Wow...the sheer audacity of claiming the debate has shifted to what to do as opposed to whether it is happening is breath-taking even as less and less people think the anthropogenic global warming is rubbish.

Our educational elite are obviously part of the ironically named reality based community.

That should be 'less and less people think anthropogenic global warming is a problem'

Interesting, the debate is over .. I think not, nice try at the old misdirection and attempted censorship though.

I agree with adapting to the climate changing, we always have, but to damage our future to prop up academic and other egos is not the way, nor I suspect the way many will support.

We don't need to spend a cent on "carbon pollution", any funds available should go to making this a better place to live, water for those who don't have it and electricity and a better lifestyle for everyone.

Good luck with that attempt to suppress any questioning of the "consensus", though I think you'll find folks just don't trust a scientific community that attacks any and everyone who disagrees or questions their position.

Clearly you've made a stand, occupationally, and now could be embarrassed if the whole warming thing turns out to be wrong, this is as bad as scientists who came out and said smoking was OK, if you have a vested interest, as you clearly do, best to stay out of the debate or be seen to be biased and trying to close it down, as usual.

"Gaia said it, I believe it, and that settles it".

If we are going to survive we need to do something about Sea Water Desalination on a huge scale . There is only 4 percent in the Hume Dam .....alarm bells should be ringing .

Forget about Gore and Company he's been Rabbiting on for ten years , Billy Graham would be a better BS Artist than Gore , perhaps you could give him a go.

We , all of us need to get practical fast , Hype will not deliver .

If we still had the Howard Savings we could drought proof our Country with Desalination .
But now all we can do is Lament and Borrow to Stimulus !

Stimulus , I thought that was what man taking an erotic shortcut

did ?

QUOTE<<..existing power arrangements have prevailed>>egsactly[they plan a new tax-regime to keep the same old/new-world'order'..ordering us to pay their new_tax

<<..as the scientific/evidence emerges,the models improve>>AN ADMITANCE THAT THE MODELS WERE FLAWED,..this admitance reveals they are refining their models..[not proving the fact..[or having any real debate..READ THE OTHER THREAD

<<the overall pressure to do something will increase>>>lol..just who OWNS the media..[yes media has sold us out in the past..[and IS SELLING US OUR NEW GLOBAL/CARBON-TAX NOW....yes the presure from the propaganda vehicles of the elite WILL INCREASE...lol

<<Second,as various interests begin to seriously consider possible remedies>>>..see their BIGGEST cure..is a cure to having govt/taxPAYER bailout[to cover]their loss of wealth[this new GLOBAL tax is their remedy,]

<<the realisation of what can actually be achieved will grow.>>so too will the realisation of WHAT THEY DID..[and that they plan to do..[AND STILL NO REAL DEBATE

<<as new leaders appear who do not[APPEAR}tp carry the baggage of past..allegiances..they..will promote further remedial policies...>>the same old elites nominating the new faces of the same old 2 party elite's..electing who we can chose..to bring in the new tax with ever more believability

<<Fourth,as resources shift into remediation/new vested interests will arise.>>..ie..the same old industrialised banking/financing cartels..[and derivitives-speculators..trading the new carbon-tax bubble,

the new stealth..tax..payable by the serfs..while the big guys get their egsemptions..[and free/carbon-credits..to sell to the same comodity/securities traitors..[for ever more gross bonus,as they marketise the carbon credit into ever greater cost,..that must be paid by the wage slacves[and feel good about it]..based on media lies]

<<This is not to say that there will suddenly be complete concord,but the debate will increasingly shift in a more positive direction.>>ever more into the same old industrialised direction[pouring ever increasing carbon credit..straight into the elites cofferes/pockets]media concorded lies

<<The current power structures will attempt to maintain control over the change process,>>indeed have planned[their new tax]scince the end of ww2

<<but they have been seriously weakened by the global economic crisis.>>yeah right//[they planned the collapse,,only the neo middle class lost their new wealth..[the old wealth simply brought it on..to bring on their next tax payer based subsidy/payday

What would this McMahon guy would say about the hundred or so signatories to the open letter to Ban Ki Moon? see: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 and http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002

I guess he'd have to try discrediting them. Btw, they're all scientists - Plimer just one among this glittering crowd of dissidents.

Scary thing is: once the conforming, ambitious and financier-backed AGW pack take greater control, we'll see even less chance of such dissent breaking through.

Sorry Dr McMahon your job as a lecturer in sustainable development is not safe yet. Far from the debate about climate change being settled there is talk that the present orthodoxy may have another two years to live.
Note this global temperature sequence taken from the Hadley centre which tracks temperatuers
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.dat
1998 0.526
1999 0.302
2000 0.277
2001 0.406
2002 0.455
2003 0.465
2004 0.444
2005 0.475
2006 0.421
2007 0.399
2008 0.326
2009 0.356
The peak was in 2008 since then temps have jumped around somewhat but have basically been trending colder.. since 2005 this cooling trend has become more noticeable.. 2008 was colder than the others due to the la nina climate cycle.. 2009 is based on the the first four months of the year.. Although you still can't point and say there is a problem.. the trend does not look good for the AGW people.

Dr McMahon's article reads more like a piece written by a lawyer with its "on the one hand - on the other hand" style (except that he seems to have many hands), rather than the well thought out arguments of a lecturer in sustainable development. He should go and read the previous article by David Cook and have a serious look at the writings of Ian Pilmer before he dismisses the scientists who are popularly classed as sceptics.

