What is needed above all is a rational means to evaluate risks (whether global warming, religious loonies, rampaging duck hunters or whatever) and develop practical, adequate responses. The threat of terrorism pales into insignificance against a major asteroid impact, but planning for the latter contingency dovetails nicely into planning a response to climate change that will, human-caused or otherwise, inevitably occur and affect billions of people adversely.

We won't achieve anything near what is necessary or possible, either by piddling along with our current systems of national governments, which apart perhaps from those of Continental Europe remain mutated forms of monarchic dictatorship, or by moving towards dependency upon a beefed-up United Nations, which would deliver only more corruption and waste (don't even mention The World Bank).

Like all success stories in public policy, the solution needs a mix of motivated people with a range of talents - inciteful genius in a particular field, plodding devotion to R&D, people with the ability to network, people with a knack to organise and apply resources. To enable such people to achieve what they can, individuals with the means to communicate can, by themselves or in organised groups, make representation to, influence, and change governments. Or become governments.

It can begin with as little as a plea on an internet forum.

O, and religion? Send a donation to a firm that promises to come up with a reliable antidote.

You reckon Bush and Howard are right, Anti_Green? Are they scientists? Professors? No. They are good at what they do... talking bulls_hit and relying on millions of stupid people to believe it.

Don't believe that human induced global warming and climate change aren't happening, or not much of a problem. Your living in a day dream, economists, or totally blind to reality.

When I was young, if you looked into the sky you would see birds everywhere. Now the skies are empty, it's rare to see one bird except for introduced species.

Thirty years ago when you walked into the bush, it was full of the sound of birds, little animals, and wildlife in abundance. Now in 95% of places, its totally silent, then there is the lack of frogs, bugs and spiders, snakes and the many varieties of other wildlife that used to abound.

So do all the number crunching and theoretical models you like, they won't help when the ecology collapses completely. What you all fail to see is that our survival is intricately linked to the survival of other species and climatology that regulates the biodiversity and biology of the planet. But back to your macca's, latte's indoor gyms and closeted lives, whats outside your delusions won't exist until it hits you in the face with full force.

I understand that a lot of younger people have never ever seen a forest full of life and believe that things have been the way they are forever. Just like the way you have been de-educated, programmed and indoctrinated, so have you been blinded to anything but the “I am” mentality. Pity none of you know the beauty and reality of the living world of the past, all you can see is concrete streets and wall to wall people everywhere you go. You are never seen in the real world, just flash through it in you insulated worlds, that won't be usable very soon, as your modeling doesn't take into account what your going to do without your fossils fuels to support you and degrade the environment. I only feel sorry for the rapidly becoming extinct life of the planet. Not the deluded blind humans that believe they are superior to all other life forms and can sustain the unsustainable

Tubley,

You are correct in saying Bush and Howard are not scientifically qualified. However, the same can be said for most politicians and/or journalists, Green advocacy groups and so on, that comment on this issue. I myself for instance have no formal qualifications in this area.

There is no doubt that the differential equations that describe global climate are horrendously complex. Thus to claim a direct causal relationship between human activity and climate is to say the least simplistic.

An earlier post referred to a paper on the Lavoisier site: Evans R. Nine lies about Global Warming. Evans makes the point that there is a good correlation between global Fossil-Fuel use and Temperature change from 1970 20 2000, but NOT if the graph is extended back to the year 1860.

About 200 years ago David Hume in his philosophical writings speculated, if a correlation was sufficient to establish a cause.

A recent article in the BMJ commented on publication bias in medical studies. I am certain the same can be said of media reporting of climate studies.

Anti Green,
Your sentiment is on the money in my view.
Just read this recent addition for all the confirmation any one would need. It is a trifle long but well written and well worth it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/779fgpcf.asp

Alchemist,
If your instincts are as you say, why not try to back them up with some hard evidence,and then try and make a causal link between what you observe, and the marginal rise of temperature and Co2. It probably has nothing to do with AGW.

There are two groups of scientests, equally qualified, who hold opposing views on the subject of global warming.

There is no point in the unqualified arguing about it.