I think a couple of points need to be made
1) public opinion will change with dramatic weather events
2) there are good reasons to decarbonise anyway.

The current Pacific La Nina has brought a cool rainy spring and summer to Australia which makes steady warming seem less plausible. There will be a rebound effect and a scorcher may be only a year or two away. Suddenly AGW will become all the rage again. Even now tundra and seafloor mud in the northern hemisphere is releasing worrisome amounts of methane. On the local scene a place like Cairns could experience a mini-Katrina, a major city could have an unprecedented water crisis or coral bleaching could turn away tourists. Therefore I wouldn't be lulled into complacency by the cool summer.

On the carbon supply front while Australia will soon import most of oil (currently around 50%) world crude oil production is tipped to shrink 30% by 2015, lower prices notwithstanding. Australia has a lot of coal, coal seam methane and natural gas but will be under increasing pressure to share it with northern Asia and Europe. Therefore it is prudent to start shifting away from fossil fuels well before it becomes a crisis. The now pathetic emissions trading scheme would have created a mechanism to shift the energy mix from high carbon to low carbon sources. Under the myopic Rudd vision we will get both climate nasties and energy price shocks when we could have prepared better and helped lessen the impact.

“Uncertainty pervades the entire field of climate change. Scepticism should therefore be the natural attitude of any intelligent student of the topic.”

If the author is saying that people who are not sceptical about the popular view of climate change (man-made), then he is his right: the emission control freaks are definitely not intelligent.

“… policy-makers often have to act without knowing what is happening or what will work.” And that is just what the Rudd Government is doing to (not for) Australia. Having just about ruined Australian industry – they didn’t say anything about manufactures being driven offshore when they were in Opposition , and other Labor Governments have done some of the driving – they seem intent on finishing off whatever we have left, while India, China and other big polluters carry on as normal.

As for the “contrary evidence” referred to by the author, there is plenty of it – i.e. that CO2 is not the bogey it is claimed to be, and that climate change is a natural occurrence. We have people listing off scientists who are behind the CO2 mumbo-jumbo as if they were crickets scores, but completely overlooking those scientists who believe that climate change is a natural and unchangeable by man. The lack of recognition of the natural climate change advocates is caused by what Paul Kelly referred to as the “media agenda on climate change” which has effectively gagged people they don’t want heard.

The permits to be issued by the Rudd Government are permits to pollute anyway. The idea might be for them to lift their games so that they don’t have to pay for permits, but all they will do, in reality, is keep on polluting (which won’t matter that much) and put up their prices to cover the permits. Some permits will even be free!

Life under the Left and green ratbags has become virtual, not real, life.

Bottom line. If advocates for combating global warming are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we end up in a cleaner world. If they are right and we do nothing we are in real trouble.

Yes! we need to be sceptical of the hardliners and political gurus who have for ever put forward snake oil solutions to real problems. While most now accept that it's not global warming we have to worry about but climate change; it is important that we keep focussed on global health. Global health is not just having enough water and appropriate energy souces it is about ensuring a continuing improvement in living standards for all. The climate has been changing ever since we have had weather and some of the changes require we are more adaptable than we are now. However we have to maintain global health in all its aspects and not allow the "Henny Penny the sky is falling" gurus to distract us from the major task of managing this planet and its resources for the benefit of all mankind.The solution put forward by the Rudd government is appropriate from a political, economic and social position but what else can you ask of government?

Taswegian writes "The current Pacific La Nina has brought a cool rainy spring and summer to Australia which makes steady warming seem less plausible."

AGW believers at the moment are having to face the fact that the HADCRUT3 moving average of global temperature is now trending downwards, following several relatively cool years. La Nina is now being invoked to save the AGW hypothesis, despite the fact that the current La Nina effect is weak according to the Bureau of Meteorology. Equally suspiciously, we are now over a year into a solar minimum which shows no sign of ending. There is a real possibility that the IPCC consensus underestimates the sensitivity of the earth's climate to solar variation while overestimating the sensitivity to CO2. Richard Mulgan is right to remind us that the science on this is not yet settled.

A great article - the best I have seen on the climate change debate.

In other news, its possible the IPCC's projections on rising CO2 levels are wrong for for another reason:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081218-coal-waning-worlds-reserves-may-be-nearly-expired.html

Yes, a great article indeed - but I doubt that many climate change/AGW denialists will understand it.

A good example is Leigh, whom I note is once again displaying his convictions as an environmentalist.

How about we adapt "peak oil" to "peak fossil fuels". Then you can predict doom once every few years and just change the date along with the oil peakers when it doesnt happen.

If LaNina and a negative PDO can "mask" AGW to the extent of a downward temperature trend, why couldnt repeated El Nino's and a highly positive PDO cause the equal opposite effect?

