Oh great, a call for eco vigilanties, and I'm sure it won't escalate beyond the odd quite peaceful protest that doesn't affect anyone.(/sarc).

oh wait, when eco activists chain themselves to connveyer belts in power stations, it stop the power station and causes millions of dollars of losses and damage. That's not an innocent crime, the community pays.

Next we'll have people damaging cars they think are not "eco green" enough, oh hang on, that does happen in the US right now.

Does this constitute villification of part of the community, stirring up emotion in one part against another? Is this inspriring hate crimes? If the eco types are pretty well a religion, and their campaign is against the eco heathen, this could get ugly, because obviously the blessed eco warriors have right on their side and there is a consensus on AGW isn't there? Well, holy war!

Go back to the cloistered halls mate before people take this up and it gets out of hand - sheesh. (to quote another) I know what you suggest is innocent, but a lot of folks take the AGW and Climate Change thing very very seriously so it is an obsession. Read some of the comments on this forum sometime to see what happens when someone challanges the AGW belief system. There are a few who clearly need help .. and this is one of the sanest forums on climate, go to the AGW belief sites with their "denier denigration" forums to see frothing at the mouth extremism They are the ones we don't want to encourage to take things to a higher level.

"Global climate change is accelerating"

Rubbish. Even the scientists over at real climate who think man made global warming is a reality don't think this, as the warming hasn't really done much in the last 10 years and is expected to not do much over the next decade either...http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

Starting off with such an obvious falsehood makes me think the author should not really be listened to....

This article merely celebrates the grassroots efforts to curb household pollution. We don't chain ourselves to power plants; we recycle, eat less red meat, save water, etc.
If I can influence one more person to switch off unused lights at home, then I feel I am making a difference. Lots of little efforts still add up.

Well done girls and boys, well done!!
Now go and tell the nice utility people that you do not want anymore of their dreadful polluting Electricity, gas and water. Then as there are so many of you the greenhouse effect will be negated.
Oh yes and ensure that nice Mr. Gore gets a horse and travels on that and stops flying in his executive jet. Problem solved!
Oh yes and no more silly talk about me having to pay more taxes OK?

Global warming is, in fact, accelerating. Note, Grey, that the article on RealClimate you link to is merely one hypothesis about what might happen over the next decade or so. It's an interesting paper but, it's just one of many projections and it says nothing about the past-and-current warming.

Take a step back: what does the word “climate” mean? It means the long-term average of the weather, generally defined to be over periods of 30 years or more. Temperatures have a lot of short term variability: they bounce up and down from year to year. The important aspect is the long term trend.

Taking the most commonly cited data for global temperature, from the Hadley Meteorological Centre in the UK, the picture is clear. Annual averages, dominated by short term variability (the “weather”), bounce up and down all the time, but 30-year averages, showing the underlying trend (the “climate”), have been rising since early in the 20th century, and especially since about 1975.

Specifically, the 30-year average shows a warming rate of 0.88 degrees per century in the 1980s, a rate of 1.10 degrees per century during the 1990s, and a warming rate of 1.52 degrees per century over this decade. Looks like acceleration to me.

Its terrifying that some are still stuck in 18th century thinking/worldview that exponential growth on a finite planet can continue indefinitely. Thinking that made sense in relatively empty world of 300 years ago, is hubris in today's overfull world where nature's capital is rapidly liquidated by humanity's consumption.

We need to awaken to reality that money is not wealth but a claim on wealth. The inevitable result of a financial system that grows money exponentially is an exponentially growing claim on wealth that ultimately derives from nature's capital (ecosystems and resources).

The absurdity of a financial system growing around 6% pa is that a cent in one AD (legal claim to 1c worth of stuff) grown at 6% compounding, becomes a claim in 1992 to 100000 galaxies of a billion stars the weight of the sun made of pure gold at $328 an ounce!

Climate change, 6th planetary extinction event, peaking of oil, food and water availability are all SYMPTOMS of exponentially growing claims the planet can no longer sustain. They will render the planet virtually inhabitable this century.

Wake Up Australia! Follow Mark's advice, get out there, speak up, act up, be heard, rally and above all become a citizen again and participate in democracy by seeing your federal member and demanding a future for our kids. Work concertedly with others and the power of your words and actions will be compounded many times! The only kind of compound growth needed is in the numbers of those awakening to reality and demanding a planned and quite rapid reduction in the physical scale of our economy.

