In Exodus to Arthur, an author called Mike Baillee documents the climate changes over the past 6000 years by the science of dendrochronology. This book should be required reading for Kevin Rudd and Penny Wat Went Wong, and all the other climate fanatics, together with State of Fear by the late Michael Crichton. Steve Fielding and Turnbull should get a copy to and read it as well. Here is a review of Exodus to Arthur posted on the net.

Six climate changes in the last 6000 years in tree rings., June 2, 1999
By A Customer
This book reads like a detective story where the plot slowly unfolds. In the beginning it describes the use of tree rings to date old wood in buildings, paintings, ships and other archeological specimens. By a huge collaborative effort by many tree ring scientists it has been possible to establish almost continuous tree ring patterns over 6000 years in bristlecone pine, oak, and other species. Most variations in ring width is due to local conditions. However, six peculiar worldwide, decade long episodes of reduced growth has become evident, for example around 1628 BC and 540 AD. The archeologist Baillie compares this with Chinese, Egyptian and other history, with the Bible and with myths from all over the world, and with what is known of climate changes, volcano eruptions, analyses of Greenland ice cores and the probability of impacts of comets and asteroids. The 1628 BC event may or may not be explained by the Santorini explosion, and perhaps it caused the 10 plagues of Egypt and the exodus. The 540 AD event coincided with plagues in Constantinople, "dry fog", very pale sun and famine and with the myths of King Arthur. What caused this to happen? Baillie examines the various lines of evidence and ends up with collisions with comets and asteroids as the most likely explanation. Will it happen again and what should we do? Stock up on food like in Egypt under Moses before exodus or hit the comets with nuclear weapons?

Nothing like a good story to keep the attention focused

"Yes, we could pollute less, no problem" Is that right? Provide some proof of an industry let alone a company that has voluntarily scaled back production to cut emissions or invested in alternative energies purely on their own volition. If you honestly believe that industry is going to become cleaner and greener without incentives or legislation forcing them to from governments you are seriously mistaken, and sound just as deluded as Fairbairn's in his doubts that industry even does create "pollution".

"There are many senior scientist skeptics who are underwhelmed by the supposed evidence". Many are there? Name 50 of them. Or 20 of them. Or even just one legitimate scientific community or organisation that supports your claims. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (consisting of over 2000 scientists from 100 countries), along with the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil, have all recognised that most of the global warming over the last 50 years has been caused by human activities.

rpg, just like Fairbairn, you are only willing to deny or refute by making unsupported and unspecific claims, attempting to re-raise issues that have already been disproved. This is deliberate disinformation, and is not deserving of respectful debate. Claiming that the "onus of proof is on your side" merely demonstrates that you are uninformed and have no plausible defence except to deny based on nothing but your own opinion. Also, like Fairbairn, the basis of your argument rests on the fact that you are unsure, and this is because you have failed to do any research or answer questions for yourself or because you choose to ignore the facts and evidence presented. If there was an honest attempt on your (or Fairbairn's) behalf to provide some verifiable factual evidence to counter the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans then perhaps it would be worth listening, but otherwise it is just a load of hot air, which is thankfully not anywhere near as harmful as the pollution you are denying exists.

Faiburn's wrong that climate science doesn't look at natural chahges to climate. His article is barely better than drivel - not one point that hasn't been shown as wrong over and over. Give me the leading scientific bodies of the world over rubbish like this. Where does OLO keep getting the endless supply of climate denialists? Fairburn is just one more voice trying to convince us that all the scientists must be wrong, it's too hard and too expensive to do anything about and facing the future with eyes open and ready to meet the challenges presented head on is a recipe for the end of civilisation. Failing to deal with this enormous challenge is far more certain to bring disaster than treating this as the serious and urgent issue it is.
It's people like Fairburn that ignore known natural cycles like ENSO when they mask the AGW trend as so many denialist do every time they try and claim warming has stopped.
The actual science hasn't been shifted a bit by more than a decade of opinions like Fairburns. It's not CSIRO or BoM or NCAR or Hadley CRU that sets out to mislead.

ynm .. "Provide some proof", what? Why should I, and if I did, then what would you do? You seem to want a link war, well off you go.

"Name 50 of them. Or 20 of them. Or even just one legitimate scientific community or organisation that supports your claims." again, what would that prove, you know very well there are many scientists who are not "believers", but it clearly makes you angry to see it in print (again!).

Now a flurry of accusations, "you are only willing to .. This is deliberate disinformation .. Claiming that the "onus of proof is on your side" .. you are uninformed .. you are unsure .. you have failed .. you choose to ignore the facts .. you are denying exists."

Hey ynm, get over it, that's my OPINION, OK, this is an opinion site, not a repository of agreement for your belief system. Have you been trolling the "how to deal with a sceptic" sites again, got all worked into a lather about the heretics?

The climate changes, get used to it, regardless of what Australia does, the rest of the world are not as stupidly led by the nose to destroy their own economies and go back to the caves.

How come China and India are not signing up to the whole AGW thing, if it's so convincing and the evidence is in? What's the problem with convincing over half the world? Don't worry about the occasional poster on an opinion site, off you go to the third world to convince them.

China is doing a lot more than we are, rpg.

China has recently said its carbon emissions will start falling by 2050 (ours will still be rising at our current rate).

Whether China will agree to some kind of cap on its emissions is a critical question for Copenhagen. Beijing argues, as do most developing countries, that developed nations should take responsibility for cutting emissions first, since global warming originated with their industrialisation.

China's planning body - the National Development and Reform Commission - signal not only increasing flexibility in Beijing's approach but also continued unreadiness to accept an emissions ceiling, not unlike Australia.

China still needs to grow its economy to help its people escape poverty, and to supply the comfort of living that people like rpg enjoy - we don't have to live in caves as he implies (more disinformation).

China will not continue growing emissions without limit or insist that all nations must have the same per-capita emissions. They will compromise - unlike Australia.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences has said that with major technological support from developed nations, China could see its emissions peak between 2030 and 2040. Other Chinese experts say carbon output will keep rising until 2050 unless radical controls are adopted, including huge efforts into renewables. Guess what, they are starting (solar, wind, nuclear) - unlike us.

China is adopting policies aimed at curtailing emissions growth. Under the country's current five-year plan, which runs until 2010, the government set a target of reducing energy intensity by 20 per cent. The next five-year plan would include more far-reaching and specific targets to reduce carbon intensity.

This week, the State Council, China's cabinet, approved draft rules for impact audits which it said would lay the foundation for evaluating the emissions impact of new investments.

Some of us like being informed.

Some people (not unlike rpg) have got their head stuck in the sand, they wouldn't have a clue what's going on.

Daviy, I did misread your post (mea culpa).

You are correct, there is far too much disinformation and distortion being spread by people who just don't know or who have got their own agenda.

The people that count are trying to address the issues of climate change (they are not arguing the science) and will play out in Copenhagen. It won't be easy.

The naysayers are a distraction that generates a lot of white noise - it's difficult for agnostics to filter this background noise out.