Bazz, that's one of the best comments I have seen anywhere in this whole debate, well it's a debate if you have an open mind about it.

The authors of this little gem are clearly part of a social networking group whose reason for existing is propagating more of the same. Not for solving problems or rational thinking.

There is a theory that a lot of folks join cults and belief systems, like this, so they can "belong" to a group of like minded people, whether they understand it or whether it makes any sense. Have a look at the little glee club of happy, like minded, self important people on their website, wonderful stuff.

I was just about to post a comment that says exactly what Bazz said above, namely that it will be politically impossible to achieve what the Warministas claim is required to "fix" the problem.

In that light We should not even try and instead we should be looking at how to adapt to a changing world.

Cheers Comrades

Sams,

So you have the patience and time to write a huge list of organisations. So what? Just naming them doesn't mean they are right.

Mr Right,
This is the third time in ten days that Sams has posted that list on the On Line Opinion Forum, so it doesn't cost him any time to keep recycling it. As you say, the fact that many organisations believe something doesn't make it right - and it certainly doesn't mean that all members share the organisation's view.

Sams can now add the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) to his list because that body, which presents itself as the peak representative body of 60,000 Australian scientists and technologists, issued a statement on climate change last week. As a member of the Statistical Society of Australia for the past 22 years, I'm one of those for whom the Federation claims to speak. I've often disagreed with FASTS' statements: at one stage they were promoting a fatuous 'technology clock' from which they thought they could predict the future exchange value of the Australian dollar.They said they'd keep monitoring it, using Australia's expenditure on R&D as the indicator of the dollar's strength. They thought the $A would be worth around 30 US cents by about 2008. It's now above 80 US cents.

Mr. Right: "So you have the patience and time to write a huge list of organisations. So what? Just naming them doesn't mean they are right."

This is not just a huge list of organisations but a list including the top-level science organisations of the entire developed world, and more.

We can at least say that it is very unlikely that they are wrong.

Mathematically speaking you are correct, there is no way that they can ever prove the absolute truth of human-caused global warming, or any other scientific fact (such as the existence of gravity) for that matter. Because such a thing is impossible. Science is evidence-based (except perhaps for pure mathematics).

If we were to take the stance that we wouldn't pursue any course of action until everything was proven to 100% mathematical certainty, we would never do anything about anything.

The old "you can't prove anything" delaying tactic is childish in its naivety. I don't know why deniers keep parroting it.

Whatever,not IanC, I am tired of hearing excuses from the 'do-nothings'.

There is everything to be gained with living and working towards a less polluting more sustainable future irrespective of where you stand regarding AGW.

"there are personal lifestyle changes that you can make too that, in some combination, can help reduce your carbon impact. Not all are right for everybody. Some you may already be doing or absolutely abhor. But implementing just a few of them could make a difference.

...so try to employ alternatives when possible—plant-derived plastics, biodiesel, wind power—and to invest in the change, be it by divesting from oil stocks or investing in companies practicing carbon capture and storage."

For the full list of what can be achieved at a grass-roots level please read:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=10-solutions-for-climate-change

There is no excuse for continuing the 'business-as-usual' ideal, when there are already practical technologies available and a lot more we do than what is happening currently - which is nada.