It may be that up until now, they are actually right, although the increasing reliance by countries such as China, on fossil fuels, may ultimately produce a man made increase in atmospheric CO2.

Their only hope, Curmudgeon, is to re-spin their whole mythology.

Once the trends become even clearer towards cooling - or an ice age starts to cut in fast, just as ice ages are reputed to do - the'll need a whole new line. Something like: "Gaia was so abused that she summoned all her models' feedback loops and covered the warming with her cool inner glow".

Curmudgeon. That is an interesting set of figures, particularly when you construct a graph of the ten year average vs time. There has been a rising trend since the early 1900's as well as peaks which seem to occur every sixty years or so. We seem to be just past one of those peaks, so it will be educational to see what happens during the next ten years.

David

"Gaia was so abused that she summoned all her models' feedback loops and covered the warming with her cool inner glow".

LOL.

Next thing it will be the dire need for policy to "tackle" global cooling.

Dear Peter, over 100 years ago the “carpetbagger”, “snake oil” salesman would say to the undecided punter, would you like the red or the blue, the large or the small, the A or the B? This was called the “assumption close”.

You offer two assumption closes. Firstly that <<the debate has shifted from whether global warming is happening to what should be done about it >>, and secondly that << the debate is polarizing around two viewpoints. >>

The debate is not yet started, I’m sure that alone is enough to keep you awake at night, and the two views you assert must be at least three, because I do not support either choices.

When will you AGW’ers realize that agnostics would rather give ourselves a colonoscopy in the woods with a sharp stick than listen to your quasi-religious, pixies, fairies and aliens nonsense?

Your problem is that you have staked whatever reputation you may have on AGW. You have everything to lose if you cannot convince the agnostics. We, on the other hand, have staked nothing and therefore have nothing to lose.

Perhaps you might wish to consider dragging yourself screaming into at least the 1950’s?

And beware, when we have finished chewing off our own limbs in frustration with you, we might just start on yours

Pete,
You were doing well driving tractors. It's clear you're now way out of your depth.

If you'd paid more attention in school you might have ended up in a Department of History rather than a School of Sustainability, then you'd have known that statements like "The young, who are less invested in the prevailing arrangements of wealth and power, are more open to the idea of radical change in the overall political and economic structures..." is true only because they know no history and don't appreciate the wonderful consequences of the "radical change" which came from the Russian or French or [fill in your favourite] Revolutions. We all know what successes those were - for totalitarians, at least.

Anyone who can write such crap as "no one is seriously suggesting that nothing at all should be done" or "the debate has shifted from whether global warming is happening to what should be done about it"
or "...the high probability of anthropogenic global warming has become accepted by most world governments...due to some spectacular media successes, notably Al Gore’s movie and the well-received Stern Report" has zero credibility.

Don't confuse propaganda with science, Pete. But you're right in one respect: a lot of politicians have bought the propaganda because their heads hurt when they try to understand science or deal with logic and evidence.

Fat Albert and Stern are authorities? What tosh! Fat Al's a hypocrite and Stern is an economist who didn't address the science of AGW at all. Try Googling for the opinions of real experts.

You could start with any of these : http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004. Each has real qualifications, rather than a "Peace Prize" and a shonky video.

Then move on to the full list of 31,000 scientists who signed the petition:http://www.petitionproject.org/

Or just read Ian Plimer's excellent book, Heaven+Earth, which has already sold 25,000 in this country and is soon to be published in the US and UK.

Peter Mc,

Your well articulated, but sadly in my view, overly optimistic article has been hijacked my the "mob" - a bunch of skeptics who I venture to suggest have between them all spent less time in their entire cumulative existence on genuinely investigating the science behind global warming than you have in the last week.

Don't be too disheartened by it. Supporters of your viewpoint have probably taken one look at the crazy responses to your article and decided to hold back to avoid being the target of insults by a bunch of, for want of a better description, thugs.

Dear kulu,

<< the "mob" - a bunch of skeptics who I venture to suggest have between them all spent less time in their entire cumulative existence on genuinely investigating the science behind global warming than you have in the last week.>>

“Investigating the science”? As an agnostic layperson I’m not qualified in the science so I can’t investigate it and, I suspect, neither are you. I can however, observe the scientific community, politics and the commentariat.

Since the scientific community is split and can’t agree, politics and the commentariat are trying to decide for them, this is bad.

There are some 31,000 qualified scientists, 9,700 with PhD’s in this discipline who don’t agree with you. (See the link kindly provided by KenH in the above post). And there are many scientists with whom you do agree.

Your challenge, like that of all AGW’ers, is quite simple; explain why you don’t agree with the 31,000 qualified scientists?

The reason you, or anyone else will fail to meet this simple challenge is because you will have to support one or the other side of the scientific community (even if you were a scientist, get it?). This is problematic because the qualified scientists are split and you are not qualified to decide, therefore your position has been “adopted” from somewhere in the commentariat. You cannot be anything other than simply a “believer” in someone else’s non scientific perspective. That’s fine, just admit it, reality and confession are good for the soul.

Rather than wishing to “hold back” for fear of being insulted by the “mob of thugs”, I suspect you’re heading for the bunker as your ammunition supply depletes.

We are travelling at 600 knots and are at 4 thousand five hundred feet – Just below the speed of sound; on a Horizontal plain ,- Are you ready?
Flex your legs – Take a deep Breath - And Up we go to the Vertical – 7 Geees.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/202/
Quick compilation of the elaborate fraud – that Of Global Warming- Climate Change.

