Dickie, what you now appear to be saying is that scientists don't agree with you. I can't cite the scientists you cherry-pick because you just claim broad scientific agreement with your propositions. Now it appears you are disowning that agreement.

I've looked at your 9 questions and I don't think any of the things that you allege are happening - mass deaths of species, demonstrations, mercury contaminattion (full list here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7124#108833) - can be specifically tied to CO2 emissions. CO2 on its own is a beneficial chemical without which none of us would be here and it promotes plant growth, so it's direct effects are good. Indirectly, what temperature rise it may have created over the last 100 years is well within natural variability to date so again shouldn't cause anything we haven't seen before.

So what's your hypothesis?

BTW, Jennifer is quoted at length in the Australian today. I think she is wrong to suggest that there has been cooling since 1998. Temperatures have plateaued, not retreated, and I think the time period is too short to establish a trend. But compared to the exxagerations of the other side of the argument I also think this is a minor transgression, with the Hockey Stick graph being the new poster child of scientific fraud, more egregious than Piltdown Man.

All i can say is if we open our eyes and mind a bit we would understand that the universe is just full of material constituents that PUSH each other ..... it's a universe full of pushers. The over-riding question relates to what drives changes creating derivatives so just what are the biggest pushers and what becomes a derivative or product of the process? Most people that have been mentioned in this thread (Roy included) cannot see outside the troposphere and hence see only the product.

The biggest pusher in our part of the world is good old sunnyboy. Whilst we can study sun spot numbers I find that it is the aa index of geomagnetic activity that gives the best indication of what has happened since 1884.

When attempting to understand solar influences on earth's climate, remember that sunnyboy interacts with our planet in a wide variety of complex ways and almost certainly that all these factors are influencing our lovely planet, even though we don't fully understand how. e.g. It is not only the cyclic warming and cooling of the sun, but others that we have little understanding of like changes with cosmic rays, changes in the solar spectrum towards greater ultra-violet radiation when compared with visible or infra-red light ... also there would be other unknown possibilities.

As I've said previously, CO2 in the atmosphere brings with it a healthy greening (an abundance of weeds too) with no convincing scientific evidence of catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere. Our production of CO2 is puny in the scheme of things but this means little to try-hards who believe they are the weather maker or opportunist bankers wanting to make big money out of thin air.

Allow me to return to the topic of the”Great Climate Change Swindle.” Ray Evans- Yes, he is secretary to the Lavoisier Group- offers some useful data in the current edition of “Quadrant” magazine.

Australian electric generating capacity is 45 GW of which over 90% is coal based. To replace coal with nuclear would cost $90-120b. Plus compensation to owners of existing stations estimated at $60b.

[My own view is that nuclear should be slowly phased in, especially for reasons of health and safety].

Victoria’s brown coal costs about $25-30 MWh. NSW black coal $30-40 MWh.
Dr. Switkowski estimates cost for nuclear at 20-50% greater. Evans suggests a higher figure of $70-80 MWh.

Wind turbines is more then $80 MWh, but is essentially worthless since it can not be relied upon when required.

Regarding solar Evans referred to the economic failure of experimental CSIRO unite at White Cliffs, NSW or the financial bankruptcy of the Mojave Desert company in California.

Evans refers to the presentations at the Bali conference from China and India that economic development not greenhouse was their priority.

I doubt if it is the policy or intention of the Rudd Government to destroy the Australian economy. I predict that they will do everything in their power to delay the application of Garnault’s recommendation. Fortunately, they can read the scientific publications of the climate sceptics of which there are several hundred to get them selves off the hook.

Expect a paradigm shift from the Ruddites

Allow me to return to the topic of the”Great Climate Change Swindle.”

Ray Evans- Yes, he is secretary to the Lavoisier Group- offers some useful data in the current edition of “Quadrant” magazine.

Australian electric generating capacity is 45 GW of which over 90% is coal based. To replace coal with nuclear would cost $90-120b. Plus compensation to owners of existing stations estimated at $60b.

[My own view is that nuclear should be slowly phased in, especially for reasons of health and safety].

Victoria’s brown coal costs about $25-30 MWh. NSW black coal $30-40 MWh.
Dr. Switkowski estimates cost for nuclear at 20-50% greater. Evans suggests a higher figure of $70-80 MWh.

Wind turbines is more then $80 MWh, but is essentially worthless since it can not be relied upon when required.

Regarding solar Evans referred to the economic failure of experimental CSIRO unite at White Cliffs, NSW or the financial bankruptcy of the Mojave Desert company in California.

Evans refers to the presentations at the Bali conference from China and India that economic development not greenhouse was their priority.

