Yeah,

Every reasonable scientist of merit is of the opinion that we can't just keep burning carbon, and producing long term carbon waste which builds up in our atmosphere without there being major, catastrophic circumstances.

It's almost like the nuclear argument. Yeah, maybe we need nukes, but don't put the waste anywhere near me... I'm not advocating nukes, but this current waste problem is all around us.

I can't understand it. We have smart people with good intentions running our countries, and our companies. I won't believe that John Howard and his cronies are evil, only perhaps a little tipsy on the power they have, which they have always craved.

But logic stands that you can't keep s**tting in your swimming pool year after year without some of your friends deciding they don't want to swim there anymore. If you look for scientists, the proof is overwhelmingly out there in support of Climate Change. Logic backs it up.

So how do regular citizens act to make a difference. Well, you can start by talking to your friends, and doing a carbon audit. Reducing personal consumption make some difference but we all need to communicate to marginal seats that this is a key electoral issue.

Where is the Labor party? Oh, that's right, Kim Beazley has decided he can't beat JH, so he's going to join him...

Soccer mums and Tradesmen need to be concerned about this issue. We need to stop s**tting in the swimming pool!

This reminds me about the mobile phone debate.

There is constant and continuing research showing that there is no direct link between mobile phone use and cancer.

However, there IS a direct link between mobile phone use and genetic damage and this has been known for many years.

The notion that cancer is caused by genetic damage is "outside the parameters of this research" so the research is based on semantics more than common sense.

Like the tobacco industry, there is lots of money tied up in mobile phones.

How much more is involved in the fossil fuel industry and those industries that are reliant on burning fossil fuel?

This argument was occurring in the 60's and 70's.We were being warned then of the potential for global warming.It was called the "green house effect"Surely scientists can come to some agreement on the likely outcomes in the light of the tangible evidence facing us now.How hot will it get and over what time frame?They should collectively be able to predict a worst and best case scenario and we should act accordingly.It is no good just the developed countries suffering from restrictions of carbon emissions.Both India,China and all the developing world need to be included.

Can we do anything that will realisticly will reverse the present trends or have many already decided that it is just too late anyway?
The energy alternatives don't look all that promising and considering we will burn the other half of the world's oil supplies an the next few decades,the time to act is now.It reminds of the tobacco warnings we have heard for decades.No one really takes notice until they get the "BIG C" diagnosis,then it is often too late.
It's just human nature I guess.We don't think it will ever happen to us.

I saw the film in question, 'An Inconvenient Truth' and was extremely impressed. This is a very positive film. I recommend everyone see it.

When writing in this forum, I usually do a bit of homework so when I make arguments here in support of sustainability they are truthful and reliable. So I was surprised to find out how much more there was that I and everyone on the planet needs to know.

The title of Bob Carter's article correctly states: "climate change is indeed a moral issue." Given that he does not dispute the "raw scientific facts" of climate change, I wonder what has possessed him to choose to be immoral.

In a way doesnt it not matter if the pollution is causing climate change or not - we should do everything we can to minimise pollution anyway.

People can no longer rely on outdated, inadequate IPCC data sets to deduce global warming. It must be remembered that peer review is NOT PROOF of Global Warming and that NOT ALL reputable scientists agree with it: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

And you cannot rely on NASA, NOAA and USGS after a major blunder I will now explain.

A Sept 21 report from NASA's JPL claims the oceans have been cooling in 'little dips' over the last 3 years:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14944138/?GT1=8506

Now if you LOOK at the Data from the tropical Atlantic 2005/2006 you will see that HUGE changes have slowly taken place over 3 months. These canges are not 'little dips' and are ad hoc in occureence so NASA's credibility has been BUSTED for starters.

Then, these changes are too great for solar fluctuations and are CONTRARY to greenhouse warming because over the same period US economic output has seen spectacular growth with certain increases in CO2 output filtering from the US right across the Atlantic basin. To top this off an analysis of Sea Height Anomaly maps over the same period has shown rapid retractions in wastewater plumes emitted from US and neighbouring nation's coastal cities.

The conclusion is that global warming is IRRELEVANT in the Climate Change debate and that there is a high probability that the US and Caribbean Nations are in effect controlling climate change. I stress that THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION for the above observations. The Reason is Heat-Capacity changes in ocean surfaces: Colloidals in wastewaters simply hold onto heat better than cleaner ocean surfaces where they are mitigated.

Everything in SCIENCE must come down to DATA and I also cannot stress enough how important it is for participants in the climate change debate to LOOK at the data for themselves.

Here is the 2005/2006 data that shows a gradual REVERSAL of heat in the TWA from May 11 2006 where heat was much greater than 2005, through June 30 and onto July 31 where the heat levels were only around 50% of 2005 levels.

May 11:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005131atsst.png
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006131atsst.png

June 30:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005181atsst.png
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006181atsst.png

July 31:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005212atsst.png
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006212atsst.png