Greedy men and Global Warming

As Adam Smith warned to make sure to couple his Laissez-faire with a balance between need and greed in competition, so we must take note of what economic greed can do to our world.

Certainly in this world today we need more dinkum philosophers possibly with mental facilities more like womenfolk, who especially with agrarianism, if my now dead wife was anyone to go by, was always against clearing big areas without the odd big tree and patches of bush not only to protect the odd steep slope, but to harmonise with nature.

One really wonders why so many of our OLO contributors are now treating tender-hearted nature worriers like slow learners when it is obvious they are the slow learners, reminding us oldies so much of smart talk in the country pubs of there not now being a tree large enough that could stop the latest bulldozer, and how great it was to turn our forested farmlands into prairies.

And over the years as engineering grows, so the huge riverside jungles can be removed like matchsticks, doubtless the above OLOs gloryng in modern man's ability.

Maybe if there was a decent educated sense of natural balance with our OLOs, but they seem sadly just the ones who make the above big talk, making one concerned so much about his Great Grandkids taking more notice of such as our foolish younger OLO's than any aged great grandpapa, or better still, a grandmama.

Heres's Hoping,

Regards, BB, WA.

It is not only Greedy people and Global Warming BB , it is also about POWER and control . Metaphysicians have aided and abetted in this newer Witch doctorate ever seeing the light of day .

The younger generations are only fed on Propaganda and language manipulation BB – it is a hope , if only elder members of society who have already lived through the agony of , and the trials and tribulations of Power hungry idiots who plunge civilizations into a catastrophic ruins in the past ;-

You know what has happened in the past , and lived through it and survived – and now relive the same toxic Virus mutate into a more pungent and potent pathogen , threatening the very existence and the Harmonic composition of civilization;

To be sure , when the event occurs , how many people do you think will survive this onslaught BB ; My guess is not many – They do not know how to survive – and do not care to know how to survive.
What more can anyone do?

The Server is down temporarily for that link above ; A bulldozer ran into the cable. H

bushbred: Adam Smith was just another imperialist scumbag who worked for the British East India Company. Try telling the colonized sub-continent and Opium War-smashed China about his mystical musings on "balance between need and greed"!

Indeed, dishonestly named "free-trade" imperialism has the greatest vested interest in the AGW/CC scam. The IPCC is headed by ex-World Bank boss Nic Stern, mining magnate Garnault has form with the same usurers, while hedge fund owner Al Gore has exactly the same greed for "money for nothing" at the expense of all people who work for a living - laborer and industrialist alike!

These filthy, parasitic usurers want another bubble. But this time they want a bubble that is easier to manipulate with their fake science and its scare-'em-senseless eschatology. It's so protected from genuine debate, and its proponents so intellectually vacuous, that we now see so many more people infuriated and bored sick by these dodgy pontifications telling us that "black is white".

Bushbred: this is not about land clearance, or the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, or the endangered habitat of some rare bandicoot. You've been scammed into believing that any and all environmental concerns are somehow further support for a massively fraudulent pose at "science".

Part of the problem is the "what to do about climate change?" has been hijacked by the "we must put a price on carbon/punish polluters" mindset behind RTS and carbon tax proposals. However, when I have looked with an open mind at what might be done about specific sources of emissions "putting a price on carbon” hasn’t come up as the best solution. For example, compare the following two options for driving investment in clean electrify:

OPTION A (PUT A PRICE ON CARBON): Use carbon permits to taxes to drive the price of dirty electricity up to the point where investment in clean electricity can be justified. PRICE OUTCOME: The average price of electricity has to jump above the price required to justify investment in clean electricity before any investment takes place.

OPTION B: Leave the price of dirty electricity unchanged and drive investment in clean electricity by negotiating price and sales guarantees for clean electricity during contract negotiations. PRICE OUTCOME: The average price of electricity only ramps up slowly as the percentage of clean electricity increases. At no stage will it need to be higher than the price required for option A to work.

It looks like a no brainer to me. I have found that the best method of driving down emissions varies from emission source to emission source depending on the specific issues associated with this source. For more details look at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/climate_ctte/submissions/sub572.pdf

Bushbred

So good to read your words of wisdom again and you may know that only last month, a Senate climate change enquiry was informed that Australia is clearing native vegetation at a rate that amounts to a $2.4 billion annual loss of stored carbon.

"We are still logging native vegetation at a rate of something like 60 million tonnes of carbon a year," CSIRO climate scientist Michael Raupach told the inquiry but of course, in response to these alarming facts, we on OLO, must endure an uncontrolled rampant conflict of interest from those who believe they are the masters of the universe. One becomes accustomed to the sleaze perpetrated by these dark satanic forces whose curricula, based on ignorance and greed, lacks any coherence and is so hilariously flawed:

“When will you AGW’ers realize that agnostics would rather give ourselves a colonoscopy in the woods with a sharp stick than listen to your quasi-religious, pixies, fairies and aliens nonsense?” (Spindoc)

But what can one expect from an “agnostic”...a believer….....whoops an “agnostic” when only last month this agnostic?/believer? spruiked on OLO:

"I’m off the fence, AGW exists. Fellow OLO’ers, you have a convert, please be gentle with me."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2657#59852

In addition to this profound outburst, he also advised OLO last month that:

“there has never been a safety incident with a Gen. II, III or IV reactor but this remains a major issue for the public”

Very gently (and far more politely than the vitriol Spindoc emits) we advised that as yet there is not a Generator IV nuclear reactor operating on the planet – the precise reason why there has never been a “safety” incident. Hilarious!

