So it's you Grace who kicked off the environmental non-debate back in 1980. A quaint little theory of yours that really seems to have caught on. If you're so au fait with global warming then you of all people should know that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!! You should also know about the vested interests on both sides of the debate, you should also know that climate science is unreliable and you should be aware of the blatent scare-mongering of your team.

Instead of running around spruiking pseudo-science theories your lot would be much better off spending your $8 billion in research grants trying to find alternate energy sources. How about wind?! We could cover the earth in dinky little windmills that send us all quietly insane as they swish in the breeze. No - we'll leave it up to the evil oil and energy companies to come up with real solutions to your problems.

Your irony doesn't allude me, nor does your monumental compassion in allowing people a little bit of cooking oil to use but denying them any energy to cook anything with it.

I always thought scientists demanded quantifiable and independently verifiable proof. Seems this only applies to some areas of science hey Grace?

You are sooo tiresome, Cranky, get a life.

Here's a few reputable references so you can chase down your silly conspiracy theories. They are dated prior to my own article (not funded by a research grant from your imaginary $US8B), which on checking I find was published in 1984, not 1980, but still before your invented date of 1988:

National Research Council 1979, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: a Scientific Assessment". Washington DC, National Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council 1982, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: a Second Assessment". Washington DC, National Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council 1983, "Changing Climate". Washington DC, National Academy of Sciences.

Pearman, G.I. 1980. "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Australian Research". Canberra, National Academy of Science.
Tucker, G.I. 1980. "The CO2 Climate Connection: a Global Problem from an Australian Perspective". Canberra, Australian Academy of Science.
Pittock, AB et al, 1981. "Human Impact on the Global Atmosphere: Implications for Australia". Search 12(8): 260-272
Pittock AB and Salinger MJ. 1982. "Towards Regional Scenarios for a CO2 Warmed Earth". Climate Change 4:23
Harris, S. 1976 "Economic Aspects of Possible Climate Change", In: Report of Committee on Climate Change. Canberra. Australian Academy of Science.

Now can we see a few more of your sources please Cranky. I think you are probably empty-handed, but never mind, Alan Moran and the Institute of Public Affairs are laughing all the way to the bank, with your strenuous if inept defence of their interests.

Your allusion to dung fires simply eludes me Cranky...

Calm down Grace! I'd hate to see you take a turn and fall into your dung fire.

All of your resources start from the assumption that global warming is occuring. That may well be but you've offered nothing to show conclusively that it's caused by man! The reason for this is, of course, because there is no evidence. All I'm asking for is proof that global warming is not a natural event and is directly caused by man.

I won't hold my breath.

I agree with Cranky.And another point.Grace puts the spotlight on the IPA and it's funding arrangements and then proceeds to trot out a series of references from various Acadamies of Science.What are these acadamies and their funding arrangements?I suspect that they are significantly reliant on research grants which would of course dry up if they were to admit that a perceived problem such as global warming did not exist.

The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 stayed at about 290 ppm for about 10,000 years. In 1880 it was about 290 ppm. In 2005 it is about 390 ppm. During this 125 years mankind has burnt about a trillion (10^12) barrels of oil and an equal amount (in terms of carbon produced) of natural gas and coal. That is about 500 billion tonnes of CO2 over what was put into the atmosphere in the previous 10,000 years, by my rough calculations. I am happy to hear a better referenced quote.

Most discussions pro and con on climate change say that there has been an increase in average world temperature in the past 20 years. Climate change doubters admit that there has been warming, but say that it isn't man's fault and that a much longer data series is needed to be conclusive.

The data is not conclusive, but it is compelling.

The real horrific predictions of global warming impacts are from models that are difficult to understand and even more difficult to verify. It is all well and good to say the scientific method relies on verifiable and replicable experiments, but when the whole world is your lab and we don't have enough data to assess really long term trends, it is impossible to do replicable experiments.

We do sometimes have to put our trust in people who may be getting grants that they would not get if they determined that there was no problem. Is that worse than trusting the fossil fuel industry and a political system that has billions of dollars tied up in the status quo? We probably need to be careful about what both have to say.

If population growth slows a little and our desire to consume slows a little, it may give us time to figure it out.