Australia it seems being the one exception - as the worst per capita offender (by dint of climate, distances and low population - perhaps a bit like Arizona) and the one most prepared to do something about it.

------------------------

Yes, and another example of data being "corrected" (fudged?) to set up a govt. policy...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...t-darwin-zero/

The debate would be a lot more robust if the data collectors actually released the original data, and told you what corrections were performed and why. As of this time they all regard their data as propretary and won't share what has been done to it - even though most of the data has been collected on govt. money.

Until the data is open I'm afraid I just can't agree that the "sceince is settled".

Concensus is not a scientific proof in any field except climateology.

Next week I'm a judge at the local Southern Arizona Science Fair - I bet none of the kids present concensus as part of their exhibits... The kids know better

I do apologize for the picture with no details. A more complete version is here -



http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/t...edictions.html

The better description I still need to find, but was based on past data, IPCC predictions and whether the Earth has a positive or negative feedback to climate forcing functions. The IPCC assumes negative feedback to CO2, but real data shows a positive feedback. This makes a heck of a difference to the 100 years out "we are all in trouble" prediction.

[Joke]Having spent two winter months over the last two years in Liverpool, I think 1 or 2 degrees C rise might actually be good - heck it would even reduce CO2 generation due to smaller heating bills... [/Joke]