>> Even if its true, there is nothing we can do about it, so use the money to adapt, not this folly of trying to reverse the climate, you just know it is not going to work, like stopping tectonic plate movement or stopping a volcanic eruption, these things, like climate, are beyond present day science .. just because we "think" we know everything doesn't mean we do, what hubris

me, I'm off to the F1 GP practice session in Melbourne .. <<

Amicus,
There is much undisputed literature that concludes that even if all fossil fuel burning is stopped today, tempertures will continue to rise due to the chemical and physical properties of the GHG's.

What the international scientific community is trying to instil, is that efforts must be taken to limit the rise to 2 degrees C.

Higher temperatures pose a much greater threat.

It is true, as you say - we must adapt.

How do you propose we adapt? Going to the F1 GP practice session in Melbourne?

"Use the money" to adapt? Sure, I agree, but where do you think the money will come from?

Let's be clear about this, adaptation will incur huge costs ... and adaptation will take a long time.

Don't you think that adaptation should begin now?

Bolters says we should adapt to a changing climate, he even concedes that alternative energy sources should be pursued. Fine, how does he propose to adapt, and how does he propose it should be funded?

I find his silence and hypocisy astounding in this regard.

So yes, we can do something about it if we are willing. Here in Australia, we are laggards.

Donkeygod

Please, just name one reputable scientist who has "declared any corner of science settled".

If you can, I would appreciate a link to the full comment.

Last night I attended the Climate Commission's meeting at the Geelong West Town Hall. Even though I had booked a seat my later arrival meant standing in a crowded doorway for the duration.

I went not because of any doubt over the threat of global warming but because I was interested in trying to gauge the mood of the crowd and how it would reflect the debate raging in the media and among our politicians.

The Geelong West town hall has been the site of some heated political clashes in the past from meetings over logging, water, fluoride, One Nation and many other contentious issues. It is difficult to think of a more one sided crowd. The applause for calls for action from speakers from the audience seemed to be the strongest though those who raised doubts about the science were still listen to on the whole politely.

The sentiment that appeared to prevail was anger that our government wasn't getting on with it and some of that frustration was directed at the panel members.

It will be interesting to see how the rest of the meetings go around Australia but I would have thought Geelong, with its energy intensive industries, might have seen a greater negative response.

bonmot "Bolters says we should adapt to a changing climate, he even concedes that alternative energy sources should be pursued. Fine, how does he propose to adapt, and how does he propose it should be funded?

I find his silence and hypocisy astounding in this regard. "

Why does Andy have to supply solutions?

I note none of the journalists reporting on a variety of things, or even opinion writers, are "required" to supply solutions .. that's a strawman argument and you know it.

This is like requiring someone who writes an opinion piece on the tsunamis, to supply solutions. Then you obviously would castigate them and sneer at them for not doing just that! Everyone who wrtites anything, must now supply solutions, or not write cries bonmot!Oh the hypocrisy he wails!

You have no answer to Andy's investigative ability to extract from Tim Flannery some truth, and you switch the argument to Andy's lack of solutions? That's just bias, nothing more, yu can't deal with it, so attack the source .. why not attack Flannery, all Andy dd was report it?

Why not address what Amicus has posted, that Flannery agrees .. there is no reduction in temperature in reducing CO2, and he won't even talk about whether it will stop increasing temperature, beyond saying that the atmosphere is "saturated" with CO2 .. funny, we can all still breath, how odd. Does he know what he's talking about?

Why 2 degrees? Is that another made up number? Is that world average? measured how? I suspect it's a convenient number to fright the stupid masses.

You obviously have no problem joining in the happy chanting of alarmism, regardless of reasoning .. 2 degrees, yes that's the number of DOOOM!

I find your hypocrisy astounding in this regard.

WHo the hell are you Tim Curtin? Know anything about anything do you?

The theories of the day on any topic are always accepted by scientisats as just that. A theory until proven otherwise. If it seems logical they act on it and monitor the results. If they didn't it would remain a theory forever, and the only answer.

Or aqree you saying Garnaut forget to mention cholera or the flat earth theory too?

There is only one point to all the science, anti science and theries. That is, if we do nothing we'll know in time the truth. But by then the earth may be unlivable.

If we do use these theories we can monitor the carbon levels and keep going if it works or stop if it doesn't.

Arguing against it has achieved only one thing. A delay of 20 years and bringing us closer to potential doom.

If Garnaut is wrong we'll find out won't we. The thing is we already know Abbott is wrong. I mean, really? Plant more trees?

Hi, bonmot!

I would consider any scientist who declares science 'settled' to be disreputable by definition. You needn't look far to find one, though it's politicians and spruikers (e.g. Garnaut, Gillard, Gore) who generally make most frequent (ab)use of the phrase. String theory may soon undo Einstein, just as Einstein undid Newton. Good! I really don't think people like Michael Mann and Phil Jones will have the last word.

The point I was talking around is that 'climate science' alone can't predict climate with any degree of certainty. A breakthrough in fusion power research is unlikely, but not impossible — if it were to happen ... whacko, a whole new paradigm. If earth's population stabilises at, say, 7 billions by 2050, GHG emission estimates will be very different from what extrapolation of current trends would suggest. Climate theories will need major rework once solar scientists have quantified insolation, something we're likely to see in the next few years. Climate models are still woeful when it comes to account for clouds, and that's a problem physicists and chemists need to solve; climatologists will only use their results. Statisticians have wrought havoc with much climate science methodology, and I find that unforgivably careless — we should reject out of hand any quantitative estimate that doesn't come with a standard deviation.

Let's see how it all plays out. I don't think Garnaut's review, however, gives anything like due weight to the above. His sins of omission are very great. As Einstein once observed, 'Everything should be made a simple as possible, but not simpler.' Garnaut's lack of doubt doesn't convince me — it scares me ... because, in my view, it's profoundly unscientific.