As "South Park" put it, Gore is fixated by "manbearbig", the root of all evil, that is half man, half bear, half pig. Gore's numbers never add up.

The climate cretins continually focus on a relatively small part of the ice core record, that is, the short rises out of glaciation periods. The remaining 90% of the record shows numerous instances where the temperature moved in the opposite direction to the CO2. And by up to 6 degrees C.

And when they claim that the lag is not really a lag but actually a "feedback loop" they fail to explain why this claimed feedback seems to stop at the same temperature each time. That is, why does this "feedback" only apply to the middle of the rising trend and not apply to either the bottom or the top?

If the past rises were a result of vegetation feedbacks then why did they stop? It couldn't be due to a dryer climate because the more ice melts the higher the sea level and the greater the evapotranspiration. For the feedback theory to apply to the actual circumstances this feedback should continue into the very "runaway greenhouse effect" that the climate cretins have been predicting for our future. It didn't happen in the past because the planetary ecosystem is bigger than CO2.

Leo Lane, you seem so sure of yourself, you sound much like G W Bush and Co before the mess now in Iraq.

Would also like to know your age, Leo, because you do sound very much like so many of our right-wing corporate cultists, so damned sure of themselves still, believing the future world is their oyster, and thus blind themselves to the truth that man has been destroying this world, ever since the beginning of the machine age.

Certainly time and existence are both cyclic, Leo, but it just happens that this cycle is getting a massive dose of a hurry-up through modern man's craze to create an ersatz
existence.

Us deeper thinkers feel it in Mandurah here, once covered in the Tuart tree, that wonderful adaptive eucalypt, its trunk and branches evolutionised to withstand the strongest of storms, a tree which man has destroyed to replace with buildings with so little freeboard they will be half under water even with the turn of a normal evolutionary cycle.

What really disgusts me with you people, Leo, is the way you hate the Avant Garde, which I do know as a historian and philosopher with Honours, such persons have been spurned right back through history by those like yourself, but have mostly been right in the long run.

Might pay you to study much more history and philosophy that you do, matey.

Regards - BB

Nuclear power is the go! Thus I will be voting for the Liberal/Nationals coalition, not the Labour/Greens/Democrats coalition. Sending the country broke by enforcing 60% reductions by 2050 (or pretending you will) may win the votes of naive professional students that spend their pitiful existences attempting to sound intellectual while they sip their lattes, but it will not win my vote.

shame on you mr briggs, you are a great gravy-train robber.

Paul: Most of the arguments about global temperature rise will be settled in our lifetime by watching the maximum level of the sea in places that matter to our expanding population. This clue should come partly from reading the previous thread with Peter’s discussion on rising seas, shrinking coast lines and coral formations as they relate to the GBR downunder.

My suggestion on another blog was to look at our sea level measurements on the near horizontal and more fragile marine slopes as opposed to the vertical rock face in terms of coastal wear and tear. That’s because frontal dunes formed at the ebb of the last rise have been protecting old sea bed flats and river deltas over some thousands of years while the current sea level remained relatively steady.

Rates of change today are now obviously driven by new causes and that’s become everybody’s problem despite the fact some here don’t want to know it

So some people still want to debate the science on OLO, a climate science website – NOT.

I suggest all “warmers” go to their favourite website/s and learn all you can from your point of view.

I suggest all “deniers” go to their favourite website/s and learn all you can from your point of view.

If you have strong conviction and no other agenda, you can then visit the “opposing camp’s” website/s and argue your case there. Some really interesting dialogue can occur, my only suggestion is that you engage with respect and an open mind – deal with the issues and not the personalities.

The real experts have dialogue in workshops, conferences, correspondence, journals, books, etc. They do their job and have little time or patience to partake in online forums such as this. Why should they waste time in places like this.

So no-one has comments on Guy Pearse’s revelations? What message is that sending to everybody? Is it another example of denial? Or not wanting to confront the real issues?

Think about it, why are all governments and political ideologies taking steps to address even the concept of GW (or as the Bush Administration prefers, climate change)? Are they all stupid, have they all been conned? Is there really a world-wide conspiracy perpetuated by some scientists marginalised all over the globe?

Why are some of the biggest right-wing capitalistic businesses in the world changing their policies to cater for climate change? Are they all stupid?

People on OLO want to espouse their musings (quite often in error or intentionally distorting) in this forum. GO TO THE SOURCE people. Ask other country representatives (try embassies, consular offices for a start). Ask business representatives. Ask your own member of parliament. Ask REAL climate scientists from a primary source.

Then, tell us about your findings. This will be more constructive than what has been demonstrated and certainly will contribute to a much more meaningful debate