I agree with you sparky

This is one of the most cynical articles ever published by OLO. Greenpeace has no shame whatsoever.

These ghouls make their money by stirring up trouble and strife in the minds of many, purely in order to generate yet more funds,so they can engage in yet more frolics and fantasies, to our detriment.

The scientific fraternity in this country are not much better they play the same game.

Typical of these is Brooks himself. Given the way the perambulating comdom got his funds I wouldnt attach any value to his pronouncements on anything.

The problem with John Hepburn's article can be found in the word "recorded" as in the highest recorded temperatures. To recap what is widely known and accepted, in this intergalacial (last 10,000 years sinc ethe last ice age) temperatues have gone through a series of cycles. We are in a high part of the cycle. There is plenty of evidence for this and plenty of evidence that climate has changed in the past couple of decades. As the last high part of the cycle was well before reliable recordings, we have no detailed recordings to compare the current temperatures with.
The real question is has human activity added to (or subtracted from) that natural process. You cannot take the change itself and say that because there has been a change humans must be responsible. You may point to the rise of industrial gases in the atmosphere, but you are still left with the problem of what caused earleri changes known to be natural. There is no adequate explanation for those natural changes yet scientists have constucted models which largely set aside any natural change and then insisted that public policy be based on those models.
While we are on the subject the vast bulk of major changes of several degrees which smashed records HAS TO BE NATURAL. The 2007 IPCC report put humans down for half a degree or so to date, and that's highly contestable. Greenhouse proponents might claim some sort of feedback effect but that's even more contestable. What is distressing is that the green movement is using the bushfires to further their political agenda

I happen to believe in AGW.
I believe eucalypts -in sufficient numbers- can affect climate (an extension of allelopathy, see James Lovelock) and they don't burn coal.
HOWEVER, the connection between AGW and the recent tragedy in Victoria is drawing a long bow indeed.
I grew up in the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney. In my childhood, it was accepted doctrine that the best defence against bush fire was a big back lawn.
In mathematical terms, the nearest eucalypt should be at least 1.5 times it's own height away from your house.
Duh.
20 years after I left the mountains, I returned to visit a school chum, and was shocked to see bloodwoods actually overhanging his house.
When I queried this, he said council would not allow him to cut them down.
Any council with policies such as this should be compelled to pay compensation to IT'S victims.

You'd have to be in denial to refuse to countenance the possibility that our current freakish weather patterns are related to climate change.

From an authoritative source (i.e. a Bureau of Meteorology scientist quoted by a senior Australian climatologist):

<< “Given that this was the hottest day on record on top of the driest start to a year on record on top of the longest driest drought on record on top of the hottest drought on record the implications are clear...

It is clear to me that climate change is now becoming such a strong contributor to these hitherto unimaginable events that the language starts to change from one of “climate change increased the chances of an event” to “without climate change this event could not have occured”. >>

http://bravenewclimate.com/

I'm disturbed at the angry and hysterical tenor of the OLO denialist crew at Hepburn's quite mild and sensible article. As usual, Q&A concisely sums up what passes for debate about climate change on OLO. As I've said recently, the time is fast approaching where we will need to start talking to, rather than at, each other.

Unfortunately, the 'business-as-usual' crowd here have painted themselves so far into the denialist corner that all they seem to be able to do is bellow out inanities from their increasingly attenuated perspective.

The Government recently conceded in it's Climate Change Adaption Program that Climate Change was a man made phenomenon and the effect are real. Anyone have any idea what duty of care or possible negligence claims that could give rise too? Perhaps government and business now have an obligation legally to warn or protect the community when they could reasonably do so

Well, how do I put this kindly to all the over the top responders to the Green Peace post. Nup!

It can't be done kindly. Simply

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/12/2489847.htm

There aren't people closer to the problem than these guys.

Ps Happy Birthday Darwin!