I'm not sure if Global Warming was ever the right term to use, but there is most certainly a degree of Climate Change.

This can be seen in the spate of floods overtaking Queensland (that's the north east - top right - of Australia) after years of terrible drought. Our droughts are getting longer right across the country, but our summer months aren't as hot (from memory, don't quote me). Having said that, our winters aren't as cold either, plus they're severley lacking in rainfall - well below normal. Due to this crops are failing, and it's becoming harder for our farmers to be self-sustaining.

Measuring Ice Shelves and what-not isn't entirely an exact science either, as some scientists will point to large chunks of ice falling from glaciers as a sign of global warming, whereas others will say that's all caused by heavier snowfalls at the top of the glacier, pushing it down faster. I can see where both are coming from, but if scientists won't agree on one point, how can we begin to do anything about it?

So far our mission is quite simple: Create less greenhouse emissions by being much more energy efficient in every possible way. I suggest eating less, which will have a three-fold effect;

1. It might curb methane emissions;

2. It will put less strain on industries, and;

3. It will take care of the obesity problem.

Some people might want to breathe less too, and let those who have a better use for that oxygen use it instead. This means that 80% of the population of Canberra will have to tax their own breathing efforts in order for the rest of us to discuss Desperate Housewives. Or something.

I don't know about anyone else, but if the 'Government' down here were really serious about climate change, then they wouldn't put $7.1 Million into building a Solar Energy plant which will only supply 13% of Coober Pedy's (look it up on maps.google.com.au) total energy requirement, but instead put it into one of several Geothermal Power ventures currently underway near Moomba (hell, try looking that one up too). I know where I'd put my money, but then I did live in Coober Pedy too...

PS. Everything between 'I suggest eating less' and 'Desperate Housewives' may have been writting tongue-in-cheek.

dito to joe. the term global warming can be misleading. climate change is more appropriate because in a nut shell all our nasty little habits are leading to just that - change. change for the better or worse? we won't know till it happens, but most certainly for the worst, largely because the change is occuring too fast for us to keep up and adjust.

for alot of the world this means warming, for parts of the world it will mean cooling. generally it will mean higher variability. ofcourse there are areas where the change will be disasterous and others where it may even be considered beneficial (for us humans, proably not the ecological world). for example the greenland president is apparently 'excited about climate change' as it is meaning expanding pastures and the like in greenland, thus opening up new possibiities for agriculture and the like. good for them. but saying that, the fact that greenland is already seeing the effects of global warming, is quite a scary thought.

 anywho iron mike, i think its fantastic that your questioning all these theories and putting up a fight. after all you appear to be in stage 2 of 3 of accepting a new idea. i.e.

1 - complete denial

2 - vigorously opposing

3 - acceptance as it has always been the case.

historically people are given time to pass through the 3 stages, howver we seem to be in a unique spot right now where everything is happening so much, people are experiencing all 3 at once! its quite entertaining!

for all the skeptics. global warming will be proven once it is impossible to deny any longer - that is, when it is well and truley upon us. the next few decades will be interesting, and will certainly pave the way for the rest of century. lets hope policy makers and those in power adapt quickly, and not at the expense of intragenerational equity.  

I'm kinda surprised someone from that corner of the world had balls too.

 Just because we're questioning it doesn't mean we shouldn't still be trying to reduce our emissions though, even if it is for our own health - let alone the planet's. It's be interesting to see how many people would have respiratory illnesses and various cancers once the pollutants are removed from the air. Reducing emissions is important, but we still have an economy and standard of living to maintain at the same time. This is where we have have to adapt to the situation rather than stand around and make speeches to impress each other on just how long we can talk about nothing in particular.

Unfortunately, in my line of work, until they can make an effective electric/hybrid 4WD I'm going to have to keep going with my diesel one...

Absolutely!  Alternative energy companies are more than welcome to spend as much on publicity as the nuclear industry.  I'm all in favor of the free market and their participation in it.

You betcha!  The Center for Handgun Violence and it's companions should be FULLY empowered to spend whatever resources they like to level the playing field with the NRA.  no limit on the debate, that's what I advocate!

