Don't you love yanks telling us what to do while not doing the same themselves.

Kenny,
maybe your take on Hansen's message is that it is just from a Yahoo Yank; but with his origins (and for similar tone) it could also be categorised as being from a Dirty Dane, or Snivelling Scandinavian. It is pretty much irrelevant where he lives as to the fundamental message of the letter.
But, I wonder what your attitude is to those fellow travellers of his, mentioned in his letter:
Professor Barry Brook, Professor of climate change, University of Adelaide
Dr Andrew Glikson, Australian National University
Professor Janette Lindesay, Australian National University
Dr Graeme Pearman, Monash University
Dr Barrie Pittock, CSIRO
Dr Michael Raupach, CSIRO

The “world’s poor” mentioned by this person will be the ones who suffer most if the mania for stopping CO2 emissions is allowed to take effect.

The only thing of note for us about James Hansen’s’ list of qualifications is that he is a foreigner sticking his nose into Australia’s affairs. His “urgency of the matter” puts him firmly in the category off all other climate change alarmists; his “we will assuredly destroy much of the fabric of life on the planet” (by emitting CO2) puts him firmly in the neo flat earth society.

Hansen’s , and others, objections to the use of coal are just more of the same old same old from people of his ilk.

Coal is a cheap and readily available advantage we have in Australia. We should continue using it – more of if necessary – cleaning it up if possible. Climate change will take care of itself. All we can do is adapt to the changes

Sorry Jimmy. Your George Soros funded global anti-economic crusade is crumbling, and only has a year or two left before it is seen for the giant fraud that it is.

That a member of a tax payer funded institution such as NASA would for so many years refuse to release data necessary to replicate your results show that you are not a scientist, but a propagandist.

Perhaps you should tell us all how China will be forced to shut down all it's coal plants (which it is constructing at an incredible pace) which will cause China's emissions to increase at such a rate as to dwarf any possible savings from Australian efforts? Do you advocate military action or do you have some as yet undiscovered diplomatic secret to forcing sovereign nations to change their ways (Perhaps you could use this incredible diplomatic technique to stop the murder of innocents that China is currently involved in as a demonstration of your amazing abilities so we know our climate change activities will not be in vain).

Finally, why do you advocate measures that would (and already are) causing millions of poor people to increase their poverty and suffering and why do you advocate destroying the Australian economy to reduce worldwide temperatures by 0.000043 degrees per year (if we ignore China)?

So much for bluster, bias and ignorance. There's no excuse for ignorance. This is the age of the Internet.

Here is Jim Hansen in his own words (21 March, audio, video and transcript):

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/21/censoring_science_inside_the_political_attack

Note: he is a scientist, not a spin doctor, nor a politician, nor yet a captain of industry. Just a man of pure science.

- for god's sake do your homework -

"If Australia halted construction of coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester the CO2, it could be a tipping point for the world. There is still time to find that tipping point, but just barely. I hope that you will give these considerations your attention in setting your national policies. You have the potential to influence the future of the planet."

A tipping point? Where on earth is the evidence for this statement? It's just bizarre. He undermines his argument with something that is clearly only conjecture.

Scientists should stick to science and present us with the facts. Veering into the realm of politics is not good for their credibility.

Wow Chris. That has to be the most uneducated, plaining wrong post I have ever read....

Jimmy's 'letter to Kevin Rudd' is self-evidently a political action. So your post is plain wrong from the start. Add to that he also received a grant from the far left group OSI (george Soros) for the 'politicization of science' is yet another example. (and another from the left wing Heinz foundation)

It is a matter of record that Hansen admitted he did not follow NASA guidelines for notifying them of giving interviews (note...the requirement was to notify, not have his comments vetted). Hansen constantly goes on massive rants about policy, not science, and this quite rightly, should be considered outside of his role at NASA and certainly places him outside being a scientist.

Consider also, his views are more one-sided catastrophic and extreme than most of the AGW scientists, showing him clearly to be a spin doctor. An example of this is his one-sided comments about the breakup of the west antarctic ice shelf, without mentioning that the antarctic has hit all time highs in volumes of ice. This self-serving cherry picking of events shows him clearly spin doctoring.

That his 'scientific' methods do not follow simple scientific requirements to enable reproducability, is a clear indication of his lack of objectivity and status as a scientist of good note.

