"when our grandchildren ask us why we did nothing about climate change"

I will reply, because the science was sloppy, uncertain and now as you can see grandchild, just plain wrong...

Clive

I think you are too optimistic.

Most Ozzies (and Yanks and Poms)do not have a care in the world about CO2 or PO.

If they are aware of it, they they do not have a clue about personal actions which they could take.

Anecdotal Examples:

1 As a rough guide to this just have a look around on any evening in any city or suburb on any night, at number of light bulbs people leave burning for no purpose.

I live in a middle class suburb where one individual has in excess of 20 external lights burning away all night - to see 3 or 4 outside a house is commonplace.

2 Another example - 4 wd vehicles are still selling well - and as I understand it - are still getting preferential tax treatment - these are mostly mostly used in urban situations.

3 Qld Government is still subsidising petrol

4 Governments are still buying large vehicles, prehaps not V6 's anymore - but they are not buying eg Yaris's or Swifts -

5 Governments still spending huge sums - billions- on new road projects eg Goodna By pass - thus encouraging car use over alternatives - and wasting resources. These are popular decisions - demanded by voters.

The very first thing that should happen is a HUGE information campaign - similar to initial grim reaper AIDS - to educate people to the real dangers which lie ahead - people must be mobilised and educated - without this we will get nowhere.

Such a campaign must inform people that growth and profligacy is not a possible option.

When you listen to government and opposition the arguments are all about how best to generate more power to to sustain the unsustainable life styles of us all.

When I hear a politician tell us that we must consume less, much less, then I may begin to take Governments seriously. I dont think that even Bob Brown or Peter Garrett have done this - its just too drastic for them - it may cost them votes.

I'm was one of the so-called deniers of "global warming", and my denial certainly wasn't shaken by the doomsayers' hasty changing of "global warming" to "climate change" when we had some very cool and icy patches amid all the warming hullabaloo. Clive's climate comrades looked very silly at the time. There is still an opportunity for them to look even sillier, and Clive's book could end a very short life in the remainders box yet.

Let's meet Clive el at half way and accept that we might, at the present time, be experiencing some climatic disturbance. Many rational (as opposed to the loud ones who get all the publicity because it suits the media) scientists and meteorolgists advise that cyclic (note that) changes do occur, but getting knotted up and blaming the evil John Howard and CO2 emissions is pointless. Humans are not responsible for climate "change" and, therefore, can do nothing about it. They also point out that the prolonged, but perfectly normal for Australia, drought has aided the scaremongers in their drive to further confuse the issue and strike fear into the hearts of the plebs.

If we really need to worry about anything, it is not climate change, but people like Clive Hamilton who use ju ju instead of common sense.

The really disgusting things is that they do it to sell a book or earn themelves a name - even a bad name as history will probably show

Just the usual Clive Hamilton spin and fantasy about "Climate Y2K".

I will tell the grandchildren about how this bunch of green spivs tried to rush the community into the expensive indulgence of their delusions by using every con in the spivmeisters handbook.

But I won't need to explain further because they will already be familiar with the ludicrous claims that have since become the object of ridicule.

They will thank me for having the foresight to see through the BS and for realising that our understanding of climate, and the technologies needed to deal with change, were still in their infancy like the 1950's computing dinosour that cost $4 million, took up a whole floor of a building and could deliver less than todays calculator.

They would thank me for allowing them to address the real issues with cheap, 6th generation technology instead of loading them up with a huge debt for a rushed response with an obsolete technology that tries to fix an overstated and, in most part, imaginary problem.

They would probably ask how people could be so stupid as to believe the climate was excessively warming when the previous three interglacials had all peaked at temperatures a whole 3 degrees C warmer than those at the end of the 20th century.

And I would simply point out the extent of substance abuse and the "dumbing down" of the media to lowest common denominator public opinion and the collective loss of the capacity to distinguish between an often repeated opinion and a few simple, unfashionable facts.

"It is now clear that most Australians ... are facing up to the truth about global warming" A most interesting statement, but what is the truth about global warming and what is mere speculation. The truth about global warming is that it is happening. There are no other truths about global warming; there are only speculations. The favourite speculation is that global warming is being caused (almost) entirely by an increase in greenhouse gasses - carbon dioxide in particular. This speculation is based on very dodgy mathematical modelling, where in effect the outcome is used as an assumption in the creation of the model. Very poor science indeed!

The speculation that global warming is due to greenhouse gasses fails to esplain two other observations - and for any hypothesis to be accepted it must explain all observations. It fails to explain the relatively recent phase of global warming experienced on this planet - the Mediaeval Warm Period which pre-dated the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. It also fails to explain why Mars is, according to recent NASA observations, also experincing global warming. This latter observation would seem to suggest that one would need to look outside of either earth or Mars to find the factor influencing both planets.

Another speculation, but one which does fit the observations, is that changes in solar activity are causing these global climate changes. It is established that there was an increase in solar activity during the Mediaeval Warm Period, and a decrease in activity during the following Little Ice Age. It is also observed that there is increasing solar activity now. The reason, of course, why this remains speculation, is that as yet there has been no proposed mechanism why this change in solar activity would cause global warming. However the empirical evidence is strong. I think it beyond the bounds of probability that the earth and Mars are simultaneously experiencing global warming, and that there is not a common cause affecting both planets.

We must prepare for global warming, because it is very likely there is nothing we can do to control it!

You know

when we are informed about this the scientists are still argueing or being payed to say what has been the cause.

Is it due to oceanic problems
Ozone
co2 gasses.

Now if these people say the complete story it would be better.

We are told that it is all to co2 but then research also says oceanic problems so when you are just pointed in one dirrection and told we need to use this to cut this down, is it not only big business running the fear on whos fault it is.

We know there is a problem, Government has been talking since the last labor government was in power, but still nothing has occured from both sides.

It is about votes and neither side wants to really disadvantage anyone and lose votes.

So when the people get serious then we can do something.

www.tapp.org.au

I apologise for not putting this link in the main body of the article, but I was bumping up against the word limit. Here is some interesting reading:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125691.100-global-warming-will-the-sun-come-to-our-rescue.html

the problem with the science used to put fear into so many peoples hearts and money into so many pockets is that it not only sloppy but deceitful. In blaming the Howard Government Clive writes 'A decade has been lost, and we will pay dearly for it;' Of course we should be thankful that the Hawke Government did not act on the 'global cooling crisis' predicted by the same think thanks back in the 80's. It makes for a very good laugh!

It is disturbing to see how global warming deniers dismiss the most robust and vigorously reviewed scientific evidence of human induced climate change. All world governments are taking action (including the US and our own).

The legitimate sceptics that are scientists total about 2% of the scientific community. I hope they’re right and get a Nobel Prize one day, but the overwhelming science is telling us otherwise.

If 98% of specialists tell you that you have a terminal (but treatable) cancer and you have a certain amount of time to operate, are you going to seek yet another opinion, (or deny or pretend there is not a problem)?

At some point you are going to have to operate, or you die.

I doubt very much the deniers in this forum have read the published scientific papers on climate change; they have probably not got the attention span to do so or they would be incapable of understanding the science in the first place.

To the deniers here (not the people who just don’t know), why don’t you publish your theories. If your pronouncements are reviewed by experts and you come up with 98% acceptance, well then everyone should take note.

The problem, you can’t or you won’t. All you want to do is engender doubt in the minds of the masses from your own ideological perspective, without regards to truth.

As a reminder, we have never faced such a serious problem on such a large scale. The social, financial and environmental effects of climate change are becoming more evident everyday. However, there is hope and we do have a window of opportunity.

We have the advantage of:

Information technology to discuss and resolve issues.
Scientific and engineering knowledge to an extent never before known.
Growing understanding of how interdependent we all are.

We need to leverage these advantages. All we really need is the will to exercise.

By selecting particular 'scientific' articles and consulting certain 'experts' you can justify just about any conclusion on climate change you like. It's amusing that some contributors to this forum see themselves as the renegade climate change deniers, holding firm against the tide of public opinion. The rest of us are somehow dismissed as both blind and gullible as we eagerly latch on to the speculative rants of doomsdayers like the author. They then accuse this wealth of scientists, analysts and commentators of pushing their own hidden agendas like selling a book or attracting government funding. Well congratulations on seeing through the BS and being smarter than everyone else fellas.

Seriously though, I think most people would at least agree that humans are 'more likely than not' the cause of modern climate change. The onus is now on those in the 'denier' camp to comprehensively disprove this. If they can't then they should shut up! Considering the possible ramifications of climate change, thwarting and delaying efforts to reduce CO2 emmissions is potentially unconscionable, immoral and even criminal.

Yeah we are aware of global warming now.

Its just a shame that what we do has NO BEARING on the future of the world. We are an insignificant player by global standards that even if we all have a real go at changing our lifestyles, those emerging in the 3rd world or in developing countries will increase thier output during the same time.

What a joke, its pathetic that Australians feel we are that important and can change the world.

Guess what, we cant. So it does not matter.

About time all you smart arses, the greenies have been at you for years about it, as have the Demo's.

Not that the true avante-guard still has a chance, because we have the right-wingers stealing the agenda, creating their own Kyoto.

Remember it was the Nazis who also presented their case like this, Americans even voting not to help Britain in dire time of need.

Now with your Nazi-like sure-fire minds, you back America whether right or wrong, because the US has the nuclear artillery to call the global tune if needed - the rest of our public thinking staying more on booze and sport and staying dumbly happy, because we've got the likes of Georgie Boy Dubya, and his best bosom buddy Johnnie Howard to
help him see the light.

Trouble is there is now only an Anglipholic twosome making a mess in Iraq as well as our future, with Mr Blair having second thoughts, which he should have had long ago as an Oxford graduate.

Come on you academics, what about more support? Getting called left-wing fruitcakes by this OlO mob, should be only building up more verbal charge for you.

I request that the denialists on this thread emerge from their darkened burrows and have a good look at what industrial pollution has done to our ecology, community and occupational health, wildlife and the air we breathe. And that's scientific - the majority of these catastrophes are officially documented!

Environmental vandals are disguised as "gentlemen" conducting board meetings and colluding with compliant, irresponsible governments to see how better to dupe the masses whilst they continue their destructive rampage on the environment in their zest for maximum profits.

Federal and state EPA Acts were legislated decades ago. Offences under the Act in the section: "Environmental Harm" include but are not limited to:

"Alteration of the environment to its detriment or degradation or potential detriment or degradation." Or:

"Alteration of the environment of a prescribed kind."

As well: "The Polluter Pays Principle - those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement."

Under "Objects and Principles of the Act" is the Precautionary Principle:"

"Where there are threats or serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation."

I shall excuse the sceptics on this thread due to their ignorance.

However, I am unable to excuse the industrial barons, the "regulators" and successive governments. They have failed to enforce the EPA Act, despite constant pleas for years, from the "ranting greenies."

The current government, in denial, are criminals. They are wilfully and knowingly breaching the EPA Act.

When we drive a smoky car, we are put off the road. It is an offence under the EPA Act.

