Leigh,
Big statements about the IPCC and court and the 'hockey stick' but not a shred of evidence. Links please? Oh, and you're just another Denialist accusing someone of a "Green religion" without taking into account spectrometry, chemistry, and physics, or having ANY credible scientific evidence for your own anti-climate opinion. Go for it! You're making me look good. ;-)

ODO, you had my hopes up that I was finally going to be able to disprove global warming once and for all when you asserted that there had been higher levels of Co2 than today, and maybe today's climatologist just didn't know about those? (They explain them ALL in great detail).

"I don't rabbit on about CO2, so I have no idea what you're blithering about." OK, if you've got no idea then please don't post in a thread on global warming? Sounds wise to me.

""Ultimately I’m an optimist and think we’ll adapt", yay! So can we stop all the alarmism and frothing at the mouth business? "
Well, you DO know how to quote someone out of context. I basically meant human beings as a species will adapt, and *some* form of civilisation, but if we let the worst case scenarios run their course billions could die and ... is that acceptable to you, just in the name of profits for Big Oil & King Coal? THAT's what we CAN do, stop burning fossil fuels ASAP and scale up renewables over the next decade. Stop lying to this list that we can't.

Preventing billions starving to death is worth "frothing at the mouth" a bit. To bring it home a bit. Do you have kids? How about we just select your kids as one of the billions that will starve to death if we DON'T froth at the mouth a bit? Got that this is EXTREMELY personal to those that won't make it because people like you couldn't get their heads around the science?

Eclipse Now: "They [climatologists] explain them ALL [higher levels of CO2] in great detail"

Q&A, our resident climate scientists says, "there is some disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales"

ODO, I apologise... I just double checked and you DIDN'T go on about higher Co2 levels in the past, it was Leigh. Sorry again.

Leigh, I'm referring to the INTERNATIONAL peer review process that includes:

European Academy of Sciences and Arts,
InterAcademy Council,
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Joint science academies' statements
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Medical Association
Australian Medical Association
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

Leigh, if you're saying ALL these organisations are deceiving the public just to take money from the "gravy train", then you are talking about an ENORMOUS conspiracy OF global warming, when all the evidence is that the conspiracy is you guys AGAINST global warming!

As Dr Karl said: ... “The Royal Society, which had Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, is the oldest and most prestigious scientific society in the world - and it's also deeply conservative. Mr. Ward asked why ExxonMobil paid millions of dollars to groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence." Such a strongly worded letter is very unusual for the Royal Society."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/05/31/1938551.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

"In the case of the IPCC and the few real scientists involved, there was no peer review; they were all feeding fromt the same money trough."

Wot.....no links.....no evidence......nuffin'.....just the same ole ranting conspiracy theories from the fossil fuel vampires, fighting fang and claw to hold on to their blood sucking evil empire and their diminishing profits:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html

rpg states
'Like Eclipse Now take a deep breath and relax, it might never happen.'

What might never happen?
That is typical of out leaders (and you) just sit back and it might go away and we will adapt.
That is why the environment is under stress and climate change is occurring.

What are the consequences of adapting?
It is a word that gets banded around but no explanation on what it means.
The worst case scenario, could be doom (not my word, until now) for the majority of the worlds population, should we not plan for that situation or just sit back as you suggest.

ODO 'he was winding up the doom scenario a little much.'
Frightens you does it, so it should if you care for your grandchildren.

I am glad that I will not be living in Sydney when it gets Queensland weather - and the cane toads.

It is interesting to see the people dropping down to calling names when they have lost the discussion does not do there cause any good.

PeterA – yes, I know what you mean about calling names mate.

Did you forget you had posted that earlier? WAFI.

At least Wiki is a little more reliable than the ranting denialists who do not link to any credible peer reviewed scientific based data.
Posted by PeterA, Friday, 10 July 2009 1:27:32 PM

It is interesting to see the people dropping down to calling names when they have lost the discussion does not do there cause any good.
Posted by PeterA, Sunday, 12 July 2009 5:16:35 PM

What are the consequences of adapting?

Being able to put our resources into something with tangible benefits to our society, not just line the pockets of the few selling snake oil and doubtful solutions.

The glass is half full .. for me.