There is a character fault in the most obsessive warming advocates in that they appear to *want* the world to be doomed. In another age theyd have been crusading, raping and pillaging the middle east in the name of JC. "Slay the heathens!" - battlecry of the believers, 1095-1272 and 1985-present.

Davity said "Bottom line. If advocates for combating global warming are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we end up in a cleaner world. If they are right and we do nothing we are in real trouble."

That is such an naive view of the world .... what if you loses your job at the coal power plant, your wife leaves you and you never see your kids again

Too many people on these debates seem to lives in fairyland, they sit on their desk, they think they are not affected by the misery of others in the world, they have not figured out, this will change the life of billion of people worldwide. If we are wrong, we could easily destroy the economy of a coal exporting country like Australia

Yes Leigh I think he is saying

“Climate scientists confirm that the large number of independent factors influencing climatic events rules out precise explanation or prediction.”

Translate

An official “dunno” but the climate science and that of “KRudd the Dud” response is to impose a carbon tax.

“With climate change, uncertainty is compounded by the lack of the reliable historical data from before the modern period.”

Translate

In the absence of successful parallel running, we are sticking with the theory, because ‘it is our theory’ and no one else is allowed to express a view.

“Uncertainty pervades the entire field of climate change. Skepticism should therefore be the natural attitude of any intelligent student of the topic.”

Not just the students but thinking observers and anyone whose life is to be influenced, like everyone who is going to pay for a new carbon tax.

There was an old adage from the time of the American revolution “no representation, no taxation”

That should be expanded to

“No validation, no taxation”

“Yes, a great article indeed - but I doubt that many climate change/AGW denialists will understand it.”

If our resident moron can claim to understand it, then anyone who has the temerity to question the trite mantras of the climate change inquisitioners will understand it too.

Lets face it, It’s all just “Socialism by Stealth” anyway.

An excuse for the luddites to curb the rewards of innovation and use it to fund the voting indolent.

"Climate change policy, like most major policy, is not a matter of conviction or cast-iron proof, but of assessing risks in the context of uncertainty." That would even allow a Tectonic Plate movement policy - we've just as much chance of affecting that, and just as little proof that we could.

I'm sure though, that given a model with enough range in the variables, it could be shown how man creates earthquakes by driving cars.(that must be stopped or we'll be handing our children a ruined world!)

Is this trying to sugar coat the AGW, Man Made Climate Change conviction so as to be palatable somehow to anyone who hasn't become an avid believer?

I agree we could pollute less, but I'm not ready to believe something just because some loud people think it is so, science is not done by consensus or bullying.

The planet might be getting warmer, there is always going to be climate change, but to say we're doing it is up for debate and further study and that we can stop it is breathtakingly arrogant.

One wonders if I read a different article I thought he was measured and balanced with is a lot more than one can say for some of the comments thus far.

He was in my view making the clear distinction between ‘climate change Sceptics’ and ‘global warming Deniers’.
I would come under ‘Climate Change Sceptics’ by his definition which is accurate describing sceptic the scientific context as one who accepts that the fact the information isn’t unequivocal . But he also points out that in government some decisions have to be made because it is illogical to do nothing.

He is also right in by taking oppositional stances the argument is vulnerable to ideology a further over simplification.
In another post one commenter on a similar topic stated “he believed that ordinary people know best.” This view is clearly that of a Denier and is steeped in political (ideological) rhetoric. The idea that an ordinary man can understand the science to ‘know best ‘is like asking a plumber if surgery is required for brain tumours in others unaided by specialists. A clear argument against the ordinary man is the desertification and salting etc of arable land by past/present farming techniques used by ordinary people.

Likewise to state that Global warming is untrue and is waiting for the rest of Australia to see the light appears arrogant and the words of a biased Denier.
The statement that “The experts clearly fear that no action will be taken unless public opinion believes in the certainty of human-induced global warming” Is absolutely correct. Many of these commenters have time and time again asserted that Global Climate Change is not so even though the evidence is more weighted towards doing something now.

The Environmentalists have a tendency to over simplify very complex issues by using ‘flagship’ issues to heighten awareness to a number of rapidly looming catastrophes. Global Warming and Koalas are two such issues. Both sides Deniers and many advocates tend to selectively fact pick rather than go ‘on balance.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Let the vitriol begin.

Richard Mulligan's article raises several issues: he says that uncertainy in relation to climate change does not mean predictions are worthless. Actually, it does when the uncertainty levels are so high that spending trillions of dollars amounts to nothing more than punting. There are plenty of real problems to resolve with taxpayers' dollars.

Is there any basis for climate change "belief" apart from computer models? No. Yet not one model has ever been validated against real-world data. The models didn't predict the cooling of the past several years.

Global warming hysteria is a monument to the widespread abandonment of journalist principles. Some hacks are just desperate to belong.

Check Professor John Brignell's list of things allegedly caused by global warming, from acne to yellow fever, at www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm - all of it sourced to media reports.