This disgraceful culture within houses of parliament, do not preclude state governments, however, criminals, Mr Howard and his buddies in the pollutant industries, who are fully aware of the current global environmental dilemmas, have no intention of mitigating industrial pollution and should be put off the road immediately.

Clive.

In the interest of keeping things factual the Qld Govt does not subsidise petrol as you said "Qld Government is still subsidising petrol"

Queensland was the only state that did not have an excise on petrol.

The ACT Government tried to put a tax (excise) on X Rated video sales, this was opposed by the Smut industry and wound up in the High Court.

The High Court ruled that under the constitution the States do not have the right to collect excise. So all those excises on petrol,tobacco,alcohol that had been paid to the states were illegal overnight. The Federal Govt. in its wisdom decided it would collect the excise and give it back to the states.

Because Qld never had a tax on petrol and that now the Federal Govt was collecting excise it decided to give the money it never collected before back.

QLD does not subsidise petrol.

Leigh

Your funny. Global Warming changed to Climate Change because of a few cold spells.

Frank Luntz is a Republican Party pollster and political consultant. He's crafted many of the Republican Party's messages, using focus groups to test words and phrases that evoke a strong emotional response. A memo on the environment he wrote for the Party back in the late 1990s had a series of suggestions for how to play down the science of 'global warming' and he in fact advised politicians not to use that frightening term at all because it sounded permanent. Rather, they should use the more benign phrase 'climate change'.

So you see it was people like you who invented the term climate change.

But thanks for the laugh.

Mr Hamilton, I too think you rejoice too soon. Public opinion has shifted, but I think real understanding and knowledge, never mind commitment, has gone not very far at all. I fear we’ll have to see a lot more of the GW pointy end before middle Australia gets off its arse.

Realist’ & others, “..what we do has NO BEARING on the future of the world..”
What a convenient copout. No need for you to practise any restraint then is there.
Do you not know that Australia is the biggest coal exporter in the world, or do you not know that coal is a big contributor to global warming?

Ruawake, thanks for calling Leigh out for parroting Luntz nonsense, saved me the trouble.

Its still amazing to me how the biggest collaborative science project in human history is rubbished in its entirety by people who claim to be in favour of progress

What we do does have a bearing on the future of the world. It is true that Australia only emits about 1% of global GHG’s, but GHG’s don’t recognise country’s borders.

Over 170 countries have ratified, approved or acceded to the United Nations Kyoto Protocol, except most notably the US and OZ.

It would send a very strong message to the rest of the world if we were to take our global responsibilities seriously and ratify Kyoto.

Kyoto does have issues, but they are being addressed to move to that beyond 2008 – 2012. Australia should involve itself and have serious input into that process.

We see politicians play politics – that is unfortunate but a fact of life. However, this is too important an issue to let them play games for the sake of the polls.

I was disappointed last week-end when our PM did not even mention geothermal as an option as an alternative base-load energy supply. He seems only focussed on Nuclear. We neither have the money nor the time.

Individuals can make changes at the grassroots level, but we need our political and business leaders to make changes at the highest levels of society.

Individuals can drive that change, particularly when politicians see that it is in their own survival interests.

Most other countries now see the war on the “weather of mass destruction” as having a bigger global impact than the now discredited “weapons of mass destruction” – Australia needs to recognise that.

Australia would get more kudos from the global community if we act in an environmentally sustainable way. Without the environment, we have nothing.

Whilst we're on the subject, it was comforting to hear Mr Turnbull advise that there has been no increase in emissions during the period 2003-2005.

The latest National Pollutant Inventory (www.npi.gov.au) figures on the metal ore MINING industry reveals that SO2, PM's, NOx, and CO released the largest emissions from a myriad of toxic, eco-destructive chemicals. An annual combination of just four chemicals follow:

2003-2004...........566,000,000 kgs
2004-2005...........508,000,000 kgs
2005-2006...........556,000,000 kgs Period total = 1,630,000,000 kg

The NPI advises the largest chemical emitters from the COAL industry were PM's,NOx,CO,VOC's and SO2. The annual combinations of those five chemicals follow:

2003-2004............73,000,000 kgs
2004-2005...........250,000,000 kgs
2005-2006...........252,000,000 kgs Period total = 575,400,000 kgs

No overall increase, Mr Turnbull? Please advise which pollutant industries have reduced their emissions to counteract the above figures in the coal industry. And can you be more specific in the future? And why aren't you more forthcoming about the mining industry's massive emissions? What about the EPA Act? You are employed to protect the environment - not your friends in the pollutant industries!

So, this is what happens when you give the environment portfolios to bankers, lawyers and candlestick makers who don't know the difference between a VOC and a sock? In addition, industry aligned senior bureaucrats (answerable to no-one)are extremely adept at feeding bucket loads of crock to their Ministers and subsequently, the media!

Eh, Dickie, am going on 86, and back in 1982, when after doing a social science degree in political philosophy, was kidded on to back up my politics with a social science post-grad in macro-economics.

Would you believe, though the economics manual contained a couple of chapters on Supply Side Reaganomics, in the fly leaf section it also had suggestions on protecting the environment.

Simply it said that because most pollution was caused by the use of fossil fuels in power stations - the suggestion was - wait for it - was that all smokestacks and discharge pipes on the above factories should have monitors on them and the companies made to pay a fee accordingly.

Apparently the greenies were all for it, but looks like they lost the battle.

Bloody typical - ain't it?

From George C - an old retired Cockie

Climate change seems to be well under way and whether aided by human activity or not is probably unstoppable or even un-slowable. Most of the worlds politicians would know the inevitable outcome of the next 30 years or so but why cause mass panic. Better to go with the flow and do the best we can as and when it happens. Most of the people now alive and under 50 are probably in for a rough time as it is highly probable that world population by the end of this century will be only a fraction of todays as the double wammy of heat up and then chill down play out.
Maworless.

Thanks Clive for a decent article. You seem to have brought a few denialists out to the surface. Many of whom seem rather ignorant of the basic science.

I'll quickly try to address a few.

1) Natural climate variability.

You will not find a trained climatologist who claims that there has not been climate change in the past. As a matter of fact, there is a whole chapter on it in the IPCC. Most of the natural variation is well understood.

It doesn't follow logically, or scientifically to say that:
-Warming has occured naturally in the past;
-the Earth is warming;
-therefore, natural variability is the cause.

Numerous detection and attribution studies have stated that greenhouse gas emmissions and land use changes cause the vast majority of current warming. Not to mention that the basic physics of GHG forcing is well understoof

Numerous natural mechanisms have been proposed to explain the current observed warming. Neither cosmic rays, nor the sun have been shown to explain current warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/

2) Models.
- Models are used in climate science, but they do form the basis of climate science. As I say (ad nausem) the basic physics is well understood. Increasing the 2nd most important GHG by 35% is bound to have some effect on the atmosphere.
- Besides, the models are pretty good. They've been pretty much on the money for the last 100 years.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

In general, they are quite consistent with observations (within tolerable error).

By the by, models have been simulating clouds for years
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/221311/27

c) Climate is changing on Mars.

So? Yes it's changing. The mechanism for doing so is not the same as on Earth. Mars' climate is due to peculiar geography of the South Pole, and the eliptic nature of the orbit. Also, since Mars has a thin atmosphere and no oceans, it has low thermal inertia, so is very sensitive to changes.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

4) The Medievil Warm Period.

The MWP was:
a) Not as warm as present;
b) Caused by a completly different mechanism (most likley land use changes in Europe and Solar);
c) Most likely a regional phenomena.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

5) Solar Variation

Has been responsible for changes to climate in the past. But is not the likely culprit now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

(This graph is a little out of date, but illustrates the point)

The Solar constant has remained pretty much the same since 1978, according to PODW

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

And not since 1940 according to the Max Plank institute.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

In addition, the sensitivity of climate to solar forcing may be overstated.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

In short, variations in solar forcing do not explain the current warming. They may explain some of it (jury is still out) but not all of it.

Much of this information is availiable on the net. I encourage people to read up on it.

Thank you very much for the info ChrisC

I was interested to note that the majority of the deniers of the main article displayed a distinctive style of response that lacked any form of logical or scientific reason for their position. In fact the lack of grammar and spelling coupled with conspiritorial reasons advanced, promoted a sad lack of education or research that might be expected from them.

I have seen some moronic analogies in my time but davsabs little effort to compare the simplicity and comparative certainty of a biopsy with the assumption ladden speculation of the climate muddlers would have to take the cake.

Its ready acceptance by the rest of the climate cretins betrays a fundamental incapacity to distinguish between fact and opinion, between observable phenomena and outright speculation.

For the record, 98% of IT experts were absolutely convinced of the certainty of Y2K. Sceptics were defamed as luddites. But the silence on the 1st January 2000 was deafening. And clowns even had the gall to claim that the disaster did not take place because of all the millions spent (on them) to fix the "problem". This was a plausible explanation to the bimboscenti but the surprising thing was that not one of those numerous very dated PCs that still manage to crank along in all sorts of forgotten back rooms without Y2K patches was effected by the bug.

Now what was that you said about 98% of experts must be right? Not if there is much more funding in the bull$hit business.

And ChrisC trots out all the standard mantras once again. (yawn).

"The really disgusting things is that they do it to sell a book or earn themelves a name - even a bad name as history will probably show" - Leigh

Interesting comment. I take it to mean you disapprove of activities that are solely to make a profit or for seeking fame?

If so, then how do you view activities that pollute and/or destroy the environment in order to make millions of dollars? To me, THAT is a truly disgusting thing.

Oh, of course - I forgot. It's all in the name of that almighty deity, The Economy. And climate skeptics have the hide to accuse greenies et al. of having religious zeal??

Onya Perseus, nice of you to prove Snake right with your content-free and insulting attack on Davsabs & ChrisC.

Less than 200 of your words gave us 'moronic', 'cretins' 'bulls**t' and 'bimboscenti', but no relevant information or links - are you Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt

Snake: "In fact the lack of grammar and spelling coupled with conspiritorial reasons advanced, promoted a sad lack of education..."

The word is 'conspiratorial'.

ChrisC,

couple of comments:

1, Because something doesn't follow, logically or scientifically, doesn't make it wrong or right.

2, It's hard to imagine a model not taking the past into account in it's construction thereby conforming to the trends.

As to clouds,
"The potential complexity of the response of clouds to climate change was identified in the SAR as a major source of uncertainty for climate models. Although there has been clear progress in the physical content of the models, clouds remain a dominant source of uncertainty" (IPCC)

3, Mars atmosphere has a CO2 concentration nearly 25 times earths despite there being only 1% of the earths atmosphere in total. Yet Mars temperature is said to be only 5deg warmer due to Greenhouse effect.Interestingly the oft quoted Venus temp(500 deg) due to CO2 fails to acknowledge the fact that the CO2 concentration is about 170 000 times that of earth. If my interpretation of the below links is correct .

