That each Australian (might) “…on average emit 99 times more greenhouse gases than the average Bangladeshi…” – or that Australia might have one of the highest per capita emission rates in the world, is the usual nonsense spouted by the people who want to blame Australia for everything.

Bangladesh and other third world countries should be doing something about their populations, and Australia should stop importing Bangladeshis and other people to Australia to avoid the same problem of over-population. Australia has now almost double its sustainable population – no matter what builders and developers and our dumb politicians tell us.

Places like Bangladesh and the African countries have ruined their own countries by over-populating them. Australia, where most people clutch the coastline because the rest of the continent is too hostile to inhabit simply cannot take more people and sustain itself.

The question is not per capita emissions – which mean we are still a relatively rich place and can, perhaps help the less rich: the real problem for Australia is to cap and lower its population. Cutting back on what each of us emits is not going to make any difference to the world problem, nor will it help the over-populated and badly run developing countries.

I can’t see why Tanveer Ahmed’s cousin has the right to be convinced of anything Australia does or does not do – after all, he/she has skipped Bangladesh to let them get on with their troubles on their own. We note, too, the comment that Bangladeshis are “apathetic about global issues.

Tanveer also kicks the old cans “climate sceptics” and the laughable “intense rigour over time in peer reviewed journals and academic meetings” - the latter having been pooh-poohed by scientists themselves a number of times.

The “moral leadership” bit is confusing. Is Tanveer Ahmed saying that the morals of Australia and other Western countries are better than those of Bangladesh and other developing countries? That they are too stupid to run their own shows?

If I said that, I would be called a racist.

Tanveer Ahmed: "the basic relationship of carbon dioxide to rising temperatures is not a subject of serious debate."

Yes, the basic relationship is that temperature rises, then CO2 emits - not the other way around as fat hedge fund pig Al Gore claimed in his movie and countless public appearances. So it is not a subject of serious debate, but a source of amusement for those of us who can forget the billions still being wasted on this AGW/ETS scam, and ignore the misanthropic design that the scam has to depopulate most of the planet (especially countries like Bangladesh), and deny them the development they need to live decently and realize their potential.

The emission of CO2 apparently does not cause the planet's temperatures to rise.

If the world's oceans were not currently at about their lowest in geological history, Bangladesh wouldn't exist. If Gondwana hadn't broken up the way it did, Australians might be Indians. To suggest that we are causing dangerous climate change in the context of the shifts of Ages is one of the funnier jokes ever uttered.

Well written article and worthy of real consideration. I don't think it has dawned on many in the western world as to what will be the consequences of any serious climatic change. Specifically the global instability mass (billions not millions) 'climate change' refugees will cause.

They still view the world as it was in the 17th Century predominately endless, untamed, and ripe for development. They give scant thought to the logic that we ARE Polluting and therefore changing the world.

Even sadder if not bordering on psychotic wilful ignorance to the plight of people today let alone their future.

mil-observer
Al Gore is hardly the be all and end all of the argument he is just the popular face of it. Most people get their views from the popular media and as such get at best a characture of the truth. I suggest you look to New Scientist et al for more scientific reasoned approach. The other problem too is that the information is across several fields and as such is difficult to find let alone digest.

Leigh.
You have significant issues with your objectivity and logic.
The author is not in any way blaming Australia for everything but is making a demonstrable observation that Australian tend to lack a wider (world) view of the probable pragmatic consequences of Global climate change.

Every one in a democracy has the right to an opinion. Neither Democracy nor the country have a hierarchy of rights to hold a view. Apart from which from this article We have no idea as to her qualifications or knowledge about the topic. Simply because she’s from another country or as I suspect because she’s migrating here doesn’t in anyway reduce her powers of observation or intellectual quality.
It is a preposterous assertion that only Australians are able to pass comment.
Neither does it mean that she would be any lessor a citizen as anyone of us.

"Climate sceptics are often conservatives and fear the prospect of large-scale government intervention more than the destruction of the human species."

I think this single sentence encapsulates almost everything I dislike about this article.

Firstly, the implicit assumption of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) enthusiasts that anyone who questions the AGW orthodoxy is somehow closed entirely to the idea of climate change. On the contrary, I would argue that AGW proponents have a closed worldview: They are steeped in a worldview that "the earth abideth forever", that the climate of the early 20th Century is somehow the way things just ought to be, and that any change from that is, ipso facto, a cataclysmic threat.

On the other hand, I accept that Earth is a dynamic planet, and that its climate has changed quite radically many times in the deep past, and that it will continue to do so, and that life will continue to thrive, as it has always done. This includes human life, which has survived several episodes of climate change - and, interestingly, prospered when the climate has warmed. We are, as Prof. Ian Plimer comments, probably the first humans ever to fear a warm climate.

I also think that it is sheer human vanity that decides that any possible change in the Earth's climate is by necessity our fault. I am rather of the opinion that the greatest drivers of climate change are stellar, volcanic and, where biological, driven by the Earth's dominant biomass: "Minute, invisible, bacteria".

Then there is the assumption that anyone who questions the AGW orthodoxy is probably conservative (or, no doubt, a capital-C conservative, preferably with "neo" prefixed). Without going into my life history, let me just say that "conservative" is not an epithet usually used of me.

Then there is the frankly hyperbolic closure to the sentence: "he destruction of the human species." This is utterly ridiculous, but unfortunately typical. Not even the most alarmist projections of such AGW scriptures as the IPCC report make such an overblown claim, yet it has become an almost reflexive part of AGW rhetoric.

' But science is played out with intense rigour over time in peer reviewed journals and academic meetings.'

Is that why 40 years ago the major scare mongering among the peer reviews was the coming ice age.

'if ever there was an issue on which to take moral leadership, this is it.'
I agree. Governments should demand some evidence before running off on numerous junkets to make themselves look good at indulgent talk fests. Dr Tanveer Ahmed is far from convincing in this article.

Why is it that all the gullible/dumb, easily lead, but qualified twits, in this country, congregate in universities, schools, & government departments, in this country?

I don't even bother to read articles that are pushing the warmerists agenda anymore.

If, and when they come up with some hard evidence that human activity causes global warming, I am absolutely sure we will all hear about it.

Until then we should occupy ourselves with more pressing matters, like over population.

examinator: "at best a caricature of the truth". That's way too polite. Why not just state clearly that Gore's claim (like Tanveer Ahmed's) on CO2 is either a terrible, catastrophically comprising and undermining error, if not even a lie too?

On another "big lie": I notice that the Vic Govt has returned its very expensive "black balloon"/AGW propaganda to our TV screens. In fact, it seems they're running this scare-'em rubbish even more intensively than before. The only reason I can conjure for such further lavish waste are the recent price hikes to (privatized) electricity and water where the speculating scum claim that such further extortion "is in the interests of the environment"! It's actually just part of the financial system's disintegration as they try to keep filling some huge holes of their own toxic debt.

All this is not a caricature but a lie, as is the claim that CO2 is "a pollutant". If the metaphor of such black balloons accurately represented CO2 in our atmosphere then there'd be no view of the sky at all; even by the scaremongers' and fraudsters' accounts the anthropegenic balloons are still a miniscule portion of CO2 generated on this planet.

Yes, I agree with many of the climate scientists - whose background of studies go back to Koeppen (and including, most importantly, relevant references to astrophysics) - and the indications that we face another ice age.

