The proportion of the present warming which is anthropogenic is debatable. The Earth is yet to warm to the level it was at the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland.

Big Fish is right in one thing at least, nuclear power is the way to go. Australia's contribution to global warming may be out of proportion to our population, but the contributions of China and India will make ours look ike small beer indeed.

The small island nations of the Pacific have probably been inhabited for only a thousand years or so, around 900AD when Greenland was settled, they would have been underwater. On that basis they could be looked at as "ephemeral" land just like inland watercourses are periodic, too.

Not a climate scientist among you, the level anthropogenic warming is a chat that climate scientist should have (and guess what they have) not oil company spin doctors or conservative think tanks.

As a matter of fact I have a degree in Geography, including Climatology, and work in the field (as a technician)!

There doesn't seem to be much doubt about either climate warming, or the anthropogenic component of it, according to those in the best position to know. Elements of it are debatable, the summation of it is not.
If hopeful straws are preferred to the real thing, botanist David Bellamy's now-discredited statements in the New Scientist would be attractive.
On the other hand there is plenty of material that has stood up to the test, available locally in Australia courtesy of CSIRO.
Ian Lowe, who signed off the first Australian State of the Environment Report, has just published a very readable book on the subject, under the title Living in the Hothouse ISBN 1 920769 41 2

Let's be clear about this - we've had it pretty good, compared to most of the rest of the world. We - and I include the totality of "developed" countries - have been happily consuming more than our share of resources for a while now, and at some point it will have to stop.

It is a fact of our "developed world" civilization that we have a declining birthrate, while the rest of the world still produces as fast as they can. We have plenty of material things around us, which we share with the smallest family unit we can get away with, while the African village-dwellers still produce as fast as they can, just as they have for centuries. The difference is that they now live just a teensy bit longer than they used to (thank you Western countries, for your medicines and Live8), so their population will continue to grow for a while. Ours won't.

But let's be honest with ourselves for once. Sharing is not a particularly prevalent trait of our selfish society, and it will be politically unacceptable in all of our lifetimes for any Australian government to say "come on in, one and all, the water's great". Won't happen. Sorry.

But the variables are simple. Either populations moves towards equilibrium with the economy, or the economy moves towards equilibrium with populations. And it is all long-term, there is no short-term fix for this.

To make a one-generation difference in the poorer countries, we would need to find a way to limit population in peoples over whom we have no legal or moral jurisdiction. That will be very unpopular with all concerned. If we choose to share the world, as in bringing the economy into line with the population, we would all need to learn a subsistence-only lifestyle. That might be popular in Africa, but difficult to sell in Canberra.

Neither is a pretty choice. But imagining there is some kind of magic bullet doesn't help either.

It is one of those situations where there are no real answers, only more questions.

Oh Kenny…

“Not a climate scientist among you,…”

So there is no need to listen to views of others? Gee lucky a certain patent clerk early last century could not listen to you.

I always thought facts, backed up of course, were facts no matter where they come from. Theories get tested and revised continually over time.

To be perfectly honest, I do not care if an “oil company spin doctors or conservative think tanks” presents arguments if they present a valid point. What climate change proponents and opponents have to understand is to accept more open debate forget the person but concentrate about the observations, claims, theories and any evidence presented. As an outsider looking in with interest what I see is that manmade climate change proponents are starting to look shaky (my opinion only). About the climate refugees. Big decisions may need to be made but based on what evidence?

EG. Early on it was indicated sea levels will rise significantly as the ice caps melted. I read that and worry. Now I read that the Antarctica ice sheet is thickening offsetting the sea level rise. So this was not predicted? The comments come back, well yes it is predicted as the warmer earth will induce more precipitation. Okay so why was this not brought up early on or was the ice cap thickening not predicted? What did the models say? If the models are reasonable either they predicted this OR did not. If yes why not bring it up, maybe some-ones agenda, if not, then models obviously not good enough.
In my career (chemical engineer) we know the good old SISO with computer modelling. The model is only as good as the data inputted.

Now there are probably answers to all these questions somewhere but I have right to wonder about the basis behind these comments/facts? As not a climate scientist I will still ask questions (stupid maybe) and form an opinion. Climate scientists on either side have to convince Joe Public, governments, and me. And that means answering all valid questions