Now Perseus, we all know white collar criminals don't go to jail, they get a slap on the wrist and a bit of ribbing down at the Liberal Club.

Your issues with AGO accounting sound curious, you think dead trees lose no carbon?! Ever hear of leaves? And wouldn't the higher soil temp alone (lacking shade) increase emissions from soil carbon? I know a remote sensing scientist who worked on the AGO's veg assesments, he still gets apopaleptic about Howard government thought police redefining what is a tree (now anything a midget can't see over, nothing to do with our Prime Miniatures stature, i 'm sure)

Bjorn Lomborg gives as his qualifications "the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge, 2001), teaches at the Copenhagen Business School and is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center".

None of these give me any confidence in his competence to add to a debate on a highly technical scientific subject.

The same goes for many contributors. If you write a detailed technical report let us know something of your experience and qualifications in the field, otherwise I for one will ignore you.

Generally speaking climatologists and meteorologists with some years of pertinent experience (not smart students with a recently aquired PHD) are the most able to add to our stock of knowledge. The rest of us can only make useful comments based on informed opinion. Science and technology are very complex fields although every second recently graduated Arts/Economics/Business graduate seems to think they can master its complexities with no relevent studies whatever.

Deputy Director of the Australian Research Council Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, Professor McCulloch, advises that investigations of the coral reef at Foul Bay, south of Margaret River in WA reveals:

"The Earth is in another warm, interglacial period and due to return to another ice age. But extra-high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from industrial emissions could instead cause the Earth to warm, creating a super-interglacial period".

"In warm periods, CO2 levels in the atmosphere rose to 280ppm about 100ppm higher than in ice ages. Today's levels were 380ppm with 100pm attributed to human activity. If CO2 levels continue to increase to above 550-600ppm, as many scientists expect by 2050, the climate shifts and warming effects will become more dramatic and surpass those of the last interglacial period".

He said "The Foul Bay reef - the most southerly know coral reef, showed sea levels had previously risen at least 3 - 4 metres above current levels, but many now believe polar melting could cause rises up to 7 metres in the next 50 - 100 years".

For the time being, I shall enthusiastically accept Professor McCulloch's theories over some bean counter's skepticism of Stern's fiscal estimates. Several years of research on the uncontrolled release of industrial carbon emissions, validates for me, what the good Professor is advising!

Governments, in bed with serial polluters, take heed! If YOU sleep with dogs, you'll give US fleas!

Apologies to the canine species!

I find it amusing that someone who goes by a pseudonym of logic critices the involvement of so called non scientists in the GW debate. I thought that, for starters the scenarios component of the projections and modelling of what may happen in 2050 etc, was pure economics. Also the use of modelling tools etc are used in many disciplines, not just climate science. It is the lessons learnt from imprecise nature of these tools in other disciplines that enables others to call for great caution in extrapolating from a bundle of assumptions out for 50 years or so.

Like someone said this whole AGW is like a pyramid balancing on a the ahead of pin. The further out from the original assumptions one gets the more unstable it becomes.

Finally I have to say if Logic wants people to just accept what scientists say, just because it is only they who have the received knowledge and wisdom, then they had better clean up their act. I wonder what the score is for scientific fraud and misconduct over the last few years is.?

I dont trust or distrust scientists any more than I do any other discipline, but from what I have read of the AGW debate/issue I wouldnt give them the keys to the Treasury at any time.

bigmal

I accept your criticism that the article was chiefly a critique of an economic argument.

However you and other contributors have shifted to the scientific aspects. Perhaps you are correct but how can I tell if you don't give us an indication of your scientific credentials?

It is true that there has been some scientific fraud but given the enormous scientific contributions that have been made in recent years this is relatively small and the mechanisms for identification of this fraud amongst the scientific community exist. The number of scientific papers on this subject are sufficient to make us worry. The pity is that the only thing that can move some governments is the considerations of cost.

Comparing the track records of economists and scientists on the basis of successful outcomes I think scientists and the associated applied sciences (medicine, engineering etc) win hands down.

Logic, I’m an economist. The statistical basis for economics and science is basically the same, and ALL of the IPCC’s scenarios are based on statistical and economic modelling which has been shown to be seriously flawed by acknowledged leaders in those fields.

Economic forecasting is a minor part of economics which attracts undue attention. (Of course, if you are sceptical of medium-term economic forecasts, covering 3-5 years, you must be incredulous of the IPCC’s inexpert use of those techniques to forecast a century hence.) Most of economics is about understanding how the world works so as to better inform policy and business decisions. An economist might not be able to give an accurate forecast of data ten years hence, but can demonstrate why policy A would lead to better outcomes than policy B.

To quote myself, “economic growth is about transformation, about change. The main message of this paper is that policies which embrace openness, competition, change and innovation will promote growth. Policies which have the effect of restricting or slowing change by protecting or favouring particular industries or firms are likely over time to slow growth to the disadvantage of the community.” Similarly, we don’t know what the course of global warming will be in the next 100 years. We do know that climate is, and always has been, highly variable, and can pursue policies which increase our capacity to respond positively to changing climate and economic circumstances rather than policies based on a view of what may or may not be the situation in the 22nd century.

Finally, anyone with well developed analytical, statistical and modeling skills in one field is reasonably well placed to assess work in fields outside their specialty. Even if you don’t have a deep understanding of all the science, you can assess whether it stacks up in a, s & m terms. Much of the AGW advocates’ work doesn’t.