Imagine! If we consumed half as much stuff we would only need to work half as long - more time to enjoy the pleasures of life! Financial reform to 100% reserve will take the exponential imperative out of the economy and can be used to refinance all mortgages on principal places of residence to peppercorn interest rates thus liberating us from much of the drudgery of going to work. Not only would we survive but we might even get a life too!

Diesendorf appears to succumb to the spin he abhors. He notes the reality of climate change but offers no evidence that it is man made even though he is not burdened by 'pseudo science of the deniers'.

As Diesendorf points out there are many in society who have not succumbed to the new green propaganda and those who promised to implement it are now confronted with the political and economic reality that it is difficult for man to 'fix' something for which he is not responsible for causing.

The hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide emissions have caused a significant rise in global atmospheric temperature is shown to be flawed. We see proof of previous warming and no evidence that man has caused it. We now see falling temperatures with rising CO2 levels and you wonder why realists do not support the propaganda!

To expect Australians to support the introduction of a complex financial engineering scheme, in the form of an ETS, that will make the production of all energy more expensive, with no chance of changing global temperature is optimistic in the extreme.

If the science is so compelling Diesendork should have no trouble convincing the majority of the population and governments to implement policies that will snuff out any economic future for the eager young activists in the youth climate coalition.

The reality is that neither the science or economics of global warming alarmists stack up and the pollies know it.

Graham, these book adds are getting beyond a joke. Particularly those like this one, which starts off with a total lie, & ends with the add.

Could you not have just printed the first & last lines, & spared us the rest.

It's not just the AGW ones, although they are the worst, but all of them, on all subjects

Come on mate, we deserve a rest from them.

"The absurdity of a financial system growing around 6% pa is that a cent in one AD (legal claim to 1c worth of stuff) grown at 6% compounding, becomes a claim in 1992 to 100000 galaxies of a billion stars the weight of the sun made of pure gold at $328 an ounce!"

But if we immigrate 20 million more people they will pay for it, won't they? And they'll look after the aged as well (in between property deals of course)?

Labor population to hit 35 million by 2049:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26089576-2702,00.html.

And cause lower wage increases for better international competitiveness so bosses can get richer.

Boost to pay unlikely this year (& for-immigration-ever):
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26091265-12377,00.html

My opinion?

"Let all the poison that lurks in the RUDD(labor government) .. HATCH OUT!"

Poison#1 (The strychnine): Human caused global warming is caused by humans, ipso facto. But Rudd &Swan crowing about 35 million Australian's in today's press, under THEIR policies(not someone else's) is saying Labor doesn't give a Sh$t about climate change but its spending billions doing a Labor impersonation of curing it all the same.

Poison#2 (The Cyanide) Most of the extra 15 million immigrants will end up in Sydney and Brisbane 'Gangs & Ghettos', while original citizens who stupidly thought they had some kind of stake in Australia's future spend up big on SECURITY measures. This will only boost Labor's Economic growth while original citizens have their babies in toilet bowls alongside the rest of the immigrant hordes.

Not doing enough for renewables!! The Government has mandated 20 per cent of our electricity supply must come from renewables by 2020 haven't they? Or did I miss something?
Now there is a real suspicion that that figure is too much too soon - wind energy in large quantities has to be backed up by conventional sources, plays real mischief with the rest of the grid and forces the choice of inefficient generators. It causes so much trouble that European reports suggest they are of no use at all in reducing emissions. see the E.on GmBH report - or the more recent reports by the UK Royal Engineers on the real cost of renewables (once backup is taken into account) Yet we are persisting with this policy. A complete redesign of our approach may help, but instead we are persisting with this idiotic target.
As for climate change accelerating, the pro-greenhouse scientists have finally, reluctantly acknowledged that temperatures are declining - and have come up with several differnt explanations for the changes.. entertaining..

Curmudgeon: "The Government has mandated 20 per cent of our electricity supply must come from renewables by 2020 haven't they? Or did I miss something?"

Here is something for you to consider. I heard our esteemed PM today say he expected the population to be at 35M at in 2050. That means we are growing by about 1.0115%/year. Ergo, our population will be about 13.4% bigger than it is now in 2020. Also, currently about 5% of our electricity comes from renewables, so a 20% target represents a 15% increase.

When you do all the sums, this means there will have to be about a 5% drop in electricity production from non renewable sources between now and 2020. Doesn't sound that big to me.