Thank you Taveer. Following, a few statistics on population growths for your perusal (2007):

Births per 1000 population:

Niger 50.6
Uganda 48.12
Afghanistan 46.21
Sierra Leone 45.41
Burundi 45.28
Bangladesh 29.36
Australia 12.20

Billions of alien, cloven hooved livestock have destroyed Australia's top soil which blows away with the wind. Agricultural cropping, in European fashion, and livestock remains an urgent problem where native vegetation is not available to soak up the water thus preventing a rising water table which brings salinity.

The salt is not returning to our ocean, but if it did, it must first return to our rivers which will see our precious rivers and drinking water more saline than our oceans.

A Murray Darling Basin Salinity Audit, released in 1999 and ignored, found that the average salinity of the lower River Murray will exceed the levels for drinking water quality in the next 50-100 years.

Several other rivers within the Murray-Darling Basin will exceed this level in the next 20 years and two rivers have already exceeded it, causing environmental damage and having significant impacts on those who use these rivers for domestic water supplies and irrigation.

Yet the livestock industry remain in denial flagrantly seeking new customers in poor countries to further trash our environment.

Rivers in Australia are on life support. In WA, they are in a critical state. Oxygen is artificially pumped into those rivers constantly a result of agricultural runoff, carbon based pesticides and carbon based animal waste. Alarming depletions of our fish stock is threatening the fishing industry.

Witness peak hour traffic where every vehicle contains one person. The MV industry is the second largest emitter of CO and the largest emitter of benzene, a known carcinogen. Both oxidise to CO2. These carbon emissions exceed those of the petroleum, oil and gas extraction and the coal industry.

These are only 2 of our seriously polluting industries.

Our gluttonous ignorance and the propensity to blame others thus an excuse to delay action, will soon see this nation carrying a begging bowl, regardless of population growth and regardless of the ignorance of other nations.

What an amazingly undeducated commentary from several bloggers about the lack of evidence for global warming. We here the same ol' mantras (repeated with religious fervour) about 'its cooling' 'C02 lags temperature' 'its all natural cycles'. However, these arguments do not support any of the current MEASURED increases in CO2 concentrations and associated temperature increases. Humanity has the science to send rockets into space, fly men to the moon, send spacecrafts and robots to other planets and even explore beyond the solar system, but according to the ANTI_AGW brigade we can't even measure current CO2 and temperature and the basic science of the "greenhouse effect" and "carbon cycle" is somehow false. What absolute piffle!

"Why is it that all the gullible/dumb, easily lead, but qualified twits, in this country, congregate in universities, schools, & government departments, in this country?"

This has to be the silliest question I've read for a while.

It's because all the smart, easily led, qualified twits congregate on OLO, a haven for climate-change skeptics who know better than the IPCC, you silly.

Some quotes from my favourite Spiritual Philosopher

"The now-time staus quo is a pattern of lawlessness without any moral integrity and accountability. To persist in that pattern will, eventually and inevitably, destroy or self-destruct humankind and the Earth-world. This status quo could be made to persist for even many more years, but in that fatal meantime, what would actually be occurring would be the final and catastrophic breakdown of global system-patterns altogether, both human and non-human.

This status quo pattern is stealing the virtue of all of humankind, by everywhere preventing human beings from being actively responsible for themselves as a collective totality and for the Earth-domain itself as a natural pattern-totality.

The current pseudo-system is no longer tolerable, and it never was viable. Nevertheless, those who are currently in power have not yet become entirely inclined to deal, at root, with the signs of global systemic breakdown. Many continue to pretend, for example, that, even while the Earth is dailly becoming more and more overwhelmingly polluted, there is some necessary, and hence action-preventing controversy to be engaged relative to whether global warming is a reality or not, or otherwise, humanly caused or not. Nevertheless, the evidence is now irrefutable. The Earth IS being polluted, always more and more, by HUMAN causes.

The human causes of Earth-pollution, which results in global pollution, global warming, and extreme weather, are a global projection of the politically and CORPORATELY propagandized and controlled pattern of individual self-indulgence in an un-regulated and boundless consumerism that otherwise, by such means as toxic food and drink, pollutes the body of every seeker of the "good life", and which everywhere results in disease, unbearable stress-patterns, and every other mode of otherwise avoidable suffering and agony and CASUAL death.

Indeed, altogether, the present-time, and future-threatening global and collective situation is both dark and insane. Quite literally a global madhouse of mutual threats, and whole nations in clans of "tribalized" power, competing with one another like rival street gangs, always "protecting" nothing more than their will to egoic self-indulgence and egoic self glorification

This system is what "conservatives" champion.

Here are just some quotes displeasing those in the middle-class baby-boomers' Gaia cult:

1) Guy Le Blanc-Smith, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist:

"I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, let alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion? I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it will continue to be exposed by the science itself".

2) William Kininmonth, head of the Australian BoM National Climate Centre 1986-1998 and Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization's Commission for Climatology 1982-1998:

"AGW is a fiction and a very dangerous fiction".

3) Bob Carter, paleoclimate scientist James Cook University and ex-chairman of the ARC's Earth Science Panel:

"Many distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to governments is political and not scientific".

The ruling oligarchs - as expressed by their front men ex-World Bank Stern and Garnaut - want to keep an even faker monetarist bubble going via their ETS scam. Such an economic tyranny would be even more oppressive than their derivatives bubble itself, which underlies this current global systemic disintegration, but ETS is meant to tie into the current looters' system via the bail-out pork.

Of course, the same oligarchs also want depopulation, whatever spin they put over their lies; as "CO2 emitters", humans are pollutants according to the sick, nasty cult of hypocrites (they themselves are too special and enlightened to perish in the great "cleansing").

Summer has been 2.5 months late in Victoria; we used the heater several times just before Xmas! Meanwhile, the northern hemisphere's snow and ice data show record stretches of cold too. Then the cultists reply that this is because the polar caps are melting (and polar bears drowning, etc.)!

Dear mil-observer:
re: "atmospheric hot spot is missing and the ice core data refute this" sorry to say that this is totally incorrect.
The tropical hot spot has been measured and confirmed by the IPCC viz there is a heating signature in the trophosphere. This argument has been used and abused by Carter, Evans, Nicol, Kininmonth et al from the ACSC, none of whom have been proven correct by any scientific measure. Just like ice-core data showing CO2 lags temperature. This is correct in the normal Milankovitch cycle, however it always happens in periods of deglaciation (simple research required), the last of which was 12,000 years ago. QED

mil-observer,

If AGW is all a plot by the global corporate elite to seize more power, with the aid of corrupt scientists, then you need to explain why the Bush administration made such desperate efforts to shut up Jim Hansen and other scientists at NASA and other US government agencies. See Mark Bowen's book "Censoring Science". There also seems to be a lack of understanding about how science works. Scientists are acclaimed, promoted, and awarded research grants and tenure for coming up with novel ideas, not for jumping on a bandwagon. If you look at the articles in New Scientist, say, you can easily see that very divergent alternatives to popular theories, such as string theory in physics, get published in respected journals and widely discussed. There are undoubtedly all sorts of scientists out there who would dearly love to conclusively discredit AGW.

I don't post on AGW as a rule, because it is not my field, and it would take probably 2 years to get up to speed, even though I was trained as a scientist. Even the front runners in climatology say that there is no absolute proof either way, because the various feedback mechanisms are extremely complicated. As Lawrence Krauss, the Nobel prize winning physicist, has said, however, the physics makes sense. So far as policy is concerned, it is all a matter of risk management. I wonder if some of you would be equally sceptical if an oncologist told you a lump needed to be biopsied (after all it might not be cancer) or a civil engineer told you that a building was structurally unsound. Assuming that that the problem is real, 80% of the excess greenhouse gases now in the atmosphere came from developed countries, so Bangladesh has a valid complaint.

