Jon, I assume that it suited your fear mongering to ignore my point about non-renewable energy?

To throw a spanner into the works... I point to the data collected by NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Sciences. The data provided gives average global temperatures (for what is in front of me) for the past 10 years (Start 2001- End 2010). This data indicates a decline in average global surface temperature! Global warming... I think not. This data is not the only scientific evidence that heeds off the theory of global warming.
Thermal testes have occurred around the equator (where temperature increase would first occur). It is evident from IPCC models that no such 'hot spot' has resulted from alleged increasing greenhouse gasses.

This is some information that I have found very interesting in the current society that can be heavily influenced by everything and anything that the media says.

It is no doubt that the greenhouse effect is real... But how drastically has the enhanced greenhouse effect increased the rate of warming? After much research, I can conclude that everything is not what it seems.

Yes new technology needs to be implemented for sustainable development, but at what cost? Surely not at the cost of our future and jobs!

J W

Suggest you actually check what NASA has to say about global climate before making claims:

"Each year, scientists at NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies analyze global temperature data. The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year since global instrumental temperature records began 130 years ago. Worldwide, the mean temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period. And January 2000 to December 2009 came out as the warmest decade on record.

Take a look below at NASA's collection of videos, articles and imagery designed to help tell the story of our warming world."

To be found here along with further research from NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/

Even if you reject NASA, all the world's climatologists and the majority of related scientists, there still remains no argument in favour of continuing to pollute and use up all remaining fossil fuels.

First I shall talk about the so called 'hot spot'. This area is located around the Equator and would be the very first area to be affected (temperature wise atmospherically) if global warming were to accelerate at the suggested 'apocalyptic' rate that is spoke of daily. Data released by the IPCC (on thermal satelite imaging) shows no hot spot exists.

Secondly, climate change is real, YES... But not the global warming everyone suggests. Once I used to believe the mainstream ideals too, but have now realised that there is more to this than meets the eye!
Just the other day my friends told me that global warming is imminent and asked if I had seen the film 'Am Inconvenient Truth'. This film is very one sided and only brings to light the evidence it wants... Just the same as all those out there convinced that the world is about to spontaneously combust.

The sea salt content is the real reason that the world is going to experience climate change... But not for the warmer.

Renewable energy, once again, I will say is a necessary step. BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF AUSTRALIAN JOBS AND ECONOMY.

I WILL BET THAT MOST PEOPLE IN THIS FORUM SUPPORT THE CARBON TAX... WELL, I AM GOING TO CONTINUE FIGHTING FOR A PROSPEROUS AUSTRALIA EVEN IF YOU WON'T.

The Data previously brought to light in my post was as part of a climate change briefing to the federal opposition government in 2010. This is reliable information that does not just support the media and other sources fixed on selling the end of the world!

So JW, a briefing given to the opposition in 2010 could not possibly have been biased?

Have you considered whose vested interests continued dissent, debate and fearmongering about these issues serve? To my mind, it's definitely not the Australian public, but rather the people who are making big bucks off the current arrangement.

That said, i'm not particularly sold on the carbon tax. I just dont think that continual denial of the (potential) issue is sound policy either.

I too am concerned about Australian jobs and our economy - but the issue is how far ahead you are looking?

Saoirse

Your question on non-renewables is based on so many fallacies that we grow tired of endlessly exploding them, only to have them pop back up again as if the whole tedious belief system had not been refuted a hundred times before.

Okay, so.
"Whether or not AGW is real or not is irrelevant - we are still, at some stage in the future, going to need to adapt... "

1. Who's "we"?
2. How do you know that people aren't going to die as a result of the measures you are advocating?