RobP
Yes, GW since industrialisation is significant, with GMT increasing at a rate of about 0.2 degrees C/decade at current GHGe emissions (but emissions are growing exponentially). Do a search on ‘climate sensitivity’ but wiki or the Real Climate site explains the science basics quite well. Much research is being fine-tuned on ‘climate sensitivity’ and ‘attribution’.

Dickie
In terms of GHG emissions, the simple fact is that human activity is contributing billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, more than the oceans and terrestrial biosphere can absorb.

Keiran
While CO2 is good for plants, it's no good for its heat trapping properties. Yes, some areas will benefit from new agricultural opportunities, especially in the short term. In the long term, the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Col
So, “the real debate is less about global warming and more about POLITICS …” Thank you, I have been saying that for an eternity. Oh yeah, scientists are not a bunch of Trotskyites or loony-leftists as you are forever implying in your signature “socialism by stealth” mantra.

rstewart
How do you think the science can best be disseminated to the general public – no one else seems to want to answer this question? I am ok with the IPCC process, obviously others are less so. As for wiki, it’s generally ok too. Popular magazines, blogspots, media in general and shock-jocks in particular, do more to distort or misrepresent the science than they realise. As for the journals and scientific academies – I agree in the points you were trying to make to Don Aitken.

All
Some posters claim this or opine that … fine, but they don’t/can’t back these claims or opinions up with credible primary source material. They use OLO like their soap box in Sydney's Domain - quite amusing sometimes. Check out their history, spruiking on anything and everything with an assumed self proclaimed expertise to deride even the most ardent expert in whatever specialised field these experts live.

Q&A “Oh yeah, scientists are not a bunch of Trotskyites or loony-leftists as you are forever implying in your signature “socialism by stealth” mantra.”

Never suggested they are, merely the environmental / green political lobby has been the victim of entryism.

“So, “the real debate is less about global warming and more about POLITICS …” Thank you, I have been saying that for an eternity.”

Must be something to do with your writing style, because that never comes out, you seemed to be more concerned with the deriding the right of others to hold an opinion which disagrees with yours.

“Politics” is known as the “art of the possible” your posts are devoted to regaling us with your omnipotence, more than attempting, in any way, to “politically” persuade us to your view.

As for “Socialism by Stealth” I think it describes pretty accurately the agenda of some who pretend to be “environmentally concerned” but are really just about imposing a previously failed, immoral political philosophy upon us.

Some might say I am indulging in conspiracy theory, others might agree.

I do know the practice of entryism is well known and well documented for having infiltrated the greens & fellow travellers and I further know the first line of their defence would be to deny their existence and deride the claim.

The next line of defence is to pollute the minds of the gullible with the entryist denial.

Maybe you have, over time, become “polluted”.

to AGW and its gullible proponents (based on their reliance on pseudo-science and bodgy models), I can think of one phrase of Lenin's which suits

"A Lie told often enough becomes the truth"

Keiran

These are interesting technologies you mention.

You advise that much is being done which is pleasing, however, these technologies are only in the R&D stage though one company is hoping for results by 2010. One can only describe the technlogies you outline as "futuristic" - a glimmer of hope for the next generation.

In the meantime, as a result of "business as usual" the Swan and Canning Rivers have been placed on life support. The Swan River Trust has resorted to pumping oxygen into the waterways in a desperate bid to save the fish and other acquatic life.

And that's not all. The Department of Environment and Conservation have merely slapped the wrist of a company who not only polluted the Canning River but the Southern River also. So while the DEC regulates by persuasion (breaching its own act) and enjoying their cafe lattes with the "clients," the "polluter pays" principle is completely ignored.

The new coal fired plants are being constructed, the big end of town is pumping it out in the millions of tonnes through "persuasive" regulation, desperate members of the gullible public seek counsel from Erin Brockovich whilst tropospheric ozone sits heavily in ambient air and I return to perusing Part V 49 (5) of the WA EPA Act which states:

"A person who emits an unreasonable emission from any premises or causes an unreasonable emission....., commits an offence."

Huh??