Until then I guess we'll have to be careful with how we are changing the natural environment to suit ourselves. Far from taking sides, humankind is changing the environment. And the point being nobody knows what effect this is having in the long run. So it's going to cost society a few dollars.

At least if global warming is occurring and it's anthropogenic there's the possibility of changing our behaviour - like a diagnosis, the earlier the better! Where do you stand if there's no possibility of changing such a catastrophe? I would say the natural environment having its own back.

Looks increasingly like OLO is a safe haven for GW deniers. Funny how they like to start their time series with 1998, an El Nino year. What you must do now is start a new series just for eastern Australia beginning 2008 (a cool La Nina year), 2009, 2010 and so on. Then add results for Adelaide and Perth.

If it's still getting cooler you might be on to something. Then present your findings to a forum of scientists who have studied maths, physics, statistics etc. Your name could soon be up there with the scientific greats.

On the Road to DAMASCUS? err lets sure hope so, but even more...

that they might meet the risen Lord Jesus on the way.

Now 'that' would be something.

The whole point of all this research is to find out the best way to spend our wealth to improve the condition of the earth.
If CO2 is NOT driver of temperature change, why spend money on something that is not a problem.
Better to spend that same money on family planning, landscape remediation, etc.
I like the idea of minimising the use of water, power, packaging,etc but most of all I like to minimise the amount of my taxes that Govt spends on the latest scare campaign.

Yet another Institute for Public Affairs frontman (Rheese's Australian Environment Foundation sharing a mailing address & funders with the IPA) regurgitating yet more climate 'sceptic' dreck on climate, as usual without a skerrick of meaningful data. Recycling misinformation is getting to be OLO's core function these days - is a merger with the IPA a logical synergy?

The AQUA satellite was launched primarily to study water, and yes its data suggests atmospheric water vapour not increasing as most global warming models forecast it would. So there appears, based solely on the AQUA satellite data (only launched in 2002), that there is some as yet missed dynamic thats stopping warmer oceans (undisputed) and warmer air (undisputed) making for more water vapour. This is significant, because WV is supposed to relay & amplify the effect of higher co2, but there is data from other satellites going back to 1988 that suggest WV has been rising (eg. see Santor 2007 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702872104v1.pdf). The perils of relying on short-run data are nicely illustrated by figure and article at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/#more-523 . Aqua has incidentally provided data to support warming regardless of atmospheric WV, eg. January 23, 2008 - Antarctic Ice Loss accelerating http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/newsroom/viewStory.php?id=825
Global warming is not entirely contingent on one reading of water vapour, so the IPA's parrots can save their hype for another day. Theres other red herrings in the AEF & Marohasys article in The Australian, but decades of rebuttals have educated the denialists not at all.

Imagine if the Institute for Public Affairs demanded the same absolute accuracy of their hype on the benefits of free trade/privatisation/deregulation/neoliberalism - did deregulating banks provider lower fees and more modest profits for banks? Not likely, but yet theres no economic rationalists doubting that dogma. Hypocrisy in spades, ho hum, i think the prolific fossil fools industry suggests that the coal industry can afford a very high carbon price indeed.

Don't miss this image from AQUA, Hurricane Katrina being sucked into Gulf of Mexico by higher water temps
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn7929/dn7929-2_550.jpg

Max, if you want credibility I suggest you don't use your articles to cross-promote the work of Jennifer Marohasy, your fellow Team Member from your Foundation. It would also help if you argued you case rather than slagging off those who don't share your view. And if your Foundation was more honestly named - perhaps the Anti-Environment Foundation, as it seems to promote exploitation and destruction for profit over conservation or protection. Where are your morals on that?