Ok, except that if increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming, then the obvious solution is to reduce CO2. But if we take your approach and just say warming is bad, and we are seeing warming, people will ask, why is cutting CO2 going to work? Unfortunately for your philosophy our understanding of how to solve the problem is tied up in our understanding of what is causing the problem.

As someone who has written papers on both solar influences on Terrestrial weather and the technology for alternative (green) energy sources, I have to say that I believe global warming is occurring, we are causing it, and we aren't acting fast enough to avoid a catastrophe.

If you don't trust the people proffering a solution in the US, then look elsewhere and see what groups in other parts of the world are saying.

Unfortunately it's the morons and the jebus freaks who are the majority of voters.

Oh I see. The problem was that the GP you refer to was below my threshold, and it looked like you were replying to that post's parent.

And in fact is is *STILL* the convention to use "I" for a single author in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/3883) I hope you've learned something today.

That's a convention now, but it wasn't always the case, and there's no reason why it should be necessary. If you really don't think anything written in the first person is credible then you will have to take issue with thousands of articles in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. For instance: http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/133-142/821).

The IAU has spoken: we have to call it a dwarf moonlet because it hasn't cleared its orbit of debris.

Seconded.

Please vote Green, but preference Labor ahead of the Coalition. Abbott is on record as saying he doesn't believe in climate change. I could give you many other reasons not to vote for the Liberals, but I suspect that will be enough for you.

On the first of January 1901, Australia was formed by an agreement not a war... We are pretty good at doing bloodless.

You forgot to mention that at least 2/3 of people seem not to know how the instant run off system of voting works. We have a voting system that beautifully avoids sticking us with a this or that two party system. Yet we have a two party system because most people won't take the 5 minutes needed to learn how it works, and how you can NEVER waste your vote by voting for one on the other parties so long as you place your preferences down to those two majors.

Which news network are you watching? Or which people are you tweeting with? Because mykos' version seems to be closer to what I'm hearing form people.

I'm sorry to point this out, but you have punctuated your response incorrectly. You see, the full stop should come inside the second set of quotation marks. Also, you should have added a comma at the end of the first quotation, but before the closing quotation mark.

I think she actually said that she'd be the first red-head as PM in colour photographs or something.

I agree with everything you said, but I do think it marks a milestone toward equality, and a milestone worth recognising.

Ask the previous generation of women what it would have meant to them to have had a female leader of their country when they were growing up? I bet they'll tell you it would have made a difference to know that it was possible for them too - and not just in theory - it will have a psychological impact on young women (and men); which in turn will help make our future work-places less "hyper-masculine" and better environments for all.

No, it's not a magic pill, but every little bit helps.