Whilst I hate to disparage a good article.
I would like to know:
1 How the author differentiates the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields with the co2 emissions from the planet.
2 How the constant spewing of what the traditionalist Christian moron might say is the “fire and brimstone, constantly, (that’s continuously for all you quantum physicists out there that think you can measure nature), being introduced to the atmosphere?
3 how do you compare that to the puny man made mechanisms so EASILY monitored and changed with technology?
If one thing the scientist has taught us its skepticism.
Remember the ozone issues and the panic that caused not the least about the amount of sun burn cream it sold.
How tragically that died and none too soon either.
Now we have global warming. Ho hums more trivia from the so called sconces brigade.

Next - I have to agree. What's more dismaying to me than the absolute disbelief of so many commenters who dismiss the vast body of scientific knowledge in favour of the flimsiest of arguments and weakest of accusations is governments that give lip service to the reality of climate change whilst actively supporting massive expansion of fossil fuel mining and export.
It's not so much that voices such as we get around here have any great influence, it's that no voices, including those from the world's leading scientific institutions, count for anything where industries like coal and gas are concerned.

Thus Qld government is allocating $74M to climate change and renewables and $1,758M to coal subsidies and export infrastructure expansion. The projected financial returns on the latter won't take into consideration the climatic - and geopolitical - costs and consequences of locking in ever greater global reliance on fossil fuels.

I can only presume the strident voices insisting AGW is fake will simply claim it's all natural when warming continues and takes us into the realms of irreversibly damaging climate change.

Ken no-hope
I guess you think that the Kuwaiti oilfields was just a wiener roast or the ozone layer wasn’t a dreamt up science myth.
When someone actually quantifies the risk to the planet in a credible manner then you deserve the criticism you so desperately need.
Have you not heard of the Gaia principal?
Unfortunately you just pontificate with suggestion and innuendo,
Name dropping and stating the irrefutable without backup.
Instead of scientific based facts.
I dare you to quote one reputable scientist apart from (David Suzuki, the guru who btw wants the death penalty for transgressors), to come forward and put his /her reputation on the line and
State: “the global warming issue that isn’t a cyclic condition.”
So as long s you understand the GW issue isn’t any more than a political scheme to deprive us of more hard earned cash via taxation.
How much has been wasted on political representation on an issue that can’t and won’t be solved until it is economically viable.
Do you honestly think that Rudd and Obama et al go to the holiday resorts to talk about these issues? Well Bali beach conference 1, 2 and 3 worked so why not 4, 5 and 6. Rudd is still attempting to get over his image of an airline abuser after his dummy spitting.
Until you realize the motivation for this issue it will always be known as a Global Wxxxxkers issue

"Next",

I agree with your statements "Well haven't the denialists created the ideal situation; one where nothing, ever is able to change their mind. The science? Part of a vast conspiracy to benefit themselves and others in their nefarious scheme. Peer review? Corrupted by the conspiracy. Direct experience? Not real. It isn't happening. Or if it's happening it's just the natural variations in climate. Too easy. If everything that supports the concept of AGW is dismissed, how easy it is to walk in the door with half-baked science, bizarre and absurd conspiracies and denialism that is every bit as deep and disturbed as that shown during the holocaust. What would satisfy you that AGW exists?".

No amount of direct observations and measurements will convince those whose objection to science is ideological, rather than reality check, direct evidence and calculations. With climate one does not even need to look at the science, just travel around the world, look at the devasation inflicted by melting mountain glaciers, droughts, depletion of water resources, intensifying hurricanes and fires. Ask the local farmers about changes in the climate and environment over the last 20-30 years.

Parallels include earlier debates regarding ozone depletion, or the link between tobacco smoking and cancer, i.e. wherever such issues affect vested interests. Those who deny realities will avoid debating the science, instead focussing on ad-hominem attacks on environmentalists and scientists, even criticism of the scientific method itself. An echo of medieval times?

Next and Andy1,

As a conditional believer (there's another category of devil-worshipper to put in your Crucible), I want to believe in AGW, and as a leftie, I should want to believe in inevitable doom, but correct me if I'm wrong:

* temperatures have risen around the world by an average of two degrees since the nineteenth century; and

* sea-levels have risen about two inches in the last century.

Clearly, glaciers are retreating, snow-lines are moving up slopes, growing seasons seem to be longer and customary freezing of waterways is later than a century ago. Cities are rapidly growing in population and often income levels as well, suggesting very rapid increases in the generation and use of energy and therefore in increasing urban heat-island effects. Deforestation is clearly out of hand as the world consumes ever more big Macs and timber for housing. God knows what chemicals are being pumped into the atmosphere, and into the seas, and removal of water for human use from rivers seems to be reaching unsustainable levels.

So why the almost exclusive focus on CO2 ? Even being a geriatric bear of little brain, I still can suspect that what is happening in the atmosphere and in the seas is vastly more complex and represent the effects of vastly more than one cause. And just as there is no one cause, there is no one panacea. Many causes, many remedies - in fact, probably many remedies per cause in many cases.

So: regardless of what is happening, why not switch as much energy generation as possible (and financially feasible) to renewables, and for example, electrify Third World countries, particularly those in Africa, via renewables (wind, solar, hydro), in order initially to power irrigation schemes, and pay Third World countries (even Brazil) - payment by results - to plant, or re-plant, billions of trees as part of those schemes, to soak up the CO2 and provide employment to millions ? Of course, payment by results, after some initial seed money.

So please drop the stand-over talk about denialists.

Joe Lane

Joe Lane,

I agree with much of what you write, in particular the plethora of inherently intertwined environmental issues.

It would be hardly possible to resolve these issues unless somehow global warming is mitigated, as explained in the recent comprehensive account regarding climate change by Professor Will Steffen, Director ANU Climate Change Institute:
"Climate Change 2009: Faster Change & More Serious Risks"
Downloadable from:
http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/climate-change-faster-change-and-more-serious-risks-final.pdf