That is exactly why there has to be a carbon tax, to force change.
All the talking in the world is not going to solve anything.
50% for and 50% against global warming, pollution. Who has got the deciding vote.

"We WILL develop an alternative as soon as fossil fuel prices start to rise significantly. That WILL happen as soon as the resource starts to become less available. I'm betting nuclear will be the way forward."
When I was 18, I wasn't worried about going bald; I knew we WOULD have a cure by the time I became a victim... I wasn't worried about smoking; I knew we WOULD have a cure for cancer...
If you lived on an outback station and had a month's supply of food, and knew supplies WOULDN'T get through for at least a month, when would you start rationing?
I strongly recommend this series of videos by Albert Bartlett, on exponential growth:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4364780292633368976&ei=dP2LSorwAoKgwgPuruWpDg&hl=en#
He points out that in any doubling period more exists than has ever existed before; on the legendary chessboard the grains of wheat added up -1,2,4,8,16... The third square contains 4 grains of rice, the preceding 2 squares only contain 3, etc.
What this simple arithmetic ensures, is that by pursuing growth despite having finite resources, the end will come very quickly.

Not either/or, Grim, but all: we have to combat all forms of pollution, as well as AGW, species diminution, etc. All at once. Big job.

Joe,
That's the way. Drop into our BOM site and check the reports, look at the data, or even access it and do some time series analysis yourself - provided you can, of course :)

Paul
1. We are quite aware of the UHIE, thanks - are you really suggesting we're not?
Adjustments are made accordingly - are you really suggesting we shouldn't?

Your logic doesn't explain the warming in the burbs of Antarctica, does it?

2. You really should be more precise Paul. The upper troposphere is warming while the lower stratosphere is cooling - as expected.
Check out 'lapse rate'.

Tell me Paul, how do you think satellite 'temperatures' are measured, and should we make adjustments to a change in satellite orbit?

3. Paul, we understand the Earth's radiative energy balance very well. Take out the 'warming' due to GHG's and nothing else explains the resulting imbalance in energy in/out. You appear to have real difficulty in understanding this concept.

However, just because you don't understand the physics does not make the physics wrong. To be sure, scientists at the coal-face have not explained the science very well (imo) - at least to the general public. This has to change - can you suggest how it might be done?

Regardless, can I suggest you get your info from institutions that actually do the science, rather than popular anti-globing warming blogsites or media shock-jocks?

bonmot says” Your logic doesn't explain the warming in the burbs of Antarctica, does it?”

the NIPCC says
“The average temperature history of Antarctica provides no evidence of twentieth century warming. While the Antarctic peninsula shows recent warming, several research teams have documented a cooling trend for the interior of the continent since the 1970s” NIPCC report

Bonmot says “Tell me Paul, how do you think satellite 'temperatures' are measured, and should we make adjustments to a change in satellite orbit?”

The NIPCC says “Highly accurate satellite data, adjusted for orbit drift and other factors, show a much more modest warming trend in the last two decades of the twentieth century and a dramatic decline in the warming trend in the first decade of the twentyfirst century.” NIPCC report

Bomot says “we understand the Earth's radiative energy balance very well.”

The NIPCC says “Scientific research suggests the model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth accepted by the IPCC is too large. Corrected feedbacks in the climate system could reduce climate sensitivity to values that are an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE SMALLER

My understanding of the physics is not the point. I doubt the IPCC held up their report to wait for your contribution either. I have a engineering degree which required enough physics for me to follow the AGW argument.

On what basis do you claim expert status?

Now, go ahead an attack the NIPCC, instead of the arguments they've made. Thats the way its done isn't it?

Hi Bonmot,

I'm glad you're enjoying yourself. Not being a scientist, I'm not really sure what to look for, but I did check out one site here in South Australia - just to verify Michael's claim about the last 17 years or so being the hottest in SA, etc., and I found the highest monthly maximums, month by month, at this particular site, Mt Crawford Forests, away from the city of Adelaide itself, occurred as follows:

23 Jan 1982
15 Feb 1981
06 Mar 1986
03 Apr 1986
03 May 1990
03 Jun 1994
29 Jul 1975
25 Aug 1977
26 Sep 1987
31 Oct 1987
30 Nov 1993
30 Dec 1981

[Yeah, I think I remember that December day in 1981, it might have coincided with the 46 degree day up in the Riverland, when all of us were trying to pick apricots from deep inside the trees, nobody wanted to get up on the ladders, a real b@stard of a day.]

I would be happy to be instructed in what these data mean, but to my untrained mind, they do seem to indicate that the highest maxima, month by month, for this particular site, according to the BoM, have not occurred in the last decade: many in fact occurred around thirty years ago. I was amazed at this, and not a little disconcerted since I half-believe in AGW, but I would be relieved to be put right by an expert such as yourself. Thank you, in advance :)

Joe Lane
Adelaide