Gary

See my comment to Curmudgeon http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11503#196008

Lucia is a nice young girl but she has still a lot to learn, sorry.

This guy has taught her a thing or two:

http://tinyurl.com/46t5lhe

At the end of the day, it's not a case of 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' (besides, I don't know you that well, sailor). What is important is the truth - and it will out, as it always does, despite the antics of a few 'sceptics' - it just may take a while.

Hopefully it won't be too late.

Thanks to bonmot for taking the trouble to provide some useful links to refute the comments made by some others. Can't say I have participated in such forums before and not sure I will do so again as I can see it sucks the energy out of you dealing with various curmudgeonly people some of them by their own admission.
For me the evidence that we are in deep trouble accumulates like this. 1. IPCC, surely a conservative body, representing a large number of scientists from across the world managed to come to this conclusion. 2. Other than madcap conspiracy theories I don't hear any other alternative explanations that haven't been dealt with by said scientists. 3. Apart from the scientific temperature recordings I see evidence that the world is warming, seasons changing and extreme weather becoming more commonplace and more extreme. 4. Finally it strikes my that it is common sense to take seriously the proposition that spewing 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air year after year through burning fossil fuels, is likely to cause problems - indeed it would be amazing if it didn't. Some time ago I calculated 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide would fill a box with a base the size of Australia and sides 2 metres tall. Given the relative thinness of our atmosphere that sounds like a lot.......
Those that choose to deny for the hell of it I believe do themselves, any offspring they may have and humanity at large a great disservice, and for what? For the benefit of the oil and gas and coal industry executives. Not worth it.....

The decision in the XStrata case was appealed, and it was sent back for rehearing. None of the findings were “overturned”

The decision was set aside on technical grounds. The Queensland Conservation Council said that they were not put on notice that certain evidence would be applied in the way that it was, which the Appeal Court found was a denial of natural justice.

The finding that the IPCC Summary was contrary to the science upon which it represents it is based was not subject to any comment, and in any event is obvious from the IPCC document itself, so do not be misled by bonmot into thinking that the IPCC is anything but a mine of misinformation.

As for the allegation that I was misleading, my post quoted verbatim the portion of the judgement which found that the IPCC misrepresented the science. Bonmot should watch what he says.

Xstrata, in this case, conceded that anthropogenic activities affect global warming. This was in 2007. The greenhouse gas theory has now been shown to be flawed, and the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere accompanied by a cessation in warming, means that such a concession would not be made today, and should not have been made then..

Para 56 of the Appeal judgement to which bonmot kindly called to our attention, shows that this unwarranted concession caused the matter to be sent back for rehearing: “ The Tribunal took into account, in rejecting the conditions sought by QCC to be imposed on any recommendations granting Xstrata's applications, a critique which put in issue the fact, accepted by all at the hearing, that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming.”

Rich2, it makes more sense to take into account that there is no scientific backup for your assertions, which are based on a misconception of the situation, and not on common sense, at all.

Read Professor Robert Carter's book "Climate: The Counter Consensus", which gives a very clear, objective account of the whole topic.

Leo,
You have picked a bad day to continue arguing the toss about these things:
1. Last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies announced that 2010 had registered as the hottest year on record. Nothing new here: nine of the last 10 years have been among the warmest ever.
and
2. BP admits in its new Energy Outlook 2030 report, which was published yesterday, that global CO2 emissions from energy will grow an average of 1.2 percent a year through 2030. In total, BP’s chief economist Christof Ruehl predicts “to the best of our knowledge,” CO2 emissions will rise by 27 percent over the next two decades, meaning an increase of about 33bn tons. All this does not bode well for climate change, with even Bob Dudley calling the scenarios a “wake-up call“:
I (Bob Dudley CEO) need to emphasize that this is a projection, not a proposition. It is our dispassionate view of what we believe is most likely to happen on the basis of the evidence. For example, we are not as optimistic as others about progress in reducing carbon emissions. But that doesn’t mean we oppose such progress. As you probably know, BP has a 15 year record of calling for more action from governments, including the wide application of a carbon price. Our base case assumes that countries continue to make some progress on addressing climate change, based on the current and expected level of political commitment. But overall, for me personally, it is a wake-up call, not something any of us would like to see happening.

Thanks, Rich2, that confirms that you have no science to back the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate change.

Neither does the IPCC, but they look at slogans from Greenpeace and WWF. Much like looking at what BP says, or NASA or NOAA, which are politically compromised bodies.

Read Carter's book, and you may stop talking nonsense.

Leo

Am quite sure IPCC's work has a scientific basis to it. As I understand it the science that increased carbon dioxide would lead to warming has been around for a hundred years or so.
However if you think the right thing to do is to bet the future on Carter being right go for it. According to Wikipedia, Carter is a committee member in the "Institute for Public Affairs" (IPA), an Australian-based organization that has received funding from the tobacco and fossil fuel industries (amongst others). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2009 report Climate Change Reconsidered, which Carter contributed to, was published by the Heartland Institute, an industry-funded organization that has worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks, and has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
When you can find one scientific institute of any repute in any country that agrees with Carter I will have a rethink. Till then I will not indulge you with any more repudiations of your comments ....