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.