Perhaps Spindoc should refrain from his DIY “colonoscopies in the woods with a sharp stick” and try chewing off his tongue instead for this swill reinforces the emerging fact that for skeptics, truth is irrelevant.

Mil Observer, could say that Adam Smith was part of the imperialist colonial system, but at least he admitted that the Free-Market though sounding free needed a government with very watchful eyes and minds.

In his scottish canniness he also slyly made known that though his market was said to be free he was one who recommended that the banks or moneylenders would be better owned or controlled by government.

But I guess as with most philosophers he was never able to gain complete control.

So much like Obama with fresh ideas, but always others close like the Clintons - so ready to blarney with the other side may have Obama conned by his own ruling partners.

As most historians know, history is loaded with tales like this.

Cheers, BB, WA.

No, I never said or implied that about "the free market" at all.

It's an oligopoly, not "free trade". You've been had, and your presumption just further proves the fact. Government-fed usury, via bailouts, only confirms how craven and submissive the current, purported "democratic" system is in the usurers' bordello.

A derivatives bill of USD 1.5 QUADRILLION and counting. All useless, usurious cr@p, designed to make parasites supreme, governments servile, and workers oppressed. ETS/CRTS is their only way of tying such degenerate garbage into one neat imperialist package. A Dark Age "economy" producing little more than fascist austerity, depopulation and social and civilizational breakdown.

But keep dropping Smith's name; it's a good way of sucking up to neolibs and other imperialists everywhere.

Its all a huge conspiracy theory! Just ask mil-observer!

Only his guru, Mr Larouche, has all the magic answers!

Hehe :)

Protagoras, BB,

We are beating our heads against a brick wall in attempting to convey the essence of the problems facing the planet to the mob. There seems no point.

If any genuinely unconvinced but open minded person stumbles onto this thread he/she would no doubt be put off by the sheer volume of imbecilic rants posted to it.

Like many mainstream politicians the mob realize that it does not in the least matter whether anybody including themselves believe their lies or misrepresentations - the fact is its out there and getting responses. That is what counts and it clutters the airways so to speak so that the facts become harder to filter out for those really in search of them.

Dear Protagoras, Why is it that when you are asked “what time is it?” you say, “a blue one with a zip down the side”. Do you ever tackle anything head on or do you always slide down the side?

You did not respond the key issue,

<< There are some 31,000 qualified scientists, 9,700 with PhD’s in this discipline who don’t agree with you. (See the link kindly provided by KenH in the above post). And there are many scientists with whom you do agree.
Your challenge, like that of all AGW’ers, is quite simple; explain why you don’t agree with the 31,000 qualified scientists? >>

I offered my response, my reasoning and the research, when are we going to hear from you?

Instead you seek to completely distort, remove context and misrepresent in order to draw attention from your own inability to respond.

I did say I thought AGW exists, and I do. What you failed to point out, as other OLOers can read for themselves, is that I specifically do not support Atmospheric Carbon based AGW, nor do I support the ETS as a solution. Therefore I agree with the 31,000 scientific “Skeptics” that have not jumped to conclusions and see the need to understand how and why our biosphere is working so hard.

As to your diversion related to Gen. II, III and IV reactors, you are correct, there are no Gen IV reactors in production. But the context was “safety” of modern reactors, not whether or not the Gen IV is a prototype or actually in production, and it won’t be until perhaps 2020. So what was your point?

You continue to support the case I made; that you are in the bunker because you have run out of ammunition.

If you can respond to the question, why no present it for all to read. If you can’t you are destined to stick your head over the sandbags occasionally to chuck a smoke grenade

No one is seriously suggesting that nothing at all should be done about global warming? I’m surprised that anyone is still talking about global warming – it is simply not occurring. The globe is not warming.

Climate CHANGE is the subject, and there are people seriously suggesting that nothing ‘should’ be done about climate change, because nothing CAN be done about climate change. Climate change is a natural, cyclical occurrence which has nothing to do with human activity, and there is nothing humans can do but adapt until the climate changes again.

My post is off message but Channel 10 weather in Adelaide last night said one of the dangers we have is that too many leaves are falling off the trees causing blocked drains (water deprivation) and the leaves are polluting the dams.

That's right. Leaves are the enemy. And their friends, the trees. Clearly, the trees have to go.

It's reassuring that there are other people on OLO who can see the madness in some of the pro-environment lobby's thinking.

There are smarter people out there than me, but I was thinking, IF the earth isn't warming, I'd expect to see wholesale resignations. Maybe I'm just a dreamer. These people aren't the resigning type.

Stating the obvious: We should do everything we can to minimise climate change - except - continue to make the mistake that mankind can control everything. We know we can distroy the planet, so it is not habitable to humans, but we still can't control climate which is affected by things like storms on the surface of the sun, of which there have been far too few, lately.

Spindoc

<< Instead you seek to completely distort, remove context and misrepresent in order to draw attention from your own inability to respond. >>

Pot, meet kettle?

Anyway, that link you thought KenH provided in support of your claim is not correct.

Here is the appropriate link:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

I found my name on this "petition" last year - a practical joke by a colleague of mine in the States. Ok, it has since been removed but the fact remains - it was there.

