>>Belly I suggest the first nuclear power station in Australia be built in your bqckyard<<

I'd be more than happy for the Government to rent my backyard off me and build a nuclear power plant except that it's not big enough and I live on the coast. This is not a good place to build nuclear reactors. Neither is Japan because Japan has a lot of coast and it sits on the Pacific Ring of Fire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire

Australia does not. Australia has a lot really good places to build nuclear reactors and to dispose of high-level waste. I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that none of them are likely to be in your backyard.

>>or my grandkids yard<<

Your grandkids won't have a yard. Haven't you seen the figures on housing affordability?

Cheers,

Tony

Paul,
if you think the opinion of the smh is unbiased then try their political stuff for the last 6 years.

By the way you did not comment on the natural occurring events that I mentioned and your reasons why humans have no influence over them. so why should humans have influence over the worlds climate.

Humans are responsible for only 3.5% of the CO2. How do you propose that we control the naturally produced 96.5% CO2 each year.

The significance of humans is not as great as you believe.

Banjo: "Humans are responsible for only 3.5% of the CO2"

In a natural steady state situation, CO2 into the system via emissions from non-anthropogenic sources matches CO2 out (through natural sinks such as oceans and forests, less deforestation). Anthropogenic sourced CO2 accumulate since they are not taken up fully into natural sinks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

Oceans are acidifying due to the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Banjo, why do you hold such faith in Murdoch for information rather than the IPCC? eg http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390 ? Even a kangaroo court should at least wait until 27 September for the latest IPCC report rather than undermining it with false assertions.

Oh, and Banjo, if the Telegraph wants to directly pass off opinion as "news" (see heading), anti-AGW protagonist Bob Carter is hardly your unbiased roving news reporter.

"I cannot see that humans can have any impact on the climate of the world. Whether we get warmer or colder"
Banjo, the huge volume of scientific evidence says otherwise. It is your choice to believe the spiel from the likes of Carter published in a junk tabloid printer by an organistion which has been shown to be less than honest. It is not beyond reason that some "scientist" when on the payroll of big business will come up with "evidence" that fits the line being peddled by their benefactor. I'm sure if you pay some "scientiswt" enough money they will "prove" for you the Earth is flat.

Somebody mentioned deforestation. Just out of curiosity, if the world rate of deforestation is more or less calculable, is it possible that there is a rough correlation between deforestation, and therefore less CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere, and at least a proportion of the increase in CO2 levels ?

I'm sure many experts have taken this into account, but I'm just wondering if a rough balance between re-planting, re-forestation and re-vegetation and increases in CO2 emissions could be achieved ?

i.e. that not only DE-forestation must be stopped but RE-eforestation must be adopted on a world scale, and on such a scale that CO2 emissions can be at least partly counteracted ? Is that a crazy idea ? Can re-vegetation/re-forestation become such an important factor that CO2 levels in the atmosphere can actually be reduced ?

Just wondering. Alternatively, we can just run around in circles.

Joe