Reading consecutive posts on the topic of "Climate Change" - or whatever is the current phrase-du-jour - is like watching a game of tennis on one of the outer courts at Wimbledon.

Two well-muscled Estonian ladies, one ranked 97 by the WTA, the other 145, are on court.

"Serve"

Doesn't matter which side starts the ball moving.

"Return"

Whichever side it was, you can guarantee that they will immediately be told they are talking rubbish

One side believes the world will rapidly dissolve into a pool of its own sweat unless we retreat to our caves and learn to grow tofu.

They will continue to believe this, no matter what, because it is in their nature to feel this way.

Many of these are public servants.

The other camp believes that everything will be just fine and dandy forever, however much we consume, burn, devastate or flatulate.

Many of these are capitalists, raw in tooth and claw, treading on the bones of the proletariat as they order the destruction of another rainforest.

It certainly is fun to watch for a while, as is that tennis match.

But after a time it gets very tedious, watching the same ball being batted back and forth by people who just get crosser and crosser. And anyway, it's not the ball's fault.

Serve, forehand crosscourt, forehand down the line, backhand down the line, forehand crosscourt, forehand, forehand, forehand to the baseline, forehandd....zzzz

It does seem to me that the only denialists around here, are those who deny there may be an insufficiency of information available yet, and firmly believe that they know the answer.

Well said, Pericles. It's depressing to watch this debate become like the abortion debate, with two armed camps circling the wagons and damned be he who dares try and stay in No Man's Land.

(I'm not sure how many metaphors I've mangled there ...)

But for me, I'd rather drink and dance with Doubt, as Mr. Crowley would say.

If CO2 is so finely balanced, why has it gone up and down so much in the past? I think comparing carbon/oxygen to the ebola virus is also a little far fetched. Sustainability is like perpetual motion - it is impossible. Humans must always have some effect on the world in which we exist. We can try to curtail CO2 emissions if it isn't too costly, but then something else will be decided to be out of balance, and we will drive ourselves mad trying to control the climate, if that hasn't already happened. I think we are kidding ourselves a bit, and our leaders get to feel great telling us they are saving the planet. It sounds like something out of Flash Gordon.

Pericles and Clownfish,
Do you doubt lead poisons people, or that E=MC2 can produce a lot of energy in a hydrogen bomb? Why are you so selective in your doubt of science? ;-) I doubt you are just objective observers of the game.

The IPCC scientists say that while we don't know *everything* and there will be some surprises ahead, we know *enough* to take action. So rather than being objective observers you are instead hitting the ball back into the climatologists court, forcing them to respond. You’ve fallen for Myth 4: “Many leading scientists question climate change.”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html

Bowyer,
if you truly believe climate change is a conspiracy of money grabbing scientists, what a horrifically corrupt and frightening world you must live in! Why, the moon-landing *could* have been faked. The world as we know it *could* be about to end in 2012 and there really *could* be aliens at Area 51. (Just like in all those movies that we watch for entertainment... they’re *make believe*, you know that don't you?)

You’ve fallen for Myth 4, “It’s all a conspiracy”.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html

And Myth 22,
It’s been cooling since 1998.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html

This is a very nicely produced video explaining the latest temperature trends from leading sources.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

Gilliana,
the Co2 cycle *is* finely balanced within *today’s* climate norms.

It changed in DEEP history (dinosaurs and before) due to geological epochs, such as extra volcanism, etc.

You might be thinking about more recent 100-thousand year swings in Co2 and climate. These were Milankovitch cycles acting as triggers and Co2 levels following the Milankovitch “triggers” but amplifying them vastly.

The following is a truly great Youtube channel that I subscribe to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&feature=related

Great article John Ridd.
Pay little heed to your critics – they’re just not into horses!

Consider the following from Professor David Freestone the visiting Ingram fellow, UNSW, and a leading advocate of AGW.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2655389.htm

--“300,000 people are year are already dying from climate change effects… more than 30 million people actually adversely affected, that it actually costs more, nearly two billion dollars a year, developing countries the impacts of climate change”

How do they determine this –well, there’s a clue later: “We're talking about, too much water and not enough”

So you have an ever growing population drawing on aquifers, damming rivers, clearing forests (remember the relationship of forest cover to precipitation ) –and the expectation is, water supply will goldilocks like, never be too little or too much!

And , then he cites actual events attributable to AGW :
--- “Exactly, you know Myanmar. There's big floods in China, in India. So you see that exactly.”
--- “in Africa the increased desertification now in the Sahelian regions, in the… south of the Sahara and that's happening also.”

David is charging that bigger than normal storms are the result of climate change –and there might we a little to that –
but some not afraid to be ridiculed and label denialists might venture to ask –didn’t clearing of mangroves that formed a natural buffer play any part – didn’t settling on low lying land play a part?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090414172924.htm
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=395&catid=10&subcatid=65

And, what is the likely effect of people like David saying it’s ALL to do GHG induced climate change –especially when in his next breath he maintains that the developed world bears “ 90%” of the responsibility ?

It tells those undeveloped nations that produce “10%” of the pollution and 90% of the new births.
--Keep having 10 kids per family.
--Keep over fishing & over farming.
--Continue to settle on low lying land.
Because if anything untoward occurs – it’s not your doing.

A real head in the sand stance.
And that John Ridd is why your critics are not into horses –you see, they prefer Ostriches!

Eclipse Now, I doubt because juggling data to fit computer models which are rife with assumptions and approximations does not inspire confidence, and because eminent scientists such as Freeman Dyson most assuredly do question not climate change, but the claims of the climate change lobby.