The wording of the petition can be so easily misrepresented and distorted, and it is. You will find that the vast majority of scientists are not "alarmists", they do not think AGW will cause "catastrophic" climate change anytime soon. However, 2 degrees C warming and 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 is bad enough, don't you think?

Here is some background to the "petition".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

KenH & spindoc: good that you recast our attention to that web petition. It's been reorganized in order to make its basic petitioner detail clearer to site visitors. Nonetheless, Q&A brings out exactly the same casual dissing as last time, when the site was less clearly designed.

But here's a FAQ excerpt to give us an insight into the ethical vacuum among Q&A and friends who've apparently abused the site:

"Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.
In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists."

Therefore, the importance of the petition remains as clear proof of strong scientific dissent. As if such were needed after the petition to Ban Ki Moon, which Q&A also dissed so casually!

Now Q&A: tell us about those mysterious "feedback loops". Oh, it's way above our heads, we just couldn't grasp "the science", etc.?

Yeah. I recall an AGW cultist describing one such "feedback loop" thus: the polar caps are melting, thereby causing colder temperatures, heavier snowfalls, etc., all thus proving Global Warming! A regular genius.

Feedback fruitloops/fruitbats claim that black is white, and anyone opposing that claim must be a) too simple, or b) corrupted by the power of real industry (unlike, in their view, such clever and "essential services" as hedge fund and "carbon credit" schemes a la Fat Al Gore).

So who is Q&A? Maybe the ABC's rabid AGW fanatic Tony Jones, who dishes out that vile "Q&A' program with its commissars' groupthink rubbish?

It is interesting to look at the Vostock ice core data for the last 400yrs. See: http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx

The graph shows that temperature and CO2 concentration broadly follow each other over this period. The interesting thing is the shape of the 100,000 yr cycle trends. (The driver for this cycle is changing tilt of the earth with repect to the sun.) Most of the cycle consisted of a slow cooling trend followed by a rapid rise of both CO2 and temperature. While the correlation is not exact, it suggests that the warming period is a clear example of a system reaching some "trip point" and then running away until either the sources of rising CO2 are exhausted or the strength of the tilt cycle reaches the point where the cooling stage of the tilt cycle is strong enough to stop the run away.

The rapid rise of temperature and CO2 during this warming stage suggests that a feed back cycle was established during which increased temperature increased greenhouse gas concentrations and increased greenhouse gas concentrations helped to drive up the temperature. Factors relating increased temperature to rising CO2 might have included reduced solubility of CO2 in water as temperature rises, reductions in carbon stored in vegetation and soils, oxidation of peat bogs and methane released as permafrost melted and methane hydrates decomposed.

Keep in mind that the 100,000 yr cycle is not the only cycle driving temperatures.

The trends also highlight the problems of computor simulations. It is hard to see how any simulation could accurately predict at what point the switch to rapid warming or slow cooling takes place.

The scary thing is that we lack the data to tell us what will happen to greenhouse gas levels if the temperature rises above current temperatures. We simply don't know how much extra methane might be released as temperature rises or how close we are to sudden drops in the carbon stored in places such as the Amazon and peat bogs.

“I did say I thought AGW exists, and I do. What you failed to point out,.......is that I specifically do not support Atmospheric Carbon based AGW,”

“AGW exists?” It does? It doesn’t? How come Spindoc? Have you been overdoing the stick attacks on your rear end? Must you continue berating us with such Polly waffle?

All lies and jest
from Spindoc’s jeers
is all he wants to hear
while he disregards the rest

Concerning that tired old Oregon Petition (circa 1998 and resurrected) you dredged up in desperation, where you asked for my response, could you tell me if “Redwine Ph.D” is still on the list? I recall the dearly departed Freddy Seitz too who wrote the accompanying fake cover letter (supposedly from the National Academy of Sciences), confessing it was stupid but only after he was found out. And wasn’t the Academy cranky!

And I guess $585,000 wasn’t a bad bit of “black” for head petition colluder Freddy, masquerading as an ethical scientist while stooping to consulting to big time tobacco company R J Reynolds for years - anyone for a camel? And for 28 years, a paid director and shareholder of Ogden Corp., an operator of coal-burning power plants.

And all the while continuing to draw a salary as president emeritus at Rockefeller University, founded in 1901 and subsidized with profits from Standard Oil, the predecessor corporation of ExxonMobil.

Trust him and all the other frontline grim reapers, says Spindoc.

Sorry Spindoc, while many energy corporations accept the science on climate change and are endeavouring to mitigate their carbon emissions, everyone on the planet knows who the duplicitous toads are who try to manipulate the science - the greed merchants.

But humanity will soon sort them out and eventually they’ll be treated as pariahs and rightly so - (we all know who they are in Oz land and of their connections to the big polluters), so we really don’t need anymore of your stifling, dishonourable tirades. Go play with your stick and your bottom if you must, there’s a good boy.

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/AdminLetters/miller_exxon_5.17.07.pdf

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605?currentPage=5

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm#Journals

Q&A, I wouldn't be basing your opinions on sourcewatch, if I were you.

Sourcewatch is so obviously biased that it's laughable. Anyone on the wrong side of their political good guys-bad guys divide is ruthlessly excoriated, while the good guys are all but given a rhetorical bl*w-j*b.