Considering the vast acceleration of interviews and news articles quoting him, claiming he has been censored is a furfee...

In fact, there is no such thing as a 'man of pure science'. It is an absurdity and shows poorly on your grasp on reality. Perhaps your own homework is in need of some extra effort

What a load of malarky "Grey", you know full well that the Soros grant claim has been completely dubunked - Hansen never took a dime.

See: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf

When people choose to pedal untruths in order to build a case, you know how solid their arguments are and where their motivations lies.

Oh, and if it's just the alarmist statements of one maverick yank, then why is it that a bunch of Australia's most respected climate scientists are happy to provide further statements to support his statements? See the names at the end of the letter, and the comments here:

http://www.aussmc.org/Hansen_letter_to_Rudd.php

I can see why J.Hansen might write this letter, but suspect he is wasting his time. Australia is plainly still under the rule of the same old fossil fools, men who wont allow the common good to stand in the way of their personal profit. Notice Rudd & Brumbys enthusiasm for the 'lets pretend' of carbon capture & storage in SW Vic, a process abandoned by the US http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu_futuregenjan31,0,2119234.story and by BP.

If any foreigners are reading this, particularly in the EU, BRING ON THE SANCTIONS & INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT PROSECUTIONS NOW! cos nothing else will wake our business elites up to their malignant irresponsibility. Those elites will then change the minds of their flunkeys in media and politics.

Dear Mr Rudd,
You have received a letter from the American, James Hansen, warning you of what will happen to the world if you don't do what he wants, actions which seem pretty draconian to me. Can I suggest that you establish a Royal Commission into the question of anthropogenic global warming, and wait for its outcome, before you do anything in this domain? The science of climate change is not settled at all, and all you are hearing, at least publicly, is from the one direction. Any serious inspection will show that (i) the earth may have warmed a little in the last century, but (ii) such warming (or equivalent cooling) has occurred before and will no doubt occur again, and (iii) whether or not human beings have caused whatever warming has occurred is still unsure; the link between CO2 concentrations and warming is pretty weak. Australia needs a decent debate on all this. Could you help to create it?

This is the same Jimbo Hansen who created the dodgy "hockey stick" and then as a lead author of that chapter of the IPCC report, decided that it should get major billing.

Now Hansen says ... "The conclusion that net carbon emissions must be cut to a fraction of current emissions must be stunning and sobering to policy-makers. Yet the science is unambiguous....".

The science is still very ambiguous but leaning in favour of those who say that temperatures are the product of natural forces. Just look at current temperatures falling due to the La Nina.

There's no firm evidence that human activity has had a significant influence on the general climate (c.f. very localised climate) and there's certainly no demonstrable overwhelming consensus to that effect (although as we all know, a consensus means little in science).

The best thing that anyone can do with Hansen is sue him for fraud.

Hah, what a laughable bunch you deniers/delayers/delusionists are. Sorry Snowman, I think global warming must have melted your head, or was that just your honesty?

Jim Hansen didn't create the original hockey stick, Mike Mann did. And that 'dodgy' graph was subsequently supported by a National Academy of Sciences inquiry commissioned by the US, and a further 13 updated hockey-stick proxies (tree rings, coral growth, stalactites, stable isotopes, boreholes, etc., etc.) were included prominently in various chapters of Working Group I report of the IPCC 4th Assessment (AR4).

For a laypersons summary (which you clearly need given that you didn't bother to actually read anything more than the summary for policy makers of AR4) is here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

For your laughable "global warming stopped in [insert convenient cherry-picked year]" furphy argument re: falling temperatures and La Nina, see here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-warming-stopped-in-1981.html

For the accumulation of firm evidence, perhaps start with Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" (http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Warming-Histories-Technology-Medicine/dp/0674016378/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a) and then, once you have a scintilla of historical background, you might want to dare to open AR4 and look over the >1000 pages of scientific evidence presented therein (http://www.ipcc.ch/).

Perhaps it is people like you, Mr Right, Grey, grn, and Don Aitkin who should be sued for fraud.

Amaranthus

You are correct, contrary to what Bob Carter et al continually spruik (you have to question their motives). The so called ‘hockey stick’ is in the AR4 and not just Mann’s. Numerous proxies by various researchers have come to the same conclusions.

Notwithstanding, you would agree it is not so prominent anymore due the vast array of other evidence.