Hi All,

I read arguments for and against greenhouse reasoning.
To me the real argument should be efficient use of resources rather than wasting as is done today. Petrol and diesel in my opinion is not efficient use of a resource as there are other alternatives that are not damaging to the environment or public health.
Over many decades there have been many inventions that prove to be more efficient in the use of petrol and diesel, yet they never go beyond the vested interests buying them up and putting them away so they can sell more fuel.
Whatever our resources we need to ensure we manage them efficiently and not waste them. We have alternatives e.g. wind power, solar energy, wave generators, tidal generators, even nuclear generators although I do not support this as we will have future problems as to how to get rid of the "spent" rods. These options did not receive attention for many years as it was not in the interests of the oil or the vehicle manufacturing industry.

continued.

Buying and selling carbon credits is just transferring the problem. The companies should be working/researching how they can reduce the carbon footprint, rather than transferring it elsewhere.
A few years ago I submitted comments on a document put out by the Victorian government on its water strategy, under its so-called community consultation.
I was critical of the quality of the report and its accuracy. I considered a first year high school student could have presented a better document. The figures used were inaccurate.
However, rather than just being critical I provided alternative options for consideration. The response I receive was to thank me for my submission and then tell me my document was too technical and that the technology was not available.
Nonsence! I spoke of existing available technology and it was certainly not a technical document.
If it was too technical then I must conclude the government was employing the wrong engineers.
As a result I can only conclude was that the whole process was a PR exercise, (spin doctoring) to calm public concerns while they went ahead with their own agenda.
That was the real reason for a community consultation. The decisions had already been made and I can only believe was that the government was looking at how it could raise revenue through additional charges/taxes on the public and justify them as necessary to cover costs.
This government is a captive of the objectives of the major power group in the party and private sector vested interests. It is not about governing for all people but for a selected few.

regards
professori_au

The silliness and vanity of the belief that we're all going to boil to death from global warming just defies belief.

Whether the globe is warming or not itself depends on picking arbitrary time-frames. But even if it is ... so what? Isn't anything natural allowed to change any more without pious hysterics calling for a lurch to totalitarian government?

But if it is desirable to cut down on our use of resources, how come it's always by way of an *increase* in government. Government currently snorts 50% of the economy up its snout - why don't we massively reduce government? I'd like to see that! Why don't we cut out the use of electricity and petrol for all politicians and government departments who believe in man-made global warming?

Copernicus
Who's "we"?

"The only kind of compound growth needed is in the numbers of those awakening to reality and demanding a planned and quite rapid reduction in the physical scale of our economy."

Just stop consuming stuff yourself. Obviously the fact that it will cause human disutility or death is irrelevant to the grand cause of saving "the planet". But if you're not willing to do it voluntarily, why should others who don't even agree with you be forced to do it under compulsion?

Why don't you, and everyone else who agrees with you, simply stop using electricity, petrol, and anything made with them? There's no law requiring you to use them. What possible excuse can you have for sitting there in your comfortable home, made and warmed with fossil fuels, typing your opinions onto the internet, powered by fossil fuels.?How can you possibly reconcile that with your values about reducing consumption?

What a collection of wild ideas! It is surprising that Mark does not suggest real climate action for those who take him seriously. If he were serious, then he should set the example by downsizing his living quarters; growing more trees; disconnecting all external electricity supply; disposing of all oil-derived lighting; disposing of all refrigeration; cutting out all animal-derived foods; becoming a vegan; disposing of his motor vehicles; pedal-cycling or walking everywhere; avoiding all air travel and public transport; making his own clothes; cutting out all manufactured foods and drinks. Then he should get all his climate action mates to follow suit. Just think of the reduction in their carbon footprints and the enormous satisfaction they would all enjoy. Such satisfaction undoubtedly would become infectious, and his movement would grow exponentially.

What I would like Mark to expand on is why global climate change is bad.
In a geological time frame sea level has gone up and down like a yo-yo.
It is well known that Sydney Harbour is a drowned river valley, drowned when the ice sheets that covered the northern hemisphere melted approx 18k years ago and sea levels rose 60 plus meters.
Also research at Sydney Uni is indicating that native vegetation is most efficient in putting on maximum mass for the least amount of water when CO2 is around the 700ppmv level
Is that just a fortuitous occurrence or has Australian Flora evolved to be quite happy with higher levels of carbon dioxide.
I find the climate change alarmists the most conservative of all people.
They will not accept any change climate when it is plain to all that climate has changed constantly, hot and cold, since life started on earth.
This is not to deny that we all have a responsibility to use resources in the most efficent manner and that includes the tax payers dollar.