I agree with some of the rest of you that even if AGW is real, it is a symptom of the main underlying sustainability issue, overpopulation, with mismanagement and conspicuous consumption playing strong supporting roles.

Ho Hum, does your favourite spiritual philosopher perchance reside in a looney bin?

What absolute piffle! I agree with that sillyfilly, but not that questioners of AGW are uneducated.

The primary issue is not measuring temperature or CO2, it's the total lack of any link between them beyond fanciful modeling.

If you have a proven link, that increases in CO2 has a proven direct correlation to temperature, please let us all know - because that's the holy grail of the AGW religion isn't it, and why you all seem to be so angry other people are questioning your beliefs. (So how much CO2 = what temperature?)

The rest of the AGW piffle depends on models with suspicious outcomes which always seem to reflect what the modelers set out to discover. They are interesting tools, but not proof, you would need millions of variables to model climate, so modelers "estimate" the hard stuff, like clouds. There is also AGW's carefully chosen "graphology", it's not science, it's marketing.

I note other AGW believers argue that there is no hotspot near the equator because it manifests in a different way - you folks need to get your delusions in a row, maybe get a hockey stick to help you all marshall your beliefs. Just shouting it isn't so won't change the doubts or stop the questioning, nor should it, (nor will name calling).

A mathematical proof from sillyfilly, no less.

And “by any scientific measure” must mean there's really no relevant debate to be had, because research and conclusions contradicting AGW cannot be defined as “scientific”. Very neat: “an inconvenient tyranny” perhaps? That would also mean Guy Le Blanc-Smith, William Kininmonth, Bob Carter and so many others similarly qualified (Evans just one among them) should actually be disqualified. How did such august bodies as the World Bank and IMF – so influential in privatizing our education system into “user pays” feudalism – allow those people to attain, or at least keep, their academic qualifications?

Proven in this brief discursive “equation” is the following set of hypotheses as mooted over a decade ago:

1) The leading role of IPCC scammers as headed by such monetarist flunkies that I mentioned.

2) The complimentary tyrannical impulse prohibiting open debate by denying a fair chance of contribution from qualified scientists, denying them also actual influence on conclusions ergo policy, and;

3) The AGW promoters' rubbery flexibility and back-flipping when later deciding that ice core data is not suitably relevant to describe planetary temperature, as many millenia of temperature rises preceded greater CO2 emissions. Same with the criteria defining (and demanding) the “hot spot” (or was that just “signature”?).

Divergence: the “Bush administration” launched major war crimes; “deseperate efforts to shut up” Hansen would be unnecessary to such people - Hansen got promotion and is still on the state payroll! As with superliar Howard, Bush's lip-service “opposition” to AGW was merely to keep some vulnerable (non-financier) resource capitalists onside to prevent them funding non-mainstream dissent. These political puppets' real bosses are the same financier-parasites who back ex-WB Stern, Garnault et al.

The same people who created the derivatives-based monetarist sytem that's falling apart now, and you want to trust their claims to “risk management” over climate science and new speculative schemes in ETS! Hah – ROFL!

“Oh well”, you'll say, “at least this global depression will cull a few billion 'excess' people” (excluding your brilliant, noble and useful self of course)...”so maybe the genocidal oligarch-scum really are clever”.

Mil-Observer

You are right that the whole global warming thing is a scam on wheels. The only people to promote it are either the cynical interested, like the governments and banks who intend to profit from it, or religioius half-wits, who think it's a sin for human life to use natural resources, and don't care what the facts are.

However you are wrong in thinking the derivatives bubble is the root cause of the current economic crisis. It can't be: the name alone should tell you this. A derivative, by definition, is a derivative *of* something else - namely, the underlying contract. And the function of a derivative is to hedge risk. That also should have told you that what is driving the derivatives bubble is the underlying risk in the monetary system.

Ultimately the bubble underlying the economic crisis is the scam that the US dollar is money. It is government's addiction to inflationary finance based on fiat money that underlies the entire economic crisis. You have mistaken a symptom for the cause. The cause is fiat money, without which, neither the derivatives bubble nor the economic crisis would exist.

What if nothing can be done about it.

Mil-observer,

Bush is hardly smart enough to think in the convoluted way you imagine, nor the oil and coal companies too stupid to know if he were selling them out. Why not just accept that he denies global warming like you? As for Hansen keeping his job, things are not yet so bad in the US that a prominent American scientist can simply be made to disappear or even be blatantly victimised.

Outside of your fertile imagination, no one is advocating a cull. If any culling takes place, it will be done by Nature or by the cullees' neighbours. This actually started happening in the Rwanda genocide. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, a minimum of 0.053 hectares of arable land is needed to provide an individual with a nutritionally adequate diet, even with the best modern agricultural techniques (State Land Administrative Research Project for Cultivated Land Protection, 1998). Rwanda, the country with the densest population in Africa, got down to 0.03 hectares of arable land per person at the time of the genocide. James Gasana, Rwanda's former agriculture minister, wrote an article that was published in Worldwatch Magazine in 2002. It contains a table showing the correlation between calories per person in the various cantons and the numbers of people killed in massacres.

Divergence: There's nothing "smart" about keeping (or trying to keep) constituents onside for the sake of political power; it's sometimes called "representation", or even "networking". The process is a bit of a no-brainer, especially in mediocre leadership, whether political or business. It's not "convoluted" either for politicians to pander in bad faith: it's plain dishonest and gutless (just ask Howard, Costello et al). I agree Bush seemed no master tactician, but he's an old-rich oligarch used to such games, and still has plenty of advisers and strategists to drive such decisions.

But your comment suggests volumes about how "convoluted" can pass for "clever" or sophisticated, and what's meant to constitute "smart" these days. Sickening that our civilization became such an unprincipled, barbaric zoo.

Outside of my fertile imagination plenty of people advocate culls. Indeed your strange wording contradicted your own claim when stating: "If any culling takes place, it will be done by Nature or by the cullees' neighbours."

That is exactly what so many Malthusian AGW advocates seek (they rarely talk about nukes or death camps except when they get p|ss3d together). Depopulation psychopathy goes back to Malthus, but gained a further boost from Kissinger's "NSSM 200": a nasty, brutal and paranoid document which views the world in a typical "they lose, we win" perspective.

By "nature", Malthusians pretend a "free trade" model - a mythical system inevitably causing crashes (and famines, wars, etc.) within an unregulated "natural" interplay of market forces. The genocidal potential of such simplistic silliness can now be realized more widely in the monetarists' derivatives-driven systemic implosion and its hyperinflationary bail-out storm.

That's where people like yourself come in. AGW encourages various other lies quite compatible with Malthusian "finite resources/people as cattle" myths. For example, millions of kids can't eat because crops have gone into bio-fuel, spiking food costs further too? Ah, but that's to "save the planet", in artificial programs backed so enthusiastically by Bush, Howard, etc. - damn their black-green hearts.

You Rwandan reference is bizarre: a finite figure of "arable land per person"? Same for wheat or cattle, medieval rotation or half-fallow?

Wake up Australia.

If Climate Change does exist & it is caused by human beings, then don't you think the Rudd Government would stop all IMMIGRATION programs forthwith?

The only reason Rudd is dicking around with Kyoto policies, apart from 'trying' to do a facsimile of an international susperstar, is that he DOESN'T believe in Climate change.