Think of the mutually contradictory weather phenomena which have been attributed to "climate change" - drought, flood, heatwaves, ice storms, etc. - what weather phenomenon would be evidence AGAINST CO2-caused climate change?

There is no such phenomenon, of course. The AGW cult is impervious to real world evidence; it is a perfect logical circle, grounded in fraud, like the sale of religious indulgences by charlatans in the mediaeval church: give money and avoid eternal damnation. But you'll have to die to know for sure.

Finally, any government-imposed "solution" to global warming will be paid for by the taxes of the gullible and sceptical alike. Only the carpetbaggers will win.

While Richard Mulligan has tried to steer a reasonable and balanced course through the debate, his point about risk assessment and policy response is meaningless unless such risk is real and quantifiable and the response can be demonstrated to be effective. None of that process has occurred - nor will it.

CO2 produced by Australians amounts to 0.00006 per cent of the climate by volume. Eliminate that tiny emission and there will be no effect on climate. Reduce it by five per cent, same result. But there will be severe economic consequences, whatever the percentage. Sounds like a great policy, no?

Correction: Richard Mulgan. Apology.

He says:

In principle, all scientific theories are open to falsification by new evidence and therefore no science can ever be entirely certain. In practice, however, many areas of science are sufficiently well grounded in reliable evidence to be accepted beyond reasonable doubt. But climate science is not among them.

This is unfortunately quite wrong. Some aspects of climate science are absolutely beyond doubt. For example, the effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on long-wave radiation. It can be measured in a laboratory.

Ditto the law of conservation of energy.

Ditto the amount of energy involved in water evaporating and condensing, and the amount of evaporated water the atmosphere can hold at various temperatures. Which, incidentally, explains why extreme weather events are seen as being consistent with global warming.

It's true that there is far more about climate where knowledge is quite uncertain. But it is important to know what is certain and what is not.

Yes, a succinct article.

Too many people want to curb research into climate change because they think the scientists are riding a gravy train - they couldn't be more wrong or further from the truth - scientists don't do it for the money - just ask my accountant heh Col.

A lot of effort is being made to debunk AGW (and so it should) because IF it is wrong, we can save a lot of money and a lot of anguish. But just wishing it were not true doesn't make it so. Indeed, a lot of work is being done on climate sensitivity and attribution studies - I for one wish AGW were not so real.

Unfortunately, the more research that is being done, the more robust previous findings have become. But this does not mean the research should stop. It does mean the research should be done properly.

Also unfortunately, some people want absolute 100% certainty before they will act or acknowledge we (humanity) have a problem. Following their arcane logic, nothing will ever get done and progress will never be made. Science does not work in absolutes (although we can get damn well close).

Obama will be investing in more effort to understand the science because the ramifications of not knowing, doing nothing, denying action, or sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the very real risks of climate change (national/international instability; food, water and energy resource stress; environmental and ecological degradation, etc) are far too high.

Remember, scientists will get more kudos (and funding dollars) if they can knock AGW out of the water - a fact the 'deny-n-delay' brigade don't seem to comprehend, let alone understand.

Thanks to Col for demonstrating my point, and also Richard Mulgan's. In my Mulgan's terms, I'm also a sceptic - while in any terms Col is a denialist rather than a sceptic.

I am, however, thankful to Col for this:

<< "Socialism by Stealth" >>

Can he please include a "Dearest Margaret" in his next erudite contribution to climate change discussions?

Col's comments are better than Metamucil. Very good for the digestive system.

"I agree we could pollute less, but I'm not ready to believe something just because some loud people think it is so, science is not done by consensus or bullying." said RPG

I would like to add to the list OR Hollywood Shockumentaries featuring a washed up Democrat masquerading as a self less leader (who tellingly refuses to pledge a modification of his lifestyle).

Here is the team: United Nations (Saviour of Zimbabwe), Hollywood, Democrats (who legally forced mortgage companies to make home loans to poor people), Journalists (90% of whom have not taken a science course since year 5) and the Extreme Green Movement (a.k.a. Socialists).

Being preached to by this lot would be an excellent reason to be sceptical.

Q n A said Science does not work in absolutes (although we can get damn well close).

I guess that is why Mathematics is regarded as Pure Science?

Yes, naivey daviy. Your bottom line is not very deep. CO2 apparently equals unclean. Only if your breath is bad. The worst that can happen from socialist enviro policies is too horrible to imagine.

Q&A: "Too many people want to curb research into climate change..."

Who?

"A lot of effort is being made to debunk AGW...because IF it is wrong, we can save a lot of money and a lot of anguish."

And perhaps a lot of lives and unnecessary suffering.

"But just wishing it were not true doesn't make it so."

Wow, really? And, sorry, wishing or denying? Denial is something deeper than just wishing it were not so. A clear example of the misuse and agenda-driven misappropriation of the term. I, for one, am not just wishing, but following the debate that fundamentalists try to tell us is over.

