Punter 57 makes a relevant observation. He has experienced extremes of temperature and is none the worse for it.

The alarmist fuss, is over an aggregate warming of one half of a degree in 106 years. Over that period there have been periods of warming and periods of cooling. Nothing of any consequence. There has been no warming of the globe, in any case, for the last 9 years.

We are asked to be concerned about what disreputable bodies, like the UN, assert might happen. Even they admit, when pinned down, that all their scare mongering is based on conjecture. It is easily shown that their guesses are most unlikely to eventuate, being based on computer modelling, which cannot work for this purpose.

There is no computer which can factor in all the climate variables, even if we knew what they were

None of the IPCC predictions have eventuated, and in their current Summary, some of the disproven nonsense of their earlier Summaries is removed, and replaced by new nonsense, yet to be disproved, but certain to be so dealt with.

They admit that there is no proof that human activity has any effect on global warming, and it seems obvious that it does not. There has been plenty of human activity over the last 9 years, and not a scintilla of warming, while there has if anything been a slight cooling. IPCC still say it is "highly likely" that human activity causes global warming, although there is absolutely no proof.

We are asked to cripple industry on the basis of their pathetic "what if" scenarios.

Based on our experience, it is ridiculous to be concerned about global warming. Based on the mendacious nonsense of the IPCC, it is some sort of emergency.

I agree with what GYM-FISH said. This is a red herring, and "In any case a cleanup will have a positive effect on our well-being and future happiness." "There is a case to clean-up our energy act regardless of climate change speculation."

Those questioning why nobody's talking about Guy Pearse's revelations, I'll comment. It appears to be a book about Australia's Liberal political party. He's upset about how the Liberal MP's are not grasping the opportunity to pass laws to reduce emissions, and he thinks Howard's greenhouse policy is a lie.

I'm all for passing laws that are environmentally friendly. But somehow I doubt the voting public cares enough. Hopefully, for the author and people that agree with him, people more in line with the author's views will be elected. I don't know enough about Australian politics and can't affect them, so what I think is moot.

Hope that helps.

BB I agree with a lot of what you say (Although some of it makes you sound like an anti-capitalist anti-corporation conspiracy theorist, which is why you are getting some of the above feedback). What I don't agree with is all of your conclusions.

My take on this specific statement:

"...man since the beginning of the machine age is gradually speeding up the present natural cyclic global change to its detriment."

First one, yes. No doubt we speed it up. Conclusion? I disagree. What is detrimental? What's the planet here for? Would the planet be "happier" if no humans were interfering with it? Is a road inherently "worse" than a forest? Is an atmosphere without particulates inherently "better" than one without? Were things "better" with the amount of oil in the ground 1000 years ago?

Nick. Average global mean anomaly 1997 +.37 C, 2005 +.51 (1998-2006 not sure.) In ’96, it was +.17 The anomaly shows gradual warmth: it's the time period you look at determining the answer. (1998 to 2005, the anomaly value has changed +.2) (1944 to 2005 +.39) (1944 to 1976, -.33)

The trend is -.4 to +.5 1880-2005 The last 126 years is +.9 or .04 a decade. That's a fact. Looking at 9 years (or 2 or 15…) isn't long enough. Picking specific periods lets you show either warming or cooling! Trend over time the only relevant thing; stick to the past 30 year period and trend. To say it hasn't been warming is incorrect. It has.

Don’t get me wrong. What those numbers mean in and of themselves (or how accurate they are) are two other different separate subjects. Mixing issues (what temps say versus what they mean or how good they are) is problematic.

As far as it seeming “obvious” that human activity has no effect on global warming, I argue the other way. There is obvious proof that what we do affects climate in various ways. Atmospheric heat transfer laws and ocean absorption of carbon dioxide is evident. Methane has a known effect. There wouldn't be all these food animals if we weren't raising them. So add to all the people, there's more animal life expelling CO2 and CH4. Particles in the atmosphere affect climate. Particles on snow affect climate. Large (and small) buildings affect wind flow. Urban and suburban areas affect ground heat patterns. Irrigation and farmland affect water patterns (dams and artificial bodies of water also) as well as heat patterns. Etc. The rain forest isn’t cutting itself down after all.

However, what the extent of the effects is, that's also a different subject. Exactly how the various factors interact with each other, also a different subject. (This is where the models come into play, and quite a few pieces are known, at least to tend to point to certain conclusions.) But that’s also a different discussion. It's best not to mix them all up....

davsab, the "global average temperature" has no real answer. The anomaly is what's tracked; a measure of the change from normal, not absolute temps. (For the temperature itself though, the estimated range is somewhere around 13-15 C.) The anomaly is a mean of averages of averages of calculated numbers from sampling; individually it's looking at areas covering between 74 and 556 square kilometers (5 degrees square). Around 1 C of warming over a century, and it's been over +/- .5 only once; 2005 at .51 (1909 -.46) (On a plantary estimate basis. But some single cities go from -50 to +35 C in a year. The hot/cold max temps on this planet cover a range of over 200 C.)

However we do have absolute temps from satellite measurements of the water.

Each of the individual average temperatures covers an area between 29 and 222 square kilometers (2 degrees square). I'm guessing there's about 8,000-12,000 of them total (which are then combined into the same size as the land's 74-556 sq km pieces to match water/land for the overall "global average").

As an average of them all, as a mean, what temperature is it right now? It's 14 C for "the water". Of course, that's warmer in the center (over a larger area of less squares per average) and colder at the ends (over a smaller area of more squares per average). It doesn't include the last 2 degrees at the poles (which would be mostly or all Antarctica / mostly or all the Arctic Ocean).

How much has SST gone up over 150 years? Ah. If you look at the min temp (-2 C) it hasn't gone up at all. If you look at the max temp (30 C) it's gone up .32. The mean is up .16 So if you compare the mean anomaly rise trend of the combined land/sea (.04/decade) with the rise of measured sea mean itself (.01/decade) both are rising, but not by much. (However it does seem to be accelerating.)