realclimate is run by Michael Mann of "hockeystick" fame, and was set up to defend his now discredited temperature reconstruction study. In other words, a very biased website which can hardly be construed as run by "real" scientists. Stick to the legitimate IPCC reports mentioned above as they are written without the hysteria found on realclimate.

realclimate scientists like to tell everybody about their expertise almost as much as davsab.

Davsab claims to be a scientist who feels all humans exhale carbon with original sin believing that nature is but a subset of humanity. If this is true then it would require little effort here for him to provide information like the total concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the proportion that humans sinfully contribute ....... along with the exact process by which this can be calculated.

I personally don't see how the world is warming up (Adelaide has experienced her coldest winter in quite some years). Nor how sea levels are supposed to rise to dramatic levels because of ice melting at the poles (ever put ice into a glass, allowed it to melt, and noticed it overflow? Nope? Neither have I).

Indeed, a great web site about the truth of climate change is http://www.co2science.org/ - it is a virtual library of facts and figures on why the world is not warming up. I must say, for the record, I am not involved in the website at any level or the organisation/s behind it.

Interestingly, when I wrote a letter to the ABC about a recent episode of Four Corners which attacked those with critical opinions on global warming/climate change. I received a reply stating that my opinions were a "minority view" and that the ABC had no time for such opinions because of some UN report (UNreliable). I could have written to the Minister and taken it higher in the ABC complaints/disputes hierarchy but what would be the point when our taxpayer-funded national broadcaster has taken such a single, hard line on an issue?

Furthermore, what annoys me is the coming "Climate in Crisis" concerts. Another stunt by the populist artists (and where has all that money gone that was raised from Live Aid and Live Earth - poverty could have been eradicated with the amount that was raised!!)

I have just read an article that questions the whole concept of global
temperature as being meaningless. This by a professor of mathermatics
and physics at a Canadian university.

I have read couple of other papers recently along the same lines.

Before we go haring off spending multi giga dollars on carbon taxes
etc we should really find out if we know what we are doing.

Matbe John Howard was right after all.

Science operates on the basis of creating a hypothesis, and when new evidence appears the hypothesis is modified or changed altogether. The evidence available at present is suggestive of CO2 creating climate change; but there could be other factors such as sun spot activity, or created by water vapour or methane. Science does not rely on political philosophy about whether it is right or wrong.

In other words if some scientists suggest there are reasons for climate change other than those commonly accepted, then scientific method should be used to prove or disprove. Strident emotive criticism is pretty useless.

I think we should be petitioning the ABC to show the program in full.

Hey Davsab,

Thank you. I like your response very much. I suspect you and I might get along as I question everything, yes sometimes I get angry by what I see as blind acceptance, but I think about things and tend to oppose particularly anything that suddenly becomes politically hot.

In other words if politicians suddenly discover a problem then I suspect their motives. And anyone who seems to gain sudden prominence as a result of it.

I don't think I said all scientists are frauds and I certainly didn't mean to imply such if that's how it read. To me science is usually the most believeable part of life but even then most topics have scientists of differing opinions.

This is where I do get angry. When people, like myself, without specific personal skills or knowledge in a given area claim they know "for certain" and quote sites of people they have never met etc. Like all of us I do have my expert areas but none of us have many of such.

I think I'd like to email with you, initially on this topic and see if we get along. Here's an email address that th spammers can use. If you contact me I'll give you a regular one.

enuffenuff@fastmail.fm.

Again, thanks for a bit of actual discussion and sanity.

As to Bazz. Howard right about what? Are you saying there has been no change? That's what Howard says. It's just temporary. I guess you could say I wrote that above but my temporary is hundreds or thousands of years. Not just between elections.

Howard hasn't been right except in his political loyalty in that direction, about anything in my memory. How could he be? He lies about everything.