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.html
http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.htm

When are the politicians going to do something. Environmental issues are vital and they don't do anything about it. One example is they way we treat the seas, the animals and the bushland. I'm trying to do something about the bushland clearance in Perth, I would like to collect enough signtatures to send to David Templeman, Minister for the Environment. If someone wants to participate go to: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/714194807?ltl=1174648136
Thanks for your help.

elena, maybe politicians can't do much, because of the structure of oz political society. the pressures of getting elected, and staying in office, may mean they can only 'tilt' the direction of policy 2 degrees at most. remember that parliament was never designed to be the executive arm of government- that was the king. people who succeed in parliament are not chosen because they have a brilliant track record in planning or administration, frequently they have no job skills at all, except branch stacking and making deals with supporters to trade money/votes for preferential treatment.

that's one of the reasons i promote democracy: if 70% of the electorate back a referendum on emissions, it'll happen, and no politician needed. things will get done when the electorate of oz get off their knees and start saying "let's make ourselves the masters of our fate".

Well said, Rojo. Clouds were always the unknown in the climate muddles, and for very good reason. Clouds can perform two functions in the one day. During the day clouds can reflect from 30% to 65% of solar radiation and make a major contribution to cooling the planet, especially over the oceans that normally absorb 96.5% od solar energy.

But they also have this habit of drifting over land during the night where they trap the heat escaping from the land. And this "warming" function of clouds is far more effective than that provided by even three times the current level of atmospheric CO2.

And in any place where clouds are already present, the level of CO2 has no impact because the job is already being done by the clouds.

Furthermore, as the oceans already absorb 96.5% of solar radiation then the maximum amount of heat that either a cloud or a doubling of CO2 can trap is 3.5% of that day's supply of sunlight.

Yet, we know perfectly well from the study of deserts etc, with albedos as high as 30%, that both clouds and CO2 are capable of trapping much higher levels than 3.5% of insolation. And if the sun isn't sending any more energy down, and the oceans that occupy 70% of the planet are not absorbing any less energy, then everyone but a committed climate cretin can see that there will not be much more heat to be trapped by the extra CO2.

"It is now clear that most Australians are no longer in a state of denial, that they are facing up to the truth about global warming and what it means for life in this country and around the world."

Really? So most Australians would be prepared to cut their personal consumption by the 60% figure that's often thrown around? I think people want to have their cake and eat it too.

"In these circumstances it will become more and more difficult for the government and the fossil-fuel lobby to repeat their lies, distortions and spin with impunity."

No, it will be more and more difficult for the government and fossil-fuel lobby to both, 1) keep people's comfortable, consumeristic lifestyles ticking over and, 2) take control of the problem.

I'm on the fence about this whole issue because I don't think the truth (or non-truth) of this issue is the relevant point. The relevant point is that Australians want to have their cake and eat it too. Australians don't want to take personal responsibility, yet they want government to somehow find a magic bullet that doesn't involve heavily regulating against their consumeristic lifestyles.

If people were sincere on this issue, they'd 1) cut their own consumption, 2) rush out and vote for any politician who took a hardcore environmental stance. Neither is going to happen, so I have to believe that the average person talking about this issue is full of it.

I'm not "pro" the environment because I'm far too concerned about my consumeristic lifestyle. At least I'm honest about it.

Thanks Liam,

Some people who are uncertain or afraid to confront the truth often resort to invective and vitriol – debasing themselves as well as any argument they may have.

Sadly, it reflects on their level of comprehension and ability to debate in a reasoned and rational manner. Unfortunately, it probably also means they are in a state of denial – this is the reality.

Perseus, I did not say “98% of experts must be right” (read my post again and most importantly, please don’t quote out of context – it does not improve your case).

The 3rd IPCC AR4 report is being released later today.

There will be differences of opinion, particularly between Annexe I nations and developing countries. However, you will see a convergence in their combined approach to confronting the realities of Global Warming – this is reassuring.

The discussion of climate change in “public” is often completely at odds to the discussion in the scientific community (in papers, journals, at conferences, workshops, etc).

In public forums such as this, there is often an emphasis on seemingly simple questions that, at first sight, appear to have profound importance e.g. the question of AGW or clouds (see Perseus’ diatribes).

However, in the scientific community, discussions about these “simple” questions are often not, and have subtleties that rarely get publicly addressed. When it does, people like Perseus distort the scientific facts to suit their own agenda.

It is very disingenuous for such people to expound on topics that they are clearly not expert in. The science of “climate change” is exponentially better than it was two years ago.

Yes, clouds have both positive and negative feedback attributions, but their impacts are taken into account – as is solar radiative forcings. The science is there for those who wish to study the intricacies.

The most convincing arguments for AGW are based on carbon isotope and attribution studies – see the full IPCC scientific reports.

Shorbe has good points about consumerism.

It can only help (not detract from) society if we work together to live in a more environmentally sustainable way.

"global warming deniers dismiss the most robust and vigorously reviewed scientific evidence"

Can I say that not only am I a denier of anthropogenic global warming, but I am also a denier of the flat earth and of creation science!

However let me turn to the alleged scientific evidence! What we actually have is a coterie of like minded individuals who robstly and vigorously review each others work. This also happened during the Y2K era when there was much mutual acclaimation amongst the armageddon theorists. Deniers were also widely condemned as being dinosaurs, hypocrites, pederasts, and worse. The scientific evidence is actually dodgy. A circular argument has been used in the development of the mathematical model which seeks to predict future climate. I should also disclose that I have a PhD (and I recognise that will draw a lot of flak) which involves a substantial amount of mathematical modelling and simulation.

I also now realise that belief in anthropogenic global warming has become a religion to most of its adherents. And a very doctrinaire religion at that. A religion which will tolerate neither opposing views nor discussion of alternate truths. A religion where its acolytes condemn infidels for every possible crime. As an example of this I offer the post in this thread which claims that the deniers write ungrammatical mush, while the supporters would make Milton or Shakespeare jealous with their well structured prose.

However I repeat my earlier point: we are not doing enough to prepare for the on-coming 21st century warm period. There is nothing we can do about it. We must get ready for it.

davsab you don't seem to mind debasing yourself in a very similar manner to the one that accuse Perseus of.
davsab:"I doubt very much the deniers in this forum have read the published scientific papers on climate change; they have probably not got the attention span to do so"

davsab also says: "The science of “climate change” is exponentially better than it was two years ago."...unfortunately "exponentially better" than "virtually nothing" amounts to "still not enough"

"The most convincing arguments for AGW are based on carbon isotope and attribution studies"
This convinces me that yes we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. This does not equal causality for AGW.

"The 3rd IPCC AR4 report is being released later today."
Oh you mean the one that they're making agree with the Summary for Policymakers that came out in February? Seems a bit back to front to me. Release the political stuff, then make the science fit that.

I don't feel like I am in a state of denial, just yet to be shown any clear proof of AGW. I'm willing to change my mind.

Turning now to ChrisC's offering, we have the wonderful statement "Increasing the 2nd most important GHG by 35% is bound to have some effect on the atmosphere." May I draw your attention, gentle reader, to the words "is bound to". Making the assumption - and please note that these words do imply the making of an assumption - that increasing the 2nd most important GHG will have some effect, it is not surprising that the model which uses that assumption as an input arrives at precisely that output.

I am also impressed that the Mediaeval Warm Period is dismissed as having a different cause to the 21st Century Warm Period. I was unaware that the cause of the MWP was in fact known! However of course it must be a different cause to fit in with the preconceived notion regarding what "is bound to" happen.

I thought Australia was "bound to" win the cricket world cup. Fortunately, because I obtained monetary gain from it, I was right. However I could equally well have been wrong. That is the nature of "bound to".

Howard is still denying it.

The sad thing is even though people are finally hearing what the minority have been screaming for decades is that these same new converts believe we can change the climate. Oh dear.

Adapt, it's all we can do. Fighting the climate? Right? How? By changing light bulbs and taking shorter showers? Get real. Build, adapt. This is the new denial on this topic.

I read you well, Bushbred.

Perhaps you too may gain some comfort to learn that the Department of Environment is currently the subject of a parliamentary enquiry in WA for knowingly allowing citizens and the environment to be poisoned from lead and nickel dust.

Perseus' maniacal blatherings do little for his credibility. Is he aware that the natural emissions of CO2, from volcanic activity is somewhere between 145 - 255 million short tons per annum, less than 1% of the amount released by human activity.

Volcanic emissions interfere with climate. In addition, complex chemical reactions occur when atmospheric, volcanic chemicals mix with anthropogenic pollution - often resulting in acid rain.

Global dimming, observed for several decades, is a result of an increase in particulates (PM's) such as black carbon due to human action. This black carbon interferes with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and is blamed for droughts in some areas.

Global Dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effects of GHG's on GW.

For those Sydney posters, perhaps you should commence your Climate Change actions by lobbying Mr Iemma about Orica's 10,500 tonnes of leaky hexachlorobenzene, sitting in a shed at Botany Bay. After all, these persistent, man-made organochlorines have polluted YOUR harbour, YOUR bays and YOUR ocean.

This ghastly chemical, which has created an underground toxic plume and polluted some 60,000 tonnes of soil has been allowed to remain on-site, leaking, for some 20 years. Your Sydney Harbour has been polluted with dioxins for years and anyone eating fish there will do so to their detriment!

Sydney's ecology, like other states, has been seriously compromised!

Now, there is no-one, anywhere globally, capable of safely destroying the lethal hexachlorobenzene! Such is the "wisdom" of past and present environmental regulators.

The Australian regulatory authorities have never adopted the international concept of environmental justice.

And nor have their "masters", who emerge from their burrows, in the name of "Economic Expansion" to insist we play tit for tat with Mother Nature! Such is the ignorance of the avaricious!

Seems there's more profit in prophecy than dinero in denial.

The only deniers here are those who stubbornly refuse to consider any alternative explanation for the relatively brief period of modest warming experienced so far, other that human activity.

Good posts, Reynard.

The blind faith of the CO2 Flux Clan in their climate muddles would be quaint were it not for their latent potential for mob rule and persecution of dissenters.

These models are routinely run while leaving out one of the main climate "forcing" agents, like water vapour, CO2, clouds, methane etc to assess the significance of each in the scheme of things. The only problem is that the resulting sum of the contributions from each agent usually amounts to about 130% when they should only amount to 100%.

And this is why these climate muddles cannot be run for too long a projection into the future. The poor things tend to "overheat", as the muddlers term it, and spin out of all relation to reality. So the muddlers only run them for a short time and then shut down and reset all the values for the next run.

And these turkeys want us to mortgage the kids future on this kind of crapology? Give us a break.

I think it's fascinating that climate scientists are accused of being self-serving.

Consider the following motives to deny climate change:
- I don't want to have to pay more money
- I don't want to have to drive/fly less, or use less electricity
- I don't want the economy to go into recession

These are totally reasonable and understandable motives to deny acting to prevent climate change. And hey, scientists are not immune - genuine action to address climate change may mean less scientific conferences in ritzy hotels around the world! Scientists are well-paid. At a guess, I'd say a number of scientists would have investment portfolios, would take holidays, and would generally have an interest in living in a healthy economy. Let's face it: addressing climate change threatens all of this. The motives to deny climate change are compelling.

AND YET THE SCIENTISTS INSIST WE NEED TO ACT.