"Unfortunately, the more research that is being done, the more robust previous findings have become."

Not from the evidence I see. Shouldn't the temp have risen by about 0.3 degrees in the last decade? Oh right, La Nina, which was apparently overlooked previously by the climate forecasters?!

cont...

...cont

Q&A: "Also unfortunately, some people want absolute 100% certainty before they will act or acknowledge we (humanity) have a problem. Following their arcane logic, nothing will ever get done and progress will never be made."

Actually, it is those who comprehend the uncertainties of decision making who are likely to make the most educated and properly risk-assessed decisions, which always involve costs and benefits. They also have to bear the responsibility of mistakes, something the climate industry has shown great unwillingness to do.

"Obama will be investing in more effort to understand the science because the ramifications of not knowing, doing nothing, denying action, or sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the very real risks of climate change (national/international instability; food, water and energy resource stress; environmental and ecological degradation, etc) are far too high."

President elect to the rescue! I would say the risks of inappropriate responses to climate scare mongering are similar to those described. It is fundamentalists who stick their heads in the sand, and deny contrary evidence.

"Remember, scientists will get more kudos (and funding dollars) if they can knock AGW out of the water - a fact the 'deny-n-delay' brigade don't seem to comprehend, let alone understand"

So what you predict will happen is now "fact". Very telling.

oh, and the d-n-d brigade thing, nice catchphrase. How many times you used it now? Aye carumba!

Enjoy your carbon-neutral Xmas puddings which I saw on the news tonight. What a shame we don't have supercomputers that can predict the rise in mumbo-jumbo over the coming century.

Col Rouge,

Yep.

The resident moron is back to his old tricks of attacking those people he dislikes without bothering to express an opinion of his own. As usual, he is the one who is unable to understand the simple, written word. He still insists on "denialist", for example.

Yes, there is lots of uncertainty...
We *might* be headed for an ice age except for GW, and it *might* flip us into a state resembling Venus...ie. Runaway Greenhouse.
The uncertainty goes both ways: Scientists can only release results that are conservative, so the more radical scenarios are not releasable until the data can be said to back them up. Recent events in Greenland, Antarctica and most glaciers have supported and thus made publishable the more extreme, and more worrying predictions.
Of more concern still is the Methane levels: Static until recently, they are now surging in response the the Arctic tundra thawing. This "tipping point", having past will take the situation completely out of human control.
As a political pessimist I believe we have to deal with climate change. It is probably too late to stop it.
Folks, if you wait for science to get serious enough for politicians to take notice you are *way* too late! Forget mitigation: we are not scrambling for profit. (How sad we are.)

Fungo, I gree with you when you say;

“Actually, it is those who comprehend the uncertainties of decision making who are likely to make the most educated and properly risk-assessed decisions, which always involve costs and benefits. They also have to bear the responsibility of mistakes”

BINGO! ... Welcome to the UNFCCC and the IPCC process!

I disagree vehemently when you continue ... “something the climate industry has shown great unwillingness to do.”

"Climate change industry"? Can you please be more erudite?

Are you talking industries that Andrew Bolt, Bob Carter, David Evans, 'denialist' blog-sites, etc are investing in?

Or the industries involved with renewable energy, agricultural resources, food producers, etc ... "actually", any business with a capacity to be innovative and forward thinking?

So now retirement is an industry? Bob Carter is retired for heavens sake. Q&A would be better opting for more reading and less demonising. BTW I have noticed that many posts happen during business hours, why is that?
Completely inadequate IPCC models produce the ultimate deception about man made global warming
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, December 22, 2008
E. R. Beadle said, “Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does this with purpose and great effect. They built the difference between appearance and reality into their process. Unlike procedure used elsewhere, they produce and release a summary report independently and before the actual technical report is completed. This way the summary gets maximum media attention and becomes the public understanding of what the scientists said. Climate science is made to appear what it is not. Indeed, it is not even what is in their Scientific Report.
The pattern of falsifying appearances began early. Although he works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Stephen Schneider was heavily employed in the work of the IPCC as this biography notes.
Much of Schneider’s time is taken up by what he calls his “pro bono day job” for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II of the IPCC from 1997 to 2001 and a lead author in Working Group I from 1994 to 1996. Currently, he is a Coordinating Lead Author for the controversial chapter on “Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risks from Climate Change,” in short, defining “dangerous” climate change.” - Pubmedcentral.nih.gov
He continued this work by helping prepare the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released in April 2007

more

they say, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” The term “very likely” is from a table reportedly produced by Schneider and means greater than 90%. Professor Roy Spencer says about probabilities in this context. “Any statements of probability are meaningless and misleading. I think the IPCC made a big mistake. They’re pandering to the public not understanding probabilities. When they say 90 percent, they make it sound like they’ve come up with some kind of objective, independent, quantitative way of estimating probabilities related to this stuff. It isn’t. All it is is a statement of faith.”
So they create an appearance of certainty about a human cause of warming. But what is the reality? The only place where CO2 is causing temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models. In every record of any duration for any time period in the history of the Earth, temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. So an incorrect assumption that a CO2 increase will cause temperature increase is built into the computer models.

