The sceptics continue to base their claims on supposed flaws in Michael Manns "Hockey Stick". That issue was investigated and dismissed by a recent US house of reps enquiry. The consistent message of that enquiry is best expressed by this transcript:

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/7_27_06.cfm

The US National Acedemy of Science had similar findings.

If there is any criticism it should be reserved for Mann's ego - for refusing to address his critics, rather than the IPCC.

The Australian Financial Review revealed this week that all of the major Aluminium companies are looking to set up with new hydro projects in Malaysia and PNG. Its pretty obvious that they will set up where the cheapest clean energy sources are - regardless of whether Australia has emmissions trading or not.

They will factor in the price of carbon emissions regardless of Australia's actions. Australia needs to hurry up and invest in the development of cheap sources of clean energy or lose its competitive advantage. Emissions trading is the most efficient method of achieving that.

The market is quickly recognising the requirements of operating in a carbon constrained world - thats globalisation in action.

The current guilt-ridden hysteria, which seems to have captured the chattering classes ......

Stopped reading about here. The argument for GW, and human kinds causing it, is based on science. This guy sounds the same as so many of his bull headed buddies. If I choose to drink latte and have a chat regarding the future of the planet, so be it. If Ray and his grunting, capitalist mates want to swill and denounce science, so be it. Nice try Ray.

billie, I've learned to assume that when when someone says what a load of rubish something is and then goes on to make the author look bad without providing any rebuttal to the points made by the author that they don't have a rebuttal.

Are the specific claims made by the author fact or fiction?

If fact then why are they not important?

In my own case I tend to see the whole thing as a bit like the smoking issue, there are plenty of experts around who will say what you want to hear but while the debate was raging the smart money was on not smoking (just in case).

R0bert

Panaitan,

You say "The consistent message of [the US House of Reps] enquiry is best expressed by this transcript:

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/7_27_06.cfm

which is the testimony of ONE INDIVIDUAL.

"OVERALL," however, says the actual report, "our committee believes that Dr. Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium CANNOT be supported by his analysis." [my emphasis]

The US NAS report that you then refer to says:

"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. EVEN LESS CONFIDENCE can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales." [my emphasis]

Investigated and dismissed? Which reports are you reading?

Ray Evans raises a very good point about european cooling from 1945 to 1975 and the subsequent cyclical warming that has followed since then. This is highly relevant to the discussion on melting arctic ice sheets which has been abused by Gore et al to scare the kids on sea level rises, the death of Polar Bears and any other scam they can think of.

All the official "science" on ice melt is based on satellite data which has only been available since 1978. And given the well documented temperature changes since 1975, the ice sheet data tells the same story of receding pack ice.

But Ian Mott, at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/ or
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001874.html#comments, has cross checked the ice data with detailed 1960's vintage maps that show that the ice sheet today is little different to what it was in 1960. The so-called "threat" from shrinking ice sheet is nothing more than movements that are well within the recent historical range of variation.

The official, well funded "science" is guilty of gross extrapolation from limited data.

Did any one else listen to the Australian of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery being interviewed by Margaret Throsby on ABC Classic yesterday morning? You can download the whole intervew from ABC http://www.abc.net.au/classic/throsby/

Key points that I noted

1. At the time of Chaucer when it was warm enough in western Europe for grapes to grow in England other parts of the planet were cooler in the same 300 year period.

2 Global warming, at the time of Julius Caesar the average temperature on earth was 13.7 celsicus, it is now 14.7. Most of this warming has occured in the last 50 years. So when we are talking about a 1 degree rise in earth's temperature this is a big deal.

3. By accident of geology Australia has a source of geothermal power that could meet Australia's base electricity needs for 100 years. It would take 10 years to bring it on line, we own the technology and there would be no radioactive waste to dispose of.

No we don't have control over our planet but when the average temperature in Australia rises by 3 degrees most agriculture will cease. CSIRO climate models predict a 6 degree increase in NSW with 50 years.

I have more faith in scientists than I have in mining company executives who have been trained in how to extract minerals from the earth's core.