Don’t be too concerned about extra methane in the atmosphere John D, Much like many thousands of chemicals, Natural and synthetic, they have a limited lifespan, and basically this is the crux of the whole Atmospheric G W; - It is the part they do not wish to know, - primarily because, the nature of Chemistry is a whole different field; People would be surprised to learn Formaldehyde is a natural occurring gas in the atmosphere – again it is in decomposition stages after 4 to 6 weeks – much like other gases far too numerous and confusing for everyone to completely understand-
So it is best to try keeping it simple.

Most of the reactions take place in the troposphere, and it is where other natural atmospheric gases react and decompose – and Change their chemical compersition - Free radicel molecules etc at work.

Many thousands of years of Volcanic explosions etc, it is a reasonable assumption , mother nature has it all in control.
I would like someone to actually find out the life of Ozone (CO3)- Now you may know.

Clownfish: there is "no debate" with Q&A's beloved, pseudo-leftist and fashion-conscious Sourcewatch mob either (a.k.a. "Center for Media & Democracy). Consider this extract from one of their sites (http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/index.html):

"The Center for Media and Democracy is run by a Board of Directors whose current members are... [several named apparatchiks]. The Center serves journalists, researchers, policymakers and citizens at large in the following ways:

* Countering propaganda by investigating and reporting on behind-the-scenes public relations campaigns by corporations, industries, governments and other powerful institutions.
* Informing and assisting grassroots citizen activism that promotes public health, economic justice, ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY and human rights.
* Promoting media literacy to help the public recognize the forces shaping the information they receive about issues that affect their lives.
* Sponsoring "open content" media that enable citizens from all walks of life to "be the media" and to participate in creating media content.

Toward these ends, the Center sponsors the following projects:

* SourceWatch, an Internet-based "open content" encyclopedia of people, groups and issues shaping the public agenda. SOURCEWATCH IS THE HOME FOR A GROWING NUMBER OF COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS INCLUDING portals on Global Corporations; Front Groups; CLIMATE CHANGE AND COP15 AND INTERLOCKED ISSUES OF COAL AND NUCLEAR POWER; Election Protection in the U.S.; and, the Tobacco Industry."

[my upper case]

Sourcewatch's obvious conflicts of interest arise where: 1) their claims to intrepid dissent fall down wherever their purported corporate and government targets do not challenge their green and pseudo-left dogmatism, and; 2) their lavish funding traces to clear and explicit corporate motives of self-interested publicity.

Therefore, Sourcewatch is not "critical thinking" or dissent at all; it is criticism based on the predetermined certainties and assumptions of conformist groupthink.

Clownfish <<Q&A, I wouldn't be basing your opinions on sourcewatch, if I were you.>>

I don't. That is why I gave links to both sites with alternative views.

Nevertheless, you followed up by:

<<Sourcewatch is so obviously biased that it's laughable. Anyone on the wrong side of their political good guys-bad guys divide is ruthlessly excoriated, while the good guys are all but given a rhetorical bl*w-j*b.>>

In effect you are saying the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and its founders/executive are not biased. I disagree.

Clownfish, you obviously like to "sex up" your comments. I think by doing so you lose credibility, imo.

Um ... I don't recall saying anything about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Please don't assume that because I say that A is biased, that I am necessarily saying that B is not.

Quite probably it's a case of a plague on both their houses.

If I've been taking the stick to what may be loosely characterised as the "green left" (a broad brush, true, but useful enough for our general purpose), it's because I'm fed up with the saintly aura of virtue too many of them try and assume, when quite often they're lying and distorting just as much as the other guys.

I'll admit that there's not a little sense of personal betrayal there, too. Much like Frank Hardy, in "The dead are many", railed at how Stalinism had betrayed his most sincere beliefs, I have come to be outraged at how my own sincere environmental beliefs have been betrayed by the lies and half-truths of manipulative hypocrites.

Hell hath no fury, indeed.

At heart, though, what it comes down to is a fundamental dislike of hypocrisy. If we're to make sensible decisions on such matters, then let it be on the basis of truth, not wild exaggerations (from either side: I'm not impressed with the whackier assertions of the folk who truly are "deniers", either).

Finally, it's too bad if it offends you when I "sex up" my comments, but then some folk didn't like Paul Keating's rhetorical flair either. C'est la vie.

You are right ALL, methane does oxidize to CO2 over time. (Wikapedia gives half life of 7 yrs which seems a bit low.) However, the concentration of methane is sufficient for methane to make a significant contribution to the greenhouse effect. In addition, the % of methane is rising.

There is the potential risk of a surge in methane concentration if we reach a temperature that is high enough to decompose a large amount of methane hydrate. In such a case a rapid jump in temperature might be expected followed by an equally rapid decline as the methane oxidizes.

My apologies but I was wrong to link the 100,000 yr cycle to axial tilt. This particular cycle is actually linked to orbit eccentricty changes. For a good summary of the various solar, tilt etc. cycles that impact on temperature see:

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

Marginalizing the petition does not change anything; there remains a significant body of scientific opposition to current AGW thinking.

For some reason, any potential AGW cause has been “welded” to atmospheric carbon to the exclusion of all other possibilities or probabilities, as evidenced by ETS’s as a “solution”. This is precisely what many scientists are objecting to, not the probability of AGW but the “single threaded assumption” that it is caused by atmospheric carbon.

In making my case and the basis for my acceptance of AGW as a probability was simple:

Take the three sets of data upon which everyone seems to agree. Atmospheric Carbon content, global temperature records and the total emissions records since 1850.