It does bemuse me that people that are so critical of the UNFCCC or the IPCC don’t understand the processes or procedures; ratified by all world governments. These same people have not even read the technical reports, so what do you expect?

This tells me one thing, it really is not the science that drives there ambivalence or ‘denial’ … it is something else.

Sure, there may be other drivers or forcings that come into play, but until these are shown to pre-emanate AGW theory, it is just hypothesis.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think Hansen is an ‘alarmist’, but so too is Carter et al … from the opposite side of the spectrum.

It is not all doom and gloom as some would have us believe, but to deny that humanity has no impact on the environment is akin to living in the dark ages. We are 6.5 bil and heading to 9 bil by 2050 if the demographers are right. The planet is under enormous pressure and we are conducting an experiment never conducted before. It would be prudent to tread with caution.

And this is what all the countries and governments of the world are doing – the decision makers. It is and will be difficult, but they are.

So don’t be too concerned by your “deniers/delayers/delusionists”, they are out of the ‘loop’. One word of caution, they are not all dumbnuts as you imply, I have a great deal of respect for their views, Don Aitkin comes to mind.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf_con.pdf

The only thing that is unambiguous about the science is just how shonky it is,and how often it has, and is, being caught out for practices that in any other discipline would land its perpetrators in jail

Science in general has of course done many great things for humanity but Climatology should really be labelled Crimatology.

To all those denialists , adamant and absolute in their refusal to accept a vast body of science, evidence of our own eyes and experience – what happens if you’re wrong? What are the consequences if nothing is done as you advocate and the worst case comes to pass? Would you take that risk with your child? The condition of your house? Your pet? Would you demand unequivocal levels of proof, would you latch on to every quibble, possible dispute, variation from prediction and diagnosis and utterly refuse to protect those things you love and value? I find your conduct bizarre, inexcusable and unutterably sad. I guess I understand now – some consolation – how we arrived at this dismal point in human and planetary history. Thanks.

Next

If the science is a so overwhelming as you are trying to say then why is there a need to enage in fraudulent misrepresentation.

If Al Gore as the oracle of all things AGW then why wont he submit a paper to peer review, as demanded of others who have the opposite POV.

But we already know why Gore cant and wont debate thats because --

Gore is not allowed to speak in public about his “green investment company” because to do so would violate racketeering laws by “peddling a false prospectus.”

Its so nice being a hypocrite but its a real worry when Barack Obama says he will give Gore a seat in his Cabinet --if elected

bigmal, your misrepresentation and slander are way too obvious. In five sentences you manage to fit in: fraudulent, oracle, racketeering, peddling, & hypocrite. Repetition is a basic principle of the science of propaganda, thanks for the demonstration.

Even Al Gore doesn't say he is "the oracle of all things AGW", only RightThinkers do that, and I think the vast majority of greenies wouldn't trust Gore further than they could throw the lardarse.

Whats Gore got to do with how much coal companies should be liable for the costs of drought and extreme winds? Nothing, thats exactly WHY fossil fools talk about him so much.

Policy makers in Australia clearly have no plans to mitigate our dependency on coal fired power stations.

This is evident when learning the newly approved Stage 2 of Griffin Coal’s “Bluewater” in WA will result in the company emitting some 2.6 million tonnes of C02 per annum, with government approval for a paltry commitment of 200-300,000 tonnes of offsets.

I'm constantly amused by those who deny anthropogenic global warming but believe they can escape the consequences of anthropogenic pollution where all burnt carbon-based hazardous chemicals convert to C02.

Seemingly, they ignore the ever-emerging signs placed for citizens warning of A/pollution, mainly a result of our dependency on hydrocarbon based chemicals.

Last Wednesday, I witnessed bike riders, on a main road, wearing face masks. That once only applied to other countries like China, India or perhaps Mexico City where tourists are advised to keep their car windows closed due to the health impacts of inhaling a myriad of fossil fuel based chemicals.

Those, ignorant on the impacts of A/pollution, need to know that here in sunny Australia, untreated, human faeces and industrial waste, which has been sanctioned by regulators, has been used by farmers as a fertilizer for commercial crops. In the US it is common practice, however, livestock which are also force-fed this diabolical waste, have been found dead in the paddocks. The survivors are consumed by humans. The health impacts of recycling these hazards through livestock to human consumption are mostly insidious - often tragic.

