Odo, you don't understand the basic science. The theories of global warming do not start with a set of correlations between quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and measured temperatures, but with well-established science about how the sun warms the earth.

The sun's rays pass through the atmosphere having little effect. They do, however, warm the earth. The earth in its turn emits heat at a different range of wavelengths; and that heat warms the air. Much of it escapes into space. However, CO2 and other gases reflect some of the heat back, to warm the air further, making the atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be. This process, called the greenhouse effect, has been known for more than a century. The reflective properties of the greenhouse gases at different concentrations can be tested at ground level in partial vacuum--so they are not in doubt.

Accordingly, as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, there MUST be an effect. The only issues is whether there are compensating effects big enough to counter the warming, or other processes causing cooling independently. One compensation--growth of forests, we are busy counteracting by cutting them down.

So which of the above points do you reject?

Here's some reasons why Australia is very much in the drivers seat with respect to climate change
- we may have the world's highest per capita emissions
- our water supply, tourism and agriculture are under threat
- our coal exports produce more CO2 than the domestic economy
- people from low lying islands are likely to flock here
- developing countries look to us for leadership
- we'll look weak if we don't match words with action.

Saying that Australia has a minor role is a bit pathetic, like helping cause an accident then hurriedly leaving the scene.

ozbib, whoops, let me fix that from:

There remains no smoking gun, no hotspot no direct link from CO2 contributing to the climate changing

to

There remains no smoking gun, no hotspot, no direct link from CO2, contributing to the climate changing

there you go, fixed.

So how does the errant behaviour of the Northen Hemisphere eg; semi Global Colding fit into all the Global warming theories .
Perhaps we all should calm down a bit and wait for the Ice Age Oracles to begin their Primordal Wailing .

<< So how does the errant behaviour of the Northen Hemisphere eg; semi Global Colding fit into all the Global warming theories? >>

Put more energy into a system (e.g. GHG's or Solar Irradiance), the system heats up, water evaporates, and falls out as rain or snow - the system is trying to maintain equilibrium.

Some people think Global Warming means higher temperatures everywhere and every year - they are wrong.

A symptom of global warming is an increase in (and extent of) extreme weather events.

Odo, science does not PROVE (your emphasis) anything. Theories are supported by their joint consequences. If a theory is confirmed in different kinds of circumstances, it is better established than one which merely applies to a more limited set. Hence the significance of my assertion about the reflective qualities of CO2 being testable at ground level.

The basic science I quote is very well established, and is not new. The causal link between CO2 concentration and global warming is as well-established as any causal claim can be. It does not depend on recent variations in temperature. The only issues concern other influences on climate. That is, is the increased effect of the greenhouse gases being offset by other changes? Assertions that it is require a basis in testable theory also.