The fact that there is no direct link that any scientist can point to between temperatures and atmospheric carbon content (ACC), does not invalidate the possibility that measured warming could be anthropogenic. I make the point again; any indicators published by scientists in relation to links are scientific “interpretation” or “modeled”, not factual data, otherwise there would be no debate.

The total emissions data does not provide any direct link either, but it does tell us that we have increased carbon emissions since 1850 by factor of 12.8.

Incredibly, ACC has only increased by a factor of .3.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2657#59852

This evidences only one thing; that total human emissions are “forcing” the biosphere to work much harder, 12.8 times harder in fact, hence there is undeniably a quantifiable human effect.

It does not deliver direct evidence that there is global warming, man made global warming or long term climate change. What we can measure may be natural for hundreds of other natural reasons.

If we can accept this as a “circuit breaker” we can liberate ourselves and the debate from being forced to accept the embedded assumption that residual atmospheric carbon is “the cause”, and ETS is “the solution”, whilst at the same time accepting the possibility/probability that there is a measurable human induced effect.

This concept is obviously hard to contemplate, it has resulted in Protagoras blowing a fuse and mumbling poetry.

Q&A,

The link I provided 15 May to the Petition Project was not incorrect, as you claimed 17 May 2009 at 5.36pm.

I provided two links one to the Petition Project and another to a separate document signed by 100 prominent scientists who dispute AGW.

Try harder to get your facts right.

Spindoc

<< there remains a significant body of scientific opposition to current AGW thinking. >>

This is simple spin Spindoc. While there are few genuine ‘contrarians’, the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions accept “current AGW thinking”. This is why the UNFCCC and its member states accept the science. Of course, there is serious debate about adaptation and mitigation measures - this is what policy and decision makers are focussed on, as they should be.

Not one scientist has been able to explain the warming trend over the last 200 years without factoring for GHG, not one.

Now, you link to a previous thread – why not link to the later thread?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8792#139777

I was (still am) hoping you could get back to us on your question to CDIAC, and their response. Are you still trying to formulate a more precise question? It does not appear so; it looks more like you are repeating the confusion.

<< This concept is obviously hard to contemplate, it has resulted in Protagoras blowing a fuse and mumbling poetry. >>

Maybe it is hard to contemplate, that is why you should ask CDIAC before you distort or misrepresent them.

KenH, spindoc, others,

Why are trying so desperately hard to ridicule and disprove the science on anthropogenic causes of climate change?

If the scientists are wrong, which they are not, what will be the absolute worst consequences for us? A slow down, stalling or even reversal of economic growth perhaps?

If the scientists and conservationists are right what will be the worst consequences for us? The collapse of civilized society and human population perhaps? What will be the minimum consequences for us? A slow down, stalling or even reversal of economic growth perhaps?

Your responses please lest you prove to all that you are simply being mischievous at best, or worse, that you are desperately trying to protects vested interests regardless of the consequences to the rest of humanity.

Thanks KenH

Were you aware that in an attachment to 'that letter' was listed a number of other prominent people that ‘shared’ their views, including His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI?

Were you also aware that neither Ban Ki Moon nor his secretariat responded to 'that letter?

kulu .. A response to your version of Pascal's Wager and your bullying little demand at the end of it .. "Your goal is to convert people to your religion. If you attempt to do so using tactics that people find boorish and belligerent, it will have the opposite effect and disincline them from choosing your religion."

Pascal's Wager also works for war e.g Iran may or may not be developing Nuclear weapons, the world would be more dangerous if they did because they have stated that Israel should not exist and it's likely they will use them against Israel.

So following your logic, should we not just blow them off the planet now which would be an easy task since they probably don't have enough warheads or a delivery mechanism yet to respond.

Or should we wait until they do attack Israel, then blow the crap out of them but then the world will already have suffered two bouts of nuclear attack (and risk escalation), instead of one if we do it now. (Equally for North Korea or anyone else - it's simplistic and juvenile to attempt this game logic technique.)

Right back at you - "Your response please lest you prove to all that you are simply being mischievous at best, or worse, that you are desperately trying to protects vested interests regardless of the consequences to the rest of humanity." Well?

Pascal's Wager never worked, much to his distress, except on the simple minded who cannot think for themselves .. oh

Gee, don't you guys know anything?!

You're ignoring the FEEDBACK LOOPS! They are what explain the cooling temperatures and expanded ice coverage (northern polar, but also in the Antarctica).

It goes something like this: warming melts the ice caps, which then releases cold into the atmosphere, reducing temperatures. Then we get those record snowfalls and cold spells. All just more "proof" of Global Warming which, as we all just know, is Anthropogenic too. Get it?

Tell them Q&A! You're more sophistimecated than me...

Wow, the Pope's in on it too! That must mean the IRA too, because Fenians have a fiendish plot to reproduce "like rabbits" if I'm not mistaken. That would mean more CO2-emitting, non-middle class babies, in an endless cycle of CLIMATE DENIALISM.

Help us all Q&A. Contact the ABC and SBS with your scoop on this Vatican plot (or was it Lyn Larouche's)?

Give me a break Q&A,

<<Maybe it is hard to contemplate, that is why you should ask CDIAC before you distort or misrepresent them.>>

I’m trying to remove the mandatory (embedded atmospheric carbon} as “the” cause in the AGW debate, in order to open up to other possibilities whilst still entertaining the proposal of AGW. That is what I was referring to as “hard to contemplate”. Nothing to do with CDIAC, I posted their raw data, listed their link and offered rationale for disconnecting the embedded “show stopper”, that of embedded ACC as an unconditional cause.

