ConservativeHippie,

<<Can Aiden and/or Tony153 please explain to me why the perceived change in our climate cannot possibly be a natural phenomenon. I accept there have been climate changes but I cannot accept its all man-made. >>
We know CO2 has a warming effect (because it absorbs and reradiates infrared).
We also know the planet is warming (because it's been measured).
Those two facts alone would make it very unlikely to be a coincidence, but alternative explanations are always investigated as scientists work to improve their understanding of the atmosphere. And all the evidence so far suggests that CO2 concentration is what's driving the change.

<<There seems to be evidence the climate was warmer during the Roman era going by where they were able to grow grapes in Northern England and parts of Europe.>>
As they are able to do now. That suggests England was relatively warm at that time. But competition (from France and from beer) is likely to have been a bigger limiting factor for the English wine industry than climate.

<<Given the debate over the scientific evidence and the emergence of a climate religion>>
The neocons' "climate religion" accusation is the most outstanding example of spin mastery I've ever encountered, as it makes it sound evil to Christians and unscientific to atheists. In reality climate change denialism is far more like a religion.

<<and the manipulation by some of the leading scientists to hide inconvenient 'anomalies' >>
That was a great setback, though AIUI the intention was not to deceive but to prevent hostile media from misinterpreting the results (as the media unfortunately has a track record of doing).

<<I'm simply not convinced our current situation isn't within the natural parameters of cyclic climate changes.>>
What would it take to convince you?
Do you understand Bayesian probability?

<<t feels to me there is another agenda at play and most people are unknowingly buying into it.>>
There is another agenda at play: the coal industry agenda. Tony Abbott's bought into it, and you too, it seems.

...

...
<<Each of us has to make our own mind up. I don't see how the dubious actions such as buying carbon credits, an ETS or carbon tax will eliminate the problem if it is man-made; to me these are just wealth redistribution and get rich quick schemes for the lucky few at the top. >>
The problem is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. By putting a price on emissions, these schemes encourage greater efficiency and favour those processes that produce less CO2 (or none) over those that produce more.

<<Australia produces 2% of the man-made carbon going into the atmosphere. All of the man-made carbon in the atmosphere amounts to approximately 5% of the total. Why isn't the 95% naturally occurring carbon (some of it being from volcanos) in the atmosphere the problem, if carbon is a problem? Australia hasn't caused the problem and Australians cannot reverse the climatic trends.>>
The greenhouse effect is something we rely on to keep us warm, and the naturally occurring CO2 isn't increasing so isn't a problem. BTW the planet's volcanoes are thought to have a net reducing effect, as some of them result in carbonates being precipitated out of seawater.

Australia alone can not solve the problem, but that was never the intention. Australia's lack of action is preventing international cooperation in reducing CO2 emissions. So far we've been punching well below our weight, which is quite frustrating as we have the potential to be a world leader.

<<If the sea level increases a foot, or 30 centimetres over the next 100 years, I don't feel its time to panic. 100 years from now the population will have increased so much the survivors will have bigger issues to concern themselves about.>>
Panic is never the objective, but unless we address the problem quickly, we'd be very lucky if the sea level rise is that small.

Aiden says "Unless you can verify any of that statement, I detect a closed mind. One unable to be changed."

Well for the record from the late 1980's up until 2005 I did believe in global warming. Most of my life I've distrusted the multinational corporations as much as any greenie, believed organic vegies are better for your health, and essentially go along with the idea the whole world economy is manipulated by a handful of rich families and secret societies.

My thinking changed about global warming when I discovered the alternative scientific evidence was being suppressed. The more I read the alternative theories the more they made sense to me. It appears to me we've reached a point where AGW is the politically correct view and 'deniers' or sceptics are an expendable annoyance. That creates a suspicion in my mind another agenda is behind the hysteria.

It's probably annoying to the AGW scientists that all of the planets are warming. But hey, that's got nothing to do with our situation so we'll just keep that out of the MSM.

I'm still not a fan of the multinationals, I still eat organic food and realise much of the fate of the world is manipulated by the rich. I accept the climate has changed during my 66 revolutions around the sun. I distrust big government and feel the 'democracy' we live with is mostly lip service. I've also come to the conclusion left wing politics has created a politically correct way of controlling the masses that is every bit as detrimental to the future generations. The dumbing down of Western society via political correctness is creating generations of people who never question anything or use their brains to analyse the situation before them.

As I previously said, we each have to make up our own minds. I don't have a closed mind to climate change but I am sceptical, very sceptical. Even if it turns out I'm wrong, I would rather keep my current opinion than be a mindless believer going along with the 'correct view' when it doesn't feel right.

It's going to take a change of govt; to face climate change. When you have a leader that says it's crap; the door is shut.
As for backing out policy that aids the reduction of co2 is out of step with the rest of the world.
We have a leader that broke every policy promise he made, to chase his own agenda, and apparently there is no one that has the nous to take over the top job.

Nathan, I am not sure the Internet alone will stop global warming, but better use of computers and telecommunication can reduce greenhouse gas production. My next course on "ICT Sustainability" srtarts 16 February at the Australian National University. I have talked about the course at Google Sydney HQ. You can read the course notes at: http://www.tomw.net.au/ict_sustainability/introduction.shtml

Still worrying about the wrong problem !