Headline on abc.net.au - Earth's temperature nears million-year high
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1748741.htm

Gee, do you think even a geologist might find that significant?

In a previous "discussion" with KAEP, (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4574) I asked KAEP to refrain from making personal remarks about another person, saying "you are probably bought". His/her response was to launch a personal attack on me saying "Perhaps you would prefer if I called you a weasel. Because that's how you come across here."

Now KAEP is trying to turn the tables (good luck with that), but it's just an empty accusation. I still believe that flaming is against the rules of this forum, and that apology is outstanding from last time.

In the Candy's case, I have asked her(?) to apologise for misleading the forum. These are the only posts Candy has made to this forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=28507), so I'm definitely wasting my time there.

In KAEP's post, the problem is that nonsense was written up and the content speaks for itself. In particular, the set of maps, of the Carribian sea do not show that "US and Caribbean Nations are in effect controlling climate change." And the map of Australia, posted 26Sept2006 4:54AM, shows nothing of interest.

Of course I do ask people to "look at the nonsense" in KAEP's post, because the technique of using pseudo-science and discrediting scientific institutions is manifest. We should be all aware that public relations firms (eg KAEP's hyperlink) do the same but in a far more professional and believable way.

So, go see the movie. It is not a public relations exercise. It is a great documentary with important and reliable information and a positive message. Al Gore is doing a good job, takes a moral stand and integrity is his motivation. We should applaud that.

(P.S. It's off the topic somewhat, but as a proud republican, I'll assert there are people with great integrity, greater than I, who do not support change. A republican debate with integrity shall serve Australia well.)

Hermes, "earth's temperature nears million year high".
So what, to a geologist. That is miniscule in geologic time, during which our planet has had far more extreme climatic changes. Hectic times prevailed about 65 million years back, and real devilish stuff some couple of hundred million before that.
The earth has seen it all before, so why should a geologist worry? The impertinence of a scientifically-oriented political animal like Gore to send us a message saying we might not be able to adjust to the demonstrated changes that are upon us. So what if ice-melt is at its greatest in 11,000 years! We are not Trilobites; not Dinosaurs. They both had it too good for too long (200 million years or so each); too rigidly attuned to their climatic periods. Couldn't cope with change, so all their species died out.
Genus Homo is new, is different, is technological. We will persist. Lomborg says so and, though no geologist, is a Great Dane as many people seem to believe. Whatever we do, we must not put any store in what is said by our very own acknowledged climate specialists such as Pearman and Pittock. Whatever you do, do not read the reasoned information on the subject in Pittock's book Climate Change; or all that data from time to time by Pearman. Their opinions are surely tainted: their termerity in demonstrating there is great cause for concern, especially for our children and grandchildren. But they are not geologists; their time frame encompasses but a short geological blip. On the same basis, it must be sheer ratbaggery, the stuff being published on the subject by the Australian Academy of Science and sister organisations in the USA and UK. Just believe the blogs by our dissenting geologists.
Undoubtedly, 6.5 billion Homo sapiens are not coping too well with the climate we have become attuned to over the past 10,000 years; but technology is sure to prevail for us, and climatic deterioration surely will be miniscule on a geological scale.

A website that I find informative is http://www.realclimate.org/
The site presents the latest research and is moderated by a team of scientists. It also allows public comment to which the moderators may respond.

My big concern is with sea level rise and storm surges associated with extreme weather events. This is arguably the greatest economic threat of climate change, and also seems to prompt the wildest denials by sceptics. The political debate thus leaves my disgusted, as I believe the underlying motive for discussing climate change to be self-interest and not the discovery of truth.

Consequently I limit my own reading to scientific reports. It is a shame that some of the media clowns dont even try to understand the science. And unlike the scientists, they seem to have licence to publish debunked ideas, misleading information and slander without limit.

I can't believe this Carter person ! He's some sort of marine scientist up in Townsville, can he really be looking at the Great Barrier Reef bleaching before his eyes and still be rubbishing Al Gore et al ? How come ? It reminds me of a recent experience - I emailed a scientist at Wollongong Uni asking for help from his Faculty for a community group worried about the wrecking of rivers in his region by poorly regulated mining operations, which the NSW government is allowing to go too close to our river systems. When he replied that he was unable to give any assistance or advice whatsoever, it was under the letterhead of "BHP Billiton Chair of Environmental Science." Perhaps Carter similarly occupies a chair sponsored by Xstrata or whatever. Such is the parlous state of academe. I would welcome a disclaimer from Carter which would need to give details of his refusals of the usual sponsored trips overseas, lucrative "speaking engagements" at conferences in exotic venues, work experience "opportunities" for favoured students, profitable consultancies and all the other enticements these hugely powerful companies are becoming so adept at handing out to academics who publicly support them.

Alarmists vs Skeptics...hmmm. Little chance of actually changing
anyone's mind,but I did change mine in 1989.In about 1987 a TV
special along the lines of Gore's movie had me all alarmed and I
jumped headlong into belief since articles fanning the flames came
along regularly.It suited me at the time to believe.
After a while I thought I'd best read up on it.Pre-internet so I read up on glaciers[they have been due to disappear since the last ice age]
carbon dioxide-.03% of atmosphere.traps some of the heat leaving earth at night on a different infrared wavelength to its arrival in daytime.without it very much colder planet.
increase co2 what happens? As far as is KNOWN...extra CO2,let's say a doubling to .06%,may not trap any more night-radiating heat.A bit like having 2 air filters on your car,if one can catch the dust the second won't.
ICE CAPS- ice floats when it sinks the water level doesn't rise
so only ice sitting on land then melting in water raises level.So whole north pole can melt,no rise in sea level.Ross Ice SHELF if on land then in water can raise water but not if being replenished inland.
STATISTICAL DATA not old enough or good enough to prove Global Warming.Other phenomena like Coral bleaching could be anything.

In short reading up led me to skeptecism.I now want science and facts to back up the alarmist conclusions which have almost a fundamentalist weirdness to them.Millions of people who failed high school science or never even opened a book seem to have a deep personal need to believe the Global Warming Industry who mostly have some kind of education and can spin a good yarn and keep themselves in PRIUS and Overseas Study Tours.

People love the Unspoilt Planet idea the way Rousseau did and are sadly romantically misguided.