Pericles Says tell you the truth about AGW. To use the famous movie line "you can't handle the truth".
In all these endless debates on AGW many people still think in terms of the Talk back radio opinions.

The scientists AREN'T talking in terms of Apocalypse, that's the media and those who want simple and absolute answers. THERE ARE NONE.

All they have is a mounting pile of evidence and a smoking gun. Most working or up to-date, Climatologists, glaciologists, meteorologists, Oceanographers i.e. relevant fields believe that the PRIMARY cause is Anthropomorphically generated EXCESS CO2 etc.

What is disputed is the actual precise details and degree of consequences. That's why the *Possible* conclusions are over a RANGE.

What is indisputable is that most of the data comes from governmental science Organisations and teams NOT the odd professor. Who may or may not have abused his/her power at some stage during the last 13 years. In addition, that may or may not have had some minor impact on the IPCC document. Which BTW is a SYNOPSIS of All published and peer reviewed data written for policy makers . The latest Data measurements (synopsis) shows that the the 'big thaw' is happening faster than anticipated.

The models problem ISN'T poor programing . Rather it's the assumptions and unmeasured factors that cause the differences.

Pericles, I think that your belief that only business is able to solve the issues of AGW are misplaced on a number of grounds.

- Business always works on the cash cow mentality and only resorts to drastic change when their is no option.
- I might also point out that the international banning of CFC by governments was the catalyst to solving the Ozone issue. I remember business kicking and screaming trying to resist the changes .
- Also note the biggest polluters are the biggest objectors to change.
- business is short focused, this year's bonus/dividend.
- Governments are SUPPOSED to look after the people long-term.
- AGW is exponentially larger and more complex problem than the Ozone hole.

I like the bit about “Climate activists (blaming) sceptics for sowing doubts about climate science.”

This simply means that the so-called sceptics are fighting back after years of the activists’ sowing a load of junk science in the minds of people.

We ‘sceptics’ generally believe that, although the warming part of the scaremongering has not lived up to the claims of the activists, there does seem to be a change in the climate that needs to be watched and adapted to.

What we do not believe in the man-made mumbo-jumbo, which the Australian Government is using to inflict horrific taxes on Australians which might save them from the consequences of their rash spending and huge debt.

The Rudd ETS has nothing to do with climate change. It has to do with Rudd collecting money to cover his stimulus bungle and to enhance his standing globally. Australia (with 0.01% of global emissions) is not going to figure very much at all. All Australia will do is ruin its own economy and lower the standing of living of most Australians.

The Rudd Government has made no effort to show Australians that “…the costs are reasonable and the benefits, both economic and environmental, are well-defined.

Pericles: "If we don't have proof, but have a good deal of evidence, then say so"

Errr, but that is exactly what the IPCC does do. Including spelling out the uncertainties, error bars and so on. As far as I can tell, that is what every scientific body does when asked for their opinion.

Pericles: "The solution was: tell business to find an alternative to CFCs. Which they did."

Yes, they did. It is not that there aren't "ozone hole deniers" out there - is isn't hard to find them if you look. But they had no support (in particular no monetary support) and so were ignored by all and sundry.

The reaction to the AGW message has been a little different. Instead of meekly going off and finding alternatives businesses instead have responded by fighting the science. Well, some of them have. I hear the nuclear industry has been quietly doing the reverse. My guess the only reason is the ozone hole thing went so smoothly is the factories that made chlorofluorocarbon's could just make the alternatives. No bid deal.

This time entire business models must be wiped out, and the businesses behind those models aren't taking it lying down. They are opposing is in the true America way, using propaganda. Paid propaganda, as in paying the conspiracy theorists who are always part of the background noise to make a bigger noise. One stand out example of this for me was described at the start of this mp3 (sorry - no transcript) http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/10/ssw_20091024.mp3

The climate science true believers responded in kind, and now we are in this current slanging match. Certainly the climate science side is partially responsible for this - after all it takes two to have a slanging match. But to imply they are the primary cause of it as you just did is a bit rich.

rstuart I remember an Australian scientist saying that the holes in the ozone layer (North & South) were caused by no sun in that area in winter. Sun makes the ozone and the Southern pole has no sun for longer so the hole was larger. All ignored and changes made to propellant gases. Hey that was OK the new gases were over 3 times the price so absolutely no losers there apart from the consumer. Greenpeace and the UN say change and make a lot more money and now hey presto no hole in the Ozone? Yeah right they made their quid and us mugs fell for it!
Now ask why I think the AGW is another scam to lighten our pockets. Sign up now put in the tax and then (As they say in the NY Mafia) Forget about it lol.
Nah that little scam then Y2K and now AGW the Ny Mafia are right Forget about it!

Yes Amicus, that’s me – Mr Hysteria himself!

Oh uh, hang on, wait a minute, hold your horses….let’s think about this a bit.

I’m actually not Mr Hysteria. The real name is Mr Coolcalmandlogical…or Mr Cool for short!

If we really do stop and think about this whole climate-change issue, and also the human population growth issue and the imperative to move towards a sustainable way of living, we will notice one thing: that we are moving VERY RAPIDLY in the wrong direction.

We know unequivocally that the population is rapidly increasing, our use of fossil fuels and all manner of other resources is also rapidly increasing, and we are heading faster than ever away from a sustainable future.

So, does anyone in their right mind genuinely think that we can solve this enormous looming catastrophe before it becomes a catastrophe??

Come on Amicus, admit it; we don’t have a hope in hell of dealing with this stuff before apocalypse. And that’s the completely non-hysterical cool, calm and logical extent of it!

Reports by the world’s leading climate research organizations (Hadley-Met, Tyndall, NASA/GISS, Potsdam, NSIDC, CSIRO, BOM), and in thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, demonstrate the anthropogenic origin of climate change since the industrial revolution, accelerating since the mid-1970s, beyond reasonable doubt. The Australian continent, dominated by subtropical arid zones, is in particular danger from extending tropical floods in the north and progressive desertification and fires in the south.

Climate change is tracking toward levels which transcend the planetary boundaries which allowed the development of humans over the last 3 million years. These limits have already been crossed in terms of the rise in greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, Nitric oxide) and extensive loss of species1. Given lag effects, looming threats include (A) ocean acidification and phosphorous flux, collapse of coral reefs and the marine food chain; (B) availability of freshwater; (C) conversion of natural forests to cropland, i.e. the Amazon; (D) ozone depletion; (E) atmospheric aerosol loading and (F) chemical pollution by metals, plastics, radioactive nuclei etc.

The rate of climate change since the mid-1970s, at up to ~2 ppm CO2 per-year, reaching 388 ppm CO2 and ~460 ppm CO2-equivalent (including methane), is leading toward ~1.5 degrees C mean global temperature rise relative to preindustrial time. This results in carbon cycle and ice/water feedback processes, with consequent (A) extreme rates of polar ice melting, including the Arctic Sea, Greenland, West and East Anarctica which threatens accelerated sea level rise; (B) a progressive shift of climate zones toward the poles, extending the tropics as indicated by intensified cyclones and floods, and enlarging desert regions as manifested by extreme droughts and fires, including in Australia.

The consequences for human habitats include loss of arable land, fresh water supplies and extreme weather events. The loss of Himalayan snow and thereby decreased river flow, coupled with a failure of the monsoon and sea level rise, threatens more than one billion people in south and southeast Asia. Polar warming threatened the release of hundreds of billions of tons of carbon stored in permafrost and shallow lakes and seas.