Foxy, there is no such thing as a 'normal, standard' climate.

Over countless millennia, it has changed one way or another, not always in the same directions. Ice ages, warm periods, floods, droughts. The ice cores told us so.

As for disappearing animal species, the dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago and they weren't the first mass extinction, nor the last. Though I will admit to sport hunting as part of the problem.

CJ, you bit so I should reel you in, eh? You are up to your usual tricks in that my opposite view to yours is due to a 'virtue of ignorance'. More empty bluster with no substance. You must have been one of the kids at school who hid behind the big boys. You have nothing to offer in the way of debate.

If you think that the 'great majority' believe in global warming, I find it strange that I never hear of it in conversation with friends and acquaintances but only by agenda-driven 'scientists' on amateurish TV productions and those who are politically motivated.

In the long run, I think that I'll be calling you the 'fruitloop'. Time will tell.

On 22 October 2007, over 50 scientists of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies declared the following statements (and more) unanimously:

“We call on all societies and governments to immediately and substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Without targeted reductions, the ongoing damage to coral reefs from global warming will soon be irreversible.

“Ocean acidification due to increased atmospheric CO2 is accelerating, and will detrimentally effect the growth and skeletal strength of calcifying species, such as corals. Reducing CO2 emissions is the only way to prevent further damage to coral reefs. Loss of coral also impacts on many other species and reduces reef fisheries.

“The Great Barrier Reef contributes $6.9 billion annually to the Australian economy - $6 billion from the tourism industry, $544 million from recreational activity and $251 million from commercial fishing. This economic activity generates more than 65 000 jobs.

“Substantial global reductions of greenhouse gasses must be initiated immediately, not in 10, 20 or 50 years.

“Reefs cannot be climate-proofed except via reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses. Without targeted reductions, the ongoing damage to coral reefs from global warming will accelerate and soon be irreversible.”

Included among the 50 scientists were several scientists from the James Cook University who are Bob Carter’s colleagues and whose theories clearly conflict with Carter's. Carter has acknowledged that human activity affects climate (cooling and heating,) yet recommends adapting to climate changes only after the event.

Last month he spoke against wind power by claiming that the ecological benefits of that technology were nonsense.

If one is to look for a conspiracy, we should look to see who benefits most by not implementing renewable energies.

It’s been reported that the fossil fuel industry has assets in the ground of something around US$200 trillion. I imagine widespread adoption of renewable energies would irritate the people who have control of the wealth and political connections that lie behind the fossil fuel resources.

Therefore, could we but hope for public debate between Carter and his University colleagues, in a bid to clear up the confusion experienced by we, the scientifically illiterate public?

Oh no, not the poor old Barrier Reef again!

It has been on the verge of imminent destruction ever since I first arrived in Australia twenty-odd years ago.

I'm fairly certain that it wasn't expected to recover from a nasty attack of Crown of Thorns, back in the eighties and then again at the end of the nineties. The old "we'll be rooned" cry was pretty audible then as well, but as far as I can tell it seems to have survived pretty well.

Can anyone detect any significant difference between this scare and all those that have gone before?

Except of course, this is caused by the holy AGW, and anyone who isn't a believer is a rabid denialist, foaming at the mouth with denialist madness (soon to become a notifiable disease, I am told) and permanently benighted by unmitigated stupidity.

Sorry, I forgot for a moment.

"It has been on the verge of imminent destruction ever since I first arrived in Australia twenty-odd years ago."

Pericles, the definition of "imminent" is "close in time" or "about to occur." Please supply us with a link to any marine scientist who has claimed that destruction of the GBR was "imminent" and of those who have claimed that "we'll be rooned" or are the exaggerations and hyperbole your own?

"The old "we'll be rooned" cry was pretty audible then as well, but as far as I can tell it seems to have survived pretty well."

And for those who prefer to dwell in the dinosaur era, the reason the GBR has not succumbed to the invasion of COTS is a result of major expenditure over some 30 years committed to research on the coral-eating starfish and much has been learned.

Even by 2003, divers involved in an eradication program had removed some 48,000 starfish across 51 reefs and had helped to significantly reduce starfish numbers at key sites.

Evidence indicates that crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks are linked to an increase in the run-off of nutrients from agricultural land. Outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish continue during 2008 and ongoing vigilance is essential.

"Except of course, this is caused by the holy AGW, and anyone who isn't a believer is a rabid denialist, foaming at the mouth with denialist madness (soon to become a notifiable disease, I am told) and permanently benighted by unmitigated stupidity."

Again you will need to support such ridiculous swill by something more substantial or is your diatribe yet another figment of a maniacal imagination?

When will KULU and others realise that myself and others are questioning the science.We are not denying anything.

The question that cannot be answered is;how does CO2 cause perceived AGW?There are no verifable repeatable experiments that demonstrate this.The IPCC computer models are totally inadaquate.They don't even approach reality.

Arjay, you say you are “questioning the science ... you are not denying anything”.

I have tried to be patient with you (and others) in the hope that through the OLO fraternity you (and others) might in fact learn something about global warming in general and/or the science in particular.

However, you just keep asking the same old questions and promulgate the same old inane assertions, despite being given coherent responses and cogent links to experts who can spell it out for you.

I used to think you were a misinformed lay-person trying to come to grips with the science (remember your Argo Buoy thread? Or the green-house experiment?) But it is becoming increasingly clear that you are incapable of learning or understanding anything about the science.

It is tiresome, but let me give you the benefit of the doubt (it’s either that or relegating you to the class of ‘troll’ to join the ‘others’ that so frequent OLO articles on global warming) and personally invite you to:

http://bravenewclimate.com/category/climate-change-qa/

Your questions can be answered, relevant sources cited and links provided.