Scientists must believe in causality else they are NOT scientists. So how can ANY scientist believe in the the AGW hypothesis when there is no observational evidence for carbon emissions causing alarmist global warming. As I've said elsewhere, it seems a ridiculously simple question to ask but just how will computer modeling change the observational fact and prove alarmist AGW?

We hear a lot about computer models yet I've searched the web for someone who has done a very basic experiment.Just isolate a body of air,either under glass or isolated with it's own energy source and increase the amount of CO2 and measure the temp changes.Now every good experiment should have a control,so this should not be too difficult to achieve.Existing sealed glass houses would be ideal.Just remove enough plants and put in enough moisture to represent our planet on a miniture scale.

My question to Geoff Davies or any of our lucid AGW enthusiasts is,has this been done and what were the results?

Second question,if Christopher Scotese still stands by his data showing very little relationship between GW and CO2 concentrations over millions of yrs,why are his arguments flawed?

I’m beginning to wonder if the myriad of articles on A/CO2 is a ploy to delay any actions to mitigate the effect of industrial pollution. We could be arguing over the global warming debate for decades, while the modern day” Neros” fiddle and “Rome” continues to burn.

However, it is pleasing to note that Geoff Davies has alluded to man’s desecration of the planet when he remarks:

“However, sensible action would mitigate all three crises, and others besides, including declining soils, rivers, forests, fisheries and coral reefs, and pervasive chemical pollution.

Strangely, A/pollution is rarely acknowledged by the denialists who publish papers on CO2; however, that anthropogenic toxic substances are destroying our eco-systems, is beyond dispute. Failure to address this serious problem will have ongoing economic implications leading to considerable expenditure.

Already, humans and eco-systems detoxification abilities are failing. This is not surprising when laboratory analyses reveal the level of toxicants in soil, water supplies, oceans, atmosphere, human and animal bodies and the long-distance, transboundary distribution of those toxicants throughout the biosphere.

Discerning citizens now appear everywhere, carrying their water in plastic bottles due to their distrust of our polluted and chemically “cleaned” scheme water and the petrochemical industry is delighted.

While CO2 may sound rather benign to some, other chemicals are also emitted with industrial CO2 and we continue to be exposed to pesticides and herbicides, toxic metals, man-made persistent organic pollutants, fluorides, petroleum substances and radionuclides.

Often temperature inversions prevent the dispersion of these toxicants. Annually, billions of kilograms of carcinogenic hydrocarbons are emitted in Australia alone from the vehicular industry and industrial estates - hydrocarbons which have the ability to contaminate all living organisms.

These are the problems, currently with few solutions and these insidious problems will not be resolved until they are clearly expressed by experts so that people are aware they exist.

Geoff Davies states that “These are all symptoms of our over-exploitation of the Earth, which we must reduce anyway, regardless of global warming.”

Touche Geoff Davies. Let the remediation process begin!

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE POSTING ABOUT THIS ARTICLE?

Is it because you're totally stuck in negativity? Do you do it just to reiterate, ad nauseum, the alleged stupidity of scientists, or their alleged conspiracy to defraud taxpayers of their money?

Did anyone, apart from Dickie and perhaps one or two others, notice the idea that we can improve our lives by addressing our general over-exploitation of the Earth? If we are causing global warming, it would mitigate that problem too. If not, no harm done.

Does this possibility hold any interest? You don't have to just believe me, but is it something that might be worth looking a little further into? Could it, perhaps, be GOOD NEWS? Are you interested in good news? Don, this includes you.

Here is what is written in the longer, downloadable version of my article:

It is not so widely appreciated how relatively easy it is to reduce our wasteful use of energy and other resources. Energy use and greenhouse emissions have been reduce by two thirds or more by major corporations and many individuals, and they have saved money as a result. As our energy needs decline, renewable resources become more sufficient and the old and dirty sources become unnecessary. It is not true that renewable energy would be seriously unreliable, despite the ignorant and self-interested claims of big-energy advocates.

Recycling of materials is increasing rapidly, and Germany requires ninety percent of car components to be returned to manufacturers for recycling. There is little reason why our ingenuity will not lead us to recycle almost all materials indefinitely. This path will indeed mitigate the many crises now confronting us. In fact it is the only path that will allow our grandchildren’s grandchildren to inherit a rich and fulfilling world.

Would anybody be interested in a CONSTRUCTIVE, POSITIVE exploration of this? Or is this site only for crapping on things and people you have an instant negative emotional reaction to?

No, I'm not bitter, I'm just wondering if it's possible to provoke something more worthwhile here.

to Wadard: I could not get access to post a note on your site, so it's here: 'Since you directed us to this site, which I had not encountered before, I thought I would make a couple of comments. First, my remark about the correspondence I had received referred to the summary article and correspondence in The Australian, not the talks on the ABC, where the number of comments was quite small. Second, I too was puzzled by the 90/10 distribution of responses to the survey question. I spent 20 years or so in survey research, and that is an astonishing split. Where are the DKs and NAs (don't knows and not ascertained)? Where is the middle ground? The extra information you provided is interesting but doesn't answer those questions. And, alas, you can't add together three different lots of people and call it a sample of 3000 or so. Not on.'

to bushbasher and others of that ilk: I will try, time permitting, to engage with people who are puzzled and trying to work it out. I don't engage with ad hominem, abusive or vituperative posts. I can't help you, and you certainly don't help me.

to Geoff Davies: I have to repeat that I agree with some of what you put forward, but neither my agreement nor your position depends on AGW. I think my proposed remedies are different to yours, and we have discussed this elsewhere.

Don Aitkin

don, i can see nothing abusive or ad hominem in my post. if you do not see why i think life is too short to read amateurs' summaries of agw, i'm sorry but i can't explain it further. if you think i gave insufficient argument for censuring you for your article, i'm sorry but i am not going to lose sleep filling in the detail.

you might consider the ad hominem elements in your article. despite your claims, not naming the man doesn't mean you're not playing the man.