I hesitated to venture into this thread because the subject is so complex, and passions so high. Xoddam's last post made me nod my head at the correctness of that view, and this is my last contribution.

In my view there is much greater debate about the science than the general reader would believe, because the media, governments and NGOs have universally accepted AGW and what is said to follow from it. My quick responses to Xoddam are (1) that warnings of long-term positive feedback are not supported by good experimental evidence, and there seems no geological record of any tipping point in the past, which is improbable if the theory is true. (2) Perhaps my wording about the models should have been that 'GCMs seem to assume the existence of AGW; they don't support it (and of course can't)'. (3) I don't think that what I said about carbon dioxide was rubbish. It is posited that CO2 concentration has increased from about 280 to 380 ppm. There is no good account that I can find in the literature of how an increase of 100 ppm could trigger such an increase in air temperature. If you know of one I would be glad of the reference. I do know about the greenhouse effect. The correlation between the 20th century increase in air temperature and the increase in CO2 concentration is at best a weak one. There are much stronger correlations with solar energy variation and with ocean movements like NAO and ENSO. (I would agree that there are no satisfactory accounts of why those correlations are so strong.)

To build large social and economic policies that affect everyone on the basis of unclear and ambiguous science seems to me almost a betrayal of rationality. There are many things that are related to the environment that we should do, and I've mentioned them. But carbon taxing and all the rest seem to me simply unjustified on the evidence. I am prepared to change my view if the evidence grows stronger.

Don I would agree with your caution if it was going to be a burden on society but the fact is that it will be of economic benefit to move to green energy even if we ignore greenhouse gas costs. The facts are that the capital costs with present technology are about $30,000 to give each Australian 100% green house free energy for ALL our energy needs for 50+ plus years with a running cost of half the current running costs of burning fuel. We have the technology today with hot rock thermal and solar thermal to build green base load power plants. It is not complicated.

It is to our economic advantage to move to green energy as fast as possible. That is what is so frustrating about the whole debate. Simple arithmetic shows clean energy will make us all wealthier with or without climate change. What confuses the matter are "economic models" that worry about the opportunity cost of money which varies according to events like a war in Iraq and sub prime crisis in the USA. We then get carbon trading and emissions targets as ways for existing power plant operators to squeeze the last dollar of profit from their old investments

IF we have no time to waste, why is eveyone ignoring "Terra preta" and Pyrolysis Technology?
TERRA PRETA:-
http://forums.hypography.com/terra-preta.html

BEST Energies at Somersby on the Central Coast of NSW has been trying to get Governments interested in pyrolysis treatment of waste and the use of charcoal as a soil amendment for years with little interest.
In my view it is the best chance of slowing global warming that we have.

Not only that, it could be a real life-line to our embattled farmers.
Why do you think so many multi-nationals are buying up rural land?
Because it can be used to grow bio-fuels and sequester carbon.
So when a carbon-trading-system comes in, farmers will be sitting pretty with not a lot of need to plant anything (except carbon).

It’s a matter of survival, therefore, its up to those who say that the situation is in the normal range and would require only minimal attention to keep the market economy growing; to show that by doing that that there wouldn’t be any severe consequences. So far, the “sceptics” have tried to place the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt on all those who are warning of the possible human annihilation by emitting so much CO2 and raising world’s temperature. It’s up to the sceptics to prove that we will be OK.
Tena

"No time to waste" and the position is much worse than government sources suggest. It seems to me that the ordinary citizen readily understands the urgency but that politicians are afraid to move because of the commercial consequences, What is needed is a campaign to help the average citizen make known his concerns to his representative. (or her)
I have written a short campaign which includes overpopulation and Peak Oil and financial problems as well as global warming using simple language,
Now I am an ancient amateur so no doubt you can find an improved version, if so please advise. Otherwise can you spread my page far and wide. The URL is http://www.users.on.net/rmc/sustainablefutures.htm
Dick Clifford

Very sensible Dick Clifford

But what would you suggest to mitigate the following dilemma and our insatiable lust for meat?

http://www.vivausa.org/activistresources/guides/planetonaplate1.htm