There’s nothing like a bit of socio-political radicalization to stir the emotions. Mark Diesendorf is probably more a dangerous symptom of our emotionally driven society than silly.

All protest movements are part of a continuum, a one on the scale is social comment and discussion, a ten on the scale is terrorism. In between we have peaceful protests, group formation, disruptive protests, political activism, violent protests, socio-economic destructive activism, threats to property and commerce, threats to life and limb and finally, the obsession cannot be stopped and ideology claims its first victims. I’m sure Mark has this all under control and can stop this at any point.

Sounds familiar to me

there are a few maxims...accepted as true
business loves making money
better to get direct tax from the people[or govt]..than to work for it...especially if your doing buisness for proffit

rerstriction of supply creates scarcity
scare-city...allows bigger price..bigger price means more proffit for business....talk of peak oil creates scarcity prenium..despite we being no where near peak oil

global warming means you need to prove its warming
claiming climate cooling likewise needs its proof
but the proof is climate changes..yes agreed...but it allways has changed..winter to summer...we have hot spot;'s and cold spots..climate change is undeniable

now to lik govt gifts to change we can be decieved into believing..cast blame as one poisen...the basis for all life..then collect the tax on a reducing..[capped]..limit of credits...and increase the value of credits to all..the tax serfs /wage slaves..con/sumers ..cash cow..will bear /...

its great this global tax subsidy to rebuild for proffit busines..via the lie of carbon deficite[credit where credit is due...they sold the dream to many fools

i didnt use less power at all,..other poluters simply pumped in more power....when they shut down the conveyer belt..in fact no change was recorded...but

the cooling of the effective burning temp ...means the wastefull burning cycle..needed to be passed..through again..to get it back up to efficient speed...nothing at all was achieved by these vandels acts

wake up its all deceit to increase what we pay...havnt you noticed prices doubled allready...councils used to do this stuff locally...were cleaning up their acts..till big business started taking it all over...with enron deceptions...this has the clear smell of enron to it

Climate Change Agenda:..It’s All About..Eugenics and Depopulation

Editor’s note:..An Infowars reader sent the following collection of links to news stories..how the corporate media in collusion with the elite..are pushing world depopulation and one-child policies..under the cover of the hyped-up..junk science theory..of climate change.

09/10/2009 Population control the solution to climate change – Environmental Data Interactive Exchange http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=16959

09/14/2009 Study Finds Family Planning Cheapest Way to Prevent Climate Change – Environmental News Network http://www.enn.com/lifestyle/article/40476

09/15/2009 When It Comes to Pollution, Less (Kids) May Be More – Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403308.html

09/17/2009 Better world: Get real – New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327261.200-better-world-get-real.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news (Watch This One, it’s in multiple parts!)

09/17/2009 Condoms Against Climate Change – Salon http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/09/17/condoms_against_climate_change/index.html?source=rss&aim=/tech/htww

09/18/2009 Huge population boom a massive challenge: Swan – ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/18/2689697.htm

09/18/2009 Contraception vital in climate change fight –expert – Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LH537693.htm

09/18/2009 Birth control could help combat climate change – AP http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_condoms_climate_change

The source of these feeds is The “Optimum Population Trust” A supposed environmental foundation.

Here is their homepage… http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

The Report in question Is (Optimum Population trust – Contraception is Greenest Technology.pdf)

Also, I have attached some of their other rags as they will probably be removed or firewalled once they are exposed.

Read some of their reports, as they are repulsive atrocities…

CONTRACEPTION IS “GREENEST” TECHNOLOGY http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf

GAIA SCIENTIST TO BE OPT PATRON

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/submissions/climatechange09.pdf

TACKLE POPULATION GROWTH TO BEAT CLIMATE CHANGE – OPT

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/submissions/climatechange09.pdf

PUBLIC SUPPORTS SMALL FAMILIES, SMALLER POPULATIONS, POLL SHOWS

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/submissions/YouGov11Jul09.xls

ATTENBOROUGH IS NEW OPT PATRON

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release13Apr09.htm

SEX IS MAIN CAUSE OF POPULATION GROWTH

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release26Mar09.htm

EARTH HEADING FOR 5 BILLION OVERPOPULATION?

