For anyone hoping that "global warming" is caused by human activity (and therefore, comfortingly, within our power to "fix"), there is an easily understood refutation. You will not need to wade through serious science with all it's equations etc; nor understand the inherent difficulties of "climate modelling".It is this....
According to NASA observations ALL the planets in our solar system are "warming". The polar ice on Mars, for example, has been melting at an "alarming" rate these past few years, indicating/implying that some single source is acting on all 9 (is it 9 or 10 now?) planets.
What could this be? Any suggestions? Could there be 9 (or 10) independant causes occurring simultaneously, one of which is human-induced warming ON EARTH ONLY. Should you prefer this latter explanation, I'm anticipating at least some token attempt at explaining the other 8 (or 9) causes.
This is a simple question, not meant to intimidate, frighten nor belittle those who would like to believe humans can control the weather (ie "climate" is long-term weather). Will someone offer their own hypothesis, bearing in mind that AGW is not a "theory" but (barely) an hypothesis.
BTW, should any "believers" have the inclination to read something more scientific and subsequently understand why the term "greenhouse effect" is silly in itself AND why blaming CO2 (whether human-produced or not) for temperature change, even sillier, you could read the article at www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/.
PS. Even though human-caused climate change does not exist, this is not to say that clean air, fresh water, beatiful forests etc are not to be strived for. It's all about facing reality and chasing results through an honest approach. For example I also believe that good dental hygiene is a must for my kids,and yet I have no intention of pursueing this aim by telling them a werewolf will jump through the window, tear them limb from limb, rip out their guts and suck their little brains from their heads if they don't clean their teeth!! Or. AGW believers, IS this the way to go? Cheers.

Alan/Steven’s thread has the potential to define where humanity goes from here.

Alzo says “There is a lot of waste and inefficiency in our present society. We too should cut back these excesses.”

He then poses the questions, “To what degree do you think we should do this? What measures would you propose if you were in a position to do so?”

What do you reckon Alzo; let’s open it up for everyone? And let’s see how much we ALL can agree on?

To start it off, my contention is that the real problem is/has been too ideological. We have the ‘far right’ and the ‘far left’ and politicians/vested interest groups being what they are … well, you get the ‘drift’…

We (humanity) need to converge to a common ground to solve global problems.

Ludwig, I agree with much of what you say. However, Global Warming is perceived by many countries, groups and individuals to be a global threat. So, why not use it as a catalyst to work in a constructive way for environmental, social and economic sustainability?

Some (like punter57) don’t see GW as a threat, and that is ok – BUT, that is no excuse for groups/individuals or indeed society, not to grow and develop in a more environmentally sustainable way – regardless of political ideology or belief in tooth fairies/monsters.

Whether you have faith in the IPCC or not, whether you believe in ‘climate change’ or not – the policy makers have been given a message, it is up to them to respond. We as individuals can drive that response.

Somewhat off topic but very relevant to probable upcoming discussion on OLO; the ABC’s Great Global Warming Swindle will be shown tomorrow night. The link points to an Aussie paper and is a good read to set the scene for the documentary.

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

Ok davsab I see you have not answered either question. So bit hard to agree or disagree on anything.

"We (humanity) need to converge to a common ground to solve global problems. "
I cannot see this happening. Humanity is very good at being divergent. I would be against any sort of World Government as would most people. So not sure how this can be achieved.

"[Global Warming]So, why not use it as a catalyst to work in a constructive way for environmental, social and economic sustainability?"
Here is where we go our separate ways. Only developed countries see GW as a problem. Most third world countries are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from to give a frig about GW.
Also using a false tenet as a harbinger of change will only breed mistrust. This can already be seen with the China and India who regard the West with suspicion when being sold this GW tripe. Rightly so too.

As far as "tooth fairies/monsters", GW is sold as the biggest scariest monster of them all.

Looking forward to watching the ABC’s Great Global Warming Swindle again. The debate afterwards should be interesting too. I see they have Bob Carter on the panel, should be worth a look. Here is a link to what the documentary is actually about and their arguments.

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

“There is now little doubt that climate change, driven by humanity's release of greenhouse gases, is indeed the global emergency that campaigner Al Gore - the inspirational leader of Live Earth - says it is.”

This is still contentious and unproven. That Al Gore champions it does not add any credibility either.

One thing is sure, all environmental degradation, regardless of its manifestation is ultimately due to population pressures.

The dumb-assed socialist international notions that we are all the same and should all share the burden is a fundamental lie.

We are all different, we are all “individuals” and some “contribute” as well as “consume” more and less than others.

When people acknowledge individuality, then we will cease the downward spiral into uniform socialist mediocrity. We will acknowledge that some folk are more deserving than others by virtue of their individual effort and that a lot of folk, do not deserve to continue to over-populate and deplete the resources they presently have available to them.

If it could be legislated for, the ideal would be that only the meritorious should be allowed to successfully procreate. As it is, the one thing which leads to over-population is the ability for the dumbest as well as the best to breed. Fix that problem and all the other issues, environmental, resource depletion and degradation are immediately resolved.

So who should stop breeding first ? – Al Gore and the tree hugging greenies and socialists, will you please stand up.

Alzo, I must agree with your, rightly, sceptical view of all the bunkum and am too, looking forward to watching the ABC’s Great Global Warming Swindle.

“Ludwig, I agree with much of what you say. However, Global Warming is perceived by many countries, groups and individuals to be a global threat. So, why not use it as a catalyst to work in a constructive way for environmental, social and economic sustainability?”

Why not indeed davsab. I desperately hope that it will be a catalyst for action on total sustainability. But at the moment I perceive it very much as a distraction.

Col Rouge is right. Population pressures are central to sustainability. And we haven’t come anywhere near giving this issue due attention.

So can concern over climate change morph into concern over chronic overpopulation and the huge imbalance between the demand for all sorts of resources exerted by that population and the ability for the planet to provide it an ongoing manner?

Mmm. I’m not optimistic.

While its always a good move to reduce pollution & waste.
It’s hard to see the concert as anything but a fashionable ‘happening’.
The major stars are hardly examples of moderation.
And I reckon long-term –it will have about as much impact on climate change as a prey meeting would.

It is also telling how few of the concerts were held in fast developing non-western economies and how small the audience in China was .

Nor do I find the article much better- it is big on rhetoric
“it is just one of a number of global emergencies… all of them
inter-connected. To succeed in averting any one of
these emergencies, all of them must - and indeed
can - be addressed in a more integrated manner.”
-Does anyone seriously believe that if we solved the climate change issue tomorrow- conflict would end(?)

I was lucky enough to catch the ABC Science Show last weekend:
It interviewed two climate change proponents Prof Amanda Fisher & Journalist/author Mark Lynas & sceptic Prof Ian Plimer

[ contary to the PR releases – you don’t hear a lot of anti-climate change argument in the popular media]

There was a distinctively less sympathetic tone shown by the interviewer in his approach to Plimer than the other two.

I tend to agree with Pilmer that climate change debate has become too much like a religious moment .

Perhaps before we can seriously approach the problems listed in the article, we need to establish an environment where people can present unorthodox or minority views & be fairly heard.