@ Arjay can't respond to the opening post OR the subsequent post. So — right on script — he follows the Denialist Spam Swarm 10 Commandments and moves onto the next topic.

I've renamed it a PIG attack for simplicity.

1. Present (factually erroneous anti-climate rubbish)
2. Ignore (the peer reviewed feedback)
3. Go-over it all again (just repeat the same lies after being quiet for a while).

The PIG (Present — Ignore — Go-over) attack is a common device used by Denialists afraid of engaging the science honestly.

@ Spindoc.
If I wake up tomorrow and find all the world's National Science Academies HAVE finally discovered some new climate safety valve that protects us all from the *KNOWN* dangers of the REPEATABLE, DEMONSTRABLE properties of Co2's heat absorption spectra, then I will be grateful. I will *not* shout in triumphal joy "See, told you all the time it was a farce!" as if I knew better than this civilisations'entire scientific enterprise. Instead, I will say "Phew, that was close, because we certainly weren't doing anything about the warnings when we thought it was real".

But then my focus would probably shift to the fact that ALL fossil fuels will peak and decline this century. Forever. Even coal is predicted to peak sometime between now and around 2050.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal

So while someone will probably still be digging up coal in 200 years, it will have ceased to be the major power supply long before then. And so it should! Coal poisons us to death. Burning coal has given the beautiful Hunter Valley a lung cancer rate that is 3 times that of Sydney! The health costs of burning coal put the price of coal fired electricity WAY above nuclear power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98frSed0F5s&feature=player_embedded

@ Under One God: As always, I've got no idea what you're talking about.

The Warming Planets myth claims that Mars is warming therefore it's all the sun but
<<Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming. >>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

More:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

Great video at “Climate crock of the week” where he makes the GREAT point:
<<Isn’t it interesting that deniers swear up and down that climate science is too undeveloped and puny to prove a warming on THIS planet, but they maintain a mystical, metaphysical certainty that all the other far off planets … are warming>>.

They’ll believe NASA when it comes to warming somewhere else, but not here on Earth where it REALLY counts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM&feature=view_all&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=41

Or it's the other planets, but
<<Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.>>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

Or they point to Neptune, but
<<Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response. Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer.>>

Then there's the Mars and Pluto combination,
<<But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity. The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans).>>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html

In other words, Denialists create Cherry-Picking Straw-Man (CPSM) attacks out of completely irrelevant data.

So what’s your next myth going to be Arjay? I’ll quote a few to save you the effort. Here are your next few myths in all their fairytale glory.

<<Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England>>

@ Under One God
<<mate if your lot is right
the problem is putting c02..into the air....NOW*
REGARDLES OF WHERE IT NOW COMES FROM..its into the air now>>

Yes, that is a good point so I guess I was referring to the acceptable fuel sources going forward. In the first world wood for burning tends to come from less damaging sources like old telegraph poles, forestry waste, etc. In the 3rd world wood burning and forest clearing is a *real* problem both for maintaining habitat for biodiversity, local erosion, desertification, etc. So wood there is a REAL problem. Once again, it's all about context, the bigger picture. So there's a move towards solar cookers and little biogas and sewerage gas cooking methods, which is Co2 neutral but also processes sewerage into safe fertilizer. Watch this awesome video.
http://sp.green.tv/dung-busters-nepal

<<this is the same selective ignorance
that ignores the 'other' greenhouse gasses
like nitrous oxide from farmers speading nitrogen
or methane from home composting bins and mining..[both far worse greenhouse type gasses]>>
Do you have any evidence of this 'selective ignorance'? It's another Straw-Man attack mate. The IPCC and world's climate institutes examine ALL the greenhouse gases, especially nitrous oxides which are 300 times more powerful than Co2! This is a figment of your imagination.

EG: This episode of Catalyst looks at one of my favourite solutions, biochar. Look what turns up?
<<Narration: Adding up to 10 tonnes of agrichar per hectare reduces the amount of carbon dioxide given off while tripling the weight of the crop or its biomass.

As well as that they measure another gas that’s important for global warming, nitrous oxide.

Dr Lukas van Zwieten: Certainly nitrous oxide is a very serious greenhouse gas, it’s 310 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

One of the things that really was quite surprising – we didn’t expect it – was that the emissions of nitrous oxide from soil were significantly reduced.

Dr Lukas van Zwieten: By adding char, we’ve shown that we can reduce nitrous oxide emission five-fold>>
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm

Dear Eclipse Now,

Excellent Thread. However, as you'll probably realise
(if you haven't already) a public forum such as this
one will show you what stunning ignorance there is on
the Internet. So I commend you for at least trying to
put this subject up for discussion.

The problem with climate change in 2011 in large part is -
because of politicians like Tony Abbott - the issue has
become so thoroughly politicised that many conservative
voters really don't believe Australia's top scientists.
They really do see a sincere attempt by the Government
to embark on a moderate reduction in Australia's Greenhouse
Gas emissions as a kind of conspiracy to withdraw liberties
and increase taxation. In short they are irrationally angry.
And one of the key stokers of the conservative rage has
been the utter political expediency of conservative
politicians like the leader of the Oposition and his
cheerleaders in the media. Driven by ruthless ambition for
the top job, Mr Abbott in recent times has entertained few
qualms in his pursuit of the Government to the degree
where he's been willing to attack the Government with
virtually any weapon available.

It's a shame that the Liberal Party has forgotten its
more noble traditions of reason and prudence, the value of
conserving and preserving social institutions and the common
wealth of the nation, Robert Menzies, Malcolm Fraser, John
Hewson, even Malcolm Turnbull, would/do not support the
current Liberal rhetoric.

In recent weeks Mr Abbott has attacked both scientists and
economists for not supporting his "Direct Action" plan on
climate change. They disagreed with his analysis. Therefore
he's talked down the economy in an effort to exaggerate the
impact of the Government's carbon tax, even arguing recently
it will cause house prices to fall. No wonder it's people
like Dr Evans who support Mr Abbott - when none of Australia's
top scientists do.

Hi Lexi,
nice post. Yes, I do wish they'd bring back Turnbull. At least he respected the science. Tony Abbott was at an Australian VIP dinner a while back, and sat very near a climatologist. I can't remember the details of this event, but I know that he didn't talk with him. Tony had all these questions about climate science that he wanted 'real' input on. So he flew out of the country to go and get advice from some Heartland institute member.

Nice one Tony. ;-) (Do you remember this incident? I wish I'd bookmarked it).

Dear Eclipse Now,

Thanks for the thread and thanks for the information. It is more than the usual "the top climate scientists say". I intend to stash the information away and go through it if I get a chance. I don't know enough about the climate change debate to have a confident opinion but my current lean is toward skeptic based on experience with other issues that I have researched more thoroughly and what I have seen of this. Therefore I welcome something from your side that gives me the opportunity to investigate further and check if my leaning is wrong.

You can get a fair idea in my next email of many of things that I have been exposed to so far.