Could copy and paste that comment to a lot of The Conversation contributions. It is a great source of info. Keep it up I say!

Because too many don't want to know? Tweet it as widely as you can. Email the link. News should be spread. Anyone know any mainstream journalists?

Tom, not much to be argued with here as unlike your comment the researchers statement.....

http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/news/archive/2011/09/title-104239-en.html

contains no speculation, hypothetical or otherwise. Prudently they are waiting for more data.

As shown in one of the figures at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-overview-of-glacier-trends.html

In those instances where glaciers were measured prior to the industrial age (pre-1750), in France and Switzerland, little or no glacial retreat is recorded.

James
I did not say I was in favour of "immediate action on AGW which you see as a major and immediate threat to the world" nor did I say the science was "settled". No science is ever truly "settled", although sometimes the word is used in vernacular sense to talk about science that is well established and on a solid basis.
What I did say is that there are abundant studies that show the problem is real and significant.
Have you, in fact, looked at the reports I suggested that provide substantiation for the fact that the problem is serious?
I can make it easy for you with an excellent summary here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
If you haven't looked at these studies (clearly you don't think it's a real problem), why not? On what evidentiary basis do you claim it's not a concern?
If you have looked at the studies and disagree where is your refutation of them?
You raise cherry picked examples of poor actions as some sort of excuse - but have you really thought about it? You are also plainly misinformed about at least some. The Wonthaggi desalination plant was built as a (foolish) political expedient against drought - it was strongly opposed by those who are concerned about AGW on the grounds that it's conspicuous consumption of power would add to the problem.
You claim I have a narrow viewpoint - but my viewpoint is based on the conclusions of every single major national science body of credibility in the world. How is that narrow?

Yours on the other hand seems to be based on vague assertions and a political view (if governments won't do anything it can't be a real problem to paraphrase you)
Here is what my view is based on
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial.

The Royal Society of Chemistry's website regarding climate change:

http://www.rsc.org/Chemsoc/ImportanceOfChemicalSciences/ClimateChange.asp

"The major cause of global warming is the combustion of fossil fuels and subsequent emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases...Reductions in man made greenhouse gas emissions are imperative to halt the rise in global temperatures and the negative impact this will have on our climate."

And here is the US National Academy of Science's report America's Climate Choices 2011:

"Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report's authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts."
We also had our own Australian Chief scientists say the available science on climate change should compel the community to act.

How is it that you, without any evidence, know better?
You claim to be "keen to continue looking at the evidence"
In light of the above I simply do not find that statement at all credible
How much more evidence do you need?
Science denial is the refusal to grant the truth of a conclusion based on solid science. As I have demonstrated, the science with respect to the reality of AGW and its potential negative impacts is solid (or else every single science body of credibility is wrong)
Perhaps you might like to consider that it is, indeed, arrogance to continue to ignore the evidence that is already available to you and the conclusions of the vast majority of credible science bodies who actually have taken the time to consider the evidence.
To do otherwise is to be in denial of the science

Yes - but the Conversation has the jump by two days! So you "broke" the story in Aus? Well done :) If the mainstream media is following here that is a feather in the cap of the Conversation I think :)

Justin - I am certainly no defender of the views of Marc Hendricx or James Doogue - quote the opposite as I find their denialist arguments without substance or merit and have frequently refuted them.

But - without evidence - I do not think it aids the debate to cast such an aspersion. Nor do I think it relevant. Even if they are the same person they are entitled to their view - however misinformed it may be

How does this in any way address what I have written regarding the photos in this article. Also, Hansen and Sato do not prove a link between the observed melting and human activity. Nevertheless my point still stands, the photos presented by Sunanda in her article do not allow for such an assumption, and the presentation of the photos, without explanation of the major calving of the glacier ice tongue is misleading at best.

Climate and paleo-climate science are not based on "hypotheses" but on direct empirical observations, measaurements and the laws of physics and chemistry. Hyptheses and modelling constitute further steps and are inherent in all sciences.

For temperature records and other climate data sets refer to:

NASA/GISS at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
National Snow and Ice Data Centre http://nsidc.org/
Met Office Hadley data centre http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/
Australian Bureau of Meteorology http://www.bom.gov.au/

Ross.