One can be a skeptic about every piece of information or argument or a skeptic about one. In my case my scepticism on global warming was ignited when I saw Government in Australia accepting a report with projections out to a 100 years hence. How I wondered can people be silly enough to do such a projection from models when we all know that a few mm of error in assumption at the start can lead to Mm errors 100 years down the track. Then I noticed that the term Global Warming beloved by Mr Gore was being replaced by Climate Change with which I have less scepticism. So as an amateur radio person with some background in atmospheric physics I have been tracking what changes in communication patterns we expect if indeed there was global warming. I have not been able to find any change in radio communictions because of man induced changes to the atmosphere over the last two decades . The problem I really have with all this discussion is that all the material I read does not suggest that our temperature or other atmospheric counts are outside the levels that have occurred in the past or are likely to occur in the future. Yes there is going to be climate change and we must be prepared to deal with it. However the problems of poverty seem to me to be much more worthy of our intellectual attention. At least we know can change poverty levels.

Oramzi, sounds like you might be interested in buying this book, re the following advertisement:

In his brand-new book, Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, Horner reveals how global warming alarmists, relentless in pursuing their anti-energy and anti-capitalist agenda -- together with unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money -- resort to dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and outright lies, abandoning scientific standards, journalistic integrity, and the old-fashioned notions of free speech and open debate.

you'll discover:

How the global warming industry is made up of lifestyle nags and nanny-statists who are seeking to curtail our liberties -- backed by "green" industries who want the state to create mandates and hike subsidies

How Big Government, politicians and global warming nut jobs are abusing power in the pursuit of even more power, as environmental alarmists knowingly spread false and exaggerated data on global warming.

How, in the Left's efforts to suppress free speech (and scientific research), they have compared global warming dissent with "treason".

How the liberal media lie and conceal the truth while the global warming establishment moves ruthlessly to crush dissent and ruin the lives of dissenters

How that establishment, not content to dominate the mainstream media, is even propagandizing children, and not hesitating to use alarmist scare tactics to do so.

Proof that most scientists are actually global warming skeptics

Bob Carter retired? So why does he continue to proclaim his association with the James Cook University as an Adjunct Professor in his public speaking tours, his shock jock media pronouncements and his guest spots on the blogosphere?

It was a George W Bush staffer who popularised the term climate change.

Bush and Gore are propagandists. Cowboy is no different.

Because garbage science and infantile perceptions get him riled up.

Because he cares.

Because he is older and wiser.

Because he can readily identify hysterical Extreme Green bull dust when he sees it.

Because he has become familiar with Extreme Green tactics.

Because he is highly intelligent, educated and is passionate about his work.

Because he can see the gargantuan immoral waste of public money that is resulting.

Because he is not on a government grant providing income to perpetuate the AGW distortions.

Because influential paranoid people care the hell out of him.

One event I know of his air fare was paid nothing else; after he had been invited by an invalid pensioner.

Good to see you back at work, making comment and it isn't even lunch time.

Settle down Cowboy. I am sharing holidays with family and friends and am using their connection to check emails, or would you deny me that as well?

You should really try and be more objective. There are hysterical extremists on both sides, a fact that you obviously don't understand.

As for Carter, if he was so scientific about climate change, he should write a paper and submit it to the appropriate journals for robust and rigorous scientific review. He doesn't.

Carter is an expert (you say retired) on rock layering, but apparently prefers to make global warming noises in places like Quadrant, Heartland Institute, Andrew Bolt and Marohasy's blog spots, etc.

All the UNFCCC member governments (of ALL political persuasions) understand there is a serious problem - belatedly, even Bush. The difficulty they're having is not with the science, but how to address the problem (another fact that seems to elude you).

Politicians and economists around the globe will make the decisions on how we adapt and mitigate, not the scientists.

It's worth repeating; scientists will receive more kudos and funding if they debunk AGW (another fact that eludes you) - and believe me, they're trying. Or would you prefer they don't try?

Cowboy, no sane person wants AGW to be real, but no sane person discounts the science.

“Cowboy, no sane person wants AGW to be real, but no sane person discounts the science.”

Alternately, no sane person has presented an incontestable case which irrefutably proves AGW, distinct from any other reason for Global Warming,

Upon observation we have

A lot of pseudo science being bandied around by an environmental movement infiltrated by trotskyites and fellow left-of-centre travelers who see individual freedom as their ultimate enemy and are hell bent on imposing

socialism by stealth,

having failed to impose it by both revolution and democratic means.