The problem is not climatic change per se; but the rate of change. Change is happening fast and past history demonstrates that rapid climatic change is always accompanied by ecological collapse and mass extinction.

Some paleontologists claim excessive, volcanic emissions of C02 (such as the Deccan Traps) were responsible for past collapses. Add some 6.5 billion humans polluting, pillaging, plundering and burning this planet, I believe the next collapse will be a "beauty." Hang on to ya hats folks - the science on anthropogenic pollution is conclusive and Mother Nature's constant objections are clearly evident and ominous.

Next, Liam

From BigMal's link;
Type "John McLean" + "climate change" in a Google search.

Follow the links, check the sources, draw your own conclusions.

BigMal

"why is there a need to engage in fraudulent misrepresentation."
Quite.

"If Al Gore as the oracle of all things AGW then why won't he submit a paper to peer review, as demanded of others who have the opposite POV."

Why doesn't Bob Carter submit a paper on climate change himself (at least Hansen does)?

Gore is a politician/propagandist - these people don't submit scientific papers for peer review.

Unlike Gore, Bob Carter is a scientist/propagandist - he can submit 'climate science' papers for peer review. He won't, because he knows his 'science' won't stand up to scientific critique, it will be debunked.

But, like Gore - he is a good actor.

Liam,Next,Q&A

1.Nothing in your responses excuses the BAS for the blatant mis -representation which has occurred over the Wilkins Ice shelf.This is not the first time with this organisation.

2.There are a myriad of other examples where one can validly ask the question: If the science is so unambiguous then why is there need to engage in misrepresentation.?

3.Bob Carter, with or without a peer reviewed paper, is infinitely more credible than Gore, who is making mega bucks out of schemes, the very nature of which prevents him from debating in public for fear of being sued by regulatory bodies for "racketeering".

4.If the IPCC can make use of published papers to determine what ever it likes why cannot others.?

5.The very valuable audit, review and analysis work undertaken by people like John Mclean, Bob Carter and the 400 others who attended the Heartland Confce in NY is part of the checks and balances one also sees in many other disciplines. Why is it less valid in this sphere where there is demonstrably so much hype, misrepresentation, and ambiguity.?

A new term has been coined for the doom scenarios peddled by the likes of Hansen, "climate porn.'
As a concerned and interested citizen attempting to wade through the rhetoric and alarmism sifting for evidence that support the ideas put forward by Hansen is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

Folks, the debate is clearly not over. We need to keep it open and rational. "Act in haste repent at leisure." I believe that Kevin Rudd should ignore this man. The evidence is ambiguous.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4830

Next's comments are spot on. No one disputes the physics of how greenhouse gases work or that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution to about 380 ppm now. The problem is that the Earth's climate is incredibly complicated, with all sorts of positive and negative feedbacks, so there is no absolute proof either way on the question of whether humans are destabilising the climate. I am not an expert in this field, but when a majority of the people who have devoted their lives to studying atmospheric physics and chemistry say that there is a problem, I am inclined to believe them. We are dumping a large fraction of the carbon that was sequestered over hundreds of millions of years of geological time back in the atmosphere all at once. Do you denialists really think that it is the mark of an intelligent species to do an uncontrolled experiment on your planet's atmosphere? Where is your absolute proof that nothing bad is going to happen?

As for the current government, I don't think the denialists need to worry. Kevin Rudd is expanding coal exports and blowing out the population like never before. Any green initiatives (like joining Kyoto) are simply window dressing. Even if he were serious about them, it is obvious that the environment is no better off if we cut consumption per person in half, then double the population.

For the record, there are plenty of "scientists" who do not do their own original research. They simply serve as academics, or perform technical work, medical practice, etc., with an automatic and unquestioning acceptance of the "studies" or research done by others. I have personally known a fair number of professionals in science, medicine, history, etc. who are just intellectually LAZY. They get an academic degree after their name, then proceed to simply parrot the accepted "politically correct" dogma . . . like a bunch of crypto-Marxists blindly parroting the "documentation" of Noam Chomsky without ever checking the veracity of his sources for themselves.
As a previous poster said, "Do your research". By all means, do your research . . . but not just on the side you happen to ideologically favor. Be willing to have your own assumptions questioned, and really CONSIDER opposing evidence.
I do not know James Hansen personally. But as another American, I can say, with absolute conviction, that there are a significant number of his NASA colleagues who would beg to differ with him. His claim that the "science is unambiguous" is, at least at this point in time, manifestly false.

