here's a link to al gore's nobel acceptance speech. believers don't need it, denialists don't need it, but there might be half a dozen who haven't made up their mind.

http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/12/10/al_gore/

it's wonderful how people on a sinking ship can say any number of things to avoid the obvious: hmm, maybe i was wrong. my shoes are getting wet...

let's declare an amnesty on denialists, not mention when they are silent, or even support gw action. who among us, etc. then, if it looks like the world is coming to an end, we all rise up in chorus, shake our fists at them and shout: "nyaa, nyaa! told ya so!"

Actually Demos, after a decade of zero warming and now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period, it is the so-called denialists who are saying "told you so". Its just that you can't hear us because you're too busy listening to false prophets.
In a decade's time, the world will look back and wonder at the mass hysteria that is AGW and the Demoses of this world will be telling anyone who'll listen that they never really believed the hype. But they will fervently believe the then scare-du-jour, whatever it may be.

Hi mhaze

I am not a climate scientist. I couldnt tell you if climate change is real or not. Lets for a minute suggest that the climate change proponents (overwhelming majority of scientists) are actually wrong and you are right, but the world actually goes ahead and brings about reforms to curb carbon emissions based on the prosepect of climate change.

Would it be a bad thing?
- Greater efficiency: the entire economy benefits from this, only those with vested interest would seek to block this.
- less cars produced and on our roads: A few more years to use the oil. Less deaths by pollution, accidents. More active and socially engaged population. Less urban sprawl. Less traffic jams etc
- less reliance on coal: less pollution, fewer mass blackouts due to diversified power sources, greater independence for countries, a few more years to use the coal.
- more trees planted: reduce salinity, improve water and soil quality, create habitat.
- avoided deforestation: millions of hectares of habitat saved, biodiversity saved, water quality, ecotourism opportunities etc.

I could go on, but those are the main points. An obvious point to make is that all this will cost and some industries (eg. coal, oil, auto) will suffer, but other industries will boom such as renewables, carbon trading, revegetation, public transport.

So my point is that although it would be wrong to deliberately mislead people (i would also be very pissed off if it turned out to be untrue), it wouldnt be such a bad thing to clean up our act a little.

Hi Mule,

Just posted a message and lost it (after it expired) ... so will make this second attempt short and sweet. Just wanted to say that I agree with you - it wouldn't hurt for Australia and the world to clean up its act, regardless of whether Global Warming exists or not. But I fear big companies and their political clout would probably stop many of these environmental policies being implemented.

On another note, what does everyone think about Mike Huckabee labelling US foreign policy "arrogant"?

This is what he said:
"The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad .. my administration will recognise that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists."

Thoughts? I think he's got a point.

Full article is here:
http://www.news.com.au/feature/ranked/0,,5012572,00.html

Globetrotting Aussie