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release16Mar09.htm

SMALL FAMILIES PRODUCE BIG GREEN GAINS – OPT STUDY

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release16Feb09.htm

THINK-TANK URGES POPULATION INQUIRY BY GOVERNMENT

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release05Jan09.htm

POPULATION GROWTH THREATENS UK’S FUTURE

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release21Aug08.htm

REPORT CHALLENGES “RIGHT” TO HAVE CHILDREN

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/righttoprocreate.briefing.pdf

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/righttoprocreate.extracts.pdf

Archive of Reports:

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.media.archive.html

Yes a collection of wild ideas..
RStuart - I regret that you misunderstood my post. The Federal Government has set a target that is far in excess of anything that can safely be put on the grid at the moment. The 5 per cent renewables figure you quote in fact includes hydo (about 3 per cent) which is high-value stuff. If they could do 20 per cent hydro there is no problem. But as it is the bulk of the remaining 17 per cent of the renwable target must come from wind - an intermittant source. (PV and solar ect will contribute but not so much.) And that is horrifying. They are trying to make this work now by somehow integrating wind forecasting and grid management but making it work properly is far more complicated than anything thought at the time. They still haven't made it cost effective in Denmark - the only country where wind penetration is that high - and the emissions saved have been slight. Can they make it work here, given we can't simply export the electricity for nothing as Denmark does? Will there be, in fact, any real reduction in emissions? Looks like we're going to find out, and pay for the privilege.

One of the reasons I love OLO is these articles. They are gold.

95 percent of the pro climate change articles are posited on the fact that the earth is finite and a closed system. Resources are finite but the earth is an open system. According to the climate changers we're all rooned sooner or later because (a) too many people (b) the earth is a finite system (c) capitalism is killing us.

So according to them, any counter argument against climate change is facile because we're lemmings heading towards the cliff. The climate changers are asking us to simply to slow down before the cliff approaches.

I have no problems with cutting carbon emissions, as that's simply following a precautionary principle. I have major problems with the anti-democratic undertones of many climate change articles. This one included.

Hi All,

Just a quick thought regarding climate action.

We as an increasing population are using our most valuable land to build upon. Add to that we are looking at alternative methods to reduce environmental and health pollution and hazards.
What has not been given sufficient thought is the use of all of the roofing on these buildings.
Perhaps the government might give more thought as to the viability of installing solar energy panels as a total of the electricity we need for industry. There are hectares and hectares of available space we can utilise.
Add to that the water runoff from all of these buildings would no doubt contribute a major bounty to reduce the demand on potable water.
We are not using our resources effectively or efficiently.
Taxes would be better used to collect and distribute electricity where it is used.
This is just a thought. It came to me as a thought but I would agree that it would need further research, costing and final analysis. The main thing is that out of thoughts develop solutions:)
Regards
professori-au

Here we go encouraging people to run campaigns, get busy,
spend lots and lots of money via our governments etc etc etc.

All because everyone believes in the projections of a computer
program whose source code is not available.

Really, if we have it totally wrong, there will be a lot of embarrassed
politicians, scientists etc etc.
I wouldn't want to be in their shoes if the public comes baying.

In any case fossil fuel use is already starting down on its never
ending voyage to the land of zero.

For those wishing to reduce their global warming footprint there is a simple two word slogan that will achieve wonders.

DON'T SPEND

Everything that you buy generated some carbon dioxide when it was made. Make do and mend. Before starting your car think : "Is my journey REALLY necessary".

If everyone does this we will have a first class depression, in which immigration will be stopped, and the output of warming gases greatly reduced.

Pity about the unemployed.

The sceptics trot out all the same, tired old myths again and again and again. What on earth do they get out of insulting the thousands of climate scientists and literally dozens of peer-reviewed scientific organisations that back the science? We know what Co2 does at a level of basic physics. We can see the evidence before our eyes. All the crap delusional side-shows the denialist freaks cast our way have been answered, repeatedly.

This New Scientist article links the top myths, including "no warming for 10 years" and "climate always changes naturally, how do we know" etc.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

What possible motivation do dozens of independent scientific organisations, the oldest and most reputable of them to boot, have from inventing this? Who is running this worldwide conspiracy? Have any of you actually met practising climatologists and gone through their labs, trying to understand exactly why they call global warming a totally settled issue (on the core basics at least)? How is it they missed the basic theories that you guys swallow, like it all being down to solar forcings? (Do you really think the dozens of independent scientific organisations forgot to look at the SUN as a forcing! Wow! That's how much you guys have thought it through hey?)

