The man is a fully paid-up member of the flat earth society who gets more publicity the more extreme he gets. He thrives on the oxygen of publicity. A classic obsessive narcissist. My advice is for no one to turn up to the event. However the event turns out you can bet there is a column or two in it for him.

I am an actuary and hence cannot claim great knowledge on the science behind global warming. But this does not prevent me from having an informed opinion, and I have read much on the topic. Bolt is a journalist and even if he does not have the formal scientific background he can still form an educated view, provided he reads widely on this topic.

Like most I am concerned about global warming, and at times have dashed off emails to Andrew Bolt when he has written on it. To give credit where it is due, he takes the time to read and respond, unlike most of our MPs.

Andrew is well read on this topic, including Melbourne based Will Kininmonth's book "Climate Change:A Natural Hazard". Thus he is well informed on both sides of the discussion. Are you? Have you read the Kininmonth book?
As for me, Will's thesis seems well based but goes against 'convential wisdom', and I am thoroughly confused.

Attending the debate will not advance my thinking, and no doubt will confuse me even more. However, when in doubt, play it safe.

Consider also that Bolt's column about the academic who rescheduled his classes to allow students, who wanted to, to take political action has apparently resulted in that academic losing his job.

Bolt's predictable polemics aside, serious questions need to be asked about RMIT's commitment to academic independence.

Things that happen at universities could, should, and will, horrify the likes of Bolt and those he panders to. When universities start actually paying attention to such illiberal and ignorant approaches to knowledge they are abandoning the very ideals and practices that have allowed them to achieve what they have. And, because they are such a crucial part of any Western society, this also has ramifications for the health of that society as well.

Though of course from some people's point of view it merely confirms that RMIT's standing as a university is a dubious proposition at best.

The there's Brendon Nelson's political commissar approach to the giving of Australian Research Council grants, which are the absolute backbone of research in this country. Nelson has reduced the oversight committee to one person who reports to him. Moreover, he feels free to reject any academic's research proposals without offering any explanation or even making it apparent that his decision has overridden the expert advice. He has however set up a "community advisory committee" that includes people such as right wing polemicist and serial bore PP McGuiness. This committee can also recommend scientific research proposals not be accepted, and again with no transparency.

Academia is becoming just another field in which the government seems very keen to control the flow of information and inquiry. The Soviet Union also did this of course and we all saw how successful a society and economy they were.

Though unpopular, we do need divesity of views. Otherwise how will people question the conventional wisdom and sometimes, just sometimes, be right. I am a scientist by training - theoretical physics - although now slum it as a journalist. I can recall the early 1970s when we were about to enter the next ice age. I think what we all have to remember is that the earth is a vast and complex system. It has been around for billions of years. For all the combined power of scientific knowledge, it is a small speck compared to the near infinite complexity of the planet and local and outside influences from the solar systems. The global warming theory has plenty of credible backers and evidence to support it. But it still remains only a theory albeit the most likely one. I think it is also worth remembering as humans we are subject to the herd instinct. The evidence is everywhere, especially the financial and property markets. It is a well known fact that humans can fall into ruts of contagious thinking. The French did it in WWII and were totally caught by surprise by the Germans, who decided to not follow the same route in the country as they did in WWI. So remember there is a chance, a very small one, that Andrew Bolt could surprise us. Personally, I'd prefer to take may chances reducing pollution and energy use. But I don't think he should be shut up. Just as the government shouldn't be able to shut up the media with sedition laws and suppression orders and the laughfable sate of FOI.

Re The comments on P. P. McGuiness. (aka the muddle headed wombat) When my daughter was at a well known private school, her English teacher used to use his columns as exercises in [un]clear thinking. The students could rip him to pieces very quickly. The same could be done with Bolt's columns. Check out http://boltwatch.blogspot.com/

To the name and work of Will Kininmonth mentioned by Mike one could also add the scientifically respectable names of Dr John Zilman and Prof Bob Carter if one wants support for a more nuanced view of global warming. We do at present seem to be in a global warming phase and the co-incidence of high anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is certainly more than co-incidental even if the causal connection between the level of CO2 and the rate of warming hasn't yet been modelled definitively.

Since the last Ice Age there have been much warmer periods than the present and the likely immediate future. It seems clear that there is no evidence yet justifying radically expensive (i.e. impoverishing) changes to lifestyles and economies, although plenty of reason to spend a lot on research both scientific and economic.