Why not?  If they can spend money on media instead of rockets perhaps they will become more enamored with talking instead of fighting.  Another brilliant idea!

It just warms my heart that committed communists like BigC have the flexibility to support the free market of ideas and allow competition to level the playing field in the pursuit of the truth and exposure of the fraudulant.

1. It's Coober Pedy - no 'P' in Coober ;-)

2. Yes, I have lived in one of those underground houses...

3. I did have a heap of rocks (I'm a dork, yes), but no they're not for sale.

Hey, I didn't make up the word! Apparently it's blackfella for 'White Man in a Hole' - or so everyone thinks anyway. I've also heard that Kangaroo actually means 'We don't understand' as opposed to 'Long tailed spastic thing that jumps'.

As I said, I'm a dork, so I've got a small gemstone collection too. Nothing I could make any real money out of though :-(

Really?  YOU were mocking ME???  I'm shocked! (There I go protesting too much again.)   :-)

You also know perfectly well that my response was thoroughly tongue-in-cheek since you wish to compare apples and oranges.  Klaus is asking for the UN to take a balanced approach by the UN funding both sides of the research to level the playing field instead of funding biased research upon which to base useless policy.

I agree. So therefore the UN should stop the agenda-driven, "partial research" of Global warming advocates, right? More and more research is revealing the holes in global warming theory.  Global warming advocates are unable to reconcile the lack of temperature rise in the last 10 years with the rise of C02.

BTW, God bless Wal-Mart!  When a new Wal-Mart opens up, it's the equivalent of a $3,000 annual raise for the average working family.    That levels the playing field between the classes and surely that MUST warm the hearts of any self respecting communist!

Snow there this time of year is a rare thing? The idea is that a theory cannot be proven, but can instead be disproven. I personally haven't seen strong enough evidence to comletely disprove the theory of climate change. If someone can effectively disprove it, then we should not worry about it.

I won't argue for or against climate change. But your statement, "If someone can effectively disprove it, then we should not worry about it" seems to imply not just that we not worry about it, but that we SHOULD actively worry about it, since it has not been disproven. (Did that make any sense?)The problem is, active worrying could cost a heck of a lot of money.

This is a bad analogy, but, if someone comes up with a theory that space aliens will attack the earth sometime in the next century, should we spend billions on a "whole earth defense shield," since we can't disprove the theory? Like I said, it's a bad analogy.

I won't argue for, or against.

If a completely different theory crops up that sounds even better, then that becomes flavour of the month.

It's a nice sunny 35C every day here, with no rain forecast for the next 6 months. Not because of climate change either...

I may be back soon Joe,
watch out. ;-)

First, we have to agree whether climate change is real or not. Some say the proof is already there. Since there are still arguments against, "proven" may still be in doubt. But, let's say, over the next decade or two, proof becomes indisputable. Maybe half the ice on Greenland melts, and the North Pole is a tropical sea. At this point, does anyone really know all the consequences? Is it assured that there will be huge, numerous hurricanes? Will the Southwest US, and central plains, become a desert? Will half of the population of China be refuges because of sea level rise? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the accuracy of the computer models.

OK. So, let's say it becomes proven. What caused it? Most will say the main culprit is the rise in CO2 emissions. Is the answer to stop burning all fossil fuels? I know that's what a lot of people want. But, what if it's cheaper, more economical, and beneficial to the world economy to continue burning fossil fuels to power our machinery, but to find a way to take CO2 out of the atmosphere faster than we put in in? What if we can set the loggers of Canada and the Northwest US to cutting trees and sinking them to the bottom of Lake Superior? And get Siberian loggers to sink trees to the bottom of Baikal? The logs are composed mainly of carbon, and would never decompose in the cold water. We could take millions and millions of tons of CO2 out of the biosphere, and the whole world could ante up to pay the loggers, and the railroads to haul the logs to the water's edge.

Who knows... There may be lots of ways to remove CO2, without hindering economic growth. I don't know how we tell China to quit relying on fossil fuels to improve the economic lives of their people. Or any poor, developing nation. Like I said, if it is proven, and if the world decides massive steps need to be taken to reverse the buildup of CO2, there will be lots of people, with lots of schemes to eliminate the CO2. We just have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The good news is, if all that polar ice melts, and sea levels rise enough, I could end up with beachfront property. My property values would increase at the expense of some lowlander.

