hehehe

If you work in the field then you know the data is equivocal, and shows that man's influence is at best small...possibly significant, but not overridingly so as put out by most these days. Its not so much the theory..(although I would rate it as hypothesis, not the fact it is generally proported to be).. that gets my goat, it's the lying & manipulation that does it.

why do govermnents buy into it? the same reason they buy into DDT bans.( & other ideals of the same ilk)..there is no scientific basis for any of the counterclaims raised against it yet it is still banned. It is one of the most effective combatants of malarial mosquitoes...yet those who would benifit most are penalised by the developed world for even concidering using it for malarial control. I.e it is "politically astute", collects no flack from the idiot fringe or media.

as to a mini ice age or larger..possible...but the realistic time scale? ...I recall a theory along those lines in the 70's..........when the preoccupation was global cooling.....

Funskter, the analogy might not have been the best but obviously not everyone is wearing condoms all the time otherwise the growth rate would be zero (there will be some IVF babies though).

Still maybe things like Kyoto are a global warming condom - limiting growth when the chance of catching HIV (catastrophic GW) are minimal.

Could you imagine the cost of reproducing if the natural way was banned and everyone had to use a test tube just to limit the tiny chance of catching HIV on the basis of the precautionary principle.

Mike os, There is far too much hysteria and unless people believe the sky is falling they are branded smoking guns hired by "Big Oil".

Very few people actually believe there has been no warming. The aguments are there has been some warming, humans probably caused some of it and that things will be better in some parts of the world, worse in others and pretty much the same in the rest.

Henny-penny predictions do nothing and as Bob Carter points out, are too often based on some acts of faith rather than the evidence.

t.u.s

Hi to all from Aussie1. Most interesting to view some lively discussion. Can't say I've seen anybody yet to consider one or two of the factual and real uncensored reasons for global warming. Besides the "intelligents" who "burn off" hundreds of acres of forests (of course they don't contain Co or CO2 or pollute?) (rather than cut grasses and underbrush as we serfs who are not even allowed to use an open fire to burn some rubbish)we've had our very best "brains trust" boofheads who blew massive holes in the ionosphere with above ground Atomic tests! How many millions of degrees from the explosion? Heat rises or were these heat ranges extinguished 10-50 miles up by a dose of bulldust? blind eye maybe?
You don't really believe they didn't do it or didn't know do you? They didn't stop because they were "good guys"!

Strange isn't that the only badly depleted areas of ozone layer seem to be over Russia, Australia and the South Pacific areas ~
Strange part is I haven't got a piece of paper that says I'm a genius. I just look out the window and spoke to some people that know what really happened in the Atoomic tests. More in the next post
Until then Take care keep safe

I'm responding only to the article, as I haven't read the comments. I found it a breath of fresh air, blowing away the polluting clouds of waffle. I was first briefed on the global warming debate by IPCC leaders such as Sir Frederick Houghton in 1989-90. At that time, I proposed a study on the economic impact of accelerated global warming by the Office of EPAC (not accepted). Also at that time I attended a number of scientific fora at which I was viciously attacked by that rabid greenie Ian Lowe for daring to suggest that there might be a role for economists in the greenhouse debate.

The joke is, that ALL of the IPCC projections for global warming over this century are based on economic modelling. That modelling was based on absurdly flawed methodology - among other things, it led to the result that the income of South Africa in 2100 would be greater than the total world income in 2000. The modelling has been totally discredited by leaders in the field such as Ian Castles, the former Australian Statistician. I estimated that if the methodological flawa in the models were corrected, the results for warming in the most likely scenario would not be significantly different from zero.

Ian Lowe, you are right to fear economists, they can see through your fallacious nonsense.

in a similar vein, the US scientist who advises the IPCC on huracane data/prediction etc. has recently removed himself from the panel and removed his name from the advisory board following unsupported media announcements by senior IPCC representatives that recent huricane activity was caused by global warming, when the recorded data emphaticaly denies such a claim.....but the IPCC is still seen as an organisation of authority in these matters?

Re the last post, the scientist's name was Chris Landsea and you can find an account of the matter here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000325follow_up_on_landsea.html