Biggav,

Wrong again! Sure the work by Svante Arrhenius was about 1900 but it was forgotten until the late 1970s' or early 1980's when it was rediscovered and providing a ready-made reason for the warming.

Arrhenius's calculations are believed to be wrong because he included radiation absorption for water vapour. (CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths). Scientists are split whether a DOUBLING of CO2 will cause an increase of 0.7C degrees or just 0.22 C degrees (see http://hanserren.cwhoutwijk.nl/co2/index.html)

In the late 1970's Stephen Schneider, now a proponent of global warming, loudly declared that an Ice-age was imminent.

Schneider is also famous for saying about global warming "...To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

cheers

John

Travel writer, travel photographer or unemployed IT consulate it really makes no difference you still are unqualified to provide a informed opinion on the subject. For everyone else have a look at this website
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon_old.htm it's not about this subject, but what it is about is showing how a seeming logical (but completely wrong) argument can be constructed by someone who has no knowledge about a subject. For those interest to know what qualified people are saying this link is a good one http://www.realclimate.org/

Kenny,

Remember this site is called online opinion. It is place where anyone, including you, can log on and have a spirited debate about opinion pieces.
By your logic - most of the stuff Greenpeace publishes must be pointless as well considering a lot of their spruikers are not climatologists, oceanographers, forestry experts.
Last night on Lateline Tony interviewed Ross Gelbspan, a journalist who is quite vocal in his support of global warming. Are his opinions less valid because he is not an expert.
In future will you only post on IT related articles because that is your area of expertise.
Practice what you preach.

t.u.s.

The link below to the BBC science and nature home page - and an article about 'global dimming' offers some salutary lessons in not thinking simplistically about climate change. It also has some cogent ideas to offer about why gobal warming might not follow the neat linear path John McClean obviously thinks it should.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

What I find utterly frustrating about this whole debate is the tacit (and facile) expectation from the nay-sayers that claims of human-influenced climate change should somehow be prooved in order to be taken seriously. There are many instances in science where conclusive proof of a claim is possible; given a controlled experimental situation, and a sufficiently simple causal relationship, and repeatability. Unfortunately, the phenomenon of climate change does not allow for these conditions to be met. Therefore our thinking about it must proceed according to different principles and methodology.
What we do know for certain is that CO2, methane and the like do indeed act to trap heat in the atmosphere; and that the concentrations of these gases in out atmosphere are increasing, and that human beings are directly implicated in generating some of these increases.
What we do not know for absolute certain, what we cannot proove in any absolute sense, is what longer term effects these changes will have. Weather is a chaotic system; by its very nature it mitigates against precise predictability. Multiple interacting factors are involved, as the BBC article make plain.
From this point onward, John, what is therefore required is a different mind-set. In basic terms it is to say: given that we do not know precisely what effects all this will have; and given that there are a whole raft of plausible reasons for us to be very concerned about the effects it might have; therefore we should proceed with extreme caution, and guard against possible effects in the future with preventative precautions in the present.
Unlike climate change modelling itself, the logic of this really isn't rocket science.

The Usual Suspect your mixing your message. If greenpeace or anybody else enters the scientific debate without due respect for the subject as our shutter bug here has then I would treat them the same. I’ve got no issue with Snowman or anyone entering the debate but be warned that not only are your ideas going to come under scrutiny but also your qualifications to make them. Why would that not be the case? I watched the lateline show and thought it was pointless they were having a chat nothing more.

Now if you read my posts most of them are along the same lines i.e. people need to make informed decisions about social issues and defer to experts when it comes to the facts and not work on anecdotal evidence. If someone would like put up a article on dynamic modelling or the merits of event driven code then I’m sure both snowman and I would enjoy however I think the rest of you would be a bit board.
I think the people should not hold very strong views on subjects they know little about.
Arguing policy is one thing arguing the facts is completely different.

I amazed at the calibre of postings to this forum. Why on earth is there so much difficulty identifying theories, facts and opinions?

My OPINION is that a lot of uncertainties exist about global warming. To support my opinion I stated...
- the FACT that temperatures have not exceeded 1998 levels while carbon dioxide has increased,
- the FACT that at least one researcher has proposed that a mini ice-age may be on its way,
- the FACT that the "hockey stick" is being disputed,
- the FACT that German newspapers featured articles questioning global warming,
- the FACT that a survey indicated many European climatologists doubt that human activities and emissions caused recent warming,
- the FACT that other contrarian comments were made at a recent German conference,
- the FACT that the CSIRO can't predict historical temperatures and rainfall with any accuracy,
- the FACT that a researcher concludes that recent warming is plausibly entirely natural,
- the FACT that David Taverne said that the IPCC TAR was "sexed up" and that eco-McCarthyism is happening
...and then I stated the logical conclusions that follow "[i]f global warming theories are indeed incorrect ..."

Kenny and biggav - please tell us why I need to be "qualified" to state these FACTS.

Kenny - I presented FACTS so please explain your comments "I'll not going to enter this 'debate' simply because the people trying to spread misinformation about global warming will not let facts or ignorance get in the way of their views." ...and... "Arguing policy is one thing arguing the facts is completely different."

Fish - At least you were on topic. You are deluded if you believe that we should take action against something that has not been proven, and the logical extension of your precautionary principal is that you should not get out of bed in the morning in case you get injured. The only efficient way to deal with a threat is to understand it thoroughly and only then take action. From everything I've read, scientists don't thoroughly understand climate.

cheers

John