"can re-forestation [and of course, stopping any further de-forestation, that goes without saying] counteract the production of CO2 emissions ? "

http://newint.org/features/2006/07/01/carbon-cycle/

Cap and trade is seen as the better approach, Joe, but it has its own issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading_scheme#cite_note-138

Lucerifade,

Cap and trade, if i knew what it was: I don't trust any of those schemes to do the job, capitalists can work their way around them all.

Stop de-forestation and land clearing, and plant billions of trees across the North, irrigated on drippers and all the work done by people in nearby Aboriginal communities. That would provide work for life for Aboriginal people so keen to do it, perhaps even overtime working in nurseries and pumping stations !

Of course, NEVER burn the wood generated, use it for house-building or furniture or mulching back into the soil. Imagine taking that idea to Africa, irrigating vast areas for local production.

Win-win-win !

Now let's get on to more serious problems. Gay marriage. Blue or pink baby clothes. A tunnel under Melbourne. Moving Garden Island to Brisbane. Come to think of it, moving Melbourne to Hobart, or further south. As far south as possible.

Joe

just had a great laugh watching the abc new pushing the gw religion again. How pathetic.

Try this for answers to specific questions, Joe.
http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/about.php

".....capitalists can work their way around them all." Capos are working their way around the whole need for carbon abatement right now, just look what they've achieved in Australia recently, smashing carbon pricing out of their way. Should we put something in their path or should we just give up and cede the future to them?

"Of course, NEVER burn the wood generated, use it for house-building or furniture or mulching back into the soil."

Mulching returns much of the carbon to the atmosphere as CO2 or CH4. All planting and building structures from wood might do is buy some sequestation time, which we do need, but it's not the answer. Read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset#Effectiveness_of_tree-planting_offsets

Joe, you're down to three choices. Join the AGW denialists, join the carbon mitigation movement which means aiming for fossil fuels to stay in the ground, or, bury your head in it.

SM,

"It was pointed out to me that about 500m years ago CO2 levels were about 2000ppm (5x that of today) and life flourished and temperatures were not that different from today."

Which extinction event would you like to choose from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian%E2%80%93Ordovician_extinction_event

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician%E2%80%93Silurian_extinction_event

"The Ordovician–Silurian extinction event, the Ordovician extinction, was the second-largest of the five major extinction events in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct and second largest overall in the overall loss of life."

Here's some more info on your abundant life around 500 million years ago:

" While diverse life forms prospered in the oceans, the land was comparatively barren – with nothing more complex than a microbial soil crust[9] and a few molluscs that emerged to browse on the microbial biofilm[10] Most of the continents were probably dry and rocky due to a lack of vegetation. Shallow seas flanked the margins of several continents created during the breakup of the supercontinent Pannotia. The seas were relatively warm, and polar ice was absent for much of the period."

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

So it's very easy to take a simplistic glance and dismiss the "science".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-basic.htm

"In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."

"When looking at events such as these from the deep geological past, it is vital to keep in mind that there are many uncertainties, and generally speaking, the further back we look, the more there are. As our paleo techniques improve and other discoveries emerge this story will no doubt be refined. Also, although CO2 is a key factor in controlling the climate, it would be a mistake to think it's the only factor; ignore the other elements and you'll most likely get the story wrong."