Let's start by shifting this debate into the centre, rather than a frustrating battle between extreme points of view. Both the Libreral and Labor agree and accept the IPPC report, so it seems pointless and boring to let that (again) be the focus of discussion.

It would be good to mention that Western Europe survives very well on half the per capital carbon emissions that Australia and the US does. We are not preparing a recipie to become a impoverished nation.

The main difficulty I have with this article is couching climate change in terms like: " Australians need to expand their sense of global citizenship" and "we can no longer design climate policy out of self-interest alone". I think this gives a misleading impression. Australians are good global citizens and our real self-interest is also unmet.

Global warming is an example of self-interest and environmental conserns being in total concert. Reducing CO2 emmissions:
- improves business efficiency
- saves money, reduces waste
- improves energy security
- good for jobs
- good for innovation (an Australian strength)
- good for agriculture
- good for human health (clean air, exercise)
- good for local shops and small towns
- AND helps the environment

Even the coal industry could benefit. The cost of coal could be set higher giving greater profits. Sources of coal will last longer if exploited less rapidly.

Questions for Climate Change Modellers:

1. Do the models predict a linear response of increased global temperature against calendar year?
2. If linear is there an upper limit built in to the models or do they go on and on to the end of time?
3. On a previous post I learnt that that the temperature response to CO2 levels was logarithmic. Therefore from the shape of the log curve the incremental change at a level of 379ppm would less then at 50ppm (say). Is this factored into any of the models?
4. What is the methodology employed by the modellers to determine the proportion of atmospheric CO2 that is of anthropomorphic origin, compared to natural origin, including volcanic action and forest fires (due to lightening strikes of course) and so on?
5. Are other Green house gases, including water vapour factored, into the models?
6. What positive and/or negative feed back mechanisms are factored into the models?
7. Is there any empirical evidence outside of the models that a lowering of atmosphere CO2 level will alleviate Global Warming?
8. Based on the precautionary principle is it not reasonable to argue as follows: a) the models are uncertain; b) the deleterious effects predicted by the modellers may not be too severe, some may even be beneficial; therefore should we not be restrained in our response to the IPCC report and the doomsday predictions of Friends of the Earth

anti-green who cares about nitpicking the climate modelling numbers.

There has been more science expended on climate change than there has been expended on forestry or mining.

The truth is that the earth is warming, The CSIRO climate predictions for NSW are
- This will make many towns in inland Australia too hot to live in in 50 years. Most of western Sydney will be too hot to live in.
= agriculture will be unsustainable with a 3 degree rise in temperate

Other sources predict
- that extra CO2 in the oceans will make them more acidic eroding the coral structures in the Great Barrier Reef

We are watching the fastest degradation of the earth any one has ever seen. What sort of world do you want your great grandchildren to be living in?

The response to the 4th IPCC Report is premature. The Summary for Policymakers is primarily prepared by policymakers not scientists and in previous reports there has been a significant discrepancy between what is said in the summary and what the scientific conclusions support. Furthermore, when the IPCC chief express his hope that the report will "shock people", it makes the IPCC look more like a partisan advocacy group than objective scientists. More damning still is the expulsion of dissenting scientists from the IPCC in the past (see Christopher Landsea, Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter etc). The IPCC report proper is not gospel and neither is its contorted summary.

Spot on, MonashL.
We need to deal with Global Warming, not Gullible Warming.

Lets get one thing clear. Australians are constantly being told that their per capita emissions are 27.5 tonnes CO2 each year. But what we are not told is that our 12 million Km2 of territorial oceans absorb 5.54 tonnes of carbon or 20 tonnes of CO2 from each Km2, each year.

And we are also prevented, by corrupt Kyoto rules, from claiming credits for the 90 million tonnes of CO2 that is absorbed by our open woodlands each year. They also count tree stumps that will not lose their carbon for 50 years as an emission in the year the tree was cut and this overstates our emissions by another 20 million tonnes.

All up, that is 350 million tonnes of CO2 sequestration that the IPCC refuses to give us credit for. It works out at 17.5 tonnes for each of us and when this is deducted from our emissions we get a net amount of only 10 tonnes of CO2 each.

...and if you stop breathing altogether Perseus you might even do the environment a favour.

Did anyone see last night's program on global warming? Lots of scientific content so perhaps not everyone's cup of tea. The gist of it was we might consider planning long-term strategies fairly soon, rather than waiting on an as-yet undeveloped technology to lessen the amount of crap we emit into the air. Listening to our new silver-tongued environment minister it's clear we won't be first to put their toes in the water.

MosashL there were a couple of scientists in a Perth courthouse last week denying AIDS was a virus. As you well know, 'scientist' does not = 'science' (and what is it with Perth anyway?)