Letters to Rudd should be encouraged from all Australians and foreigners who have important statements to make to help us get it right. Australia, the US, China and India all need to radically change their heavy addiction to coal.

Any new policy announcements from Rudd about coal policy will probably come after the 2020 Summit.

If we can adopt a good mix of the proven strategies to quit coal, then we have a great marketing opportunity for our green technology to 'show how we did it' to the other major coal consumers. As a current major global coal exporter, we need to not only stop coal plants now, but stop coal exports now.

Regrettably, world leaders have proven themselves to be spectacularly unsuccessful, so far, in taking the necessary resolute action on any of the world's acute problems such as poverty, hiv/aids, fair world trade, global justice, human rights and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

Increasingly, climate change engineering may be our last hope to save our coral reefs through acidification from CO2, the polar ice caps and the devastating droughts, famines, tropical diseases and destructive weather conditions associated with accelerating gobal warming.

The following blog from the New York Times about climate engineering may be of interest:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/fun-with-mirrors-and-dust-a-climate-fix/

Bigmal,

1. I agree, calving of an ice-shelf is dramatic and it is well known warming of the surrounding waters can lead to such events. However, there may be other causes. Scientists studying these events will publish papers on their findings and they will be reviewed and critiqued by other scientists. So yes, the British Antarctic Survey was premature in announcing the correlation, but make no mistake, they are not misrepresenting a possible cause.

2. Science doesn’t work like that and you are engaging in misrepresentation yourself for inferring such. Science is not absolute (unambiguous) – it has more to do with probabilities – you will not get 100% certainty on anything. If we waited for 100%, nothing will ever get done.

Scientists test hypotheses and the more they are unable to refute a particular hypothesis, the more it develops into a theory. The preponderance of evidence for AGW can’t be denied, although this is NOT to say the theory of AGW is settled, it isn’t. This is where the “deniers” misrepresent the “science is settled” statement.

3. No he is not.
Carter can publish a scientific paper for peer review/critique, he does not. He distorts the science in newspapers, in talks and on the blogosphere.
Gore is a propagandist, he can not write a scientific paper for peer review/critique.

4. Of course they can, and I encourage them to. Scientists should continually test the theory of AGW and publish their results in the appropriate journals, not newspaper columns.

5. By all means, have conferences, many do.

Clearly, you don’t understand or appreciate the processes and procedures of the UNFCCC or the IPCC. If anything, it is even more conservative than some would like us to believe (Hansen, Gore, alarmists) – even Bush is relaxing his stance on climate change.

Just because you don’t like what they conclude, does not make it not so.

As for Hansen’s letter to Rudd, what do you expect from such an alarmist?
Carter should write one himself, as a denier (not contrarian).

McLean … well, he is just conducting a snow-job.

Dealing with anthropogenic global warming on a site like this is not the way to go. But it's always better if people stick to what can be shown to be the case, and avoid denouncing those who do not agree with them.

I too am perplexed, indeed, pretty unimpressed by the BAS/NSIDC 'warning' about the Wilkins Ice Shelf 'collapse', and how it must be due to global warming. Their announcement, full of dramatic words, failed to mention that in 2004 there was no Wilkins Ice Shelf in this site at all — it was all open sea, right up to the pack ice.. It froze over again, and then melted again during the recent summer.

Given that all the pictures come from the NISDC itself, that looks pretty shoddy to me. Indeed, it seems to me completely dishonest.

Q&A you are still peddling nonsense.

1. It is the scientific fraternity themselves (or some of them),who are saying that the science is now unambiguous. Witness Pearmans soiree last week in NSW for but ONE example.

2. Carter as a scientist is perfectly entitled to undertake any analysis he likes. If its OK for the IPCC and the select group which has operated under its umbrella to do it, then why not others. The only difference is one of structure- not intellect, relevance or ability. Spare me a diatribe that the IPCC represents 2500 scientists, because that has also been shown to be not true as well.

3. Mcleans work is not a snow job at all. Obviously you have not read any of it, and of course would not like one bit the way he has given the lie to the claims repeatedly made about how the IPCC's document's were reveiwed and refereed. Importantly he used data that had to be extracted from the IPCC and others via FOI. Its obvious why they wanted to keep it hidden. Where have we heard this before, I wonder.

