The otherr major element of the green beat-up is the notion that we must all be making sacrifices now to solve any problems when they actually arrive. This is bollocks because the solutions will be devised and implemented by a small number of dedicated people who are actually working on practical solutions, not political outcomes.

We have already had Flannery confirming the role of sulfur emissions in off-setting CO2 warming but, being a mere observer, rather than a doer, he is unable to comprehend how quickly a breakthrough could come or how easily, and cheaply, it could be delivered.

Somewhere, right now, there is a team that is, or is likely to be looking, at a range of substances that work even better and are cheaper than sulfur for off-setting CO2 warming. Such substances could be added to coal and petroleum products so they are delivered to the atmosphere in the same way, and in the required proportions, as existing emissions.

This sort of technology, combined with clean coal and other innovations have their own time lines. They have the potential to produce the desired results with only a fraction of the cost. So any policy that forces ordinary people to make huge and disproportionate sacrifices to meet political targets is based on an ignorance of the practicalities required.

The Brown/Rudd solutions are like the 1950's computer that occupied a whole room and cost $8 million but could do less than what a $1000 PC can do today in a fraction of the time. And the kids will certainly not be impressed by inheriting the big old monster and it's debt burden.

Johnj,

Try this lot for starters

http://www.tp4.rub.de/~kls/scherer-etal-2007SSR.pdf

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/wejwldecn/249.htm

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=783

In light of all the serious doubts raised by these, and many other publications, any policy maker/politician who gives the Treasury to the Gullible Warming Fraternity will earn the eternal enmity of those who will have to both pay the bills, and suffer the ensuing economic consequences of their idiocies.

But to do so on the primary basis of projections produced by artificial computer models is laughable.

Your previous reference to the IPCC 2001 ducuments that shows graphs of how models replicate the natural and anthroprogenic inputs up to 2001 does not establish the veracity of the models at all.That is only one part better than curve fitting, which any one can do.

Projecting these on for another 100 years and betting the farm on the outcome is cuckoo land stuff. To call that science is also laughable.

As for your gibe about not wanting material out of the mining industry, that comment might be credible if your own position wasn’t solely backed by those on the public purse, and whose own vested interest was as equally dubious. Did I notice a pattern? Yes I sure did, that was one of them.

it really is quite interesting reading the 'arguments' for not doing anything about global warming from some of these sceptics. this kind of reasoning is a kin to not getting house insurance because you believe you can predict each and every risk imaginable and have decided there is none.

the true doomsayers (those who say it will cost too much to do anything) love to tell us that there is no problem, and in the same breath propose mind-numbingly stupid ideas such as the one mentioned by Perseus (it wouldnt take many models to predict dire knock-on consequences elsewhere) or talk endlessly about untested, non-existent technologies like clean coal. Ockhams razor is obviously something sceptics dont understand.

the fact that the renewables industry employs more people in Germany than the nuclear, coal and oil industries combined, or that our best scientists in these fields are forced offshore is also something never mentioned when 'Jobs' are touted as a reason we cannot do anything.

instead, there are fringe model arguments, extremist-name calling and now charges of green-religion being thrown by ever-shrinking members of the sceptics, who always fail to mention their industrial-sized conflicts of interest. because i guess THAT would indeed get in the way of a good beat up.

julatron,

Regarding your comment made previously, namely,

"the fact that the renewables industry employs more people in Germany than the nuclear, coal and oil industries combined"

Please provide your evidence in support of this claim

What will the weather be like in a month's time? Not sure. What will the global climate be like in 100 years time? Ah, that we can tell you!

Bigmal, I will ignore for the moment the fact that I actually asked for Australian science.

I had a look at your links:

1st link: "processes relevant for an influence on climate are unclear. Nonetheless, the evidence for the cosmic ray forcing is increasing as is the understanding of its physical principles.... The detailed chain of processes connecting the variable cosmic ray flux with the terrestrial climate (i.e. via cloud formation) has still to be identified."

2nd link: "In the judgement of the authors of the Dual Critique, the Stern Review mishandles data; gives too little attention to actual observation and evidence, as distinct from the results of model-based exercises; and takes no account of the failures of due disclosure, and the chronic limitations of peer reviewing" (but I can't access the full report unless I pay US$20)

3rd link: "Globally-averaged measurements of atmospheric temperatures from satellite data since 1979 show an increase of 0.04°C to 0.20°C per decade over this period, at the low end of the IPCC estimate of future warming. Globally-averaged temperature data collected at the surface show an increase from 1900 to 1940 and again from 1979 to the present."

So, the first link says cosmic ray flux may (through unknown processes) influence climate, the second critiques the Stern Report (which hasn't otherwise been raised on this thread) and the third agrees that global warming is happening (though at the lower end of IPCC estimates). I'm glad that this has convinced you that global warming is "cuckoo land stuff", but I don't really find they add much to your argument.

Are you suggesting that all research funded by the "public purse" is of no value? Or only research whose findings you disagree with?