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.