Oh he mounts media campaigns to get 'us' to believe it so we will SPEND UP BIG on putative changes and grow his Labor economy. That's the extent of it & its as plain as the nose on your face.

Rudd's secret theme:

Onwards IMMIGRATION!
Sent from above
The extra GST for me.

Sung by Howie Rudd,

How cute!

NOT.

Mil-observer,

My source for arable land per person in Rwanda at the time of the genocide is from the Worldwatch Institute

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update21_printable.htm

The CIA World Factbook also gives arable land figures for the different countries.

If you want to dispute with the UN experts on how much arable land is needed to support a person at current technology or on human nutritional requirements, perhaps you should give us your qualifications. If population is growing rapidly, talk of what technology might be able to do in the distant future is irrelevant. The population of Rwanda tripled between 1950 and 1990, just before the genocide.

I stand corrected about the cull. Hungry people may indeed be in favour of thinning out their neighbours, and there may be a few sociopaths in the West who want it too. I certainly don't, and neither does anyone I know.

Personally, I don't give a damn about the free market or any particular economic or political system. I am concerned about a mass extinction and a civilisational collapse, in which AGW, our current topic, may play a part. In "Collapse", Jared Diamond gives examples of all sorts of societies that saved themselves from a sustainability crisis from the top down or the bottom up.

Divergence, you don't care about politics or economics, only some sort of apocalyptic annihilation. That sounds familiar. Oh yeah, religion.

The Second Law of the Church & Religion of THERMODYNAMICS:

dS=dE/T. Change in entropy=change in energy-rate divided by ambient Temperature.

Human civilisation is a Quasi-Closed Thermodynamic SYSTEM. IE a system that on AVERAGE has a RATE of energy input per population member always slightly increasing or zero. IE a system that has a slightly DECREASING average ENTROPY.

All Quasi-Closed systems, whose EENNTTRROPPYY is slowly INCREASNG due to increased population growth and/or decreasing energy input will rapidly converge towards THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM.

Thermodynamic Equilibrium is defined as maximim disorder, disfunctionality or Chaos for that system.

Such a Thermodynamic Equilibrium can be reversed to a functional system IF & only if internal parameters of the system (such as population numbers) are reduced so that existing average energy inputs are again slightly increasing for that system. Complex systems such as climate and human economics have historically shown they have Quantum Leap mechanisms analogous to population inversions in Laser firings (War & Disease in the case of human civilisations) that automatically QUENCH population numbers in order to resume a lesser sized but perhaps smarter functional system.

Further the above Law holds true for all Quasi Closed Thermodynamic SYSTEMS no matter what religious beliefs their individual population members or components MAY or MAY NOT hold. In fact religions ar irrelevant. It has been historically demonstrated that in the advent of WAR, Church groups are the first to side with Tyrants, to protect themselves from annhiliation.

COROLLARY:
Nations whose governments boost national economic growth by printing money and forcing complex immigration-for-GST schemas will rapidly drive their nations to the Thermodynamic equilibrium of WAR followed by prolonged periods of disease. The leaders of such governments and their religious bliefs will be viewed in history if such history remains in tact, as MONSTERS as a feedback & warning to future civilisations.

Like all Laws of PHYSICS this Second Law of Thermodynamics & all its corollaries are inviolable.

See www.dieoff.org for further information.

Also http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=519607
PS Perhaps Australian political leaders like Rudd & Gillard should take to wearing Moustaches to fit in with their ultimate Historic & thermodynamic realities.

Yes, Divergence, your Rwandan reference is still bizarre: applicable to Bronze Age farming perhaps? And of course the CIA ran with the primitive and simplistic "arable land" concept: agencies like CIA were tasked with overseeing the implementation of Kissinger's paranoid, genocidal NSSM 200-depopulation strategy - and whether CIA hands understood its psychopathic criminal nature or not. Likewise with Worldwatch, a grab-bag of the west's middle-class green hypocrites with dependent imitators from developing countries. Not that they're not "well intentioned"; it's just that they're only really well intentioned for themselves as a special class of "intelligentsia" privileged above the common plods.

Which leads to my next riposte to your claim that "what technology might be able to do in the distant future is irrelevant" in the context of population. I refer not to "the distant future" at all. If developing countries access latest technology for agriculture, irrigation and power, and instead of wasting their resources on the useless and onerous debt of a long-useless, parasitic and imperialistic monetarist system, then their ensuing prosperity will bring stability to their own population.

As I stated on a related OLO thread: "As clear from western and Japanese precedents, prosperity is the great population stabilizer: established urbanization, life expectancy, and enhanced education and work prospects for women, in particular, all reduce people's natural urges to play a "reproductive lottery" of sorts, or try overcoming their wretched condition by a game of percentages via increased offspring" (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8326&page=0).

And I'm not surprised that you "don't give a damn about the free market or any particular economic or political system". Your comment there just proves that you care for your own subjective interests and whims and not a jot for the common welfare, because you fail to identify the inter-related processes at work. When that happens to us, we can fall under the spell of Frankensteins like neo-Malthusian KAEP and their creepy, apocalyptic dungeon experiments that will ensure the world will never laugh at them again...mwuhahahahah!

SHOULDNT WE AIM TO KEEP PEOPLE IN THE THIRD WORLD WHERE THEY EMIT LESS GAS? Like we are bringing to australia and converting them and making them emit 100 times the gas they would emit. Methinks we should reduce immigration and deport as many people as possible.

fungochumley,

mil-observer and others have been asserting that people like me are motivated by some sort of secret economic or political agenda. We are either secret free marketeers who want to loot the world, or for Libertarians, secret Socialists. I strongly reject any such accusation in my case and that of friends with similar views. The best economic or political system is worthless if people are too dead to enjoy it. It is a second order issue. Birth rates do normally stabilise with prosperity, but the resources simply aren't there to raise everyone out of poverty. See the various environmental footprint sites where they are calculated or the graph on p. 10 of the 7/10/07 New Scientist. It shows that with current technology, it would take the resources of 3 Earths to give everyone a modest European standard of living even with no social inequality.

It is true that Paul Ehrlich and others did not anticipate the success of the Green Revolution, but that does not mean that such collapses don't happen.

Example of a Malthusian collapse: If your soil and climate are really suitable for potatoes, you can feed up to four times as many people to the hectare as with grain. The population of Ireland grew from about 1.2 million in 1600 to 8.5 million in 1848, with most of the increase entirely dependent on two varieties of potato. The Irish may have been aware that they were in a precarious position. Peasant farmers know very well that they need genetic diversity in their crops and livestock. The Andean farmers who domesticated the potato have more than 250 varieties. Population growth was especially fast in Ireland because inheritance customs and colonial laws required land to be divided among all the sons. In the 1840s, the late blight arrived from Mexico and devastated the potato crop. 1 to 1.5 million people starved and 1.5 to 2 million had to emigrate. It is true that Ireland's British colonial masters made matters worse, but hundreds of thousands of people starved in the rest of Europe too.

Apocalyptic enough for you?

mil-observer,

If you had read my previous post, you would know that the FAO calculated a minimum of 0.053 hectares of arable land to adequately feed a person on the basis of the best modern farming technology, not Bronze Age methods.

Instead of sniping at people like me and attributing base motives or conspiracies to us, why not try pulling your head out of the sand? Look at the statistics on the Worldwatch site, say, on how we are experiencing shortages or losses of arable land, fresh water, fish stocks, biodiversity, fossil fuels and minerals that are vital for our technology, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes. Check their numbers, if you can find a source that you won't immediately dismiss as part of a conspiracy. If prominent scientists who have been working on climate all their lives say that AGW is a potential threat and publish their evidence for this in peer reviewed journals, why shouldn't I believe them instead of someone who gleans information from random web sites and is perfectly prepared to believe scientists when they write on cancer therapy and the like?