It's a total waste of time trying to engage you all. Just go ahead and make Ian Plimer rich by buying his crap.

While you're at it, buy lots of Anusol, as I hear those alien probes hurt! Believing in denialist conspiracy theories places you in the same conspiracy theory mindset as there being aliens at Area 51, who also in on the Moon landing being faked, and even assassinated JFK! ;-)

EN - thanks for reinforcing that, that's the kind of rant we expect from true believers. Eco/Enviro religious guilt does that to some people, it's sad really.

Leave this to people genuinely interested in options and who have not suspended reason or logic - CO2 was declared the culprit "because there was deemed to be something affecting climate, and that seemed an obvious candidate" there is no proof. That's the point of the skeptics and all the models predicted that temperature would track CO2 levels, which they seem not to be doing.

There seems to be a lot of scientists who also are skeptics, so it's not just a bunch of "freaks", Plimer is but one of them, but go ahead and fixate, it gives you something to focus your anger at.

I used to believe, but too many things just don't add up, now I'm approaching atheism on this subject.

But why do I bother, you'll insult any heretic who dares not to believe exactly what you do.

Without a hint of embarrassment one of the IP whazits has said they expect another decade of global cooling? Well what the! With all the nonsense we have been subjected to and the fact it is a really perilous position we are in and the planet is/was going to heat up until we die to this?
First "global warming" is changed to "climate change" and now apparently we are not going to be warming?
You dolts wonder why we are skeptical? We are not skeptical this nonsense is perpetrated by people making money out of this, I hesitate to use the word, science or the fools who are deluded by them. There is a good case to reduce waste and clean up the air we breathe but this is a gigantic con which will see massive tax changes. The only redeeming feature is that when people make changes the consequences are sometimes not what they expected. I relish watching this nonsense unfold and the media who have been such staunch supporters of this scam turn on the perpetrators and devour them.

RPG: Plimer is publishing half-truths from a certain point of view that he just KNOWS are not true! He's after the money. He's on a mining board, and so is motivated by selfish gain to protect his own industry. And he once made money debunking creationism, found he liked the debunking mode of writing, and now has turned on a scientific enterprise he has scant knowledge of, CLIMATE! (He's a geologist didn't you know?)

JBowyer has bought another of the climate myths, the lie that the last decade was busy cooling, when in fact it had 12 of the 13 hottest years on record. Nice one Bowyer! I guess when all the glaciers are gone it will be down to those aliens again? ;-)

EN .. even for you this is going too far ..

"If it ISN'T in the basic physics, what kind of completely paranoid and mental conspiracy theory do you believe in? Better get that Anusol ready.... those aliens are coming to probe you."

That's truly abuse, I will no longer bother with you or your posts, your extremism shows you to be unable to cope with other people's opinions, get help.

Eclipse now, someone is lying here! You say that 12 of the last 13 years have been the hottest when Dr. Mojib Latif of the IPPC says we have had stable temperatures and it will probably cool for the next decade.Is it hotter or not that's what Fielding asked and was told his question was wrong. Australia has not been hotting up and you people are lying to aid a massive tax grab on the ordinary people of Australia. The only fear I have is that you will be parading around saying you have saved the planet from an unreal problem that you invented when the climate stays the same, i.e. changing.
All the abuse you try and heap on people detracts from you rather than them you ignorant, rude fool!

JBowyer, re your comment "You say that 12 of the last 13 years have been the hottest when Dr. Mojib Latif of the IPPC says we have had stable temperatures and it will probably cool for the next decade": I recommend you read this:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/22/new-york-times-andrew-revkin-suckered-by-deniers-to-push-global-cooling-myt/

The tone is rather aggressive, but putting that to one side, it does contain links to, and summaries of, good and relevant information.

Re your comment "Australia has not been hotting up": I recommend you review the data. See, for instance:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0

You are all asking the wrong questions.

I have not been able to be convinced either way on AGW.
However it will not matter a damn which is right.
You will have much more to worry about with declining energy and a
contracting economy.
Read this from Richard Heinberg.

http://heinberg.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/208-the-end-of-growth/

Don't expect to read it in five minutes, set aside at least 1/2 hour.
Then see if you really are concerned about global warming arguments.