4. David Hendersons talk at the Heartland Institute regarding the origins of the UNFCC is important in that it is frightening to contemplate that AGW was a clear given from the start back in 1992.(Come on tell me it was un-ambiguous back in 1992 as well.)

All it required since then was enough dollar induced researchers to " prove it", by any means available, including delusional nonsense about a grossly overstated ability to model the earths climate 50-100 years out, with a degree of confidence that warrants screwing up economies, and standards of living.

For what end ---a change in the GMT by us in Australia of 0.000043C pa

If this is standard of rational behaviour by Governments,the AGW scientific fraternity, and entirely complicit economists then we are all stuffed.

Bigmal wants me to “spare (him) a diatribe that the IPCC represents 2500 scientists.”

I'll go further; the IPCC does NOT represent 2500 scientists.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

Some may even wish to peruse the UNFCCC site.

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Some groups (including industry lobbyists, ‘think-tanks’, political PR spin-doctors, etc) and some genuine scientists don’t like the structure (or “intellect, relevance or ability”) of the IPCC. So be it, these ‘deniers, delayers, naysayers, contrarians, whatever) are perfectly entitled to have a get-together wherever and whenever they like – the Heartland Institute’s soiree in New York for example.

The scientific experts attending such soirees should (must) be encouraged to do research in their respective fields, and publish their results for all to see.

If an architect, someone who dabbles in computers or even a snowman wants to write a book, or publish a paper then yes, they are quite entitled to do so. If scientists don’t want to critique the science in the proper forums, they just may have a credibility issue – but that’s their choice.

Some people want 100% ‘proof’ before they will act. This is foolish – nothing will ever get done based on this flawed logic.

I remember when Bush’s Vice President said the US will do all in its power, no matter the cost, if there was only a 10% chance (I think it was 1% but will err on the side of caution) of the threat of terrorism impacting the western world.

Well, we are told that there is at least a 90% chance of a ‘weather of mass destruction’ threatening the whole world.

Roy Spencer is doing some good research, his findings (IF ROBUST) will find their way into GCMs, contrary to what bigmal thinks of climate modelling.

Sure, adapting to climate change is a tough task (and won’t happen overnight), so too is mitigating GHG emissions. But to deny or delay taking action is selfish at best, irrational at worst.

Besides, there are many benefits and opportunities to be had – as Drs Nikki Williams (Coal industry rep) and Ziggy Switkowski (nuclear scientist) allude to.

More dribbling by Q&A.

I have indeed re -read some of the web references you supplied just to ensure that things hadnt changed.

Sure enough it hasnt.Just as David Henderson and others have said repeatedly AGW was a given. No hypothesis and scientific method for the UNFCC et al. All you scientists with mega bucks of public funds just go out there and proselytise. Use any means at your disposal.

Not only is it contrary to the scientific method which you seem to like lecturing others on, but it fails the basic systems theory tests.

There is no room for it to be wrong or ambiguous.

Oh sure the IPCC expresses its outcomes in terms of probabilities etc, but there is no doubting what we have to do to be saved.

Let me say it again, and all for what.

Even if it is is true and we meet all our carbon reduction targets we will affect the Global Mean temperature by 0.000043C pa.

Sound sensible to me.

Bigmal

You were at least prepared to look at and read the links to the UNFCCC and IPCC (many don't) and we may have to agree to disagree on some fundamental issues.

However, I think you would have to acknowledge that these bodies are trying to undertake a huge task; in correlating the vast body of scientific research available and then presenting their findings to the world's leaders and people like you and me alike.

If there is another way of doing this then please enlighten the movers and shakers.

It's really up to the movers and shakers to do something about what the science is telling them (politicians, economists, strategic analysts, etc).

You may (or may not) be interested in the latest from the IPCC. It's a summary from their 28th session and was held from 9-10 April in Budapest, Hungary.

They met for the first time since the release of the final AR4 Report last year. The session brought together representatives from governments, lead authors, UN agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry and academia.

http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12363e.html

I would be interested in your thoughts.

Wasn't this all about "stopping coal plants now"?

It isn't going to happen. Rudd hasn't done anything substantial yet apart from repeating "motherhood" statements about every issue ad nauseum.

The Labor Party ran dead on plastic bags so how do you expect them to stop coal plants?