Why would they insist on this, knowing (perhaps better than most) the costs of the action they are advocating? They must be absolutely compelled to think that the cost of INACTION will outweigh all of this, otherwise they'd just shut up about it and keep living the high life. Now if the world's top scientists (which include some of the world's smartest people) are so compelled to fight for action, and it is not really in their interests to do so, then why won't people listen?

I'm 25 years old. Here's what I will tell my grandchildren, if I live long enough to meet them:
I'm sorry, but I tried.

I would also like to see far more input by scientists. The politicians glibly use terms and implement policies without much thought to the science.
The Victorian Minister for Energy, Peter Batchelor last week introduced a program of harvesting geothermal energy into Victoria. His government has divided the state into areas offered to private enterprise under a licence system.
Batchelor demonstrated his ignorance by describing geothermal energy as “renewable”. I have no doubt that it is clean energy, or that it is used by many countries such as the USA, but of all the sources of energy, it is not “renewable”. Once it is used the planet will die.
I would like to see more discussion of geothermal energy because it is truly a resource that belongs to all mankind, and not to ignorant greedy little politicians looking for revenue.

Richard Castles: "Seems there's more profit in prophecy than dinero in denial."

ExxonMobil (most profitable corporation on planet) has spent millions secretly funding any GW sceptic who isn't a known paedophile; see http://www.exxonsecrets.org/, consider also who funds Institute for Public Affairs & Lavoisier Group in biggest coal exporting country in world, Oz.

Does Richard Castles have evidence for his ridiculous claim, is he just another RightThink smear-and-run hack, or is he really that bad at maths?

The climate has changed from denial to delusion.

Heaven help us if the media might actually present an intellectually rigourous discussion that balances ALL of the views. Interestingly a rebuttal documentary (recently aired in the UK) has been refused an airing in Australia. Very suspiscious. They think its biased, but of course big Al's contribution is very fair and balanced, sort of like fox news is fair and balanced.

All l want to see is a full and frank publicly transparent discussion. Without being lampooned by the true believers of spin.

In any event, there's a tonne of incredibly soft grant money being doled out, world wide, into the billions p.a. to 'combat' 'climate change'. There's gotta be a way l can get my snout into that trough.

There is no shortage of hot air about this subject, so l cant see a significant reduction in CO2 emmissions anytine soon.

trade215, Are you talking about the Great GLobal Warming Swindle by Martin Durkin?

Perhaps you've missed the broadsides from scientists who appeared in the program, from the UK Royal Society, and the British Antarctic Survey which said, "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

Mr Durkins is making a career out of smearing environmentalists as corrupt or fascist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28television_director%29
, betcha Hugh Morgan and Alan Moran have got his complete works. Should fit right in with SBS's techno-fantasy Future Focus series.

Liam, Saturday, 5 May 2007 10:57 AM: "...consider also who funds Institute for(of) Public Affairs & (The) Lavoisier Group..."
Well go on, Who?

Liam, Saturday, 5 May 2007 10:57 AM: "...consider also who funds Institute for(of) Public Affairs & (The) Lavoisier Group..."
Well go on, Who?

ANSWER : Mobil/Exxon

Admiral

"ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

See http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

That's just one company, I bet all the others are doing the same, as are all the fossil fuel industries.

It does not matter because our Government are spending the same amount of money on solar energy research as they are on upgrading the immigration depts computer system.

Perseus says "For the record, 98% of IT experts were absolutely convinced of the certainty of Y2K." Yes Perseus, Y2K or the year 2000, did happen (about 7 years ago). As a computer programmer I worked on this change. We knew there would be problems if changes were not made to important system. That was fact and undeniable.

There was no uncertainty from us and no panic. We just succeeded in making changes to prevent a problem, so you didn't notice anything. Sound familiar to this discussion?

I'll bet those old pcs you mentioned are not supporting any important infrastructure or business.

I'm guessing you're in the same age bracket as J Howard. You're stuck in the 1950's. The past is in your head, and the future is in our hands.

Touche Foob! Well said.....my sentiments exactly!

Enter the 21st century, Perseus!

ChrisC

I note that you are still peddling the lie that clouds are well covered in the GCM's when in fact the IPCC's own documents state that the Level Of Scientific Understanding, LOSU, of clouds is very poor. So I guess when the GCM's put this LOSU into their models that are themselves looking forward 100 years, then the result must be even poorer ie complete nonsense. What was that about GIBO, Garbage In B/s Out.

Response to your comments

Rojo:

1. I suppose, but I think you miss my point. A statement such as:

All Xs are Ys at some time in the past;
X is observed;
therefore
X is Y,

is known in maths as an inductive statement. They need to be tested and proved. Many studies have attempted to present natural variability as the cause of global warming, and have not provided evidence. AGW is, at present, the only scientifically viable hypothesis that explains current observations.

2. Climate models are known as Boundary Value Problems (BVPs). You give them a bunch of starting data (say, the temperature, humidity, aerosols etc… in 1900 at a bunch of points on Earth) and set them lose to crunch the numbers. They spit back at you the results. Using these models, we’re able to reconstruct the temperature from 1900 to present, the response of the climate to Pinatubo, the 8.2kYr event etc… a priori. The models are based primarily on physics, chemistry etc… Although there is some statistical models involved, these are few compared to physical models (in most cases they’re simplified physical models). See chapter 8, section 8.1.3.1 of the FAR WG1 report (www.ipcc.ch) for a discussion of this (warning, it’s a pretty big PDF)

Models are not perfect. You’re right, clouds are the highest source of uncertainty, but even taking this uncertainty into account, we get useful numbers. Uncertainty doesn’t imply uselessness. To quote the IPCC:

“There is considerable evidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change”.

3. You have interpreted these data correctly. But remember, CO2 traps heat. Less solar insolation reaches Mars, more reaches Venus. Hence, the absolute response of temperature to CO2 will be less on Mars, greater on Venus.

Reynard:

For one, your appeal for us to accept your arguments due to a PhD is known as an “appeal to authority”. The beauty of science is that an undergrad can critique a professor. What is important is the argument. I find your arguments lacking.

For one, the science seems to have passed you by. There is nothing contentious about my statement, nor were any assumptions made. Do I need to remind you of some history.

The greenhouse effect, proposed by Fourier is 1824, advanced by Arrhenius in 1896, is well accepted and is not denied by any climate change contrarians, from Lindzen to Singer. The effect that CO2 is opaque to IR-radiation is confirmed, completely, by quantum mechanics and atomic spectroscopy. Now, increasing the presence of heat trapping gas in the atmosphere, funnily enough, traps more heat in the atmosphere. This effects change in the atmosphere. This has been confirmed by the paleo-record, seasonal variations, and the fact that the Earth is not 255K.

To quote the climate change denier Pat Micheals:

“Scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (C) [in 50 years”

While is disagree with Micheals assessment (he neglects feedbacks and), even the great deniers don’t doubt that increasing CO2 emissions affects temperature. They generally dispute how much.

I stand by my statement. It has nothing to do with “models”. It has all to do with basic physics.

Perseus.

It is becoming clear that you’ve not read the relevant literature. For example:

“These models are routinely run while leaving out one of the main climate "forcing" agents, like water vapour, CO2, clouds, methane etc to assess the significance of each in the scheme of things.”

They are only run in isolation to assess sensitivities. As for predictions, CAOGCMS are run with a full suite of variables. I’ve never heard of, read or noticed “overheating”. Any model run that generated the results you specify would be rejected.

This is all contained in chapters 8 and 10 of the FAR, that is available for download at www.ipcc.ch . There is lots to criticise models on contained there in. Your example is not one of them.

I’ll be fair though and say I would not put a great deal of confidence in model outputs after, say, 100 years.

To better understand the reasons for the pollution and ecological degradation of this nation, and the human health impacts, view the latest news from the Sunday Times in WA:

www.news.com.au/perthnow

Click on (1): "New Fears hit Plagued Port"
................(2): "History Lesson: Mining's Poor Health Record"

Item 2 is a truncated, revelationary account of the disgraceful behaviour and lack of enforcement by our regulatory agencies over some 50 years.

One should tremble for ones children when imagining these vandals may be "regulating" nuclear reactors in this country in the not-too-distant future!

This discussion might progress if each participant were to state the information which is a basis for their opinion. Hopefully then the discussion would be less heated. My opinion is based on the failure of other phenomena to explain recent temperature increase, the isotopic evidence for CO2 increase coming from fossil fuels, the physical basis of CO2 causing atmospheric warming, the failure to demonstrate historical events like the little ice age or medieval warm periods to have either global or temporal correlations, and paleologial evidence for atmospheric CO2 increases associated with significant warming, like the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum. I would change my opinion readily should its basis be shown as false.

Discussion? What discussion? What I see is a bunch of statements from people who know absolutely nothing about what is happening.

Face it, no one knows what the climate is doing, or why. To say you do and know how to fix it is just ridiculous. Just blame that imagineary friend of so many grown ups if you must, God.

Will someone here tell me how you can fight climate? Someone?

You can't except by using an umbrella or air conditioner or heating. That's not fighting actually either, it's using technology to cater for the change.

How about people stop claiming non exisitant expertise and face reality. The weather which can't be predicted even for tomorrow, let alone a decade away. Mosly our so called experts can't even tell us what has happened in the past as we only have a couple of hundred years of real data. The rest is guesswork.

You've been singing that song for years Pegasus, oblivious to the ever growing body of evidence, oblivious to the ever lengthening list of climate realists who think that the IPCC is credible - Swiss Re, IAG, Visy, BP, Origin, Westpac, the Governor of California, Tony Blair, leader of UK Tory party..

Maybe eventually you'll start to doubt your certainty in your own rightness, but the rest of us can't wait. You, Heffernan, and the rest of the dinosaurs can have the ACT, ok?

Liam says "oblivious to the ever lengthening list of climate realists who think that the IPCC is credible - Swiss Re, IAG, Visy, BP, Origin, Westpac, the Governor of California, Tony Blair, leader of UK Tory party"

Liam this is not a good reason to believe in something. This is flock mentality.

Perseus posits:
"For the record, 98% of IT experts were absolutely convinced of the certainty of Y2K. Sceptics were defamed as luddites. But the silence on the 1st January 2000 was deafening."

And why shouldn't it have been? I remember "inoculating" my computer before the dread chiming of the clock at midnight. Don't you?

As they say, and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

ChrisC,
Although I had considered the radiation strength due to proximity to the sun, I don't know if it's then valid to say that because Mars has half the solar flux of earth, Mars CO2 GHG impact should be doubled for comparison. Either by:

Halving Mars CO2 concentration from 25 to 12.5 times earths for the 5deg rise due to greenhouse to give us 0.4deg rise per earth concentration.

Or doubling the GHG induced temp from 5 to 10deg for Mars and dividing by 25(times earth concentration) still giving us 0.4 deg rise per earth concentration.

Venus has a solar flux roughly double that of the earth. So is it fair to halve its CO2 concentration to 85000 of earths for say 500deg, to give a 0.006deg rise per earth concentration.

Obviously I haven't taken into account the logarithmic effect of CO2 as a GHG, nor factored in albedo etc. Just some thoughts.