Do you really believe that the global elite have been faking their opposition to AGW and are actually in a vast conspiracy with much of the world's scientific community? Why is this different from other conspiracy theories, such as that the Moon landings were faked, Elvis lives, or the aliens landed at Roswell and the world's governments are covering it up?

Yeah, Elvis, UFOs, and the emperor's mad abacus saying "the poor in their place".

I never even implied "secret" stuff about your views. I merely identified how your gullibility on AGW clearly serves powerful vested interests. That's why there's no significant opposition to AGW by a global elite so I could not, and did not, claim some more sinister "faking" there.

I restate for your benefit: Bush-Howard merely accommodated concerns among significant constituents, especially those resource sector producers, investors and donors, who had diversified little into the finance and other sectors. By the end of their terms, their meek efforts were disproved repeatedly by their own statements anyway.

"0.053 hectares per person": a magic, Malthusian number. What of such "multipliers" as infrastructure, including transport, irrigation, desalination, and fertilizing technology? Do not debase this discussion further by claiming that the same magic ratio applies with those factors too. No, the Malthusians would have the vast majority of humanity dependent on little more than oxen, prayers for rain, and Malthus' bosses in the imperialist East India Company.

Your reference to the euphemistically termed "Irish Famine" is another appalling demonstration of your misguided Malthusian faith. The pre-starvation population number is much closer to Ireland's current total, but the mid-19th century potato then could not spread in such diversity in that foreign clime and soil. As your own comment implies but does not explore, the potato was grown there precisely because of the relative efficiency of its production. That's an issue concerning a "political and economic system", which you're on record as not giving "a damn about". Ireland's rentier-based exploitation forced much of its populace to seek nutrition from relatively small plots, intensified by encroaching tithes and rents. "Colonial masters" did not "make matters worse" - they created the problem from the outset. Comparable European cases revealed similar political and economic causality. Therefore, you damn yourself with your glib political and economic apathy and primitivism. Or is it just middle class smugness and even cowardice?

It's obvious who populates the actual "global elite" backing AGW. For starters: World Bank economists pushing IPCC exec summaries.

And we must put a stop to the consumer-minded, wasteful chicanery driving this perverse AGW dogma. Middle class westerners consume and waste an inordinate amount of almost every resource; there is very little efficiency, but much ostentatious claim to such efficiency. "Recycling bins" whose contents nearly all deposit to landfill anyway; "recycling bags" that are largely unnecessary except to give some middle class consumers that extra glow of self-righteous superiority, and; a disposability in almost every major household purchase.

Of course such people would worry if the developing world followed suit! The trouble is, the developing world's much more efficient than that. During my time with middle class families in the developing "south", such people lived very comfortably, with constant access to internet and worldwide satellite TV. One such family I know very well leaves very little "footprint" because it lives efficiently in every aspect. The only excess I saw were among the very small minority of "westernized" types who'd spent years (typically) in the US and aped such bad habits as both fashion and status statement.

So the New Scientist spiel should renounce its alarmist simple-mindedness and paranoia. Instead of "with modern technology, it would take the resources of 3 earths to give everyone a modest European standard of living", it should state that it would take such resources only to fuel profligate, inefficient waste on a model of consumption and disposability that is largely rejected anyway.

The whole argument is spurious, and very conveniently so. The real point made there is that middle class westerners are hopelessly wasteful and inefficient (most can't even change their own sump oil), but that's just how they inevitably and irredeemably become - by default - simply because they live in a developed country.

Like all AGW pseudo-science and its compatible Malthusian genocidalism, such a mindset is intended to validate not only laziness and greed, but a much greater injustice against those many who can and do develop much more efficiently than from any template drafted in a decadent imperialist culture.

mil-observer,

No one is disputing that the British did terrible things in Ireland, but they had no way to force the Irish to procreate. Eventually families must have realised that any further subdivision of land would leave their children and grandchildren with no Plan B, that people would starve if the potato crop failed.

Likewise, no one is disputing that we could not do better at eliminating waste and discouraging conspicuous consumption. The Europeans are doing better than we are. According to the same New Scientist graph, it would take 5 or 6 Earths if everyone was to live like the average American or Australian. However, no country with a very low environmental footprint ranks high on the UN Human Development Index. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Highlight_Findings_of_the_WA_S0E_2007_report_.gif

I want something better for my (two) children than cramped high-rise accommodation, with noise, pollution, and lack of privacy, freezing cold in winter and a stifling sweatbox in summer, a joyless limited vegetarian diet, one shower and change of clothes a week, and plenty of neighbourhood monitors and secret police to see that no one rocks the boat. All so that some other morons can go on having big families for another generation.

You will have to be more convincing if you want to persuade people that you know more than the climatologists or the agricultural scientists at the UN or the Worldwatch Institute. Do some research on the costs for infrastructure and energy to supply desalinated water for agriculture or the costs to pump the desalinated water inland. Pull your head out of the sand.

No, pull yourself out of humanity and try leading by example in your nasty, simplistic depopulation scheme, misanthropic hypocrite. Such absolutist predictive certainty about what happens if others develop, and all based on "models", of course, just like the rubbish pushed on us by the World Bank men's IPCC and related scams.

On Europe: no, the UK and Netherlands are of course actually very wasteful and inefficient economies, because such countries remain central to the parasitic monetarist imperialism that caused this massive ongoing global crash.

And spare us the classic self-righteous, anti-Catholic and Malthusian explanation of the starvation in mid-19th century Ireland. You fail entirely to even acknowledge the actual effect from imperialist policy on the Irish people and the natural response of procreation in an effort to meet the oppressive labor needs and try a "reproductive lottery" whereby increased offspring raised the chances of wretched families escaping the poverty and extreme exploitation.

The same processes were at work at the same time on the other side of the world, in Java, under very similar Dutch policies. The population there spiked upwards, with increased subdivisions, to meet those oppressive challenges too. They could have just chosen not to procreate, you say, but then they would have been absorbed into a Dutch program of migrant-driven adjustment for that rentier system's intended "growth", forming as it did the Dutch colonialists' own (closely inter-related with the British) exploitative and inefficient imperial economy. No coincidence either that both British and Dutch imperialists also openly dominated the opium trade at the same time, trying to get as many hopelessly dependent junkies as possible to consolidate further their anti-human policies of globalizing enslavement.

With misanthropes like you cheering on such arrogant, parasitic empires, even the Romans would have degenerated much faster by being prohibited from such basic infrastructure as an aqueduct. "The financial burden of our perfectly finite monetarist system prohibits such a 'footprint' - it has no place on our finite abacus".

mil-observer,

You are clearly as emotionally wedded to your growthist notions as a Creationist is to the literal truth of the Genesis creation story and as impervious to rational argument or evidence. In fact, any attempt to introduce such is evidence of a conspiracy of some sort. Fine, although I see no point in further debating this, other than to suggest that you study some math and science, you know, such boring stuff as exponential functions and conservation of matter and energy. You might be able then to understand the physics of how greenhouse gases work and why, say, Q&A thinks as he does about the climate.