I hear Its a potential threat. Potential means that it could happen so the idea is to prepare. Its only 100% proven when its too late. Correct? (not intending to push the panic buttons) but we could start separating the wheat from the chaff now.
I hope that taking actions to improve the quality of our environment (with or without China) wont depend on whether we find indisputable proof that climate change is occuring.

There is a difference between preparing for an "emerging threat" and preparing for a "potential threat."  There is evidence of actual existence of an emerging threat, while "potential threats" are hypothetical, making their mitigation strategies equally hypothetical.  

Environmental alarmists often mistake correlation with causation.  It's perfectly logical for them to advocate expending REAL resources on hypothetical cures for potential threats.  Meanwhile, recent evidence demonstrates NO average increase in temperature for the last 10 years.

 http://tinyurl.com/4md6tm

I am very suspicious of those who dismiss skeptics and attempt to shut down debate by derisively equating skeptics as equivalent to Holocaust Deniers and "flat earthers."  Why deflect scrutiny? 

I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but when organizations hijack environmental issues to "level the playing field" it strongly suggests that what they really seek to do is bankrupt wealthy nations to the lowest common denominator nations.  This is re-distribution of wealth in its most socialist form and needs to be exposed for what it truly is.

No.  I think anything we can reasonably do to make our environment healthier is a good thing.  I was stationed in Riverside CA for a few years and hated the smog. 

But before expending resources to implement policy to reduce C02, wouldn't it make sense to confirm C02 is the threat we think it is AND that our C02 reduction strategy meets a common sense cost/benefit analysis? 

As a general rule for ANY threat, what I'm saying is there needs to be evidence of the existence of a threat and a convincing case that a proposed solution will actually mitigate the threat sufficiently (i.e., achieve a defined desired end state) to justify the expense. For crying out loud, that's what critics of the Iraq war have been demanding for 5 years and the same critics are unable to apply the same standard to Global Warming which Algore claims is a bigger threat than terrorism!

When I was in graduate school, the course that had the biggest impact on me was one on Public Policy Analysis.  The central focus was analyzing whether public programs actually work.  The epiphany I had was in how many programs expend vast amounts of public money on poorly defined objectives and measures of success not adequately linked to those objectives.  Too often "success" is irrelevant and takes a back seat to politics driving it. 

Yeah...I know.  Duh!  But to an idealistic grad student, it was a lesson in the value of a healthy skepticism that still inspires me to say, "Prove it!" before I support it with my tax money. 

Well yes to the common sense cost thingy you mentioned, but no to the confirmation of the threat.
Anyhow, It seems the people who are focused on sharing the information that says climate change isn't conclusive are trying to stifle environmental innovation by claiming there is no need for it.
I was trying to say that we shouldn't need to prove climate change is happening or if we caused it before taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions or do anything else to help improve our environment. And it looks like you agree with me:

:-)

I'm not sure I follow you. You agree that any solutions deserve a cost/benefit analysis, but don't want to validate the threat these solutions are designed to fix? That suggest you are willing to accept cost-effective solutions to hypothetical threats. Based on that logic, we should be able expend resources and implement a cost-effective solution to a hypothetical invasion from Mars and you would be okay with it.

So we do not have to prove the existence or cause of a threat to justify taking steps to mitigate it, while acknowledging that our mitigation might not even have the intended effect. Got it.

Are you sure you don't work for the government? ;-)

The qualifier is "reasonable." I do not envision hypothetical solutions to hypothetical threats to be "reasonable." I'm from Missouri (not really), so "Show me."

What I need to see proven is that CO2 emissions are harmful and definitively linked to climate change. That's part of defining the threat. Challenge underlying assumptions! The next thing I need to see proven is a strategy for mitigation of CO2 that passes cost/benefit analysis.

I think that's part of the problem. I've read reviews that CO2 is NOT a factor in climate change and significant debate whether or not it's even harmful to the environment. If rising CO2 rates correlate with rising temperatures as environmentalists allege, how do you explain the continued rise of CO2 over the last 10 years WITHOUT a corresponding rise in average temperature?