Q&A: "It's worth repeating; scientists will receive more kudos and funding if they debunk AGW (another fact that eludes you)"

And it's worth repeating that what you believe WILL happen is not called a "fact", so I am hesitant to trust your judgments on others regarding the facts that apparently elude them. It is telling of the prophetic and omnipotent delusions of the 'alarm 'n' invoice' brigade.

"Carter is an expert...on rock layering, but apparently prefers to make global warming noises in places like Quadrant, Heartland Institute, Andrew Bolt and Marohasy's blog spots, etc."

Professor Bob Carter is a "palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine and environmental geologist with forty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999."

Who are you? And why do you choose OnOp?

I am glad he writes in places like Quadrant where Joe Public can read what he has to say. Are you suggesting that all of the academics and experts in all disciplines who have written for Quadrant should stick to the media you prescribe? What makes you think your "appropriate" journals are above reproach? I have read of many instances which demonstrate they are not. And I am capable of engaging with the content and not just attacking the man or the media messenger. Eg. To use the words "Andrew Bolt" these days seems to serve as an 'ipso facto' for the purpose of avoiding debate. If Tim Flannery were in a profession where he was called to account for his record on alarmist predictions, he would be shown the door. I am comforted that a certain Melbourne journalist alerts me to this - I never hear it on my 'independent' publicly funded ABC. And you don't need a science degree to understand that a 60% full dam is not equal to "empty". That, FYI, is what we call a fact.

The whole AGW scene is still a puzzle to me.
I have become more skeptical since reading more about it.
Q&A tried hard to enlighten me about the non-linearity of the CO2
effect on the greenhouse effect. However to a large degree he failed
except that he helped me understand it is a very complicated effect.

However the only solid information I have is that at 450 ppm the curve
has rolled over so far that doubling the CO2 level will have almost
no effect on the greenhouse effect.

In other words the CO2 effect has saturated.

I can believe that there is a long term average temperature increase
but it seems that there is considerable dispute about the time scale
that should be applied to the moving average.
I believe that perhaps we should be worrying about methane as it has
a greater effect than CO2. It may be liberated from the tundra.

One group has used the IPCC model and changed only the fossil fuel
inputs to the model to use more realistic than business as usual
levels of fossil fuel usage and found that the earths temperature
would peak at 1.7 deg C in 2075 and then decrease.
The question now is will the IPCC accept these depletion inputs as
real ?

"Politics - the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

Has anybody else noticed that since both Bush and Howard have their days, replaced by Obama and Rudd, that the language used is nolonger of fearful global warming but cyclical weather patterns?

Such is the con on the world today and we, the people, are about to empty out our wallets so that big business and politicians can wade naked in our money while we struggle to exist.

All
There are a lot of commenters here that deserve a more robust response from me (thanks for engaging). I'm sorry, I won't be back till the latter half of the 1st week in January - I will respond.

In the mean time, have a happy & safe New Year and best wishes for 2009.

Recently read that 2008 is looking like the coldest in 100 years.

Of course we will be told by the straight faced AGW set that cooling is part of warming. Soon to assert that black is white, good is bad (oops that already happens), liberals are labor (oops again not much diff on AGW), warm is hot, rich is poor, fast is slow etc.

After all the AGWs and Greens know that whoever defines the words has the best chance of winning the debate.

Thanks for listing Professor Carters qualifications, saved me the time. Two were missed: genuine & sincere.

Col

“Alternately, no sane person has presented an incontestable case which irrefutably proves AGW, distinct from any other reason for Global Warming.”

AGW is real Col. How many times does it take for you to understand that science is about probabilities and preponderance of evidence? Just because you don’t understand the science, haven’t done the research, or just don’t want to believe it because of your personal ideological perspective, doesn’t make it go away.

Out of interest, what do you make of the trends shown in this link?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/

And I see you still have no comments to make on risk assessment/management by people who are taking climate change very seriously

http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/climate_change_and_insurance/default.aspx

or this from the Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa034360-d612-11dd-a9cc-000077b07658.html

________

Fungochumley

There are alarmists on both sides. Which part of that statement don’t you understand?

Bob Carter is a credentialed geologist, that doesn’t make him expert in climatology. He doesn’t publish in climate journals because he knows he will be debunked by the experts – he cherry-picks data, intentionally distorts climatology and misrepresents its findings. He is not a sceptic in the scientific sense (he doesn’t do the research) so he cannot be called a contrarian (a number of whom I quite admire as you already know). Consequently, Carter is commonly termed a “denialist” – he has his own reasons why he wants to play that game.

Me? I am a practicing scientist with expertise in things ‘water’, particularly in regard to land/ocean/atmosphere coupled systems. My work involves impacts of climate change on our water resources and requires collaboration with policy makers as well as industry representatives, both here and overseas.

