mac, you don’t want to hear from politicians or economists. Presumably, then, you have no time for Al Gore and his inconvenient truth, and as the IPCC’s climate projections incorporate economic data, you won’t be interested in those either. I’m wondering, then, on what you base your understanding of global warming? Aren't they the two big kahunas? You’d like to put all your trust in climate “scientists”. However, apart from the fact that a lot of what they do isn’t very scientific, at least not in the way I was taught it, “the science” itself can not determine public policy, which is about making choices based on human needs and values. Like Don, I don’t believe even “the science” of global warming is very reliable at the moment, let alone conclusive enough to provide the basis for sound public policy. Q&A talks about this justifying inaction. The idea of needing to justify expensive and potentially dangerous action doesn't seem to cross his mind. When FM radio stations are playing acoustic sets and calling it emissions-free music, however, I have all the evidence I need of dangerous anthropogenic cerebral warming.

What I find hard to discount is the fact that sea levels for 2000 years prior to 1900 were rising by 0.1 to 0.2 mm per year. Now it is rising by 15 to 30 times that figure. No similar rise during the Medieval Warm period or Roman Warm Period. No great drop during the Little Ice Age.

What is of most significance to me though is the fact that the solutions for reducing carbon emissions are also solutions for peak oil and a developing world. There is now a massive pace of development of renewable technologies, which may challenge coal on a cost basis within years. The sad thing is that the federal government seems intent on wasting $500 million in a futile attempt to keep the dinosaur alive. It would be better spent on commodity exporting infrastructure. At least Australia could make a bit more from this commodity while it is still so highly priced.

Richard Castles

"The idea of needing to justify expensive and potentially dangerous action doesn't seem to cross his (Q&A's) mind."

Where did you get this gem from Richard?

Richard Castles,

There appears to be some confusion in regard to my objection to yet another non- scientist criticising scientists' work. Science and public policy resulting from scientific enquiry are clearly different aspects of human life. Don Aitkin is, as far as I know a political "scientist" and is hardly qualified to give an opinion on global warming. I refer you to the "Sokal Hoax" as a marvellously comical example as how non- scientists can make total buffoons of themselves in attempting to interpret scientific knowledge.Of course I would like to see a climate scientist critique the global warming hypothesis, I'm waiting. And finally, If you would feel no anxiety in submitting yourself to surgery devised by an economist or travel in an aircraft designed by a lawyer,(or live in an economy designed by an economist) good luck. "to each his own trade".

It's all too clear what you trade in, mac.

So many inaccuracies, so little time.

Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 10 April 2008 1:33:50 PM
* The Earth warmed another 0.15 degrees celcius in the last 8 years. (Rahmstorf, 2007)
by Senior Victorian, Thursday, 10 April 2008 10:47:32 AM
* I would like to know where you obtained your data. My reliable sources put AGW at the poles at double the rate of the rest of the globe.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 10 April 2008 10:07:33 PM
* Every branch of science constructs hypotheses and tests them. In climate science these hypotheses are called "models". Aitken either misunderstand this or is claiming scientific method is fundamentally flawed.