Russia, though a cynical or opportunist signatory to the Kyoto Protocol (which affects it not at all thanks to its declining industrial production since 1990) may be a beneficiary of global warming. Australia should equally calculate whether we lose too much of our power to do good in the world by signing up to Kyoto (known to be practically ineffectual) and off-shoring our aluminium smelting and other high energy using industries to less scrupulous polluting countries, cutting our exports of coal and pretending as was the fashion for so many decades, that moribund Europe should be our moral, social and economic guiding star (come to think of it Scandinavians use of nuclear power might be a reason for reviving the old romance with the Swedes).

My view no matter how un-educated it may be, is the simple fact that the world has had an industrial age that has increased many emissions into the atmosphere that never were there previously. The definition of ‘global warming’ is a very broad subject that can include man made issues and also normal global weather events that happen over long period’s of time. The current age of the planet at this point of time in history has had a major amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere more than any other time in history. This is continually increasing and will do so for many years to come before we are able to reverse the volume we emit.

We know that the earth has had major weather events in the past. The earth has evolved over many billions of years and has changed form greatly over this time. Currently our only form of future predictions of weather patterns is to feed all of the past data we have and all future economic and population growth figures into data modelling analysis. Data modelling and analysis is continually improving as we learn more about carbon cycles and the effects of the oceans, plant life and soil are able to process this. As long as we continue to emit greater volumes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the continual degradation of forests and the waste into the oceans these values will not decrease they will continue to increase. The amounts of computing power that are required to improve these data models with greater accuracy on all the data is simply not available. We do not have a computer powerful enough to simulate everything with every data value and every variable of the future to account for this. Even with every computer in the world hooked up into a single super computer it is still not enough power to calculate the future with accuracy. This is why so much debate ensues as no one can agree on an accurate data model for the prediction. We just do not have the computing power or data to make any predictions accurate.

The sooner we slow down our emissions the sooner the ecosystem has a chance to going back to standard evolution of the planet earth.

No single event can be linked to ‘global warming’ and thus in my opinion it comes down to once there was no earth, then there was and one day it will be no more.

What we as the human race do to speed this process up is up to us, we should make that decision now. Future generations to come should not refer to our generation as the people who destroyed our planet. That is something I do not want to happen and I hope that any other person would agree that the future is our children.

Global Warming, Ice Age, simple extinction or just an event that happens every few hundred thousand years is just unknown?

Is it solely carbon dioxide contributing to the climate predictions. I do not know. I do know that it sure does not help.

To be honest I couldn't care less about what Andrew Bolt says.

I am actually surprised this dicussion went so far as it went....

Maybe people should try reading about what Andrew Bolt's been actually upto http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch .

Just because somebody's read a book and answered an email, doesn't exactly make him/her the next reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

I once emailed Mark Latham and got a response... and we all know where he went.

I think it can be only wise to except the existance of global warming as to do so doesn't cause any harm. Generations would look back (even if global warming turned out to be a non-issue) and praise our care and caution.

I once emailed george Bush and got a response. I also emailed Bonsai and got a response. Neither response had any connection with the original emails, but made me feel so good I realised Kyoto is krap because George and his lap dog say so.

Ah good people.... please make sure you use correct terminology.

It's not, "Global Warming", and it's not "Global Cooling" anymore.

The Greens and most self-styled Claytons Experts use the term, "Climate Change".

That way, having two-bob each way so to speak, they can't be wrong (of course they're not wrong anyway - they tell us so), therefore when the world cools a little (as it always will) and warms a smidgen (as it always will) they can say, "SEE! We were right after all; we're doomed. And it's all GWB's fault and Howard's fault and by the way, you're not lookin' too snappy yourself, sport".

I'll put my money on Bolty.

I just came across this and thought of you:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

Brook



Charming simplification of a complex issue! You've got the gift of the gab! But the point is; is that right?



Let's suppose you have a cat. How about I cool your cat at 0 degree celcius in the fridge for 4 hours and then put it out in the oven at 50 degree celcius.



That's a little colder than the 10-12 degrees that we get at night and then 50 degrees is just a smidgen warmer than your average summer day of 30-35 degrees. But I am sure your cat will alright, aye!!? After all, Bolty said so!!!



Brook, I am sorry, I am not a betting man, and I'd rather be safe about my environment and the one in which my kids will live in. I wont let people like you endanger them just coz you feel like punting on a dickhead!



Cheers

Sumit