Settle down Cowboy. I am sharing holidays with family and friends and am using their connection to check emails, or would you deny me that as well?

You should really try and be more objective. There are hysterical extremists on both sides, a fact that you obviously don't understand.

As for Carter, if he was so scientific about climate change, he should write a paper and submit it to the appropriate journals for robust and rigorous scientific review. He doesn't.

Carter is an expert (you say retired) on rock layering, but apparently prefers to make global warming noises in places like Quadrant, Heartland Institute, Andrew Bolt and Marohasy's blog spots, etc.

All the UNFCCC member governments (of ALL political persuasions) understand there is a serious problem - belatedly, even Bush. The difficulty they're having is not with the science, but how to address the problem (another fact that seems to elude you).

Politicians and economists around the globe will make the decisions on how we adapt and mitigate, not the scientists.

It's worth repeating; scientists will receive more kudos and funding if they debunk AGW (another fact that eludes you) - and believe me, they're trying. Or would you prefer they don't try?

Cowboy, no sane person wants AGW to be real, but no sane person discounts the science.

“Cowboy, no sane person wants AGW to be real, but no sane person discounts the science.”

Alternately, no sane person has presented an incontestable case which irrefutably proves AGW, distinct from any other reason for Global Warming,

Upon observation we have

A lot of pseudo science being bandied around by an environmental movement infiltrated by trotskyites and fellow left-of-centre travelers who see individual freedom as their ultimate enemy and are hell bent on imposing

socialism by stealth,

having failed to impose it by both revolution and democratic means.

Q&A: "It's worth repeating; scientists will receive more kudos and funding if they debunk AGW (another fact that eludes you)"

And it's worth repeating that what you believe WILL happen is not called a "fact", so I am hesitant to trust your judgments on others regarding the facts that apparently elude them. It is telling of the prophetic and omnipotent delusions of the 'alarm 'n' invoice' brigade.

"Carter is an expert...on rock layering, but apparently prefers to make global warming noises in places like Quadrant, Heartland Institute, Andrew Bolt and Marohasy's blog spots, etc."

Professor Bob Carter is a "palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine and environmental geologist with forty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999."

Who are you? And why do you choose OnOp?

I am glad he writes in places like Quadrant where Joe Public can read what he has to say. Are you suggesting that all of the academics and experts in all disciplines who have written for Quadrant should stick to the media you prescribe? What makes you think your "appropriate" journals are above reproach? I have read of many instances which demonstrate they are not. And I am capable of engaging with the content and not just attacking the man or the media messenger. Eg. To use the words "Andrew Bolt" these days seems to serve as an 'ipso facto' for the purpose of avoiding debate. If Tim Flannery were in a profession where he was called to account for his record on alarmist predictions, he would be shown the door. I am comforted that a certain Melbourne journalist alerts me to this - I never hear it on my 'independent' publicly funded ABC. And you don't need a science degree to understand that a 60% full dam is not equal to "empty". That, FYI, is what we call a fact.

The whole AGW scene is still a puzzle to me.
I have become more skeptical since reading more about it.
Q&A tried hard to enlighten me about the non-linearity of the CO2
effect on the greenhouse effect. However to a large degree he failed
except that he helped me understand it is a very complicated effect.

However the only solid information I have is that at 450 ppm the curve
has rolled over so far that doubling the CO2 level will have almost
no effect on the greenhouse effect.

In other words the CO2 effect has saturated.

I can believe that there is a long term average temperature increase
but it seems that there is considerable dispute about the time scale
that should be applied to the moving average.
I believe that perhaps we should be worrying about methane as it has
a greater effect than CO2. It may be liberated from the tundra.

One group has used the IPCC model and changed only the fossil fuel
inputs to the model to use more realistic than business as usual
levels of fossil fuel usage and found that the earths temperature
would peak at 1.7 deg C in 2075 and then decrease.
The question now is will the IPCC accept these depletion inputs as
real ?

"Politics - the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

Has anybody else noticed that since both Bush and Howard have their days, replaced by Obama and Rudd, that the language used is nolonger of fearful global warming but cyclical weather patterns?

Such is the con on the world today and we, the people, are about to empty out our wallets so that big business and politicians can wade naked in our money while we struggle to exist.