I, for one, don't agree that the Gore film is based on sound science. The underlying (but unsaid) premise behind the Gore story of the last two decades or so, is that ours is a self-contained climate and an autonomous Earth - travelling in an empty Universe. Hence, any bad climatic outcome he identifies MUST be our fault (starting with the 1988 heatwave/drought around Washington DC) . I can't proffer up a sworn statement from Sun or planets, of course, but there is abundant correlatory evidence that the major driver of climate at relevant time scales is inertial and electromagnetic - and of external origin. (I am not here referring to IPCC's "straw man" of total solar irradiance. TSI only varies by fractions of a percent.) Mr Gore is doubtless sincere in his belief in the benign and stable climate of a pre-industrial Arcadia - and we can get it back if we 'do the right thing/ about fossil fuels. I think he is mistaken.

Good on you - Fosbog - but I don't think that you're going to convince anyone, in the face of Gore's finely organised film, and the support it gets from scientists. Also there's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - hardly a bunch of radicals - in fact it represents quite conservative views of scientists of many governments.

My only argument with Brian Bahnisch is that he's advising us to do the "decent and moral thing ... and decease forthwith..."
I'm not ready to give up yet in the effort to act against climate change. I reckon he means "desist"

As far as I'm concerned people like Fosbog and journos like the ABC's Michael Duffy, who are into denying human agency, are either ostriches or in the pay of oil/coal companies like ExxonMobil, which is spending millions on groups and pseudo-scientists to act as mouthpieces in challenging the scientific consensus, and trying to confuse the rest of us(see the Guardian Weekly, 29th Sept., for details). Hopefully these people may one day go on trial for crimes against humanity.

I don't agree Kang,

Ice-Cores are at best dubious. For one, it assumes a continuous buildup of ice over large time frames. This means that ice is added and ever growing. Taking this further, it must be agreed that at a time there was no ice at all.

What we do know (scientifically) is that the biosphere changes. Even in recorded history the fertile middle-east regions and the north African coast have become less hospitable to crops preferred by human. Northern England and Scotland were heavily were heavily forested 8000 years ago. Ice Ages have come and gone, as well as exteded heated periods. Evolotution of species depends upon periodic change.

Simply stating that "I don't remember it being this hot in October" isn't scientific. Much of the debate on climate change revolves around perceptions and emotions.

The Carbon argument is similar to the ice argument except reversed. In order to lay down carbon deposits in the form of oil or coal, there must have been a time where the carbon was in the biosphere in greater abundance than is the case now. More Carbon equals more life. Less Carbon is less life (as seen through periodic Ice Ages). Excess Carbon, however, is absorbed by oceans or creates the famous Green House Blanket.

Are humans responsible? Probably Not.

Do humans contribute to a naturally occuring cycle? Perhaps.

The best thing about Gore's film is that it will help Australia work through denial and get onto solutions.

Scientific denial has all but evaporated. Most citizens are smart enough to read the obvious. Some political denial is still there, being held in place by coal interests (in the main) but is on very shaky ground.

Most Australian people and institutions have shifted, or are shifting, to solutions. Even some big corporations.

We should not let vested interests and a handful of perverse sceptics cloud public perception using quasi-science to distort the truth. Just listen to the seerious professionals and let's get on with doing what we need to do.

Much scepticism is based on a misplaced fear that we have to go back to the dark ages. Nothing could be further from the truth. We can live comfortably on about a quarter of our present (wasteful) energy consumption.

Smart new technology will help also, but it's mainly a change of mindset that is called for.

Nothing to fear, guys. In fact, future society stands to be much more healthy and enjoyable. I'm looking forward to it.

Fosbob, Narcissist and Gecko sound like the 3 wise monkeys. No doubt in earlier times you would have been the panel disputing plate tectonics. Earlier still perhaps the denialists of evolution or a round earth.

Anybody over 30 years of age who hasn't noticed the strange weather conditions we've experienced in recent years and the shortening of winters obviously hasn't left their house. Gore said himself that the correlation between CO2 and temperature was complex. I myself believe that the earths complex ecosystem is failing at a snowballing rate. The damage we are doing to the environment is being accelerated by factors our scientists still don't fully understand.

All of the predictions related to Global Warming are appearing far ahead of estimates. This means that the point of no return and the transformation of this world into a burning greenhouse hell not unlike Venus will soon be upon us if we don't get serious about elimiating fossil fuel usage. On Venus where rivers of lead wind through dead valleys the atmospheric pressure alone would crush a man to death. This is our sister planet. A sulphurous dead planet in every other way identical to our World.

The ice caps are melting and the Greenland ice sheet is cracking up. It's time we woke up and forced politicians to stop pandering to the rich fat cat oil barons and instead listen to the scientists.