The following quote from Bob Carter - eminent scientist - is a fine example of how even science is misrepresented by scientists and those with an agenda - in this case that of the Lavoisier right wing think tank.

“Given the many uncertainties and inadequacies in our understanding of climate science, and the lack of empirical evidence for human causation, how has it come about that public opinion in western nations is convinced that dangerous human-caused warming is occurring? The answer is that the public have been conditioned by the relentless repetition of alarmist climate messages through the media.”

There are many many more eminent scientists who agree there is 90% certainty about human causation and as for being conditioned into thinking there are alarmist climate messages re dangerous change - I am sure the Tuvaluans who are swamped by sea reckon that things are dangerous. Oxfam is correct in pointing out the dangers to the world's poorest. Its unfortunate that many western commentators and scientists cannot see things from a majority world perspective or recognise and acknowledge their own agendas. Science is never completely neutral or decoupled from the socio-economic nexus. Recall the great Gas and Oil Swindle about 15 years ago where an investigation showed how the fossil fuel lobby had co-opted some senior scientists who turned out to be in the pay of American Gas and Fuel (and others who were actually just TV weather presenters) for a concerted effort against renewable energy. That campaign was incredibly successful - delaying global action until now - and yet there are still those who deny the significant body of science across dozens of scientific disciplines that points to the need for action now - by those who have been and are now the biggest emitters of carbon and other GHG's.
Whether or not humans are the cause (the supposed lack of 'empirical' evidence) may well be irrelevant when it IS clear that carbon is the problem and that human endeavour and behaviour change must be the solution. No other species can do it

"There are many many more eminent scientists who agree there is 90% certainty about human causation"
Care to show me where in IPCC reports this 90% confidence interval was calculated? You won't, because you can't, as this is a "feeling" not a statistical estimate.

"I am sure the Tuvaluans who are swamped by sea reckon that things are dangerous"
Maybe you should actually look at the data before making wild assertions like this.

http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60033/IDO60033.2004.pdf

This is what the "official" Tuvalu sea level measurers (aka BOM) say
"In the early years, the trend appeared to indicate an enormous rate of sea level rise. Later, due to the 1997/1998 El Niño when sea level fell 35 cm below average, the trend actually went negative, and remained so for the next three years. Over most of the past four years, the sea level appears to have been falling. Only in August 2001 did the trend return to positive values. It is still far too early to deduce a long-term trend (or even whether it will be positive or negative) from this data."

Doesn't look that dangerous...

"Whether or not humans are the cause (the supposed lack of 'empirical' evidence) may well be irrelevant when it IS clear that carbon is the problem"
Ummm no it wouldn't irrelevant at all. If humans are NOT the cause then carbon is NOT a problem. Seems intuitive.

Angela, the agenda of the right wing think tank Lavoisier is to publish the truth about global warming, and science.

Your statement that there is 90% certainty that global warming is caused by human activity is untrue, and the reason you believe it is, as Bob Carter says, because of constant false statements in the media.

There is no certainty about what causes global warming, let alone whether it is caused by human activity. There is no certainty, at this moment, that there is any global warming. There certainly has been none since 1998, and the aggregate warming over the last 106 years is one half of one degree. There have been periods of warming, as well as periods of cooling over that time.

Over the last 9 years there has been no warming, but there has been slight cooling, so we may have entered a period of global cooling, which explains the constant efforts of the alarmists to talk about climate change, instead of global warming.

Al Gore, speaking of unqualified people with an agenda, recently gave his global warming talk in Johannesburg, during the first snow experienced there in 26 years.
He also showed the lack of judgement to talk about evacuation of global warming refugees from Tuvalu to New Zealand, shortly before his tour took him to New Zealand, where they were well aware that there had been no such evacuation. Yet this proven confidence man has gained thousands of supporters for his false cause, and made millions of dollars in the process

It is highly likely that carbon has beneficial effects. The greening of the Sahara is one example of this. There is no “significant body of science across dozens of scientific disciplines that points to the need for action now” as stated by you.

There are persistent hard core activists, such as Al Gore, comparatively few in number, who work constantly to mislead people into believing nonsense, and to make themselves rich by doing so.

Angela, please excuse my intervention.

These graphs may help put things in perspective – you may see the trend – although some obviously don’t.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Based on some people’s logic, Global Warming should have stopped in 1973, then 1983, then 1990 and finally in 1998.

It seems some people’s definition of GW is record warm years one after each other.

Some people are not familiar with trend analysis, let alone simple statistics – it would be sensible for these people to leave their interpretations well alone.

1998 was the warmest year on record (just). However, you don't have to be a statistician to understand that a simple trend plotted with a record warm year at the start date (Nick chooses 1998) will show a cooling trend ... until the next record year, just pipped 2006.

Take a look at this for some retrospect:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm

2006 and 1998 were the warmest two years in the instrumental global surface air temperature record since 1850. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995 to 2006) – the exception being 1996 – rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850.

The rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. Three different global estimates all show consistent warming trends.

This data can be found in the AR4 technical papers here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

While you’re there, check out the FAQ.

Some people disingenuously misrepresent, distort or selectively edit the science as we have seen, both here and in the media.

The agenda of the right-wing think tank, “The Lavoisier Group”, is to create a new world order under the guise of neo-conservatism, to maintain the power and control of wealth, and the minds of the masses – doing a great job with Nick it appears.

Some people/groups want 100% certainty before they act – this is typical behaviour of people in denial or that suffer some form of paranoia. Risk assessors would be out of a job and nothing would ever get done if this blinkered mindset was to prevail.

Aims of the Lavoisier Group:

• to promote vigorous debate within Australia on greenhouse science and greenhouse policy;
• to ensure that the full extent of the economic consequences, for Australia, of the regime of carbon withdrawal prescribed by the yet-to-be-ratified Kyoto Protocol, are fully understood by the Australian community;
• to explore the implications which treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol have for Australia's sovereignty, and for the GATT/WTO rules which protect Australia (and other WTO members) from the use of trade sanctions as an instrument of extraterritorial power.

The source of the above is the Lavoisier website:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

What is the source of your misinformation davsab? I did not see any reference in your post.

The reference you gave us in regard to the temperature in 2006, says hottest in the US (not globally) since 1998 and goes on to say “slightly cooler than 1998”. This demolishes your proposition.

Still no warming since 1998. Total warming in 106 years is one half of one degree.

You seem to have difficulty reporting what you read, correctly davsab. Try for less volume, and more quality.

Cavalry to the rescue – nice plug Leo.

My source will plead ignorance, deny all knowledge and as a last resort, claim they can not remember.

Their blasé excuse has had great success in a number of enquiries of late, so much so that people are beginning to see the truth.

So you like cherries Leo, have a look at the bottom graph, 3rd from the top – the one that says “Global” (really, either hemisphere is problematic wouldn’t you say?)

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

It is obviously beyond the scope of your understanding (or these word limits) to do a dissertation on “temperature anomalies” and your cohort’s incoherence of temperature change or its rate of change – so, to be brief – go back to school.

Better still, this is a paper from our own Bureau of Meteorology, I would like to see your cavalry’s response.

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

Should be quite topical.