Yes, we know about the models, we just don't believe them. Why? Because

a) they do not agree between themselves
b) their error bars are large enough to account for any changes in temperature to date
c) they fail to explain temperature changes in the past
d) they fail to explain the flatlining global temperatures since about 1998.

Yes, the world is probably warmer than it has been for about 700 years. Yes, CO2 levels are probably higher than they have been for some thousands of years. But is there an established connection? Only in your 'models' and the minds of the grant-hungry scientists who created them.

When Tony Abbott suggested the reafforestation carbon sequestration solution he was howled down by your lot , Abbotts trees would be 1.2 meters high by now and chewing up increasing amounts of carbon every time the Sun rises , every time the Great Rudd fluttered off overseas he burnt 300 Tonns of Jet fuel and what did he achieve ?

Your one of these people what did you achieve ?

I must admit you have made a departure from the "Cash COW Philosophy".
The mind boggles thinking about what Rudd would have done with that money,Carbon Tax what was he proposing 6% remember the Storage Dam he didn't build , part of a strategy designed to mitigate flooding near Brisbane as a result all those People died and all that infrastructure destroyed .What did he do with that money? And where is Rudd now , he's overseas !

The public are with you on carbon sequestration so why don't you concentrate positively on harnessing the Energy and Enthusiasm of the People , engage the service clubs Rotary , Apex , Lions and Sporting Clubs , Schools lets be real anybody can plant a tree even Jesus did ,(I think). Seedlings can be struck in the Burbs in a couple of years they will be starters. Abbott would run with you on sequestration why not mesh him into the effort ' get something to the start line the ALP are impotent , you see it as a positive step so lets get on with it!

Jon J, Friday, 11 February 2011 6:36:55 AM

HEAR HEAR Jon J I agree !!

This is just a re-run of the superstitious belief that adverse natural events are caused by our sins.

Is there an established connection? Depends on how pedantic you are. Pollutants of all sorts have been found to lead to trouble, sometimes subtle, but almost always not counter to first principles. For instance, acid rain may not be formed directly from the sulphur in coal smoke, but the acids that *do* form do so as a result of the presence of sulphur.

A container of air left in the sun gets warmed a given amount, one containing extra carbon dioxide (or a variety of other gases, also common pollutants) gets warmed more so. Hence, there is extra "heat" in a system containing a higher concentration of CO2. indisputably.

A system of fluids (gas and liquid) including ice will *absorb* and hence *contain* "heat" without displaying a great change in "temperature".

These are first principles. The indicator of heat retention is not immediate temperature rise, but depletion of reserves of "coolth". Thinning ice caps, evaporating water, expanding gases etc.

Human activity in releasing lots of pollutants is not unique. The proper class of events is "biogenic". Biogenic changes have had profound effects on our atmosphere, and preceded geologically apparant climate changes. Human activities are approaching this scale of impact and cannot trivially be dismissed without modelling a lot more stringent than current best and strangely absent from the discussion.

The processes that might "correct for" warming activities have not been conclusively shown to be immediate, adequate, or benign. There is no guarantee being given by the oh-so-extensive modelling of climate-change objectors that corrective reactions in the atmosphere will not overshoot, not be violent, or even merely be not ruinously expensive for agriculture as-we-know-it already buffeted by much more minor issues in the weather.

Stopping all emissions would be none-too prudent. Just because the possum has not yet woken is any guarantee that it will not.

I wonder what economic advantages pollution-justifiers gain from being unwilling to clean up? Surely not as great as those greedy scientists.

Rusty

Bravo Andrew Glikson for providing the facts about global warming in the face of 'obdurate stupidity' on the part of the denialists. the situation is indeed alarming and we must act now. Those who call for 'business-as-usual' are condemning us to an appalling future, perhaps the end of civilisation as we know it. We have seen the evidence of climate change in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia in the past month and can only assume it will get worse. Perhaps the one bit of 'good news' on the horizon is that we face an imminent liquid fuel crisis as we pass peak conventional oil. That might force us to turn to renewables (geothermal electricity, solar thermal etc) and slow the process of global warming. It might buy us some time to be responsible global citizens - at last.