nicco I'm not here to be interogated by you, nor do I care for your silly little quiz

But I remain amused, as you clearly do not understand what you claim, that we can mitigate climate change ..

""This is why the international insurance community is taking climate science seriously, and accepting the linked proposition that climate is changing, and that human activity can mitigate this.""

of course, now you have tried what, 4 times to squirm around and not address this

come on nicco, how are you going to mitigate climate change?

No one else claims this, but you seem to have the answers ..let's hear them, or will we get more twisted questions and quiz's instead of answers?

Amicus, What are you going on about? It is irrefutable that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are in higher concentrations in the atmosphere now than they were before the industrial revolution, and that current levels exceed those measured in studies of the ice-cores representing conditions in previous stable interglacial periods. Ok, it's a matter of degree, but the world's oceans are already starting to show signs of movement towards destructive conditions, whereby some or our significant marine systems will be under threat of complete collapse. Do you appreciate the potential consequences of inaction?

What can we do? We can take action to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gasses. The why? This has been covered extensively, and should be obvious by now. The how? At this point there is only one viable option, and that will necessarily involve the conservation and rationing of fossil fuels - because simply planting trees and conserving existing forests will be insufficient, though this should still be promoted for long term maintenance.

Our question remains, the bigger how? An Oz carbon tax, or a global renaissance? It has been clearly pointed out that our action alone will achieve virtually nothing - except that a C Tax would be punitive, counter-productive, and entirely without justification. So, is the world to go to hell in a hand-basket, in unbridled stampede to industrial growth, or can sense prevail?

We and the world have a choice - reign back development, or invest massively in alternative non-fossil energy to counter the impacts of continued development. China has been moving in this direction - and no C Tax. We in Oz have an opportunity - we are riding on a wave of mineral resource exploitation, which could fuel our movement to sustainable energy. But, are we taking this opportunity? No! We are embarking on a C Tax! How ludicrous is this? I am simply staggered.

SBR108 please do my quiz and see - just because numbers are small doesn't mean that they aren't significant!

>"Climate change deniers" I hate that term. <

Why, it seperates the people who don't things are changing (regardless of the cause).

>The Believers can't handle the idea individuals might research the available information, balance it and come to a conclusion that differs from the IPCC's propaganda. So they create the name 'Deniers' and present it as though anyone with that viewpoint is evil.<

Not evil, just uniformed - have you read the IPCC reports? Could you name 3-4 of the highest profile "believers" documents have you read to form part of your balancing acts?

>Carbon is not pollution!<

Basic chemistry will tell you that ANYTHING can be present in too high a concentration and be problematic - water, calcium, thyroid hormones etc etc And I think we're talking about carbon dioxide - let's not go off an create an Alan Jones strawman :-)

>The world has been warming since the last ice age, and more so since the mini ice age a couple hundred years ago.<

Scientists would disagree - could you quote a few peer-reviewed sources to support please?

>To the Believers I say consider these facts in the big picture - (1) it is much easier to live in a warm climate than an extremely cold climate. <

Doesn't make the science wrong because it may not have much of an effect on YOUR life!

(2) Your concerns over the effects of warmer temperatures on future generations pale in comparison to what the impacts of population growth over the same period will be.

Doesn't make the science wrong and I think most people would agree that acting on this would have a much shorter 'lag' than climate change

(3) Australia has not created the so-called problem so why should Australians be expected to accept a tax that won't bring one iota of change to the climate.

Because we are part of a world economy that will, because we do contribute with our exports, because funding industry we may be able to make money seeling technology overseas (a novel idea, just not selling our natural resources!)

(4) not even the climate scientists who believe in man-made global warming are blaming climate change for the recent extreme weather, earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters.

Not directly, but will increase the incidence and severity, though not totally responsible for a single event - bad arguement

(5) The current Government has proven it cannot manage one single program efficiently or without some kind wasteful use of tax payers money. ($350 for a set-top box most recently) Do you really trust them to use the funds gained from a carbon tax in a beneficial way?

Doesn't make the science wrong!

Jennifer - could you please tell me where "Tim Flannery wrote in New Scientist that because of global warming the dams would never fill again - not even when it rained. "

I've found this link, but he doesn't quite say that in this article.

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm

Could it be another article - couldn't find one searching the New Science database/

Thanks

Years ago I believed all the global warming clap trap espoused by Green Peace and thought the world governments were conspiring to protect big business and corporate profits at the expense to polluting the planet and caring less about future generations. Some of the latter may well be true but the more I read the more I have doubts about CO2 being the cause of the warming.

Now there appears to be a defiant stand against common sense by the western governments.

I've come to my conclusion based on the available information. I haven't read every peer-reviewed scientific paper written on the subject but there are certainly enough summaries of those papers available to make an informed decision.

No one has forced this upon me, I have no vested interest, and yes, I am distrustful of the Labour Gov't based on their track record since Rudd was elected. The fiasco in Copenhagen was the icing on the cake along with the leaked IPCC documents.

There is a very good video on YouTube by a climate scientist named Bob Carter from Queensland that was the first evidence I saw that got me rethinking my belief about global warming. Just enter Bob Carter Climate Change in you tube to see it.

To anyone quoting articles from New Scientist you might be interested to see what Wikipedia has to say: "As well as covering current events and news from the scientific community, the magazine often features speculative articles, ranging from the technical to the philosophical. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal and also regularly includes features, news and commentary on environmental issues, such as climate change."

I do not have a personal connection or affiliation with any environmental group or agency so I have nothing to gain from coming to my own conclusions. I also don't feel the need to play games by answering your quiz David.

By the way, are you the same Mr David Driscoll, Committee Clerk. Standing Committee on Environment & Public Affairs. Parliament House. Perth WA