It's pointless discussing with global warming believers. They are "believers"; doesn't that say it all? They know what they know, and that's all they care to know.

Everybody is aware that data recordings have been very haphazard until quite recently. Mostly the stations (ie little sheds with instruments on and around them) were manually read. Often they have been shifted, tampered with, their surroundings alterred, the instruments changed and much more. The Australian ones were very often (many still are) kept by Post Offices, where the staff would visually decide whether today was 27 degrees or 27.2 Degrees; whether there were 25 mils of rain in the beaker or 27, and so on. Check out the Guinness Book of World Records for hottest places and be stunned how many are based on records from long ago; are you wondering how accurate these records are?

Then, from masses of "possibly" incorrect data, an immense house of cards has been constructed to announce that the world has become warmer. And, going completely over the top, will continue to do so. The first thing my Physics teacher warned me against at High school was.....extrapolation, especially from uncertain stats.

As for alternative fuels, they will arrive as the market dictates. Ethanol needs a lot of energy to produce, and a lot of water for the vegetable matter it is distilled from. Natural gas will run out. Wind power needs the right spot for the turbines and then the powerlines to get it into the grid; is everyone happy with bulldozing most of Kosciusko (Aussie traditional spelling!) NP to put powerline corridors through, for example? Building roads through wildernesses to access the turbines? The market will come through with something we (maybe) haven't even dreamed of...when it is economically viable. Cheers

We are a finite world, that is factual. Crying the Sky is falling is neither right or wrong if it helps get people thinking for a little while.

Does it really matter who is right? We hop out of bed in the morning and never consider what happens to give us our present lifestyles.
The world mightnt be in the state of affairs as advertised or could actually be worse. I would love these guys as marketing gurus for my business. The outcomes are acceptable and advantageous for everyone.
Children who are the next generation have the knowledge that they do not live in an infinite society. Companies and product manufacturers realise that there are other ways to work.

Logically, this marketing of how important our world is, does not seem to have a damaging negative effect rather the opposite.
Technology requires a huge overhaul, packaging also. This will benefit the people in the end and that is by no means bad.

Forecasts are forecasts, yes. Just as it irks me when weather readers say "today will be.../ tomorrow will be..." And there'll be far more to learn on the complexities, variables, interactive nature and lagging effects of climatic change.

However, it takes a few steps back from the boiling frog syndrome to see that climate change is real and happening NOW. All we can hope to do is minimise the effects of runaway feedback scenarios.

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - New Scientist
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462

Climate change controversies: a simple guide - The Royal Society
http://www.royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

The evidence that the climate change to be addressed is human induced is supported not only by the 2,500 members of the IPCC, but by further updated data from the US National Academy of Sciences, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Cambridge University, the British Antarctic Survey, Germany's Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, the University of East Anglia, the Stern Report, the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, the CSIRO, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and independent researchers commissioned by non-government, non-profit organisations and many more.

Curmudgeon, predictions (i.e. forecasts) can definitely be supported by evidence (overwhelming or otherwise). It may be trite but I'd predict that the sun will rise tomorrow. The evidence supporting that prediction in the form of data and theory are pretty substantial. Another (less certain) example would be would be the El Nino Southern Oscillation. Again, swags of data and good theory. Clearly, climate change predictions are not certain but that does not negate their validity. The CC predictions put forward by the IPCC are supported by evidence which is significant and corroborative. It is healthy and useful to express doubt, since this is the basis of scientific enquiry. It is also important to consider evidence with an open perspective.

I read a statement somewhere where IPCC said that their document did
not make forecasts but projections that could be expected under various
conditions.

They emphasised that they were not forecasting although it was pointed out how many times the word forecast occured in the document.
It all seems very iffy to me.

Arjay, the recent revision of US average temperature tables was a "meh" moment. Raw numbers for weather stations from 2000-2006 were revised, making the "smoothed" averages for the years 1997-2006 all a tiny bit lower.

1934 was always one of North America's hottest years of all time; revising recent aggregate figures downwards (eg. 1998 by 0.02 of a degree) put 1934 back on top. For the USA. Global "rankings" and trends were unchanged by the revision. 1998 and 2005 are still the world's warmest years on record.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

It would be equally un-alarming (though maybe more press-worthy if it "set" new records) if published average US temperatures had been revised upwards by 0.02 of a degree instead.

punter57, I see I'm now a "believer" while you're -- well, anything but a punter. Do tell me when you think of something observable (like global warming, maybe) that I "believe" and you don't; then we can arrange our bet. Until you do, I reckon you're as convinced as I am.

Of course new fuels and energy supplies will of course be developed as required. Billions each year are spent with diminishing returns on petroleum exploration. Inexorably, technology has become a more attractive investment than geology. The energy business will change overnight.

Government can play a small part by enabling a market for the cheapest solutions to appear: encouraging energy suppliers and users to trade in "negawatts" and energy *not* used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negawatt_power

The Snowy Mountains are already well wired up for the existing hydroelectric system; no extra bulldozing required.

The grandest opportunity for Australia to become Howard's "energy superpower" is not in the Snowies, but back of Bourke, or maybe near Moree:

http://www.chrisharris.org.au/?p=125
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/250043

Bazz, there was no strict definition of the word "forecast" that was widely accepted prior to the publication of IPCC AR4. That report's scenarios are on a scientific par with weather forecasting. They're given with less confidence than tomorrow's weather, but (given their speculative political assumptions) more than next weekend's. Beats "market forecasts" hands down.