Why are the THEORIES of 'global warming' and the 'greenhouse effect' being posited as PROVEN FACT?

Fact they are not. The hole in the ozone, that might be a fact.

Global warming due to human activity is not.

Yes, we cant wait around to see if its true the consequences of getting it wrong are too onerous. Clearly illogical, an emotional appeal predicated on fear... fear of regret. Cant prove its not happening therefore it is. An assertion does not stand in the absence of proof to the contrary.

The burden of proof rests with the claimant and the claim of global warming DUE to human activity is unporoven.

Chasing something because of what might be is a goose chase,a fools mission. On too many levels to innunciate under duress of word count.

"The sky is falling."
"Prove it."
"We dont have time to wait for proof the consequences of a fallen sky are too onerous for the future. We must stop what we are doing and build vast columns into the sky."

If reducing pollution is the goal, just say so, after all it obviously makes sense. There's no need to shroud it in tenuous science as a way of formenting fear. Can see thru that. Such tactics inadvertantly undermine credibility, thus inflict disservice upon the highly laudable aim of reducing pollution. Or is the whole thing a smoke screen for the personal ambition of the worlds political agitants?

I just want to express my support for trade215's position that that theory of AGW is far from being proven. And to draw attention to an anomaly in the way that Australia's energy footprint is calculated; all of the coal exports and the Co2 that will be released are counted as part of our Co2 footprint even though the coal is burnt by other nations. So take our energy exports out of the equation and all of a sudden we Aussies are some what less proliferate than the greens would have us painted.

It doesn't matter 2 hoots who is producing Co2, the main point is that it is a global problem, and as a small nation we are in a good position to lead by example, and if we forgo the easy options i.e. coal and nuclear and go sustainable in a big way we can prove to the rest of the world it can be done.This finger pointing is crap.
Just remember nearly all advances made by mankind were made by ratbags, or so they were thought of at the time, if we stuck with conservatives we would still be in the cave. A lot of advances are made by small nations i.e. democracy, womens votes, social services etc.
We need to review the houses we live in ( if you setout to design a house totally unsuited to the climate we live in you would finish up with what we have now), the cars we drive, our lifestyles , our society is geared to waste we must change that.
Alan Hunter

Iain Hall you are wrong about coal exports being counted as part of our greenhouse load. The 28 tonnes per person is the real number we produce. The coal exports are separate, just like the petroleum that we use counts toward the 28 tonnes even though it comes from Saudi Arabia. Where did you hear this?

I heard that in relation to our LNG exports that this is the case and it is a reasonable assumption to make that if it applies to LNG then it will likewise apply to coal exports. I would be happy to be proved wrong. In any case the Per capita argument is utterly silly because the total contribution by Australia to the CO2 caused by humanity is well and truly dwarfed by just the NEW coal fired PowerStation’s that have come on line in China over the last month alone.
And to the person claiming that renewable sources can replace coal you are very wrong indeed there is no renewable source of energy possible on the mainland of Australia that can provide a reliable base load. And as wind is rather inconsistent and solar does not work at night there is no alternative in the foreseeable future, to the use of coal.

I suggest you are sadly mistaken read previous post re CSP
Alan Hunter