Seems like the climate change sceptics have mobilised again, just as they do every time someone tries to write something sensible about the dangers which global warming poses for life on this planet. The sceptics who leaked the draft of the fifth International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report are misrepresenting what is in the draft. Have a look at last Friday's PM interview with Professor Steve Sherwood from UNSW who is the lead author of chapter seven of the IPCC report. Sherwood makes it clear there is no way the findings documented in that chapter are consistent with what sceptics are claiming about the chapter. See http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3654926.htm . It is time to stop denying the science and start trying to work out what we can do about the dangers we face.

The more I think about this article the angrier I get; a couple of ivory-towers haven't done their research and accept the gibberish of the IPCC holus bolus. Subsequently their opinion is junk.

For instance they parrot the nonsense about seeding the atmosphere with aerosols to cause cooling; aerosols can have a warming effect as even Hansen has noted:

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.long

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.abstract

See also:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/VI/nature.pdf

Aerosols, like every part of the climate jigsaw are complex and probably chaotic in their effect.

One gets weary of academics spreading agitprop under the imprimateur of their academic status.

Sherwood's drivel is critiqued by Alec Rawls:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/alec-rawls-responds-to-steven-sherwood-the-bad-professor-is-inverting-the-scientific-method/

Sherwood is responsible for 2 of the most egregious papers written by alarmists:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo208.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

There is no real science there.

"A rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over coming decades is crucial for us to provide our children and grandchildren with a safe climate in which to live well."

Well, there's been no reduction in greenhouse gases during the last decade and the half, and my children are living just as well as they were in 1997 -- somewhat better, in fact. Seriously, just how much longer are you going to continue working yourself into a screaming hysteria about something that's not actually happening? Not that it matters, provided you don't get your grasping hands on anyone else's money as a result.

" A rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over coming decades is crucial for us to provide our children and grandchildren with a safe climate in which to live well."

Oh puleez! The last 16 years indicates a sure bet that we're all gunna fry and die reel soon!

Try to stick with the science guys ok?

The further away we get from God's simple truths the more extreme the science fiction relating to climate soothsaying becomes.

The author concludes

'A rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over coming decades is crucial for us to provide our children and grandchildren with a safe climate in which to live well. '

To assume man holds the future climatic conditions in his hands is sheer stupidity.