I am with Banjo.
In an article in the Spectator Nils Axel Morner (Ex head of geodynamics at Stockholm University) wrote to the Maldives President for the third time. Morner said sea levels have not risen and are in fact lower than the 17th century!
Now you plonkers can believe some tear stained little prima donna begging for their life and land but not me. The Pacific Islands are riddled with corrupt leaders who steal our aid money and invest it in prime Australian real estate. The latest scam is to put on an actor who is playing a role or rather is playing a confidence trick on us.
New law, any Bank that takes money from a foreign politician has the money seized and has to pay a fine of the same amount. Wow Mr Mugabe would be pleased to lose his NT Cattle Station. To think that dog was lecturing us makes me sick and sick of you wallies!

Banjo,
enough of the nonsense . The proof has been given to all several times, it requires that you understand the science and how its gathered, processed etc. There has been several good sited that do exactly that.

You clearly don't understand the science, if you did you would not be swayed by non scientific arguments.
The flaws in the two Aussie Geologists arguments are well critiqued, referenced and widely condemned for being polemics rather than science. A bit like ' Chariots of the Gods' than a scientific analysis.

Would you go to a optometrist to have your teeth done, or a GP for brain surgery it maybe cheaper but.....! (they all study medicine to some level) So why believe a geologist whose focus is retrospective on a time frame in eons and eras. They can't prove that the current data doesn't show global warming, any more than a podiatrist can diagnose a brain tumour. (wrong end of the body.)

I put it to you that GW is undeniable and man is the smoking gun, it is there and provable from a plethora of disciplines (not just one).

As I said if you choose not to read/understand the science then that is your right but don't confuse opinion with fact or your denial with truth.

BTW the CRU 'scandal' is about some *data points* in one data set, hardly the basis for the IPPC's synthesis or dismissing the science.

Like the city island heat distortion argument.

BTW latest figures eliminate those data points. And new satellite techniques are more accurate anyway.

examinator, you fall into the usual 'debating' method of ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to have an opposite view from you.
So that makes me a denier, a conspiracy theorist, a paranoid anti intellectualist? What a pathetic 'argument' you make.
What do you think of Ian Fry? And, as Banjo already pointed out, even Tim Flannery, the government's pet high priest of the climate change religion, admits that the trend has fallen in recent years. Does that make him a 'denier, a conspiracy theorist, a paranoid anti intellectualist'?
Of course, if you only pay attention to the scientists and bureaucrats who support the GW theory and ignore the vast majority against, you will never know the truth.
The sky isn't falling.

great comeback from examinator....not!

Ran out of steam, eh?

And how about the way 'global warming' is affecting northern Europe at the moment? Hah!

Dear Banjo'

You said "I recall an ocean measuring station in Tasmania reporting no appreciable rise in sea levels". Wow, that is so scientific! As for Ian Fry...One person doing questionable things does not refute the argument.

Let me say this very clearly. I, and most people who have taken trouble to study GW over an appreciable period of time, do NOT claim that GW is all man's handiwork, never have. Only that the rampant production of greenhouse gasses...some in much smaller quantities than CO2, but with much bigger impacts, is exacerbating the process.

The world, as has been proven over millenia, is perfectly capable of adapting to climate warming and cooling if given enough time. Species adapt...those incapable of adapting die off and other species evolve.

The major problem at the moment is the speed at which the change is occuring...so fast we cannot adapt, and neither can the majority of mammalian species, nor the specialized developed-for-crop plants that feed you, me and most of mankind.

But if we don't want to become one of the extinct species, then we better find a way of slowing things down...right now.

As for the islands...what IS your argument RobP? Do you think that because it is difficult that we should not try? If we don't try, they will definitely go, if we do try, maybe we will suceed, maybe not...but also, maybe we will prevent the next most vulnerable from going under?!

Personally, I am not always convinced that mankind really is worth saving...but I think that it is entirely unjustifiable that it is those who have least contributed to the cause of the demise to be the first sacrificed.

If somewhere needs to be inundated and cleaned out, how about Sydney? Maybe New York...here's an almost certainty...Amsterdam?

One thing is certain...we CAN drown in our apathy.

>>As for the islands...what IS your argument RobP?<<

My argument is that pleas and best wishes aren't going to trump atmospheric physics. As people follow your advice and do their hard work thinking they're achieving outcome X, all they actually end up achieving, thanks to the law of unintended consequences, is something else completely.

Now that may be an outcome one is happy with, and it may not. What concerns me is that people are unnecessarily put through the wringer doing something that was always just a pipe dream. In that case, it's better to have put their energies somewhere else. In the case of the Pacific Islanders, their best course may well be to not waste their time making pleas to the international community but secure their own futures. Adapt rather than remonstrate. And do so before being mugged by reality. But, ultimately it's their decision.

Also, if society wants to save the planet, it should be done by those who are keen, ready and best suited for the job. Horses for courses. My argument hinges on which "we" you are referring to. The Royal "we" (ie everyone else being press-ganged into it) or those who are right and ripe for the job. If it's the latter, I've got no objection.