ChrisC,
You selectively quote me. My disclosure that I had a PhD was not an appeal to authority, (I have done some rhetoric too) but the mention that there was considerable mathematical modelling and simulation involved in that degree might be seen as giving me some basis to comment on the art and the science of mathematical modelling. In relation to the degree I also said "and I recognise that will draw a lot of flak". Clearly I was right.

Once again the Y2Kers claim they actually fixed the problem. But there were no reports of ANY Y2K failures. So are we seriously to believe that they got to every single PC on the planet and fixed it? give us a break. One would normally assess the success of a program in terms of percentage prevention etc, but 100% prevention makes it clear that it was a "AAA" rated hoax.

ChrisC, I was actually refering to the sensitivity analysis in my post. It may be convenient for you to imply that I was suggesting all GCMs are run that way but reasonable men and women will see through your ploy.

Funny how all the the plodders revert to defamation when the logic of their arguments runs thin. But keep going fellas, every disparaging comment about someone's age is a nail in your political coffin.

Excellent article Clive. I agree with the comment: "It is now clear that most Australians are no longer in a state of denial, that they are facing up to the truth about global warming and what it means for life in this country and around the world."

The proof will be in the outcome of the 2007 Federal Election. However, it is unrealistic to expect a 60% reduction through policies of weak incentives to make the right choices. Only strong leadership by the next government, using tough regulatory measures, can achieve a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Australians are prepared to make adjustments, especially when they are made by all of us. Both industry and individuals need to know the new ground rules for achieving a sustainable future built around renewables.

This would see energy inefficency and polluting technology heavily taxed initially with target dates set for scheduled cessation or prohibition of the worst offenders. Conversely, zero polluting technologies would receive massive incentives to establish and become mainstream. Australia can play an environmental leadership role in our region.

As a society, we have successfully managed major transitions in the past: Decimalisation, tarrif reductions, vaccinations to name a few.

The majority of Australians have the stamina for tough changes to the way we do things. By becoming a world leader and demonstarting how to make a 180 degree change we can once again hold our heads up.

Post election, expect politicians who have the fortitude to take stern leadership positions

Perseus and his denialist buddies' intellectual though inane blatherings have me perplexed.

Are they denying that volcanic activity affects climate change where volcanic emissions are just 1% of human-induced emissions?

Are they claiming that anthropogenic pollution is good for the environment and human health?

Are they insisting that man-made pollution does not affect the climate?

Are they recommending that we continue to pollute the entire planet, desecrating everything necessary to sustain life on earth?

Mmmmmm.....bright lads these sceptics - aren't they!?

What ever the're on......could I have some too, please?

"Perseus and his denialist buddies" ... perhaps I am being presumptuous in assuming that I might be included in that company, however I suspect I am - although perhaps not by Perseus himself. All I deny is that the hypothesis that the present phase of global warming has been proved to a reasonable scientific standard to be anthropogenic. Does that make me a denialist?

"Are they denying that volcanic activity affects climate change where volcanic emissions are just 1% of human-induced emissions?" No! Clearly it does; and even better for science there is an established mechanism. Dust in the upper atmoshere - which is where most of it goes after being shot out of a volcano - reflects heat and causes major cooling for a period of time. This has followed all of the major volcanic eruptions in history. The cooling after the last Krakatoa blast is a good example.

"Are they claiming that anthropogenic pollution is good for the environment and human health?" No! Although this question is hardly worth an answer.

"Are they insisting that man-made pollution does not affect the climate?" No! Everything in a closed system affects everything else - remember the concept of the butterfly flapping its wings and causing a cyclone somewhere else. The question is of degree, and of certainty. Clearly CO2 is a GHG, and will therefore have an influence. What is not understood, and therefore not modelled, is the extent to which competing secondary effects come into play in global warming.

"Are they recommending that we continue to pollute the entire planet, desecrating everything necessary to sustain life on earth?" You might like to take a few deep breaths and ponder whether you really believe this.

Good post Reynard...although you forgot dickie's last 2 questions.

"Mmmmmm.....bright lads these sceptics - aren't they!?" ...Not sure I like where you're going with that question.

"What ever the're on......could I have some too, please?" No you've had enough for this week.

So what's your problem Reynard?

The strategy for mitigating anthropogenic pollution to restore our eco systems, is the same for reducing A/CO2.

It matters not whether we're in an ice age or being cooked alive with global warming!

Do you know anything about the catalytic and secondary effects of the origins of CO2? Polycyclic aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons, VOC's, PM? Most of those chemicals are carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic.

Then you have the effects to climate from SO2 and NOx's. Oh I forgot to mention atmospheric CO which elevates methane and ozone prior to converting to CO2.

Would you like to reflect on the ecological destruction resulting from the effects of man-made persistent organic pollutants such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans? Or the negative effects on our eco systems, wildlife, livestock and humans from the excessive emissions of heavy metals?

"Computer modelling" to prove we've damaged the troposphere, stratosphere and ionosphere? Hey Reynard.....what planet are you on? We've already done that!

"Do you know anything about the catalytic and secondary effects of the origins of CO2?"
Oh I'd love to know all about them....please share

"we've damaged the troposphere, stratosphere and ionosphere"
We've damaged the ionsphere as well?....

We must look at the solutions which are available today. It's time for political parties to act. First Carbon Trading must be seen as a short term solution, giving industry time to adjust to new technology. Both Federal and State Governtments must raise the rebates for solar panels to 50% of the cost for residential owners and as a tax deduction for industry. In other words it must be made compulsory for all new residential and industrial properties. All major rivers should come under a National Water Board independent of government but finance by Federal, State and Local Governments. Making it illegal to divert water as well as the use of dams, weirs and locks to control it. The Federal Government needs to provide incentitives for industry to develop alternate fuels and to produce vehicles to run on such fuels. To make it illegal for industry to acquire patents for new technology and not to develop there use immediately in order to product itself. These are but a few which can be used now.

Dickie has a little chat with himself, asking and answering his own questions, and then responds as if I had given the answers he gave. Brilliant, Dickie, keep that up and you will disappear right up your own backside to the point where you'll get fan mail from black holes.

I may be labelled as a sceptic but I am foremost and auditor of public debate and reference checker of claims. And the fact that great wads of the utterances of "spivanthropus climatensis" simply do not stack up makes it clear that these people have a credibility problem. Another day another stupid climate cretin pops up with a new "Scarenario" to frighten the kids.

But don't try to characterise my position as being in denial. I just have a firm rule in both life and business. Never, ever, do business with spivs and parasites.

Perseus's "spivanthropus climatensis", what a classic. Love it.

One of the glaring oversights with these high priests of humans causing global warming is an assumption that our largest plasma discharge formation the sun doesn't do anything. Just how terribly wrong can one really be? Whilst we get teddy wars and big bang stooopidities it doesn't get any more anthropocentric than human co2 emmissions causing global warming.

When the total concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is just 0.054% it represents a significantly minuscule amount but when humans contribute much less than 1 % of that very significantly minuscule amount, then to consider that humans are causing global warming is a monumental error and an absurdity. Is this zealotry manifested from some deep seated guilt complex? Perhaps but this worship of finite universal causality embodies a psychosis giving us closed systems "experts" who do their best to design their own universe with their faulty modeling, unable to see outside the earth's troposphere.

"I am foremost an auditor of public debate and reference checker of claims," says our master of froth, Perseus, self-proclaimed hero of all things mythical. Dearie me. Perhaps it's the cattle dip!

Then with much froth and petulance, he declares in querulous fashion:

"Funny how all the the (sic) plodders revert to defamation when the logic in their arguments runs thin."

A brief perusal of Perseus' posts reveals that when challenged on his tragically mangled information, it is he who reverts to a volume of defamatory descriptions for other posters. Due to his limited vocabulary, his vicious attacks (which are constant) includes, but are not limited to the following:

"climate cretins, muddlers, bull$hit, turkeys, crapology, bimboscenti, retention deficit, dogs vomit, moron, sickos, psychopaths, sad plodders, &*%%$$." The list is endless.

"Spivs" and "Parasites!" declares our "auditor of public debate."

Perseus, my dear fellow, if at first you don't succeed, why go on and make a fool of yourself?

Ooops......How rude of me. I omitted to respond to Alzo's snide comments where he states: "O'h I'd love to know all about them.....please share."

May I suggest you do your own research, Alzo. The origins of anthropogenic CO2 are well documented. After all, I am not your Mummy or your Daddy.

If you desire to know the information source of my contribution to this debate on tropospheric, stratospheric and ionospheric interference by humans, why don't you just ask?

May I also suggest you refrain from typing with one hand. Competent ambidexters are few and far between!

G’day Keiran,

There is a lot of scientific literature that look at radiative forcings, including papers published by so called deniers or contrarians (aka climate scientists that are true AGW sceptics). People who just don’t know – well they just don’t know.

As you quite rightly note, it is very useful to separate human induced forcings (e.g. fossil fuel burning, deforestation, etc) from natural forcings (e.g. volcanos and the Sun). So yes, this method of analysis is used for more formal detection and attribution studies of climate change.

What does this all mean in the real world? The total forcing from 1750 to 2000 is about 1.7 W/m2 (it is slightly smaller for 1850 to 2000, but that difference is a minor issue). The biggest warming factors are CO2 (1.5 W/m2), CH4 (0.6 W/m2, including indirect effects), CFCs (0.3), N2O (0.15), O3 (0.3), black carbon (0.8), and solar (0.3), and the important cooling factors are sulphate and nitrate aerosols (-2.1, including direct and indirect effects), and land use (-0.15).

CO2's role compared to the net forcing is about 85% of the effect, but 37% compared to all warming effects. All well-mixed greenhouse gases are 64% of warming effects, and all anthropogenic forcings (everything except solar and volcanic) are ~80% of the forcings. Can the average person understand this jargon? If not, how can they be expected to understand the science behind global warming?

Even if solar trends were doubled, it would still only be less than half of the effect of CO2, and barely a fifth of the total greenhouse gas forcing.

A few genuine climate scientists debate the cause of global warming, or its rate of change, or can we as a species do anything about it. The vast majority conservatively say there is a 90 -95% chance that it is real and caused by us. They also say we can do something about it – so why not?

I hope 98% of the experts are wrong. But hey, if they’re right, is there really anything wrong if humanity puts some effort into living in an environmentally sustainable way?

Dickie

On a point of logic: You state that Perseus' vocabulary is limited, but then contradict yourself by stating that the list of abusive terms he uses is endless.

I enjoyed this history of CO2 science from the American Institute of Physics. It might, for example, show Keiran than the warming effect of CO2 has a real basis:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

A cornerstone of combating greenhouse gases is the development of alternative electricity and liquid fuel sources. The suggestion that developing such technology will be economy destroying seems silly to me. I would have thought that technological development is the foundation of civilisation. I believe that the pursuit of these technologies has the potential for immense rewards for humanity. A perusal of the technologies being developed would see those concerned by global warming as advocates for advancing civilisation rather than Doomsday's heralds. In contrast, the sceptics would appear to ba advocating more of the same.

