As for Lindsay’s comment that the Earth is cooling and that people should look at the science, I ask Lindsay:
- what scientific qualifications do you hold?
- have you studied the IPCC report available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm?
- which long term meteorological observations do you disagree with?
- which conclusions do you believe do not conform to the observations?
- which mathematical models do you believe have errors in them, and
- what mathematical models do you propose to replace them with?

I don’t disagree with any of the long term met observations. Which don’t you agree with? The fact that the Murray Darling basin has not seen a long term reduction in rainfall? reductions in global temperature since 2001 with all major temperature data repositories, despite AR4 and TAR predicting (whoops, should be projecting) increases in temp since 2000, even when holding CO2 constant at year 2000 levels!

Where is the upper tropical troposphere hotspot predicted by all models used for well mixed greenhouse gases. Care to explain the fact that it is nowhere to be found?

Look at AR4, and the factors related to radiative forcing. LOSA (level of scientific understanding) is not exactly high for all factors, other factors are not incorporated, feedback mechanisms are mostly assumed to be positive (where in nature most feedbacks are negative), criticism by reviewers can be summarily dismissed by lead authors, who often cite their own work. Great peer review there. Perhaps some here need to learn a bit about peer review, and that just because something is in a peer reviewed journal doesn’t make it right, any more than something not in a peer reviewed journal not making it wrong. I could go on, but…

If you think things ain’t still getting warmer try and live in Adelaide for a time.

It is hotter and drier that at any time - as for the real science. What would that be Lindsay? The silly graph from 1998?

The question style quoted on this page is very poor in my opinion:

“On one hand the carbon pollution reduction scheme will increase the cost of petrol, electricity and gas. On the other hand the scheme will make the big polluters take responsibility for the damage they are doing to our environment and it will safeguard our children’s future. Taking both of these things into account do you think the Federal Government should speed up or delay the introduction of the carbon pollution reduction scheme?”

There is quite a bit of hyperbole in that question, for example: “safeguard our children’s future”. That is exaggeration and push polling to say the least. The fact that it will increase energy prices is an absolutely known fact, another factual statement is that it will put a price on emissions. To push the possible connection between the ETS and reducing damage to the environment as well as safeguarding our children’s future is not appropriate for gaining an unbiased opinion through polling.