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.