Rojo,

I came across this website the other day:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/

It's the web page for a university course on planetary atmospheres. It has some good info on the atmosphere of Mars and Venus and some simple calculations of their greenhouse effects. It also has a link to a (somewhat outdated, since it was published in 1973!) textbook in PDF form.

There's a lot of stuff on it. Some may be useful to you, some may not be. The greenhouse effect on Venus is dealt with in chapter 3 of the textbook and the page:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/14EVM-5.html

deals with both Venus and Mars.

A few of your questions are answered within. Most of the basics are covered and well explained, and the maths is kept pretty light (by my standards anyhow). Happy hunting

This is an intriguing thread, watching the tête-à-tête between the antagonists – and sometimes adding my 2 cents worth.

I have recently got back from a symposium where again I had my 2 cents worth – in a nice way telling a group of ‘greens’ (admittedly they were ‘dark greens’) to pull their ‘head in’ in terms of policy direction and strategic planning as a result of John Howard’s Climate Change and water resources policies.

Last week I struck a chord with a bunch of conservatives trying to extricate themselves from Howard’s miniscule (in their words) future plans (in terms of the ‘up-coming’ budget) on dealing with climate change. The week before, I received a cordial reception from a consortium of labour ‘true believers’ when I discussed the ramifications of global warming.

This week I was invited to give a talk to a group of 11 & 12 year olds from a primary school, on the topic of global warming.

My point? Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not – ‘global warming’ (and all that entails) is a global issue. The important thing being how we (as individuals and as a society) are going to deal with it. I am bewildered by some of the comments in this forum – must be the testosterone, where are the ladies?

Individuals are dealing with GW, as are businesses and countries – we all have a life. What is the point in antagonising each other in a 350-word limit forum such as this?

Is it not better to remain on topic and if not (no moderator) to discuss in a reasoned and rational way how we can confront the issues that challenge us e.g. social equity, consumerism, sustainability, technology, even politics?

Just a point – I certainly will not parade my qualifications here; most professional scientists are humble by nature (they admit they don’t know everything). A PhD in one particular discipline does not mean they are an expert on another e.g. climatology, oceanography or computer modeling.

Real life commitments now, bye for 1 week.

I just can't wait for "Climate Change" the musical.

"May I suggest you do your own research, Alzo. The origins of anthropogenic CO2 are well documented. After all, I am not your Mummy or your Daddy."
Heya Dickie!...I wasn't asking about the origins of anthropogenic CO2 I was asking you to provide some details on "catalytic and secondary effects of the origins of CO2" as you put it. Its a non-sensical phrase so I wasn't quite sure what you're alluding to. One link would be fine. And yes I am very thankful you are neither Mummy or Daddy as I would have quite a perverse view of the world.

"If you desire to know the information source of my contribution to this debate on tropospheric, stratospheric and ionospheric interference by humans, why don't you just ask?"
Consider yourself asked....about the damage to ionosphere that humans have caused. Again one link would be fine.

Hope the hangover wasn't too bad...

To all of you if you want to know the future of our home, Earth, go and get a copy of the song 'In The Year 2525'. We are well on the way to a life below the surface on a planet call EARTH.

davsab says:
"A few genuine climate scientists debate the cause of global warming, or its rate of change, or can we as a species do anything about it. The vast majority conservatively say there is a 90 -95% chance that it is real and caused by us."
Wow it goes up every day...now "conservatively" put at 95%...even though the IPCC (apparently a consensus of 2500 scientists) is only 90% sure.

davsab says:
"The total forcing from 1750 to 2000 is about 1.7 W/m2 (it is slightly smaller for 1850 to 2000, but that difference is a minor issue). The biggest warming factors are CO2 (1.5 W/m2), CH4 (0.6 W/m2, including indirect effects), CFCs (0.3), N2O (0.15), O3 (0.3), black carbon (0.8), and solar (0.3), and the important cooling factors are sulphate and nitrate aerosols (-2.1, including direct and indirect effects), and land use (-0.15)."

What an impressive array of numbers you quote here, copied straight out of the IPCC report. You neglect to mention the errors or the level of scientific understanding associated with each of the radiative forcings. The errors in some cases are huge. In fact if the errors and unknowns were to fall the right way, it may turn out we have been actually cooling the planet. PS you should update your figures as many have been reevaluated in the AR4, such as solar which has been slashed from 0.3 to 0.12 (-.06, +.18) ...go figure

And good old clouds are still the biggest unknown eg. Cloud albedo effect -0.7 (-1.1, +0.4). I wonder how much the GCM models will change when they factor this in for example: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070504114317.htm

davsab says:
"is there really anything wrong if humanity puts some effort into living in an environmentally sustainable way?"
Not at all, as long as it is done by choice and encouragement rather than mandates, restrictions and taxes. Also depends on how big the "some effort" part is.

When people start quoting so call scientific facts that they do not understand, it causes me to rush off for a crap. Take my advice, nature is tell us unless we change our ways we will go the way of the dinosaurs etc. it was called the Ice Age.

I find it frustrating that Climate Change is likened to Y2K. The two concepts have virtually nothing in common, except that people warned the world about Y2K and people are warning the world about Climate Change.

In the case of Y2K, IT professionals around the world were urging everyone to prepare. Many many billions were spent globally on mitigation. Was it worth it? We don't know: you don't wait to crash your car before deciding whether insurance is a good idea! Perhaps we all get ripped off by insurance salespeople, and perhaps the world got ripped off by the IT industry in the lead-up to Y2K. We don't know. But I think humans are generally conservative beings and felt it necessary to approach the situation cautiously. I'm glad they did.

Now, a great many very high-level scientists are suggesting that before very long, ecosystems around the world will begin to collapse due to global warming, and will therefore stop supporting human life. So, do we heed the warning and make preparations, knowing that it *might* be a lot of time/money wasted, or do we wing it and just hope the world's best scientists are wrong?

I'm only 25 - if climate change goes unmitigated, I'll still be alive when we start to find out whether the scientists were right. That scares me. Personally, I'd rather see us mitigate the problem and never know. Just like Y2K.

Fester

Point of logic: Those who are reduced to concocting imaginary, fictitious words to abuse their opponents, in a desperate attempt to win an argument, clearly reveals a limited vocabulary. Ranting in "tongues" adds no worthwhile value to a debate!

Alzo, The definition of origin: "The thing from which anything comes." "Beginning." The origins of most A/CO2 are carbon based chemical compounds. When burnt, they convert to CO2. Comprehend?

"Non-sensical," you say? I alluded to the origins - not the source, as you have wrongly presumed. Re-read my post on the 8 May.

Seemingly Alzo you glean all your information from the web. I doubt you are into extensively researching and reading on the effects of anthropogenic pollution and the consequences. You appear stuck with disputing IPCC figures. How tedious!

However, in response to your sarcastic request for information on ionospheric interference by man, I strongly suggest the following "link" where I've outlined a profile of the author whose lifetime endeavours have been motivated by a strong altruistic desire for the betterment of humans.

Rosalie Bertell received her PhD in mathematics in 1966. She has a doctorate in biometrics and has worked in the field of environmental health since 1969.

Among other achievements she has published over eighty academic papers; she has been an expert witness before the United States Congress and in licensing hearings for power plants before the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Internationally she has testified before the Select Committee on Uranium Sources in Australia and in 1980 at the Sizewell Enquiry in Britain in 1984 and also led the Bhopal and Chernobyl Medical Commissions, etc etc.

She now researches low-level radiation as Director of Research of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health in Toronto Canada. She is a member of the Order of Grey Nuns and has worked tirelessly without fiscal reward.

Her works also include "No Immediate Danger - Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth." (1985)

In a critical study on anthropogenic global pollution she writes extensively on man's interference with the ionosphere:

"Planet Earth - The Latest Weapon of War" (2000).

Happy reading!

James Ward would have us believe that ecosystems around the world are about to collapse. Bollocks. Ecosystems are not mutually exclusive. They gradually merge into other ecosystems depending on temperature range, rainfall (volume and frequency) height above, or below, sea level, geology and landuse history and practice.

If you want to know what just about any ecosystem will look like with 10% less rain and an extra degree in mean annual temperature, just take a one hour drive to the north west of just about any point on the eastern sea board.

You will discover no ecosystem collapse and nothing even vaguely resembling it. You will find a few more of some species and a few less of others. Some species will have more predators while others will have less. Some plants will not grow as well while some will grow better.

The only ecosystems that are likely to collapse are the artificially wet, overly clogged ones with weeds, that surround our cities, shaped by our continual failure to capture our storm water runoff. Urban Australia might eventually be dragged kicking to capturing their own surplus water and these artificial ecosystems may even revert to their original condition.

The usual nonsense, but what can you expect from a journalist writing for the AFR. CO2 has never risen as fast as currently, sunscreen wont protect you from rising temperatures and acidifying oceans (what WAS that BSc in, Mark?!?), and China ISN'T responsible for much of emissions to date (but its a very popular excuse anyway, even on the supposedly left wing ABC).

You didn't post your list of sceptical scientists as promised, hope for your sake its not the 'Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change', organised by prominent smoking-doesn't-cause-cancer campainer Fred Singer and shown to actually be full of dental surgeons LOL http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change

Perseus - I recommend George Monbiot's book "HEAT", especially pages 6-15 which address ecosystem collapse. It is a well-referenced book, and a compelling read (demonstrates quantitatively how the UK could cut CO2 emissions by 90% by 2030 without destroying their way of life). Actually I recommend it to anyone with an interest in this issue.

And I stick to my point - that the prudent approach, as with Y2K, is to heed the advice of the experts and mitigate urgently. Getting philosophical about it, I think it's a bit like Pascal's Wager. The cost (measured in human lives) of doing nothing now and then finding global warming impacts are as bad as was predicted (whatever the chances are of that actually happening), is essentially an infinite cost, tantamount to mass murder. Meanwhile, the cost of acting and finding that global warming was a non-issue is only monetary, i.e. finite. So which one do you want to risk? A finite cost in dollars or an infinite cost in human souls?

My last post an error, refers to Mark Lawsons 'Hot air rises in greenhouse' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5830.

As a country we are in denial to climate change. Both Federal and State Governments must make a part of Standard Practice for Industry to recycle all used water which would be other wise be wasted. Governments must recycle all water derived from sewerage treatment plants to be used by non food processing industries. All dams must be linked to one another so that all may drink clean water. If governments don't spend the money needed than we must be prepared to drink recycled water from sewerage treatment plants. Don't like the idea than pursue all levels of Government, Federal, State and Local or migrate to another country.

Southerner.

I am mainly in agreement with you with regard to conserving water.

However, there are many industries where I would not like to see its water recycled.

Olympic Dam currently is extracting 33,000,000 litres per day from the Great Artesian Basin, for its uranium processes and they are preparing for a 3-fold expansion. Recycling radioactive water is a "no no." This company has access to the Basin for the next 70 years, free of charge and is already permitted to extract some 45,000,000 litres per day from this resource. O/D is the largest user of ground water in the Southern Hemisphere.

Then you have the gold mining industry where its tailings dams are engulfing and contaminating many kilometres of land. The destruction of native flora and fauna, to accommodate tailings dams, has created enormous salt and other ecological problems. Like many others, I would be reluctant to see this water recycled. The cost of removing arsenic, cyanide, xanthate, heavy metals etc would be considerable and then one must rely on the "competence" of the regulators to ensure safeguards for the ecology and human health.

