Thanks for the links to the Lake Eyre threads, David, I hadn't seen them before. It is a topic that probably needs some serious sorting of wheat from chaff so I will see who I can rope into doing an article. I thought Geek100 showed a good grasp of the numbers but am not too convinced on the economics of building 3000m mountains from scratch when all that is needed is shifting dirt about 200 metres to one side of a ditch with a drag line.

A good case for nuclear engineering perhaps, Perseus?

JohnJ. If Prof John Turner had bothered to include the data from the previous period from 1945 to 1970 he would have been bound to report that temperatures went down by much the same amount. In fact, he had absolutely no moral right to exclude that data because it was our right to know it. But he did not do so. He allowed us to be misled by the withholding of highly relevant information.

That is not my idea of a "respected scientist" and it certainly invites healthy scepticism as to the value of his peers, who appear to have remained silent about the same omission.

Johnj, reference to Exxon funding of Fraser Institute might have some cred if it wasnt for the inconvenient fact that most if not all those on the Gullible Warming side were on the public purse with its own vested interests.

BTW, the figure is $60kUS not $120k, and even then it is miniscule compared to the magnitude of the public funds being poured into propping up the IPCC industry, and the inevitable sinecures that always flow, at our cost, and to our detriment.

What to do!!
Interesting reading, but I'm from the chattering classes and trying over my latte to decide on a policy for action. Even the chattering classes have a vote and pay for what is done or not done.
Posters almost without exception revel in argument about the validity of the science, computer models.

Are those of you saying the science is suss saying do nothing? Are those saying carbon trading is the answer, part of the answer?
The things I suspect. Carbon trading is a hoax partly to alleviate the minds of the simple, like me, to gain votes. Carbon taxing is little more than increasing revenue for the state. Whether either is a positive effect on climate is doubtful. So what to do do?

My washing used to accumulate the fallout from oil burning boats while living in a once cheap place to live on Sydney harbour. I learned to loath smoke stacks, coal, gas, or oil. Do we have to have them, I don't think so.
New industries have been the success of the western world for one hundred fifty years. Lets start a new one, the solar industry. We think coal gives us "comparative advantage" what then of our advantage in solar?
Supporting, dirty industry is bound to fail on one front or another eventually anyway.
I think it fair to suspect any science that supports an existing industry, do I drink too much coffee?
I have read of trials being carried out that electricity produced by solar is viable?
I have read that one hundred square Kms could produce Australia's electricity requirement. I know that individual house requirements can be greatly supplemented by solar.
Sounds like a viable "new" industry to me, what holds us back? vested interests, a perennial problem.
Whether the science on global warming is valid or not I now enjoy clean air and wonderful sunshine, for now I live in a rural environment, away from smoke stacks.
Lets move on.
fluff

I think Ray Evans would prefer to forget that the 'Hockey Stick' has been re-validated by other scientists/models and despite the christopher moncktons and the 'two macs' of this world who are still clinging to old arguments still stands.

Is there anyone out there who doesnt know that the IPA is funded by the mining/logging interests who stand to lose out financially with this whole shift?? So much for their belief in free markets and the opportunities the renewables sector holds - i guess thats why we are constantly losing our brightest scientists and technologies off shore.