From the majority of comments so far, looks like the contributors believe that Professor Bob', is on a mission, but, by the looks - a money mission - so shocking for an academec who should be the other way round, looking after our planet instead of supporting those who are denuding it. As farmers we know very well what denuding means, over-clearing the planet of nature's way of purification- for without the trees and forests we would return to a 'scape like Mars.

Go for it, you insightly ones, the world so much needs you, the wealth that you are acccumulating is not money-wealth, but the wealth akin to foresightliness and commonsense, so much sorely needed these days both in economics and politics.

George, C - (Bushbred)

Just read in the Aussie reprint of the "Guardian" two interesting pieces on the Kyoto Incident:

1. Who would believe it, but China has suggested to the rest of the ratpack anti-Kyoto mob she has just joined, that it is so important for both groups to get together and rationally discuss the worsening problems of the global ecology.

2. The Green Party has suggested that the new anti-Kyoto jag is really a coal pact involving cleaner ways of burning coal, and including with the US, four of the world's largest coal producers. Also, Australia and the US being on the wrong side of Kyoto, might miss out on a pro-Kyoto boom in clean-air technology.

Putting the two of the above together, China should get top marks for political and economic insight.

George C, WA - (Bushbred)

I think you misunderstand the graph, Perseus. What it shows is that the temperature variation is closely correlated with the rise and fall of the carbon gases in the atmosphere. After each ice age the CO2 and CH4 have risen steadily and the temperature has risen correspondingly until a peak has been reached where CO2 is about 280 ppm and CH4 is about 700 ppb. Then after a comparatively brief warm period (a few thousand years) some control mechanism kicks in and temperatures drop back to normal (ice age) levels for the next 100,000 years. What seems to be happening now is that, whatever the control mechanism was, it has been overwhelmed by the massive increase in the carbon gases over the last century. This may have saved us from the next ice age (though that may be just wishful thinking) but in the meantime we will have to endure the consequences of our profligate expenditure of the Earth's carbon capital. These will include rising sea levels, spreading deserts, more severe storms, ocean acidification, to mention just a few. This is not scaremongering, it is just facing the facts. All the weasel words of the spokesmen of the fossil fuel industries, designed to protect their profit margins, will not alter these facts.

I recommend you have a look at this site:

http://www.science.org.au/events/rowland

Interesting article outlining the fact that we really don't whether global warming is primarily natural or influenced by human factors. It is a serious matter when the political Left (or Right) can influence scientific judgement. It is important to remember people are making as much money out of the "human caused disaster" scenario as any other with movies, political donations, board games and TV cartoon shows etc etc as the so-called oil lobby.

The problem for most of us is that we are suspicious of the misguided environmental evangelists yet would like to do our best to preserve our environment. We don't really know whats happening with our environment and it scares me when some pretend they do without scientific backup.

Livingstone's "people are making as much money out of the "human caused disaster" scenario as any other with movies, political donations, board games and TV cartoon shows etc etc as the so-called oil lobby."

Yeah, right, there are these big corporations equivalent to Shell, Exxon, called umm, see, like , um, you know and then there's, and these large corporation make money like, from, like um, you know lets call them service stations they have hundred of cars coming into each one every day.

Your statement does not compute.

and "The problem for most of us is that we are suspicious of the misguided environmental evangelists yet would like to do our best to preserve our environment. We don't really know whats happening with our environment and it scares me when some pretend they do without scientific backup. "

you ever heard of the precautionary principle? If you don't know, don't leap before you look. Which is how we generally deal with externalities generating by our short term decisions in the market. You seem to be waiting for the glug glug glug around you throat.

The other problem with you sensate information seekers is that when daddy says "Don't touch it Johnny, its hot!" You have to reach out and touch it, and gee, goodness it is hot.

And now your finger's burnt. Trouble is daddy isn't getting paid to warn you. Thinking he _hurt_ you by telling you want to do, when in fact its you own ill-disciplined urges burning your fingers.

Corporations are toddlers, run by toddlers, 'NOBODY TELLS ME WHAT TO DO'

The temerity that some customers have because they do look ahead, in order to warn, leads to all sorts of psychological projection. Toddlers can't cope with it. Even though deep down they need it.

That people warning of a possible problems are lumped with the nonsensical spin that they are making more/same money out of it than petroleum companies? And you vote? Where are the figures?

Carter has falsely claimed that the US National Academy of Sciences has disasociated itself from the joint statement. It has not. They disagree with the Royal Society's press release but stand by the statement. You can read the statement at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222

Carter makes another outrageously false claim when he says that global temperatures are falling. Look at the graph and judge for yourself:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/