I do not spruik in the populist media, nor do I entertain public speaking tours like Bob Carter or Tim Flannery. I don’t publish my name on OLO for commercial, privacy and academic reasons. OLO gives me a release valve to vent my personal opinions without the veil of my position – I think it is better because I can say things without being too PC.

What exactly did I “believe WILL happen” fungo?

Cont'd

Cont’d

Rather than Bolt, I encourage you to engage elsewhere – your ‘issues’ would be answered. If they’re not, you (like Col Rouge) are probably in a form of ‘denial’ (in the psychological sense, not the AGW sense) – IMHO.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/01/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-vi-chris-kenny/

________

Bazz

Thanks. I’ll put it this way – CO2 is increasing exponentially (not linearly) so therefore counteracts the logarithmic function of climate sensitivity.

I’m with you, I am not convinced the IPCC scenarios (SRES – a dated report) are as good as they could be either (there is a lot of work being done to improve on them). However, there is ample evidence to suggest that many of the IPCC projections (they are not predictions) are trending at the higher range than originally thought.

_______________

Spider

I’m sure you know there is a difference between weather and climate – Bush had trouble with this concept, Obama doesn’t.

So, what makes you think people like me are trying to con you?

_______________

Cowboy

“Recently read that 2008 is looking like the coldest in 100 years.”

Where did you read that? All the data sets I’ve looked at read otherwise.

Btw, I’m genuine and sincere too.

Q&A: "Which part of that statement don’t you understand?"

Gag! I see your sense of humour has caught up with the early '90s. That statement is actually an opinion, Q&A, a view, so I can understand it and disagree.

"What exactly did I “believe WILL happen” fungo?"

That what you believe WILL happen if someone debunks AGW is already a fact. you can check your own words. Do you understand now? I'll help you respond. Just tick a box -

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] I'm going on holidays

[ ] This thread is dead. I'm leaving

[ ] Awkward silence

It is very telling of your sense of superiority, unless you do have supernatural powers which I suspect you may believe you have. There are psychological states other than, ooooh, denial.

"Rather than Bolt, I encourage you to engage elsewhere – your ‘issues’ would be answered. If they’re not, you (like Col Rouge) are probably in a form of ‘denial’ (in the psychological sense, not the AGW sense) – IMHO."

Thanks for the diagnosis. You denounce Carter's qualifications, but apparently also believe you are an expert psychologist. You are not my teacher or my shrink, and I don't respect you, so what you encourage me to do is of little interest.

Those seniors moments again?

Q&A, "I am a practicing scientist with expertise in things ‘water’, particularly in regard to land/ocean/atmosphere coupled systems. My work involves impacts of climate change on our water resources..."

And what a fine job you're clearly doing.

"I do not spruik in the populist media, nor do I entertain public speaking tours like Bob Carter or Tim Flannery."

I'm sure the demand is huge.

Q/A the newspaper.
If you are a scientist you must be very good at finding studies of one particular variety. I can not understand how any unbiased person of reasonable intelligence can not invest a few days reading and come to any other conclusion than that AGW hypothesis is very uncertain. Unless one is a card carrying pessimist / alarmist. Please state your studies and just to save time please reference any other statements you make. Two can play that game.

US TV news report Tuesday. Antarctic pack ice has just had the biggest expansion in a four month period, in recorded history. Think it was Prof Fox Uni of Illinois.

Posted by Michael Costello | 01/05/2009 9:46 AM
CATEGORY: FEATURE
TAGS: global warming, polar bears, sea ice

At the close of year just past, there was just as much global sea ice as there was three decades ago.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began

It is nice to see the thread developing nicely with intelligent scepticism which is the foundation of good science. I'm a bit disappointed that there has not been much said about the options facing Australian society in preparing for the inevitable climate changes that occur as we swing between drought and flood, hot and cold. The preparation of care for the planet is not something that can be achieved in a short period and irrespective of which direction the climate changes in the future there is going to be a need for more and more energy. There is going to be a need for increased efficiency in the production and consumption of that energy and there is going to be a need to apply these protocols across all countries in the planet. Perhaps we should be badgering government to look at these issues rather than following the will-o-the-wisp idea that by taxation we can change the weather.

Oramzi said;
changes in the future there is going to be a need for more and more
energy.

We will have to learn to cope with less energy, not more.
We are close up on the maximum now with no growth in sight beyond a
very small increase, just little wobbles on the flat line.

Cowboy

When you have the hottest year on record (or the lowest amount of sea ice on record) a subsequent year can show a rebound. For example, global warming does not mean every year is hotter than the previous.

It is important to understand the long term trends (remove the noise and natural variation) when studying the climate system.

It’s also important to distinguish between weather and climate. When you heat a system, more moisture evaporates and must condense out somewhere (snow or rain). Arctic sea ice is expanding again (its winter) but that sea ice is not thick old ice. Atmospheric conditions have changed, so too has the ocean currents in the Arctic.