Hardly hypothetical! I had to stop working out at lunch time because it left my lungs and eyes burning. But it was not the CO2 that was at fault.

http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP101/spring03/AllThatSmog/back.html

Hardly! I consider myself a conservationist and raised my children with a respect for nature and the environment. At two points in my life, I probably would have been mistaken for a granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing hippy...in college before I joined the military and probably my first year retired! :-)

I am more concerned with socialist agendas that seek to use environmental issues as a political and economic weapon to bankrupt developed nations down to the level of the less developed ones. To in effect, redistribute wealth down to the lowest common denominators to the detriment of all, including a lack of impact on hypothetical global warming.

is there a difference between in what causes smog and CO2? Do you know what I mean? I suppose I could look it up..

I agree there are enormous market opportunities for companies that exploit global climate change.  But those companies will only be profitable as long as the underlying assumptions about global climate change are proven correct or the hysteria can be maintained and codified into government policy.

According to your site...

The problem is the international concensus is NOT clear when advocates openly admit exaggerating the effects (Algore) and dissenting scientists are deliberately scorned and excluded from discussion.   The meterologist who founded the Weather Channel denounced the "scientific consensus" as a fraud.  

There is significant discussion in the scientific community about whether or not CO2 plays a significant role in global climate change (causation) or if changes in CO2 simply vary with normal climate variation (correlation). 

Here's a link to more reading material on the subject...

 http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

At this point, the only thing that truly is "clear" is the consensus is NOT.  I suggest governmental efforts to reduce CO2 are a waste until more research better defines the threat.  This is a case where doing something really is worse than doing nothing.

Englishman,

Not quite...

There are scientists and engineers who do have technical solutions to what is essentially a technical problem, the rise of GHG's. The main problem I see with the climate change debate is the fact that greens view the rise of GHG's, not as a technical problem, but as an ethical and moral one.

This is the very reason why environmentalists like George Monbiot would prefer people to stay at home and do absolutely nothing, rather than get a ladder and paint their roof white and put up a wind turbine. From the point of view of Monbiot, the act of buying 3 cans of paint and a wind turbine is the very reason why we are in this apparent climate change crisis in the first place. It stands to reason, if climate change is an ethical and moral problem, it is only susceptible to ethical and moral solutions. Debates about 'skeptics' and 'non-skeptics' actually miss the point - from the deep greens perspective, climage change is a moral story about the arrogance of human hubris.

Deep down, the greens do not want to tamper with what they would call 'climate chaos', the main problem for them is changing human behaviour.

I see - therefore we should all spend untold billions of pounds and reduce our carbon emissions by 90% by the year 2015 - on an 'if'? Can you not see the fundamental scientific and social flaw in this proposition?

'Consensus' is not science - it's politics.

Courtney, we have to make decisions on an "if", and if you look at it in a more scientific way, it is simply related to a probability. If it was said that unless we take some drastic measures the probability that there would be disasters involving the deaths of 200M people would be, say, 80%, you would probably agree that action should taken. But if it is put to you that such action would cost money and that it is not certain that such an event will occur you would take an opposite view. Both these ways of expressing the probability are truthful but result in opposite answers.

Now I know this is not the situation we have here because the probability is more related to an assessment of evidence rather than statistically analysable facts, but I am just pointing out how presentation and deniability play a role. Consensus is a difficult word to use. I would take it to mean that a significant majority of experts in the field have agreed to present a particular condensed view of the situation. We all know that science does not work this way and that it only takes one contrary piece of hard evidence to change everyone's minds, but such potential threats have to be resolved into political action or there is no point in having scientific advice at all. Yes, the greens have hijacked the cause into their own "I told you so" game, which I do not think helps. But it does not mean that they are wrong on his issue. The greens would not like nuclear power to be a solution but, in my view, it has to be, and dithering about decisions on this has cost much time. The climate scientists involved in this debate are not, by and large, members of the green party.

Monbiot gets his books published on the basis of his contraversial opinions about lifestyle changes he believes are needed. He may be right to some extent, but his outspoken opinions do not help his cause; it makes you wonder at his motives but perhaps he is just being honest and saying what he thinks. I don't know.