fossil fuels we need an explanation, which will have to show one of three things: Arrhenius got the physics wrong; burning fossil fuels does not increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere; in response to the heating induced by an atmosphere richer in CO2, there are other processes in the climate system which cause cooling which is no less than the heating caused by the greenhouse effect.
The fundamental role of climate models is not to establish the fact of global warming, but to predict the amount of warming that will occur given a certain concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

How well do they do this? Chapter 8 of the IPCC 4th report deals with the evaluation of climate models. It is based on over 500 scientific papers, and reports numerous uses of observations to test various aspects of the climate models, including a comparison between the observed and ‘predicted’ C20th temperature record. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
In contrast to Ridd’s assertions about the usefulness of the models, the IPCC says that the models used in their report
account for a very large fraction of the global temperature pattern: the correlation coefficient between the simulated and observed spatial patterns of annual mean temperature is typically about 0.98 for individual models [IPCC 4 Volume 1: 608]
If Ridd is seriously interested in contributing to the science he should provide details of which papers cited in the IPCC report contain errors, or references to published papers which the IPCC should include in their next report (in addition to the one he does cite)

Cheryl -- EE Nesbit wrote it long before Herman Wouk.

Michael -- "the IPCC says that the models used in their report
account for a very large fraction of the global temperature pattern"

Another quote, from Mandy Rice-Davies this time: "Well, they would, wouldn't they?"

How about trying to find some financially independent assessment of the IPCC's pet models?

A very well written article and I agree with Ludwig and what Cheryl said in reference to Ludwig. A world without carbon emissions makes sense.

Looking into alternatives and adopting other ways of conserving energy and saving our fossil fuel resources would be invaluable. We can improve on what is already out there. The methods involved with the Mining of coal alone is enough to look for solutions.

Australia needs to look at funding our scientists and manufacturers who work in this area. Looking for realistic alternatives developing solar energy and not just the government throwing money at giving residents discounts. If most homes and newer buildings are built with just the basic solar panels to either help alleviate the financial pressure and eventually remove the need to rely heavily on coal and gas for our fuels. This does not have to have anything at all to do with the is climate change real or is it a fake. Fact it more efficient ways of doing thing need to be looked into.

Great article

Now........since I have seen both sides of this debate.......I think I have found the identical twin of Algoreisrich:) I found this guy on youtube.....Does anyone know or have seen this?

http://tinyurl.com/24w32j9

My next question is...........if mankind increases Co2 to levels... will that effect our breathing?..........If so, wouldn't it be fair to say that we will starving ourselves in times to come?

http://tinyurl.com/2aof938.........and so if we make more co2 than O2......the answer is death, right? Growing populations+pollution+higher-carbon-dioxide+natural-climate-change+chopping down trees/rain-forests...ETC... and no sign of human activity slowing down.........mmmmmm! wonder what that could all mean?

http://tinyurl.com/2a7kzlp now this last link talks about what we could be facing when the ratio of the two gases namely The lack of O2 gets to the point of too much Co2.....What and can this happen?

BLUE