Current alarmist, incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change is a fraud.

Junk science is infesting the media, the Internet and public schools, affecting public health, squandering your tax dollars, poisoning sick people and miseducating our children.

Pseudoscientific claptrap abounds. Quackery is now found everywhere.

Educate, inform yourself, take a science class.

See CO2 and Climate Change
http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html

Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject.

My answer to all so-called greenhouse problems is to use as much of the resource as I can reasonably afford. That way one sends a message to the oil companies, go out and find more oil. Have they tried to explore Antarctica? How about defying the Antarctic treaty in the interest of progress, and industry, and to hell with the Greens?

Dr Coles, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about Global Warming because that only asks 1 of the 2 big questions we face.

1. Is it clean energy? (Supposes the problem of Global warming is real. As I've said, I'm not going to debate it. Momentum is sufficiently underway.)
2. Is there ENOUGH energy?

That second one is a doozy! Watch SBS tomorrow night at 8:30. They are about to break the biggest story this century. "Crude Impact" argues that we are about to enter the final oil crisis, and that everything we do from how we grow our food to where we buy our stuff and what it is made from is going to have to change. Note: they will break for an intermission.

Note also that Mammoth are even onto peak oil now.
http://mammothresource.com/index.htm

Dr Woolies,
I have 350 words, clearly not enough to explain in simple terms the science, but it may hold your attention span.

One of the most convincing arguments for scientists regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on isotopes and oxygen decreases in the atmosphere. Carbon is composed of different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels and clearing or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases. You don't find this on Mars.

Understand, it is the fact that we (humanity) are producing CO2 faster than the ocean and terrestrial biosphere can absorb it, which explains the observed increase GHG, and consequently mean global temperatures.

Dr Coles, if you want to understand something about the science, look here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

The discussion of climate change in “public” is often completely at odds to the discussion in the scientific community (in papers, at conferences, workshops etc.). In public discussions there is often an emphasis on seemingly simple questions that, at first sight, appear to have profound importance to the question of human effects on climate change. In the scientific community however, discussions about these “simple” questions are often not, and have subtleties that rarely get publicly addressed.

In summary Dr Coles, it is very disingenuous for certain individuals to answer “general concerns” or espouse on topics that one is not expert in - you are either confused, your head is in the sand or you are living in the dark ages - probably all of the preceding.

Tactful of the author to pull ALL his punches, but in doing so he takes this crucial issue exactly no-where.

How are despotic regimes installed and maintained? With the help of wealthy and influential third parties who supply more/bigger guns and/or payolla. These third parties include greedy local 'big men' AND greedy foriegners, who usually supply the weapons (pop quiz: biggest arms exporters in world are..? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_trade).

Who armed and sponsored Saddam Husseins coup and first 20years?
Who arms the House of Saud?
Who provides Nigerian security forces with weapons to "maintain order"/keep the locals away from their oil?

In each of these cases it has been governments (UK, China & Russia struggling to keep up with US) and multinational companies (or the plausibly-deniable intermediaries eg. Tigris Petroleum http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/who-is-tigris-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-bhp/2006/02/03/1138958910146.html) that have given despots the means to gain and hold power, in return for 'very reasonable' prices and conditions on extracting their countries oil (its cheaper than a just price).

The histories of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Nigeria, Columbia, Brunei, all crudely similar when you come down to it. Defenders of this globalisation at gunpoint claim its due to some inherent failing of people in these countries ("they're more corrupt"), but this is merely racism dressing as piety. Fact is, our 'well performing stockmarkets' are in large part due to the brutal conditions under which the resources creating the economy are extracted - 'free market' economic rationalism is what has created and is fuelling terrorism, and i'm only surprised its not worse.

ChrisS & Shonga: isn't militarism dependant upon the public purse? Straightened times will force a re-evaluation of priorities, and hopefully the military will be smart enough to see where its bread is buttered (and its not by the profit robots in the IPA or Ai).

The Sun is our largest nuclear reactor and it produces enormous amounts of energy.It is said that Western NSW produces enough energy to support 2 billion people.We should be pouring millions into research into this area.Apparently one Aussie has just gone to the US to build a solar power station there.We have billions of $ sitting in a future fund for pollies and PS,but enough forsight to see the future.

Perhaps the oil companies do have too much power and are extracting every dollar they can from us before it does run out.If solar energy does become too popular then we as individuals could become independant of both Govt and the Multi Nationals.We would have the
solar panel tax brigade running around counting panels on our roof.Instead of daylight robbery of the past when people were taxed according to the numbers of windows that they had,we could have solar panel robbery.Many are pushing nuclear as solution and it does put the power again into a few hands so both profts and taxes can be extracted.Perhaps I'm just a cynic.

Can you just see the future when too many solar panels are starving the planet of energy and the world heads towards an ice age.We would have to start burning coal again to avert another disaster.Doh!

I'm not convinced that CO2 is the major culprit and there is no direct evidence proving it,but it does make good sense to become more autonomous in regards to our energy needs.