From time to time, I meet an academic who wears the goggles of their own discipline just a little too tightly. In my case, I'll admit to sometimes seeing everything as an information technology problem.

In the case of geologist Bob Carter, looking at the whole history of the earth, a jump in CO2 levels or temperatures may seem rather natural and benign. After all, the present increase in CO2 is nothing compared to 100 million years ago.

Of course that misses the whole point. Humanity has values, is self-conscious and occasionally intelligent. We believe that we are somehow different from a plague of locusts who mindlessly consume the landscape before them, even though locusts are certainly part of a natural cycle. This is why I agree with Al Gore saying global warming is ultimately a moral issue rather than a scientific one.

-00-

A response to Jennifer who says "I reckon Al Gore is making a lot of money out of the movie." I was wondering if this was an objective comment or a projection of Jennifer's partisanship. Al Gore has stated "Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of [our] profits from the movie and the book to a new bipartisan educational campaign", as reported in the magazine of the US Smithsonian Institution (http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com)

Gore's data is speculation, deceptively presented or simply wrong! This forum is limited to 350 words so if you want a more thorough assessment then www.trac.org.au/myths/myths.htm

Most of what Gore prophesises are PREDICTIONS of computer models. Most of these models do not take into account such fundamentals as celestial influences and solar flux variations. Further, models of the earth's basic atmospheric absorbtion chemistry are woefully inadequate, the cell size is orders of magnitude too large and initial/boundary conditions are not know with any real accuracy. Most telling of all is that NONE can model the gas which makes up >96% of the greenhouse gases (water vapour and/or clouds) with anything other than order of magnitude accuracy!

CSIRO’s statement on modelling:

“This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.”

This is why the "we are all going to die" climatologists keep their computer models SECRET!

Reid Bryson, Emeritus Professor at the University of Wisconsin, and universally regarded as the ‘father of climatology’ and the inventor of the weather and climate modelling systems said:

“A model is nothing more than a formal statement about how the modeller believes the part of the world of his concern actually works … it may be years before computer capacity and human knowledge are adequate for reasonable simulation … the main models in use all have similar errors, but it is hardly surprising, for they are all essentially clones of each other."

Gore's film is a "movie" and is a deliberate mis representation of the science with artistic drama and music to achieve a political agenda. The Ex Canadian Environment Minister expressed the sentiment perfectly:

“No matter if the science is all phony [sic], there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Here is what the Royal Society has to say about Exxon and its funding of Global Warming denial. The report by CEI quoted by prof Carter gets a specific mention. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

Yes Al Gore is a politician and he is leading a grassroots campaign on this issue. No doubt he could have written or commisioned a scientific paper on the issue however that would have reached far fewer people than his lecture tour and film. Books and pamphlets are just not as popular as they once were.

The op-ed article from USA Today was written by a Bush and Reagan biographer it is hardly going to be unbiased. Surprise surprise the Hoover Institution for which he works features on the same list of Exxon funded attack dogs. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=43 Key members are Rumsfeld, Rice and George Schultz.

It is amazing how useful google is on finding news background.

Of course I also drive a car, live in a house and am a user of petrochemical products. That doesn't mean that I can't change my choices to greener options. Recognizing the need for change is the first step in making a change. No one is perfect and I am sure many people can be accused of hypocracy at some level.

Go an see the movie and decide for yourself. As prof Carter points out if you don't like the politics there are plenty of nice nature shots. They won't last long if we don't change direction.

I don't know about the science,but we are all presently experiencing rapid change in our climate with new records in temperature happening all over the planet.There is reason for concern since Earth is the only spaceship we have.

All the hydocarbons we are burning now,were once plants that took co2 from the atmosphere.The earth must have been a much hotter place in the past with all that co2 in the atmosphere and life still survived.That point I would consider to be a positive for us,however if these dramatic changes continue to accelerate,I don't want to think about the chaos and suffering our humanity will experience.

It is all up to us and we cannot expect some miracle from the hand of god to intervene.I think most of us just put it at the back of our minds and hope for the best.

If we act now to reduce hydrocarbon emissions while we continue to investigate the global warming phenomenon, and the threat turns out to be a false alarm, the worst that could happen is some medium term economic pain.

If we choose to do nothing and the threat of global warming turns out to be correct, then the consequences could be far more devastating.

Carl

If the US is after world domination as u seem to imply I would be a lot happier living under that regime than Islam or worse still one dominated by the loony left who seem to radiate so much hate that they would rather believe a pack of lies than to face up to the truth. I suppose u also believe John Howard arranged for the Bali bombings and Me Blair the London bombings? Give us a break!