I do object to your dishonest debating tactic of reading things into my posts that I never said and never intended. I have never said or suggested any of the following:

1. I want some sort of cull. (I do think that people in most places would be better off and the planet in better shape if they had fewer babies.)
2. The 19th century Irish should have stopped reproducing altogether, instead of dropping back to replacement level to avoid an irresponsible further subdivision of land (perhaps 4-5 children per woman, given the high infant mortality rates at the time).
3. The current economic system is wonderful for all and produces no exploitation or injustices.
4. Imperialism is an excellent system, and the problems of the subject peoples were/are entirely of their own making. (I do reject the idea that poor brown (or white) people can do no wrong.)
5. The Europeans are not only doing better than we are, but are completely above reproach when it comes to using resources.

Grow up. Oh, then again, that would be against your high principles as a non- or anti-"growthist"! OK, on the seemingly learned growth in "isms" maybe we need to apply the counter-label "degeneratist"?

I made no mis-attribution of such claims to your argument at all; I merely pointed out the consequences of such claims, and their smooth compatibility with the imperial enslavement and murder which spawned nasty little critters like Malthus and Adam Smith.

Which is timely for another reminder to OLO's historical vacuum: Malthus and Adam Smith were sponsored by the imperialist British East India Company via the Haileybury School. Such clowns produced pseudo-science at best, and always a dogmatic faith to determine how they used their abacus-as-model-of-people/economy.

It doesn't really bother me, because I know that most of the world ignores such British Empire garbage, except where now recognizing it as a potential threat via neo-imperialist foreign policies. But the sick part nags in that, while so many believe it in Australia, Malthusian dogma probably does irreparable damage to this country, where I live, work and hope for a future for my children. Instead, I get self-righteous, filthy looks and comments from smug Malthusian "greens" precisely BECAUSE I have children!

Hello mil-observer

I’ve just popped in to see what’s happening on this thread and a quick perusal indicates that you believe growth is good. Are you recommending that we expand our population in Australia?

It’s been reported that David Jones, the head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology, said the drought affecting south-west Western Australia, south-east South Australia, Victoria and northern Tasmania “is now very severe and without historical precedent”.

Dr Jones said Victoria had “the driest multi-year period on record, but also by far the hottest….” He said temperatures were running at about one degree “above any previous comparable drought. That is substantially hotter, and that one degree is a global warming signal.”

However, I note that you have alluded to an “ice age” but I fail to see how you’ve reached that conclusion. It appears that you are dismissing the theories of the most eminent scientists. Rather you appear impressed by the assumptions of the poor old hacks, Kininmonth and Le Blanc-Smith, both long retired, both members of Dad’s Army.

While Kininmonth’s former colleagues at the BoM seem to agree with him about the climate’s natural variability, they disagree that recent warming is natural. Of course poor old Kininmonth, from memory hasn’t worked for about 10 years. Why are you placing so much faith in his unsubstantiated opinions when he has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on climate change? The only study published by any Kininmonth was in 1972, on the subject of rain grown rice.

And since droughts and warming have the grass-hopper effect ie. no rain, more water restrictions, more power restrictions, no crops, dead animals, dead humans, desertification etc, why would any one recommend that Australians breed like rabbits?

Speaking of rabbits, is it better to have 21 million rabbits or 40 million in Australia, the driest place on earth, well except Antarctica of course!?

Dear most eminent dickie (an abbreviation?):

"Grass-hopper effect", "21 million rabbits or 40 million in Australia", and "Australians breed like rabbits"?

No, I was referring to humans, who (mostly) have vast intelligence, initiative, creative potential and innate means for adaptability and efficiency, already well proven over many thousands of years. If such were not true, human occupation of this harsh continent could not have occurred at all since 40,000 years ago.

Here are some further dissident quotes, still with that classy aura of the hallowed halls of "peer-reviewed" seers (keep that buzzword going):

Dr Phil Chapman, geophysicist, astronautical engineer and first Australian to become a NASA astronaut:

"All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake".

David Packham, ex-CSIRO principal research scientist, senior research fellow in a Monash University climate group, and an Australian BoM officer:

"The global warming monopoly is seriously bad for science".

Dr Art Raiche, ex-CSIRO Chief Research Scientist:

"It is my strong belief that the CSIRO has passed its use-by date. The organisation that bears the name of CSIRO has very little in common with the organisation I joined in 1971, one that produced so much of value for Australia during its first seven decades. ...consider the Garnault report, possibly the longest economic suicide note in Australia's history. It is based on the dire predictions of CSIRO's modelling programs".

So here you go dickie, I'll try to make this easier for you, all six Australian scientists on a plate, for you and/or AGW and Malthusian chums to try discrediting and dismissing in one fell swoop:

- Dr Phil Chapman, geophysicist, astronautical engineer and first Australian to become a NASA astronaut;
- David Packham, ex-CSIRO principal research scientist, senior research fellow in a Monash University climate group, and an Australian BoM officer;
- Dr Art Raiche, ex-CSIRO Chief Research Scientist;
- Guy Le Blanc-Smith, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist;
- William Kininmonth, head of the Australian BoM National Climate Centre 1986-1998 and Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization's Commission for Climatology 1982-1998;
- Bob Carter, paleoclimate scientist James Cook University and ex-chairman of the ARC's Earth Science Panel.

Let's see: all "dad's army" perhaps (which presumably means senile, or even mentally ill or somehow just incompetent)?

But that would not be "peer review" at all. That'd be a classic totalitarian's ad-hominem response to dissent, just as we should expect from such circles that produced the World Bank men Stern and Garnault, or hedge-funder and ex-FBI sleazer Al Gore, and all their many colleagues who created the insane dysfunctionality and grand fraud of a monetarist system that is in an ongoing process of breakdown and collapse.

Dear Mil-observer

Thank you so much for your response and I advise that it appears innovative man to whom you refer is no match for Mother Nature. Only today the media have reported 76 human incinerations from Victoria’s bushfire.

Is Mother Nature objecting to man's plundering of her forests, the dispossession of her native animals, the heating of her planet and the trashing of her ecoysystems?

Speaking of bushfires, I refer you to the gentleman you tell us is qualified to speak on climate change - David Packham, OAM, MAppSci, who worked for 40 years in bushfire research with CSIRO, Monash University and the Australian Emergency Management Institute. No climate science here except predictions on "bushfire" weather.

http://www.abc.net.au/blackfriday/aftermath/dpackham.htm

Any my don’t these has-beens get “narky” after retiring from CSIRO, biting the hand which once fed him?

http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/isi/research/subs/sub5.pdf

Another “climate expert” to whom you refer is Art Raiche, former CSIRO, Division of Exploration & Mining Australia. His name is often associated with our mining barons, Mil-observer - BHP Billiton, Cominco Exlploration, Rio Tinto, Western Metals etc, and having had a decade in the industry myself, I assure you that they know very little about climate change. Those in the industry often refer to these gentlemen as “rock apes" but how very rude!

http://www.csiro.au/science/pps5w.html

Perhaps these gentlemen should declare an interest when they pose as climate experts. What say ye?

Phil Chapman, an "ice age" alarmist too has been flying around the mesosphere or thermosphere in space ships. Be a good fella and provide his career profile for me, would you?:

"The Precautionary Principle demands that we all do our duty by guzzling as much gasoline and emitting as much CO2 and CH4 as possible. Flatulence is now a patriotic duty." (Chapman)

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2008/03/arctic-heat-dump-phil-chapman-pournelle.html

Perhaps you will be kind enough to direct me to the published research articles these gentlemen have written on climate science?

Cheerio

"Let's see: all "dad's army" perhaps (which presumably means senile, or even mentally ill or somehow just incompetent)?"