(apologies, below posted elsewhere)

I do see a few snippets in newspapers (mainly on the web) but most of my reading on climate is from the papers published in the International Journal of Climatology. My membership of various associations gives me access to other scientific papers as well.

I would agree that scientists and/or scientific institutions need to communicate better with laypeople. At least the real decision makers are listening and taking action.

For what it’s worth, I cannot understand how any person of reasonable intelligence cannot invest some time reading at least the scientific abstracts of papers published about climate change.

These are some web sites I visit:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/old-temperature/

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/enso.references.html

and many more so could become boring :-)

What really gets up my nose is when someone who is NOT skilled in what I have devoted my whole life to has the audacity to tell me I've got it all wrong. It’s like me telling you how to do your job.

I have to do research properly - yet these same people go on to tell me I have it all wrong – simply astounding.

Ok fungo, you don’t think there are extreme views from either side: global warming is a hoax to we’re doomed – very illuminating (I thank the powers that be you’re not a major player, stake holder or decision maker).

I did not denounce Bob Carter’s qualifications – again you are misinterpreting or distorting what I said, why?

Carter is a credentialed geologist; he is not a credentialed climatologist. This in itself does not preclude him from submitting papers on Climate to the journals – Climatology, Nature or Science for example.

He does not do this, for one obvious reason – his rationale is so full of holes.

He does submit guff to places like Quadrant – a ‘right wing’ publication that prints hoax papers under the auspices of Keith Windschuttle, the editor and renown historian who likes to rewrite history.

“And what a fine job you're clearly doing ... I'm sure the demand is huge.” That is so churlish.

To conclude:
1. Please, stop telling me what you think I believe in.
2. As you don’t respect me (the feeling is becoming more and more mutual) there really is no point in having any further dialogue with you – agreed.

Well Q&A if the pro AGW people can point to less sea ice one year,
why can't the anti-AGW people point to more sea ice the next year ?

Whenever there is a symptom that indicates that AGW might well be
happening it is shouted from every media rooftop.
Whenever there is a symptom that indicates that AGW may not be
happening any mention of it is jumped on immediately that you can't
take notice of short term changes.

It all sounds like pro AGW people feel very insecure in their conviction.

Q&A: “global warming is a hoax to (sic) we’re doomed…”

You say “stop telling me what you think I believe in.” Could you point out where I said hoax.

“I thank the powers that be you’re not a major player, stake holder or decision maker.”

I pray to same if you are.

On my “churlish” comments, my apologies. I interpreted your justification of anonymity in freeing you from political correctness as an invitation.

“As you don’t respect me (the feeling is becoming more and more mutual) there really is no point in having any further dialogue with you – agreed.”

Well, if by that you mean “please leave me alone to continue making unsubstantiated defamatory comments”, er, no, not agreed. I’m not letting you off the hook. Whether you “respond” (ha) is up to you.

As for ‘further (ha) dialogue’, there’s hardly been any as you have amply demonstrated your lack of capacity for it. You protect what appears to be a perilously fragile ego by interpreting anyone who disagrees with you as either in denial or as a personal attack. As others have stated here, alarmists use the word denial to bully and deny others a voice. It annihilates the possibility of dialogue.

So, in addition to Col Rouge –

“despite my repeated request for your to illustrate when and where I have posted a misguided statement”

And IanC’s delightful -

“I'm happy to agree that I'm a senior, but at this point I don't know about the senior moments that you tell me I've had lately. Maybe I have a problem - can you please let me know what senior moments you have in mind?”

I add -

Could you please show me where I am “telling [you] what [I] think [you] believe.” The only example I can think of was using your own words about Nobels for AGW debunkers (to date unacknowledged.) If I have elsewhere, please point out, and if I have lapsed, and believe it is warranted I will acknowledge it.

Dialogue. (ha) Substantiate or retract if you have any kahunas to speak of.

Bazz

This chart from the National Snow and Ice Centre (previously linked) should make it easier to understand.

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

or this from the Polar Research Group in the Department of Atmospheric Physics at the Uni of Illinois:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

If the trend continues then Arctic summer sea ice will be an oddity within 50 years.

Notwithstanding, the loss of summer sea ice does NOT mean the Arctic will be ice free in winter.

Both you and Cowboy mention short term changes. Insofar as climate science is concerned, winter to summer or conversely, summer to winter, is not climate change. A fact many lay people fail to appreciate (I am dumbfounded as to understand why) – seasonal weather change is 'noise'. We have to look at longer time scales (seen in the graphs above).

As I tried to explain (poorly?) - the reason we are seeing this trend is related to changes in the atmosphere and in the oceans. The situation exacerbated by the enhanced greenhouse effect, Northern Hemisphere aerosol pollution and positive feedback from reduced albedo, amongst other things.

No, didn't think you did.

"Substantiate or retract if you have any kahunas to speak of."

WOW, and a deafening silence resonated throughout the thread.