For Pelican: I think you hit the spot. There seems to me little doubt that we have to learn how to manage water, energy and ourselves more sensibly, not because of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming', about which the evidence seems to me uncertain, but because there are 6.5 billion of us, and we are running out of some of the resources necessary to sustain our present way of life.

For Countryboy: You may not know that the IPCC was set up on the basis that humans have in fact caused present climate changes. Its job is to provide advice as to how to stop it. There is growing evidence that human effect on present climate is at the most very small. The IPCC seems to me not to take much account of contrary evidence, but I am not surprised at this behaviour. I've seen its equivalent before.

Countryboy

The answer to your rhetorical question is a resounding yes.

The Framework Convention which everyone signed in 1992 and as constructed by the incompetent UN, pre ordains it as a fact that co2 induced global warming was occurring, and that was before any real science had been done.

Everything that has occurred since that time has been to make the science fit the agreement.Even the precedural way the IPCC operates is designed to give effect to this, despite the evidence.

There is an abundance of other science and analysis that has been done in the meantime to show that the IPCC advice is grossly overstated, and it as an organisation is incompetent

1. Do you really expect anyone to believe that even with the largest computers in the world that one can model climate with any degree of reliability,when you have three interacting complex and chaotic systems, and then say the temperature will be 5-6 degrees higher in 80-100years. Rubbish.

2. If you had 1 million molecules of dry air and only 370 of those were Co2, but last year we added 3 more,that that is going to sustain such a huge increase in energy. Rubbish.

3.How do you explain the fact that the correlation between Co2 and temperature is about half that of the relationship between the Suns effects and temperature.But still they persist.

Give me a break

The real problem is not enough people in the wider community are bothering to do their homework, and question the orthodoxies

Why dont you for example listen to the audio tape of David Hendersons speech to the Heartland Institute Confce last month in NY. It is frightenting to comprehend how we have all been conned by bunch of high school drop outs for UN officials and african thermometer readers.

Nice to read another article that does indicate some facts.

For some time now I have believed that it might take 5 years for the human caused global warming hoax to be exposed. With articles like this one and another you might like to read at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html we might just see the whole thing unravel a lot sooner.

Let's hope so before we embark on costly "solutions" like carbon trading schemes implemented.

The difficulty is that media people, politicians and a lot of business people have been hoodwinked by the Carbon Dioxide theory and will try to prolong it to delay their eventual embarrassment.

Of course humans have got nothing to do with it – any more than diminishing lettuces in a well-watered lettuce patch have got to do with an increase of rabbit numbers fenced inside it: of course varying solar radiation should be the major cause?
And Don Aitkin – yep, we should be cautious and conserve our limited natural resources. But why - so that a few more rabbit numbers might be squeezed into the lettuce patch? We must not mention those rude words rate of reproduction! But, not to worry - there is certainty that the rate of dying will at some future time increase naturally to swing things back into line.

Nobody has yet explained the individual scientists individual personal motivation for wanting to 'hoodwink' the entire world.

A whole bunch of different people, with different beliefs, from different nations, are all conspiring together to perpetuate a lie? Why? Why would they do it?

Bob, you do yourself a disservice with these articles. Most of the words are spent gleefully skewering the personalities and politics of those championing the other side. The tone in all of them is the same, and after reading a few I wondered how someone who attacks the issue in such a non-scientific way could possibly keep their job at an Australian University.

Seeing you in that ABC debate was a bit of a revelation. The Bob Carter in that debate brought up some of the best points, and did so with none of the polemic seen here. Amazing given the tone of the debate. So I started reading the articles you post here again. Its hard going. Extracting the relevant facts you are presenting is worth the effort, but I find it an unpleasant exercise.

The polemic probably appeals to the converted. But there aren't too many of them, and I suspect the rest find it distasteful as I do. Yet surely the people sitting on the fence are the ones you would like to target(?) Present the science in the manner we are told scientists supposed to do: clearly, dispassionately and concisely. If you want to discuss the politics do so in a different article that clearly identifies its topic. Do so would enhance the standing of you, and indeed all scientists that write for the popular media.