It's an odd perspective which sees climate science as inherently political. Of course, politicians will seize the opportunity - that's their job. Politicians as diverse as Bush, Howard, Thatcher, Rudd, have all quoted climate change as a threat. But the science has been going on, under the political radar, for a long time: ever since the Royal Navy instructed ships to record ocean temperatures and winds, two centuries ago. In Australia CSIRO was doing climate research in the 1960s, and Graeme Pearman used QANTAS pilots in the early 1970s to collect samples of atmospheric CO2 at different levels, which led to Australia gaining international support to establish the Cape Grim 'global baseline' air archive. As for the link between CO2 and global temperature: it's basic physics, and has been understood for a century or more.

Raycom,

I think nicco has said just about all that can be said to demonstrate that the real science is not politically driven, and that a real case exists for concern and for action. The who and how of appropriate action is very much dependent on a consensus of both national and international constituencies - which of course is also very much dependent on a consensus as to the why, what if, and what if not.

Some other nations have embarked on a course of direct action. Our government should be examining the methods used by those nations to take action, evaluate what may best serve our situation, and involve the nation in consideration of the findings. Ms G is attempting to bypass a lot of that necessary groundwork and hoodwink the Oz public with a grandiose and ultimately futile approach.

Ross Garnaut's reports all seem to be various attempts to provide an economic model which will satisfy Labor's wish to be able to convince the Oz public to adopt and accept an ETS, the details of which they will then be able to adjust and modify by regulation. The scheme thus far revealed is a grand slight-of-hand, with no direct impact on CO2 emissions. It is therefore devoid of merit and deserves to be soundly rejected.

Saltpetre
If you scan the scientific literature on AGW, you will find that it does not contain scientific evidence to prove the AGW hypothesis. Warmists use the term 'real science' when they mean assertion (or to be kind, unproved theory).

The arch-proponent of AGW is the IPCC, a UN political body. The best it can do is assert. It uses invalid climate science models to make alarmist projections about global warming. It contrives to produce political reports to influence politicians at Conference of Parties meetings. In 1995, the IPCC allowed a single activist scientist, Ben Santer, to rewrite parts of the key Chapter 8 (Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Climate Change) of its Second Assessment Report in alarmist terms. The IPCC fostered the hockey stick scandal. Links exist between the IPCC and activists, activist organisations, and activist scientists.

Government instrumentalities and scientists have a vested interest in being aligned with the IPCC, so as to benefit from ongoing research funding.

Pro-AGW learned bodies are dictated by politically-motivated management boards.

There is no scientific or economic justification, nor international pressure, for politicians to enact CO2 emission reduction legislation

Raycom,

I believe what you have said is valid. There is a lot of confusion about the "science".

I admit I have taken a "broad brush" approach to reach my conclusion that science supports action being taken to reduce greenhouse emissions. My "real" science is not some specific report however, but an accumulation of earth science data describing current changes in earth climate systems, and possible cause and ramifications. I have attempted to review this data objectively.

Do I think it mandatory that Oz act now to make dramatic immediate reduction in emissions? No. Do I think it responsible to introduce measures to reduce our emissions long term? Yes. Do I think the proposed carbon trading and ETS scheme is the best way forward and should be adopted? No - because it does not guarantee any reduction in emissions, provides no real direction for development of reduced-emission energy systems, and is an attempt by slight-of-hand to avoid the cost of alternatives being shared - all Oz has benefited from existing systems, all must participate and share in the development and cost of change.

The earth science data I referred to is:
Glacial melts and retreat; reductions in sea ice extent and duration, with longer polar summers and shorter winters, and reduced polar ice cover; sea level rise; sea temperature rise; increased dissolved CO2 and reduced dissolved O2 in the world's oceans; ice-core analysis demonstrating significant increases in atmospheric CO2 levels currently; ice-core analysis demonstrating correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and major climate events - ice-ages and inter-glacial periods.

Anthropogenic contribution? versus "natural" emissions. One ice-core study concluded that, if it were not for large scale burning by humans dating from 10,000 years ago, the earth should, according to natural cycles, be now in an ice age. We have burned a lot of coal, oil and gas since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and produced a lot of other greenhouse gas emissions in chemical manufacture, fridges, Styrofoam, propellant gasses, and agriculture - more than ever before in earth history. Should we take some responsibility? Yes.

What an amazing compilation of conspiracy theory and arrant nonsense from Raycom! Clearly, there’s no point in attempting a rational argument with someone who sees the whole of climate science as a Great Big New Plot.

Raycom simply ignores the facts, that climate was being researched in Australia and elsewhere, long before the IPCC was formed; that the IPCC was formed as a co-ordinating body to report to all member governments on the state of climate science; that member governments (including the oil producers such as Saudi Arabia) signed off on the IPCC’s conclusions; that climate science is still being carried out, around the world, and that reference to the IPCC is simply not part of the argument; that research funding has nothing to do with the IPCC; that the major scientific institutions around the world, without any reference to the IPCC, have concluded that human activities have almost certainly affected global climate … and on and on.

There is of course considerable debate in the scientific community about the details and extent and consequences of climate change, and that’s where we should be looking. Dealing with wilfully deluded denialists is a great waste of time.