As before, I could try and respond to every point you make, but most of it is published in the peer review literature and in websites which refer to the peer review literature, such as REALCLIMATE or SKEPTICAL CLIMATE.

Science is not based on opinions but on:

1. Original verified data sets.
2. The basic laws of nature
3. The peer review literature where specialists in the field examine papers and claims in view of points 1 and 2 above.

Had it not been for the masking effect of sulphur emitted from indistrial processes, mean global tempratures would have risen to +2.3C by now.

A summary is below:

"Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and icefree Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects". (Hansen et al. 2008: Target CO2)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

You say "There are plenty of qualified scientists who don't support the theory of catastrophic AGW - should I ignore them?"

Yes, because there are not plenty. Every atempt to claim otherwise has been shown to be rubbish.

There are few discredited people like Lindzen and Spencer etc which just a little bit of reading would clearly establish have been debunked countless times

I never said the "science is settled" - neither does any other scientist apart from using the term in the vernacular to state the science is well established. Which is it - it can always be overturned but no-one has managed it yet or even come close. Despite decades of effort.

Which, to repeat, every major scientific body of credibility accepts

No science is ever settled - why do denliasts like you keep trotting out that tired old chestnut?

You say you have "some doubts" - so based on the fact the you have no idea what you are talking about, have no expertise and no publsihed science you will continue to raise furphies which have been shown again and again to the open minded to be not germane and not to overturn the established science.

Is that really rational? Do you really think your "technical knowledge" is up to the task of somehow knowing better than the vast majority of credentialled experts?

Occams razor ought to to tell you that it is far more likely that you are blind to the evidence and that the solid body of evidence established over years by well credentialled experts subject to exacting peer review are far more likely to be right than you are. Unless of course you have a predisposed bias, blindess or an ego problem.

Really? Not very convincing or credible.
You say you will address a couple of my comments - why not address the actual established science?
I note, by the way, that you have not at all addressed why it is that you know better than every single science body of credibility (or is it all a big conspircacy?) other than to suggest that somehow because I have challenged you on this it is an "insult"
But let's examine your comments one by one
1) "The "science is settled" is seen all over the place." - I've explained that as have others countless times. Its vernacular use that means that it is well established. Don't play semantics. If you have some evidence that can be verified to overturn it - publish it - you'll be a hero.
2) "They even refer to "carbon pollution" when they mean "carbon dioxide"" - relevance??? It's use of language to simplify things as you should well know - in any event it hardly has any bearing on the science
3) "Many scientists have pulled out of the IPCC because they were disgusted by the abuse of scientific process, just to get the politically desired results." - really? Name them? How many?
4) "I suppose you considered them qualified until they pulled out" - I made no comment either way - is this typical of you to verbal someone who disagrees?
5) "So, do I believe the scientists who are still involved with the IPCC, or the ones who value their principles, and pulled out?" - neither - believe the evidence which is abundantly clear and has been examined by every single national science body of credibility (or will you cast aspersions at their values too?)
6) " If I look deeper, I find all sorts of problems, and conflicting opinions and data" - not amongst the vast majority of climate scientists - but if you have such difficulties, name them - I am yet to see a single example of this that hasn't been comprehensively refuted - can you name a single one?
7). "There's enough doubt for nations to spend millions of dollars on the CERN CLOUD experiment to try to fill in the gaps in understanding the science" - The CERN Cloud experiement is outstanding work to continue to improve our knowledge of the climate but it doesn't overturn anything. I guess you don't actually understand that at all - CERN scientist Jasper Kirby actually said:
"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"
Perhaps you should read this to learn more
http://skepticalscience.com/ConCERN-Trolling-on-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-Change.html
IF, IF IF, you are actually open minded as you claim

Ooh - here's more to put the Kirby work on clouds in perspective

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-research-examines-role-of-clouds-in-climate-change&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_ENGYSUS_20110908

"The analysis confirms - as most atmospheric scientists have long held - that the reverse is true: Clouds change in response to temperature changes. There is no evidence clouds can cause meaningful climate change"