Sams:
The skill needed to grasp understanding of the real situation and our future, is honesty.

As for honesty in science, look at the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority that is situated between Fraser Island and the Swains Reef. The position of this boundary prevents GBRMPA science from studying and understanding the very food source that fed and made the Swains Reef the biggest and most dense area of coral on the whole GBR.

The southern GBRMPA boundary is presently obstructing scientific knowledge of northerly flowing longshore current transporting east coast city nutrient pollution that empirical evidence indicates is proliferating algal blooms that are smothering and killing coral on the GBR. Vital seagrass food web nursery in bays and estuaries is also being destroyed by the same, transported nutrient pollution. CSIRO has no information about the biology of the relevant eastern Australia longshore current.

Science is being stifled and gagged by jurisdiction and that is not science. In this case, consequences involve collapse of world ocean fishery food supply and resulting social and economic impact worldwide. Collapse of traditional staple food resources and associated barter trade and subsistence living in the Pacific Islands is already causing unrest and loss of peace in the region, all ignored because of no so-called scientific evidence.

In contrast, PM Rudd is about to drain five billion dollars from Treasury to deal with CO2 problems that do not exist.

David Evans has had a good run for his money over the past week, however most of his assertions and assumptions were denounced and debunked in an "in reply" interview with Philip Clarke on 2GB 23/07 by UNSW Professor Andy Pitman, a director of the unis' Climate Change Reasearch Centre. Just as the GGWS was debunked and discredited by its primary climatologist Carl Wursch and latterly by the CSIRO, we need to concentrate on fact and not fiction. Just as gravity exists and we all fall, so global warming is real, and human induced emissions are the unnatural cause of deviation from the historical climate record. The only remaining theory is the extent of its impact.

Sams, thanks for reminding me about something that used to be called the scientific method, sightings of which are slim on the ground round here. The ideal essence of the scientific method is indifference, and the attacks witnessed here on those who question 'climate science' show it for the 'noble cause' it has become. I've never seen people so interested in "The Science"!

sillyfilly, that a good name. A silly filly can spook and suddenly jump sideways, throwing the rider upwards and momentarily in mid air before gravity takes hold. Concerning gravity, I consider what goes up must come down is not correct. Numerous space craft have gone up and are not coming back.

Is it fact human induced emissions are the only unnatural cause of deviation from the historical climate record?

From sillyf:

"...most of [David Evans'] assertions and assumptions were denounced and debunked in an "in reply" interview with Philip Clarke on 2GB 23/07 by UNSW Professor Andy Pitman, a director of the unis' Climate Change Reasearch Centre."

Stop press! Climate Change apparatchik challenges an unbeliever! Do you think Pitman might instead have said: "Yeah, CC is a pile of old bo||0X pushed by imperialist banking scammers keen to make another fake money bubble and thwart rival rising states from developing and gaining independence from the west's manipulative fiscal controls and strategic dominance"?

Funny how the most vocal and publicized of CC/GW prophets are big-money economists. No wonder so many people in the developing world spit ever more contempt at the west.

sillyfilly, don't get despondent about being one of the few arguing for AGW here. The points you are responding to here have all been answered. Yet on each climate article they are raised anew by the same people who raised them before.

And so we have Country girl saying it isn't really getting warmer here in Queensland. Yet there is this graph from the BOM:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean&region=qld&season=0112

Others say warming stopped in 1998. This is because 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, arguably none since have been hotter. But look at any temperature graph, like the one above and clearly the trend continues. This one is in someways better, the spike in 1998 is huge:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/

You will find some arguing some data set disproves GW. For example, the Argo buoys show the oceans are cooling. True, they did. And then it was discovered some had faulty pressure switches. When those bad samples were eliminated the data agreed again:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/

As an aside, some Argo buoys suffer ignominious fates. One was destined to become a Brisbane fisherman's letter box:

http://www.fishraider.com.au/Invision/index.php?showtopic=29738

You will find some arguing a significant proportion of climate scientists disagree with AGW, but offer no proof. There is proof to the contrary:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7639#118769

They say the IPCC report is biased. The IPCC report is meant to summarise the consensus of position of climate science. They attack the process it uses, the behaviour of the people behind it - and sometimes they have a point. But never do they even try to show it doesn't reflect the consensus.

They noisily announce every new climate model that doesn't support AGW, but expect us to take their word for it that this new, untested model is right, rather than waiting the couple of years it takes the peer review process to deliver its verdict.

Its like arguing with religious nutters. They never concede a point. And when someone blows up in exasperation, they are accused of being part of a conspiracy to "silence dissent". Fortunately they have something else in common with religious nutters. They are a vocal but small minority.