I doubt if it is the policy or intention of the Rudd Government to destroy the Australian economy. I predict that they will do everything in their power to delay the application of Garnault’s recommendation. Fortunately, they can read the scientific publications of the climate sceptics of which there are several hundred to get them selves off the hook.

Expect a paradigm shift from the Ruddites

Graham

Please desist from calling others "cherry pickers."

"How can you tell your brother about the speck in his own eye when you do not see the plank in your own." (Boazy)

From whence do YOU cherry pick your information? Scientist Roy Spencer et al?

1-2:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:BTx7EF9lcoQJ:home.att.net/~thehessians/birds.html+dead+birds+western+australian+coastline+discovered+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/03/23/1071910.htm

http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html

3:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna

WA has 8 of 12 Australian biodiversity hotspots. At a global level, the South West is recognised as one of the world's 34 biodiversity hotspots. WA has 362 threatened plants, 199 threatened animals and 69 threatened ecological communities. (WA SOE EPA)

4:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/activists-tip-a-bucket-on-big-companies/2007/08/15/1186857593122.html?page=fullpage

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:GNrHpEd1UAgJ:councillorrooney.wordpress.com/2006/06/04/homebush-bay-dioxin-cleanup-needed/+homebush+dioxins&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/content/2004/s1089030.htm

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:RRe9rnNjuYcJ:www.sprol.com/%3Fp%3D323+kwinana+pollution&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.savingiceland.org/node/929

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/villagers-sue-bhp-billiton-for-5bn/2007/01/19/1169095978975.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3861

http://www.savingiceland.org/camp2007

http://protestbarrick.net/downloads/barrick_report.pdf

5:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329993/

6:
http://www.mercurypoisoningnews.com/elevated.html

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=cb0AHTBBE7UC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=incidents+mercury+contamination&source=web&ots=B8B-UtzRz8&sig=6E2ZsTXaJU7aXgN0ezpsvrMJeY8&hl=en#PPA118,M1

http://media.www.ntdaily.com/media/storage/paper877/news/2003/09/30/StudentLife/Dangerous.Traces.Of.Mercury.Found.In.Some.Fish-1888754.shtml

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2145

7:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm

8:
http://financialrealtime.com/stocks/otc-stock-news/smallcap527501.html

9:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,19328439-2761,00.html

Graham. You state: "CO2 on its own is a beneficial chemical without which none of us would be here and it promotes plant growth, so it's direct effects are good." This reveals that you are not familiar with the chemical reactions which form carbon dioxide - particularly industrial pollution from stack emissions.

The conception for the life of one unit of CO2 can begin with any of the following hydrocarbons and hundreds more when burnt:

http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/kinetics/#hc

Many of these hydrocarbons are carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic. There are many credible scientific papers written on the toxicity of hydrocarbons to the environment and human health.

As an example, benzene is a Category One carcinogen. When benzene is burnt, it converts to CO2 as do all the others.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons cause mutations by direct coavalent bonding with DNA etc etc. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are extremely destructive of human health and the ecosystems.

CO elevates methane and ozone before conversion to CO2.

Whilst nature spews these chemicals also, scientists estimate that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 150 times in excess of volcanic emissions. Quite impressive, wouldn't you agree?

This is why I have an interest in paleontology and why I have resurrected from my archives, Dewey McLean's hypothesis on mammal extinctions.

This is a lengthy thread but you asked for my hypothesis!

And you think current levels of A/C02 and industrial pollutants are beneficial? Very funny, Graham!

One logical problem with Spencer's hypothesis is that it leaves the observed warming of the Earth largely unexplained. So if it isn't CO2, then what is it and how can either future warming or cooling be stated with confidence? One thing that can be known with confidence is that sea levels are rising, and that the rate of rising is increasing. The causes are thermal expansion and glacial melt, and both indicate continued warming, which is consistent with the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 postulated by AGW. I think this evidence a little more robust than the data from 3000 robots.

"what temperature rise it may have created over the last 100 years is well within natural variability to date so again shouldn't cause anything we haven't seen before"

Given that there have been frozen oceans and polar croc attacks as part of the natural variability, isn't the statement a little trite? The warming of Southern Australia as a consequence of ozone depletion and global warming is also within natural variability. Yet it is at least in part anthropogenic and economically damaging.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_946924.htm

Anti-green points out that there is no alternative to coal that is closely economic. This again is a trite observation as there has been no incentive to find an alternative until recently. It is the same with oil, where you had the IEA (USA) in 2000 releasing forecasts of an oil price staying below 25 USD till 2020.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/ieoarchive.html

So it hardly comes as a surprise that coal and oil have had little competition. Nor is it a surprise that early renewable projects have failed. The research and development of renewable alternatives like solar thermal and photovoltaics is currently intense. Whether it proves to be competitive with coal is not yet known, but I have every reason to remain optimistic.