My dear Mil-observer. I make no such inference.

It appears that you are not part of the purple circle for you would know of the affectionate names given to the members the IPA or the Lavoisier Group.

"Dad's Army," "The Goons," and some cheeky wags describe their meetings as "Hancock's Half Hour!" I guess it's because after half an hour, these poor old codgers become a little incoherent from the sherry and have to toodle off home on their gophers?

Mind you, Jennifer Marohasy's very kind to the poor dears.

Very revealing replies, though not in the ways intended. Bragging of exclusivity in some initiates' club membership for starters: an "in" group and an "out" group, like in some poncey, puerile school setting. "Chortle, chortle, touche, we beat those gwubby wascals of dad's army, what say ye?"

And on Victoria's bushfires: a misanthrope's sarcastic and obviously barbaric regard, if not delight, over others' recent, horrific deaths ("innovative man...no match for Mother Nature"), all supposedly due to some mystical revenge motive in the primitive myth-consciousness of some vaguely animist Gaia spirit. Incineration of people - men, women and children - used here as a vain debating tool, supposedly to trump dissenting views on ecology and population.

What other regressive fantasies and blatant superstition? Human sacrifice on pyramids, or in peat bogs? Dickie contrives some timely connection with bushfire disasters; try this from Packham instead (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25031389-7583,00.html).

Dickie's pose of "research" is a quick web trawl of some names in an effort to seem sussed on the people quoted. Superficial fluff pretending omniscience (abc.net.au, aph.gov.au, csiro.au, and - a blog!). The attempted, but failed, mockery of climate veteran David Packham is one of the limpest attacks on dissent I have ever seen. The CSIRO link on exploration is just bizarre, as if the very research for mining is some intrinsically sinister enterprise, compromising those involved as "denialist"! That seems to be how an effete bourgeoise qualifies as "leftist" nowadays.

So dickie's bogus argument means to deny even the very existence of dissenting climate scientists, and their qualifications and experience covering geophysics, paleoclimatology, astronautical engineering, climate research, and seniority and tenure in Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO (abusing the ex-CSIRO scientists gratuitously as disgruntled and "past it" - classic anti-dissident smears) .

OLO saw a precursor to this tactic (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8132#127929), when AGWer Q&A slapped "Lavoisier" onto the anti-AGW protest letter to Ban Ki Moon during the Bali Climate Conference (see: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004) a protest by 103 climate scientists from 17 countries supposedly orchestrated by Oz think tank.

All style, very little substance - "what say ye"?

"Dickie's pose of "research" is a quick web trawl of some names in an effort to seem sussed on the people quoted. Superficial fluff pretending omniscience (abc.net.au, aph.gov.au, csiro.au, and - a blog!)."

Touche mil-observer!

Now please advise me if your superficial fluff, feigning research, "was a quick web trawl of some names in an effort to seem sussed on the people quoted":

"Dr Phil Chapman, geophysicist, astronautical engineer and first Australian to become a NASA astronaut;
- David Packham, ex-CSIRO principal research scientist, senior research fellow in a Monash University climate group, and an Australian BoM officer;
- Dr Art Raiche, ex-CSIRO Chief Research Scientist;
- Guy Le Blanc-Smith, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist;
- William Kininmonth, head of the Australian BoM National Climate Centre 1986-1998 and Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization's Commission for Climatology 1982-1998;
- Bob Carter, paleoclimate scientist James Cook University and ex-chairman of the ARC's Earth Science Panel."

If not a "web trawl," provide details please.

And a bit of trivia for you mil-observer. My good neighbour is a physicist. Her brief is in the field of fuels. She unashamedly confesses to knowing little about environmental toxicology or climate change but enthusiastically seeks out current information from poor old Dickie. As an honourable and ethical scientist, she refrains from duping an unsuspecting public, by feigning expert knowledge in the field of climate science.

So why mil-observer, do you ignore my previous questions pertaining to Australia's aging dinosaurs and their pathetic, last gasp grab at fame? Where do these old gentlemen perform their "dedicated" research and which of your *individual* experts raised written, valid theories with the IPCC?

Do please adhere to OLO protocol and respond also to my previous questions:

1. "Perhaps you will be kind enough to direct me to the published research articles these gentlemen have written on climate science?

2. "Perhaps these gentlemen should declare an interest when they pose as climate experts. What say ye?

With anticipatory thanks

Mil-observer says:

"Q&A slapped "Lavoisier" onto the anti-AGW protest letter to Ban Ki Moon during the Bali Climate Conference"

What say I?

Mil-observer ...You are a liar.

They "slapped" it on themselves.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/garnaut/GarnautsubappxB.pdf

Easy to check, go to the Lavoisier Groups web site.

I already saw that Lavoisier reproduced the letter's text as an appendix in their Garnault submission. But you branded it "Lavoisier", to mislead as though it was an initiative from that Oz think tank.

So you are not only the liar, but you also make a fraudulent pose of research into the institutional background of 103 scientists from 17 countries.

A fraud defending a fraud.

Both dickie and Q&A seem hell-bent on payback over this: probably a hangover of embarrassment from the mistaken Lomborg reference and the earlier, equally mistaken and Ludlumesque calls about "The Lavoisier Identity" (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8132&page=0). For another backgrounder on Q&A's baggage, see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7669&page=0#119951, where I demolished Q&A's haughty claims about "the science".

As I stated then about the protest letter to Ban Ki Moon:
"The scientists who volunteered for the petition are variously qualified in climatology, hydroclimatology, paleoclimatology, physics, geophysics, planetology, meteorology, geology, atmospheric science, oceanography, and various branches of engineering. In case readers missed it (as our media did), see: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004"

For the essential purposes of this argument, that's about as far as I need to investigate those scientists' CVs. That above evidence debunks conclusively the notion of pro-AGW scientific consensus or casual "probabilities", as propagated by the bankers-run IPCC. But it's funny how dickie betrays the weakness of the pro-AGW case by demanding to see "which of your *individual* experts raised written, valid theories with the IPCC?" "Theories" are all that could conceivably matter to dickie - apart from models, presumably - but NOT scientific observation.

As fungochumley and others warned, dickie expects me to go do her research for her! Well, for the benefit of others who have not read it: nearly all of the petitioners are PhDs; around one-quarter of them work in positions directly incorporating the term "climate" (meteorology and other earth sciences cover nearly all the remainder); three of the 103 were actually "IPCC expert reviewers". Nearly all tenured academics.

But then Q&A will reveal to us that the sinister-sounding Lavoisier Group reproduced that letter as an appendix in their formal submission to Garnault. They did, honest - Q&A saw them click "copy" then "paste"!

AGW fanatics are simply unable to deal with the genuine, specialized, highly qualified and professional dissent. So they turn to smear, whether blatant or insinuated. AGW is not just a circus, but a sorry, secular and misanthropic substitute for religion.

Whoa mil-observer.

I only entered this thread when YOU said that I “slapped” or “branded” that letter to Ban Ki Moon from the Lavoisier Group.

You are a liar, I did not ... THEY (the Lavoisier Group) did the ‘cut-n-paste’.

I agree with you, THEY (the Lavoisier Group) are the “frauds”.

It is a typical ‘tactic’ of the ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade worldwide – THEY will produce “the list” every time they see the wheel falling off their cart’.

Don’t get me wrong, I respect a handful of the genuine ‘contrarians’ on "the list" – others I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole.

When we do try and knock a hole in AGW theory, using the scientific process of course, our findings just bolster the theory – very frustrating I’m sure.