The Shire in my community has been recycling sewerage water for decades for all public parks and ovals. This should become mandatory for all communities and it has worked very well in an arid environment.

Of course, any criticism of the enormous depletion of our resources by the mining industry is met with disdain and one must be sufficiently resilient to endure the onslaught of name calling by those with vested interests.

The dictatorial edicts, set down by our leaders, to the masses, to reduce their human footprint, fails to include any sensible restrictions on the big environmental vandals in the resource industries.

And the fact remains, economic expansion (incorporating outdated, shabby technologies) and conservation make poor bedfellows indeed.

Re name calling, dickie, let me remind you who it was who called one commentator on this site a "subterranean rodent".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5559#75785

If there was a later apology, I'd be happy for you to direct me to it.

Ah....yes, Richard Castles - a "subterranean rodent." As advised, one must be sufficently resilient to name-calling.

You seek an apology Richard Castles? So I apologise - sooky bubby!

Though I note, as usual, you are distracting the readers by piffle to avoid acknowledging the pillaging and rape of our lands by your buddies in the resource sector.

I wasn't seeking an apology, dickie. The comment wasn't directed at me. But if it was, I wouldn't accept what you offered. You accuse me of distraction when it was you who referred to name calling. The apology is less the issue, than your hopefully temporary double standard. Seeing oneself more clearly is a good start to seeing the world around you more clearly, and I acknowledge your half-hearted recognition - childish, but then I don't actually know how old you are.

PS. I'm curious by what means you write and send these posts, given your aversion to resources.

We know the cause of Global Warming. But, If you really want to see the rapid on set of Global Warming and the effect it is having on the Planet Earth, we call home, listen to the messages that Nature is given to us. For those who have doubts about the message, here is a simple example of one of Nature's Messages. When the 1974 floods occur in Brisbane, three days before the Birds disappeard and the Ants sought higher grounds by entering our home. And still we have the Howards' of this world who are still in denial. We who are the future must show those politicans who are in denial the door before our children and our children's children are force to live below the earth's surfsce.

Our resident skeptic, Richard Castles writes: " I'm curious by what means you write given your aversion to resources."

Richard, I don't have an aversion to the resource sector but I do have an aversion to the resource industries' lack of regulation and the uncontrolled, unmitigated release of industrial pollution spurred on by Mr Howard and his cronies.

Such skeptics, including yourself, lack any altruistic purpose in the quest for profits and our honourable leaders are now being viewed as culpable in the destruction of our eco systems and the resultant effect on climates.

You may be interested to learn that the arctic regions are polluted with organochlorines where Arctic natives, particularly the Inuits of Greenland contain the highest level of organochlorines in their systems, a result of diets of marine mammals which have also been force-fed these persistent organic pollutants.

Some researchers claim the Inuits now have 30% more cancers than any other group.

Oceans, rivers and sea ice are additional transporters of contaminants to the Arctic regions though the following chemicals are transboundary in nature and their atmospheric depositions can occur thousands of miles from the source.

Pollutants ingested by these people include PCB's. toxaphene, hexachlorobenzene and DDT's - all man-made chemicals which also show up in snow samples.

Even you wouldn't be sufficiently imprudent to deny these eco destroying chemicals are anthropogenic - would you?

sorry, dickie, your false assumptions make it impossible for me to reply in any meaningful way. All the best.

Well, well dickie and Richard you are wasting your time trading insults. The Resources Boom has created many jobs around the the world today. So where does the problem lie. Who else but the Governments who have fail to regulate the industry and the companies who fail to adopt world best practices. Tell me who is responsible for the MUD which is been wash ashore and swallowing up all the houses on one of Indonsia's islands. Nature, sorry the Mining Company has admitted guilt and is already paying millions in compensation. Game, set and match.

An Australian miner (Canadian owned) which operates 9 mines in Australia and only 2 in Canada, is notorious for making a mess and leaving the bill.

This company's projects includes the Renabie which straddled the Arctic. Though closed in 1991, the surface water flowing from that property continues to show elevated levels of zinc, cobalt, iron and copper.

Despite the "reclamation" programme, excluding re-vegetation of the tailings areas, sink holes began to appear on the site and in 1999 part of the underground mine collapsed, creating a gaping hole through to the U/G workings.

Communities from Argentina to Papua New Guinea have organised to demand their basic human rights and resist the exploitation of their natural resources by this company.

Argentina 2004: "No to Mining" rock festival

Chile 2005: An estimated 2,500 people protest agains the Pascua Lama Project in Vallenar.

Peru 2007: Ancash region - 48 hour "unemployment" strike to demand the cancellation of contracts with the mining company. Nineteen year old boy killed. Third year in a row where police have violently clashed with thousands of protesters.

Australia Lake Cowal 2006 and 2007: Protestors shut down the mine, resulting in arrests.

PNG 2007: Local landowners blocked the access route to the mine and forced operations to cease at gold mine.

On November 25, 2006, a panel of judges from civil society groups ranging from Amnesty Int. Chile to religious and indigenous rights groups, heard testimonies from civil society and traditional communities.

The panel judged "that the mining firm is responsible for serious environmental, economic, social and cultural affronts as a product of its policies, progammes and actions against the territories and peoples of Argentina, Chile and Peru."

In 2005, Canada's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs lamented that:

"Canada does not yet have laws to ensure that the activities of Canadian mining companies in developing countries conform to human rights standards, including the rights of workers and indigenous peoples."

Well perhaps a "Clean Air Act," legislated specifically for your international mining activities, would do for starters, Mr Harper!

southerner, could you elaborate on how birds leaving and ants climbing before the '74 Brisbane flood proves Global Warming. Really quite interested.

Richard,
Both sides use scientific facts to make their case for or against Gobal Warming. Leaving people without a scientific background totally confused. The reason I quoted the 1974 Brisbane floods was to point out that often Nature tells us what is happening. Over the last ten years the process has accelerated. For example our winters are getting warmer and our summer was unsually cool this year in Bribane. Look at the weather patterns around the world. In parts of America they had summer weather at one ski resort when it should have been snowing. Than there was the case of an Iceberg drifting towards New Zealand, whats unsual about that the bloody size. Which animal is telling us that Gobal Warming is occuring and not some fictional story, the Polar Bear. Combime the warnings that nature is giving with the scientific facts and you will better understand what is happening to Planet Earth, our only home right now.

Thank you southerner. I think I agree with you in one area. Some animals are probably way better at predicting the weather than us, and your ants may have had a sense the rain was on its way. (Not pretending to base this on any scientific knowledge.)

Richard,

Scientific edvidence will explain the damage that Greenhouse Gases cause to the Ozone etc. But nature will shown the first signs and the acceleration of Global Warming. One must take both into consideration when deciding whether Global Warming is actually happening or just an act of nature. Most Scientific Edvidence will be written by a person with a PHD behind their name.

When a sevre storm is coming, the first thing you will hear is thunder, than you notice there are no birds to be heard, the wind will blown, than there is complete calm and finally the rain will come, quite often accompanied by hail. This is how nature tells her story. I hope this will help you.

And it's a lovely story, southerner. Sleep well.

Wow, there certianly are some bizarre ideas out there regarding climate change and its possible impacts. Or should I say highly publicised and highly improbably negative impacts.

I can only hope that the indemic political apathy of the Australian public prevents this or any future government from doing something rash. Choosing the correct insurance policy can be a tricky business.

After all, to expect a significant percentage of the population to be interested in (or even capable of passing) Geology 101 might be a little much. As for the concept of sensitive dependence on intial conditions? Or assessing the reliability of historical economic and geographical modelling?

Yep. Way, way over the collective's head.

For those of you who do understand at least the basics; Keep up the good work, after all we do need some educated people to steer things in a semi logical direction.

Just thought I'd be an average little nobody and get back to Davsab and Fester who made genuine responses to my earlier posting where I said "..... it doesn't get any more anthropocentric than human co2 emissions causing global warming." Davsab and Fester serve to illustrate quite well the anthropocentric mindset. Of course the anthropic principle simply sees humanity more like a parasite living on a host with classic alpha and omega insecurity.

Davsab seems to regularly parrot the IPCC with its "standard of standards" of "rational and logical reasoning". He raises the high priest argument with some forcings numbers and percents, where he comments that if the average person cannot understand this jargon then they should be excluded from any debate because "how can they be expected to understand the science behind global warming?". Of course everyone can be seduced by formulas until they penetrate the many inbuilt arbitrary assumptions. I'll generously comment that perhaps Davsab hasn't reached that necessary awareness but perhaps he can understand these fings called "forcings" which is beyond my comprehension.

Fester seems concerned about combating greenhouse gases and points me in that direction to show that " the warming effect of CO2 has a real basis". Well let's say that has some truth to it but to an incredibly miniscule amount ..... say a tenth of a degree from such a CO2 increase at most.

For an ordinary person like Keiran here it is not humanity's dirty doings but our largest plasma discharge formation the sun which is neither perfect nor constant nor regular. e.g. Our sunny boy is currently at an extremely high level and don't you think that may have some effect on the cosmic ray flux which in turn impacts on water vapour and cloud formation? Like to get more temperature, additional water vapor is needed. Why the focus on prescribed CO2s then? Don't people ever look at water vapour that makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases?

But you have to love clouds because there's a lot of water in that air up there.

This forum (with word limits) cannot give a crash course in the science that others have spent years in study or research – scientists can be a boring lot sometimes.

By all means join the debate, but it will help everyone if people understood certain climate science fundamentals first. Otherwise, misinformation at best, or a disingenuous agenda at worst, will stifle any discussion and leave people who really want to contribute or understand all the more confused.

For those that haven’t studied the science on global warming and want to understand the concepts and make comment on any issue, the following site (amongst others) is worth a look at;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/faq/

Keiran makes some statements about CO2, the Sun and water vapour (clouds) that are very adequately explained there, you can even join in the discussions (without word limits).

Or this;

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

This is the AR4 report that caused all the fuss in the 1st place.

Water vapour acts as a powerful greenhouse gas absorbing long-wave radiation. Keiran is right, atmospheric water vapour concentration increases as a result of a global warming; this enhances the greenhouse effect further (positive feedback loop). It is well known that the rate of evaporation is affected by the temperature and that higher temperatures increase the (saturated) vapour pressure. This process is known as the “water vapour feedback”. One important difference between water vapour and other greenhouse gases such as CO2 is that the moisture spends only a short time in the atmosphere (say 10 days) before being precipitated out, whereas the life time of CO2 in the atmosphere may be longer than 100 years.

Isn't it funny how everyone who questions the AGW theory isn't joining the debate, instead they are spreading "misinformation at best" or have a "a disingenuous agenda at worst" and will "will stifle any discussion". I've always thought there are 2 sides in a debate.

I would only look at the IPCC report cited above as realclimate is just a tad biased. It was set up to try and defend a certain hockey stick which is broken and hanging limply. Also avoid the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC report as it is a political chapter.

