There does not seem to be many references in the public arena to the notion that reducing pollution is a good thing in itself regardless of this actual debate as to whether the science of global warming stands up. There will be benefits to Australia through cleaning up its own backyard.

"Every climate change denialist should read Lambert's refutation"
Yep everyone heed the computer geek! In Lambert's own words about his blog..."I then do a little bit of research and before you know it I have a blog post"....oooh high powered stuff.

"Also, carbon is only one of the gases that contributes to climate change. Methane and water vapour are also signficant."
Here here...methane is decreasing for unknown reasons.

"All those people who want to know more should check out www.realclimate.org for some science and rationale debate"
Another fundamentalist blog. Next service at 3pm.

"reducing pollution is a good thing"
Aye but CO2 isn't pollution, ask a plant..they love it.

"There will be benefits to Australia through cleaning up its own backyard."
Not with CO2....its a globally well mixed gas. If China doesn't slow its emissions then we won't be cleaning our "backyard". Pure tosh.

The Sunday program had a good piece on GW the other day. Well worth a watch.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tRhYjUAAzA4&feature=PlayList&p=E5B528AEF40106BF&index=0&playnext=1

alzo,

Methane gas is transient, unlike carbon dioxide, and is released in bursts. So levels of methane are not necessarily going to consistently increase,they will vary over time - we're not talking about a linear progression here. The amount of methane that is contained in thawing peat in the Russian tundra is huge, but even more worrying is the greater amount contained on the sea floor on the north Russian coastal shelf. Small increases in temperature of the ocean can release this gas relatively quickly.

Interesting that you consider Real Climate a fundamentalist website, when they make a habit of using science (something you may have heard of...but I'm not sure) to debunk both denialists who use selected data to prove erroneous points, and doomsayers who also use selective data to predict unlikley catastrophic changes in climate. The point here is that the site is critical of any claims from either side that are patently unsupported by the science. The fact that there are plenty more denialists who are out there using selective facts, or not understanding the science, is reflected in the website responses and articles.

"Methane gas is transient, unlike carbon dioxide"
Depends on your timescale as well. CO2 doesn't last forever in the atmosphere either so is also transient. Given, CO2 lasts longer than methane in the atmosphere but methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas. The sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is vastly overstated by the IPCC. There is also some debate on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. These issues are not as well understood as the IPCC would have us believe.

"Small increases in temperature of the ocean can release this gas relatively quickly."
Again same goes for CO2, sea temperatures rise so does CO2 released into the atmosphere.

"that you consider Real Climate a fundamentalist website, when they make a habit of using science"
More like faith than science.
Debunk doomsayers?...they are the doomsayers.

"The point here is that the site is critical of any claims from either side that are patently unsupported by the science."
This site was set up by Michael Mann producer of the now debunked and discredited Hockey Stick (patently unsupported by the science...except for magical tree rings). Hardly a site worthy of being called scientific. It is critical/abusive of anyone who strays from the Global Warming dogma. Science is about competing theories not a popular vote. Perhaps you could broaden your readings to something other than a religious blog.

There still seems to be a lot of people out there who cannot separate the change in climate from the change in CO2 emmissions.

These people, who have been influenced by ridiculous twaddle like Al Gores film, are entirely unaware that climate change is not new or even unusual on this planet.

This isn't to say that the two cannot be linked. But all the evidence seems to be lacking.

CJ,

This article, or one highly similar was printed in the Australian last week or the week before. They obviously believe it meets the standards required of an opinion piece in the national broadsheet. I don't see why OLO shouldn't be printing it. Especially given its concise and well argued nature.

If you could direct me to this demolition of Evans' argument I would be interested to read it. Evans' points seem to me to be very easily verified and as such I would be surprised if they didn't stand up.

BTW, you are, I'm sure, aware that mowing your grass more often doesn't actually provide any evidence that C02 is changing our environment. Climate change without man made influence is as likely as , perhaps more likely than, the Alarmist favoured version of the cause of your extra mowing.

Before anyone buys into the scam that IS Anthropogenic Global Warming (now being called "Climate Change" since it isn't warming any longer), this question MUST receive a satisfactory answer:

"If it's so-called 'greenhouse gasses,' including CO2, that're the cause of AGW, please explain why the polar caps on Mars are ALSO shrinking--apparently because Mars is heating up too. Did someone park an SUV 'up there' and leave it running?" So far, not a single "climatologist" has come up with an even remotely believable answer to that question. Until they do, don't believe a single assertion being made about AGW. When I was a science student, for a cause and effect relationship to exist, the effect MUST follow the putative "cause." All the data now available says that rises in CO2 levels have consistently FOLLOWED rises in worldwide average temperatures. It seem MUCH more likely that rises in CO2 are caused by global warming...not the reverse. If that's true, the eco-freaks will please stop trying to get us all to change our lifestyles to suit THEIR idea of living "responsibly."