Ok, some nuances are revealed (and these are subject of much discussion and critique in the scientific community) but to use these as “evidence” that AGW is a fraud or hoax perpetuated on humanity is just silly, milly.

You say “AGW fanatics (sic) are simply unable to deal with the genuine, specialized, highly qualified and professional dissent. So they turn to smear, whether blatant or insinuated. AGW is not just a circus, but a sorry, secular and misanthropic substitute for religion.”

Piffle. You are projecting your own inadequacies onto others; I believe they call it's transference.

Now, it appears you have been digging and trolling for past comments from me and posting them in your (I mean Tanveer Ahmed’s) thread – I’m flattered. It’s as if I am watching my own episode of “This Is Your (OLO) Life”. Thanks for the memories.

You want to ‘play scientists’ so here is some homework ... do a trend analysis of diurnal temperatures, tell us what you think is happening to night time maximums, and why. Oh yeah, please cite your primary sources (given you know twat about stats).

Tanveer Ahmed (and others) might find this interesting:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html

Sort of on topic, eh?

Q&A demonstrates here a very stubborn, convoluted and mischievous lying to levels defined as "sophistry". The practitioner's apparent creative enjoyment here says a great deal too about the "theory" (AGW) being promoted.

Q&A now screams: "...YOU said that I “slapped” or “branded” that letter to Ban Ki Moon from the Lavoisier Group. You are a liar, I did not ... THEY (the Lavoisier Group) did the ‘cut-n-paste’".

This is not a new device; the dickie-Q&A tag team made the same creative performance against Ian Castles (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8132&page=0).

Therefore, deliberate self-misrepresentation is clear from Q&A's own statements. Q&A insinuates that the Open Letter was "from...Lavoisier" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8407#134632) when, as its name "open letter" suggests, and Lavoisier's reproduction of it as "appendix" states explicitly, it was not. But Q&A then alleges that Lavoisier was somehow dishonest in using the letter as an appendix source, as if they had branded it "Lavoisier" themselves.

I have no particular interest in Lavoisier itself - and I was unaware of its existence before being distracted so deliberately here - and am unsure about Lavoisier's own networked or even party-political agendas. But I hope Q&A publicizes his allegations more widely and explicitly, because a Lavoisier-based lawsuit on this would be an ongoing storm of justice a.k.a. "extreme legal event".

Q&A uses a similarly dishonest and (fittingly) fictitious approach when posing a theatrical "counter" to the substantial case made around the very fact of the dissident scientists' petition to Ban Ki Moon. Rather than trying to challenge the petition's actual case or inform us how the 103 scientists somehow do not deserve their qualifications and specialist positions of expertise in climate science, etc., Q&A just repeats the flippant claim that the letter is "trotted out" as a mere tactic "time and time again". When and where, we may ask. Oh, back into the circus spin: as an appendix to the Lavoisier Group's Garnault submission!

Fair dinkum folks ... I swear milli-vanilli is not my sock-puppet.

(how's that night-time temp analysis going mil?)

No kidding, Q&A? I've been standing on the sidelines of this stoush, because mil-observer often posts cogent stuff about other issues. However, when it comes to climate change s/he's the embodiment of denialism gone aggro feral.

The sad thing is that as climate change starts to bite - as I think we're currently witnessing - we will have to start talking to, rather than at, each other. Some of the more extreme denialist crew seem to have painted themselves into a corner from which their egos won't allow them to escape for the time being.

However, they'll either have to see reason eventually or quite literally go mad. It's that serious, IMHO.

Thanks CJ

I guess I don’t involve myself enough in other threads to have seen any of mil-observer’s cogent stuff.
Even OLO’s most opinionated accountant has very cogent things to say ... about accounting. When it comes to other stuff, while I may have an opinion, I tend to leave it alone now.

It’s a truism that scientists dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ for our peers – we have to be precise and tell it like it is.

Unfortunately, we have not been well taught in communicating to those not well versed in the scientific process. Consequently, we often ‘come across’ as aloof and condescending ... and boring conversationalists at dinner parties :-)

This is why you will find that most scientists don’t involve themselves in public forums like OLO – the personal attacks and vitriol in response can be staggering, as you well know. A shame really, because we only want to help people understand what they (should I say it) obviously don’t.

It is frustrating at times to talk to antagonists about the intricacies and complexities of something like climate change when their arguments have been repudiated, rebutted and renounced ad nauseam – here and on dedicated climate science web-sites. I give it a go ... for what purpose I sometimes wonder.

How do you talk to someone who is not prepared to listen or learn, let alone understand? Communication is a two way street and is fundamental to having a reasoned and rational discussion.

Major policy and decision makers understand the issues of climate change (and all that entails) and are trying to produce a road-map. They leave the science nuances to the scientists. A lot of individuals also understand, but as you allude to, clearly not enough.

What irks me is the abysmal science reporting in the popular press, or worse – when it is reported reasonably well, the recalcitrant ‘read’ it out of context or ‘twist’ it for their own agenda.

How do you talk to these people – the people that ‘have the eyes and ears’ of many more other people?

Q&A: "...given you know twat about stats...". Nice try at plain workers' slang Q&A, but fail. You'll find that "knowing twat" would refer to sexual experience with females a la "biblical" knowledge. I'm not so much flattered as bewildered at your effort at seeming to be other than a condescending middle class conformist and poseur. What would many ABC/SBS male journalists say? "Fair dinkum folks..." - "oh yes, cobber er, digger!"

And the overwhelming majority of nights too are very cold here compared to my lifetime of experience of Melbourne summers; it's nights that we mainly depend on the central heating now this summer. I understand that Perth too just recorded its coldest November since 1971. China's winter became by early 2008 its coldest winter in a century. But then, maybe my sources are from "The Lavoisier Identity" (sequel to "The Scarlatti Inheritance" or "The Holcroft Covenant").

As I've stated here before, I used to follow the AGW line when it had much less publicity than this last decade. The theory was seductively simple, apparently plausible, and suggested some valid moral and just socio-economic motives and results. Single-user cars, cow farts, coal-derived electricity, and the universal mega-"pollutant" CO2: I had been warned of the danger as clear and present, so I was alarmed.

Then came some seriously confronting facts. The major "conversion" came from reading findings from ice core data. One aspect was confirmation that increased CO2 concentrations FOLLOWED higher global temperatures by centuries - not the other way around as AGW assumed and claimed. Such scientific discovery is of fundamental significance to the debate; in fact, it altered completely one of the most basic aspects of discussion about global climate. A related revelation was American C19th direct atmospheric testing where CO2 recorded up to 500ppm. Such factors together challenge all key assumptions behind AGW, proponents of which either avoided and ridiculed, or gave no convincing explanation. This now became a case of over-committed AGW supporters now using every filter and negative to claim that black was really white.

[cont.]

Studies of cosmic cycles and solar radiation, especially between the 1970s and 1990s, exposed the scale of mistakes, misinformation and deception in AGW. What appeared to me most convincing were those studies after Koeppen, where orbits locate the earth at the 11,000-year mark of cyclical ice ages at 10-12,000 earth years.

And there was no case of some failure by AGW PR at all. Indeed, AGW publicists seem to have been the most consistent and impressive performers from that camp. Of course, they have been backed lavishly by monetarist oligarchs, the same people who brought us the toxic black balloons of the quadrillions of dollars in derivatives trade, now finally bringing crash after crash. What new bubble do these usurers hope to save their system? ETS/"carbon" [sic] swaps, etc.

Indeed, Q&A.