Alzo, you might “only want to look at the IPCC report” and that is your prerogative, as is your bias against the “realclimate” website. At least you have looked.

Is it not reasonable to suggest others look so they can also adequately contribute to any discussion, as you yourself are?

Of course there are 2 sides to a debate (do you really think I am that stupid?). All I am saying is that to contribute to the debate in a constructive way, people should understand some fundamental principles of climate science – to this end the “realclimate” site is good.

I agree the SPM is a political summary. It is problematic to get policy makers from different cultures, countries and ideologies to agree on things – look at the war on the weapons of mass destruction. At least they’re trying (more so than others) and they can’t all be wrong – not even the scientists can’t all be wrong.

Most governments, religions, business leaders, scientific bodies, et al around the world are dealing with climate change – why not help tackle the problem and give constructive suggestions?

It is my view (rightly or wrongly) that most people who debunk climate change do so not on the basis of the science, but rather on their own politics, ideologies, vested interests, religion, stupidity (and I don’t mean this in a bad way – they just don’t know) etc.

When 2 sides take opposing views, nothing gets solved. Is it not more rational to work together in solving problems?

"Most governments, religions, business leaders, scientific bodies, et al around the world are dealing with climate change – why not help tackle the problem and give constructive suggestions?"
Would you class a "wait for proof" suggestion as constructive? Maybe let advancing technologies catch up to help solve the perceived problem of elevated atmospheric CO2. One positive coming out of the current hysteria is that large sums of R&D money are being thrown into finding alternative energy sources. This is something which would be required in a post fossil fuel age anyway but gets us further down that inevitable track.

Climate change is very real. Human induced climate change is real. Catastrophic climate change caused by human emitted CO2 is a farce. The coming catastrophe being peddled by the media and green groups is greatly exaggerated and not supported by many IPCC scientists. I have based all my views on the available science. If evidence comes to light that my view is wrong I would change my mind. So far the science is far from certain.

"When 2 sides take opposing views, nothing gets solved. Is it not more rational to work together in solving problems?"
Opposing views help to determine that a problem is real and that it is addressable. I'm not convinced in either case yet.

In order to address CO2, I mean REALLY address it, we're talking massive cuts. It's not a matter of installing a few compact fluoro light bulbs or even buying a hybrid car. We're talking:
- opting out of air travel,
- saying 'no' to food and goods produced a long way away,
- ending the mining boom,
- living closer to work, or working closer to home,
- living closer to family & friends,
- riding bikes, taking the bus EVERYWHERE, or at best car pooling

These things all disrupt our way of life in massive ways. Even entering a car-pool disrupts one's freedom to enjoy after-work commitments. Opting out of air travel means no more "weekend getaways" or end-of-year footy trips to Bali. And ending the mining boom could send the country spiralling into a recession.

It's a pretty hard message to sell.

The ironic thing is that all the while we are racing towards Peak Oil (and gas, and coal), which will force our hand on all of these lifestyle changes any way. Think about it: a high carbon price of $50/tCO2 would add just 11 cents to every litre of petrol we burn. But when Peak Oil starts to bite, an 11 cent increase will look pretty small.

“Would you class a wait for proof suggestion as constructive?”
Alzo, my short answer in the context of this current dialogue is no.

No scientist will give you absolute proof as your question implies, although laypeople (not trained in climate science) apparently demand. If that were the case, nothing would ever get done and humanity would truly be mired in the dark ages.

It is the antithesis of science itself to accept without question (scientists are sceptics) that as espoused by others. Scientists critique and evaluate, that is the process by which they publish their theories/findings and review that of others.

The IPCC review procedure is an impressive endeavour but remember that they are only the messengers that have evaluated the scientific papers – a vast undertaking and by nature of the process, conservative. The only consensus is that they are now very concerned.

Incidentally, the latest IPCC reports don’t include the most recent data and scientific findings about ice sheets/caps, glaciers, CO2 and ocean warming.

It's up to world leaders and others to decide what to do about that information, how we should adapt to GW and mitigate GHG emissions.

In terms of mitigation and base load power generation, nuclear is an option. I personally don’t believe OZ can afford it, our country is too big and diverse, it will take too long and construction generates a lot of GHG (e.g. cement and concrete manufacture). My preference is geothermal.

R&D is important, better than massive advertising campaigns at tax payer’s expense. Clean fossil fuel technology must be sought for OZ and other countries like China. There are opportunities.

You are right, catastrophic climate change is not predicted by the IPCC scenarios. Alarmist projections by certain politicians, media and ‘green’ groups do not help. It goes both ways though, the UK Channel 4 “Swindle” a case in point.

I agree, “Opposing views help to determine that a problem is real and that it is addressable”. Those views must of necessity, be rational.

At the end of the day, it comes down to environmental sustainability, all else depends on it.

I'm not after absolute proof. I'm after convincing evidence, so far they are yet to make the case. Climate science is just another branch of science. It should follow normal scientific principles and certainly should not be revered above any other field of science as it seems to be by climate scientists and their groupies. As for being "mired in the dark ages", this is exactly where we are headed if we plunge into a green utopian world without some forethought and planning.

Thankfully the "world leaders" are just elected officials in most of the influential countries. They will be swayed only by the majority decision. Again, I don't think the evidence is convincing enough yet for the majority to accept much other than token action (CFL's) or technological breakthroughs. I could accept nuclear or geothermal power phasing in to replace coal/gas. I would not accept the need for large energy consumption cuts as this will certainly impinge on people's lives.

I for one am happy to see the ABC will be presenting "Swindle" shortly. It presents an alternative view of the science from the so-called "dissenters, deniers and flat-earthers". They have some good rational points which haven't been adequately addressed by the "warmers".

I'm all for environmental sustainability but not if we have to go back to huddling together for warmth in a cave.

"I'm all for environmental sustainability but not if we have to go back to huddling together for warmth in a cave."

So you would actually choose unsustainability, i.e. a system that is literally "unable to be sustained", rather than something that might be uncomfortable? How interesting.

To suggest we can go on living unsustainably forever is to betray a total lack of comprehension of the word "unsustainable". Alternatively, to hope that we can go on living an unsustainable life of comfort, if not forever then at least for the rest of our lifetime, is to betray a total disregard for those who will inherit an impoverished planet when we are gone.

Unsustainable means unsustainable. Deal with it.

Hey Alzo, hope you can join the new thread on “Coal mining will outlast green hysterics” – you have some valuable comments to make about policy and strategies – this is where the debate should really be heading now, not on the science.

We do not differ on the role of scientists, as I said;

“It is the antithesis of science itself to accept without question (scientists are skeptics) that as espoused by others. Scientists critique and evaluate, that is the process by which they publish their theories/findings and review that of others.”

Agree with your 2nd para.

Watch “Swindle”, also bear in mind that one of your so called “dissenters, deniers and flat-earthers" is Carl Wunsch, Professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT. He appeared on the program and wrote the following letter.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-27434

Professor Wunsch “thought he was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change”.

Basically, he was the one who was swindled. He says;

“What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples; it's hard to know where to begin …”

This statement by Wunsch is extracted to address your claim of “good rational points” raised by the program.” They have been “adequately addressed”; it’s just that some people would rather ignore them.

As far as “huddling together for warmth in a cave”, methinks you protest too much.

"So you would actually choose unsustainability, i.e. a system that is literally "unable to be sustained", rather than something that might be uncomfortable?"

Yes James Ward I would depending on your version of uncomfortable. During this time of "unsustainability" (not forever) technology will provide the solution to many perceived problems. As for the comprehension of the word "unsustainable" I think maybe you misunderstand.
The definition does not convey a timeframe as you imply:

unsustainable = not able to be maintained or supported in the future, esp. without causing damage or depletion of a resource

Who is to say whether our lifestyles can be sustained during my lifetime or longer, "the future" could be a long time. At present there is no compelling reason to change. So we deplete some resources and cause some environmental damage, what will have changed. You do these things even when living in a cave ;) . I don't think we will be leaving an impoverished planet behind. The future promises much more choice in terms of energy, resources and problem solving ability.

You have a blind faith that miraculous technology will deliver us from this problem and you won't have to change your lifestyle one little bit. It is a very convenient position to take as it justifies inaction on your part.

You yourself have referred to the uncertainty of the science. Have you given pause to consider how you will explain your inaction to your grandchildren if you turn out to be wrong (i.e. if the planet turns out to be uninhabitable due to anthropogenic global warming)? Will you simply say "Sorry, I knew the scientists were telling us to act, but I didn't want to change my lifestyle"?

I consider the possibility of acting on climate change and being proven wrong, whereby my grandchildren would inherit an economy that is less prosperous than it could otherwise have been. I see this as far better odds than gambling on the future inhabitability of the planet.

I don't expect to win against people like you, Alzo! I expect people like you to win, and if I turn out to be right, I will say to my grandchildren "I'm sorry, but I tried. Nobody would listen." And you can answer to them.

Most of the arguments here boil down to "climate change is it happening or not?", basically the science question; and "how much would it cost to do something about it now as opposed to waiting until better technology comes along?", which is basically the economics question.

Both miss the fundamental point, which is why do we waste so much? Now, at this point you are probably scratching your head and thinking what is this idiot on and can I get some, but hear me out.

Those people saying global warming is a non-event miss the fact that our methods are incredibly wasteful and all that waste, gaseous or not, has to go somewhere. Pollution insidiously affects every aspect of our lives. Pollution coming from waste is responsible for environmental degradation and government taxation to counter it, and it is you, the citizen and businessman, who pays.

That waste is harming the environment is not in question, it has an environmental cost. It imposes a cost on business since waste tolerance is wasting money. Study after study has shown that conservation of materials and energy is not only virtuous but makes good business sense. So the issue here whether we want to eliminate needless waste. Once we get garbage under control the world will recover everyone will profit.

So the question should not be "Should we pay for it now?". Rather it should be we shouldn't we do this before our competitors do it and put us out of business and out of a job?

The 'ancillary' benefits of tackling waste will be reduced taxes for cleaning stuff up, fewer toxic compounds in our body fat, less cancer, less IVF treatment, a reduction in the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, healthier coral, rivers you can swim in, indeed more water period, healthier and more competitive business.

Handle the problem at source and you will find it's not a problem - it's an opportunity, and unlike the trickle down effect it is a rising tide that raises all boats. We can all be better off.

Though I agree with James in principle I don't agree with him in practice. Use of the word 'cut' really sends the wrong message. It's divisive. It focusses on methods for one thing rather than on objectives.

Looking at the sources of C02 generation means looking at industry, agriculture, architecture. We need to tackle the big things first.

No home or building in Australia need be heated or cooled using electric equipment or artificially light during the day. Airflow models, natural ventilation, insulation all point towards buildings that work in harmony with natural energy and material flows. Working towards better building codes handles a lot of that.

Modern Agriculture is also incredibly wasteful. it works against nature and needs to be propped up with mind-blowingly huge inputs. There are alternatives that allow massive reductions in inputs and incidentally more money for rural areas.

Also some of the things that come across as negatives in his post are really positives in disguise. Does anyone really want to drive for hours to work or to meet family?