Why on earth you had to jump in with “take it with embedded ACC” or not at all is nothing short of vindictive. Are you so blinded by your passion for your and only your answer that you won’t entertain any debate that offers something you don’t like or can’t control?

May be you now need to look for a nexus breaker of your own, or is that too “hard to contemplate?”

Q&A: "Not one scientist has been able to explain the warming trend over the last 200 years without factoring for GHG, not one."

Fine. Isn't everything linked in Gaia if you measure it finely enough? Storms caused by butterfly wings flapping. But climate changed, temperatures changed, sea levels changed by greater degrees before this, due to other factors which are still present. Why the focus on GHGs and neglect of other factors?

More importantly, why the extrapolation of this particular minor human influence to "The collapse of civilized society and human population..." [kulu]? This is the hysterical part where psychiatry may have more valuable contributions to make than climate science.

PS. kulu: "lest you prove to all that ...you are desperately trying to protects vested interests regardless of the consequences to the rest of humanity."

Not great business practice, mate. Hard to have vested interests without a market.

"If the scientists are wrong, which they are not..."

If you're smarter than the scientists in order to judge, why do you need the scientists' authority? (OK, I'm really stuffing with your head now - I don't want to blow what few neurons you have)

"...what will be the absolute worst consequences for us? A slow down, stalling or even reversal of economic growth perhaps?"

Well, what you see as the little words "reversal of economic growth" may translate into fewer funds for things like health, medical research, education, emergency services, and environmental protection etc. Naive people want less tax, more spending, and think money grows on trees. Only when they're on the operating table do they start to value medical research or bemoan the lack of funding. Naive people here want to "tackle" climate change "whatever the cost", ie. even if it costs the earth.

But to think about these things, you need more than two neurons rattling around in your head: one that flashes "good/right", the other "wrong/evil". ie. more than the moral reasoning of a 4-year old

Spindoc,

Do you (or people like fungochumley) seriously think biogeochemists (any scientist for that matter) don’t apply null hypothesis testing or ‘significance’ investigations in climate attribution studies? Or that they haven’t looked, or are not looking, for other causes to the global warming we have experienced over the last 200 years?

To repeat what I have tried to explain before, if you remove GHG (atmospheric carbon) as a significant contributor to our ‘current’ global warming, nothing else can explain it – NOT Milankovitch Cycles, NOT sun spots, NOT cosmic rays, NOT magnetic flux, NOT total solar irradiance, NOT volcanos, NOR any other natural variability. Really, this is not that hard to understand.

That is NOT to say we shouldn’t try to find other reasons/causes – we are, really. But nobody, no one, has been able to come up trumps. If they do they will become rich, famous and be able to add a Nobel or Fields to their trophy collection. This does NOT mean we should start looking for little green people on space ships bombarding our planet with some unknown unknown to explain what we HAVE known for quite some time:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8792#139793

Again, human activity (primarily energy and land management practices) over the last 200 years has resulted in a net gain of CO2-e in the atmosphere; so much so that the oceans and terrestrial biosphere cannot absorb quickly enough to at least maintain equilibrium. The rest is physics, chemistry and the like. Again, this really is not that hard.

Now, if we can get back on-topic (notwithstanding the naysayers) ... I can’t disagree with the author (Peter McMahon). The nuances of any science will always be debated in the scientific community (mil-observer can do his own wiki homework on +’ve AND –‘ve feedback loops). However, the debate about how to adapt, grow and develop in a more sustainable way is crux of the matter. Don’t you think?

Btw, “embedded atmospheric carbon” is not a term I have come across, anywhere – can you give me a citation please?

Q&A, <<“embedded atmospheric carbon”>>. By that I mean the AGW debate comes with an embedded cause, that of atmospheric carbon (GHG}, no other options.

This debate is binary, circular and a zero sum game.

This is no longer about science, let me explain why.

1. To believe that there is no significant body of scientific opposition to GHG induced GW is unsustainable.
2. Public opinion comes from non-scientists, me included. We are either in or out, as I said, it’s binary. There is RAW research data, scientific interpretation, scientific modeling, media, politics, and public commentary.
3. Public views can only come from media, politics and public commentary, because we are not researchers, cannot interpret and cannot model. Therefore public views can only be “adopted”, based upon someone else’s perspective rather than their own; it’s a belief based value system.
4. Were I a qualified environmental scientist, I would interpret and model the data for myself and still end up as either Pro or Anti. This is because the science is inconclusive, still binary.
5. It is science that is unable to make a clear provable hypothesis. In the meantime the debate has been “forced” into the public domain to gain political and economic advantage, where it has been adulterated by politics, ill informed media, intellectual and academic croakers and pseudo-scientific hacks on both sides, still binary.
6. I’ve given up on the science, but like any good analyst, if the content layer only offers a polarized binary result, you move up a layer. Entity Relationship Analysis.
7. The public domain is no place for scientific endeavor; it is toxic, divisive and vulnerable to manipulation and has become a social, moralistic crusade of religious proportions. Very, very dangerous.
8. The origins of the acrimony are self evident. One section of our unqualified community is bullying the other, equally unqualified section of society, with pseudo-science. We have both been party to this though you might be qualified?
9. If the scientists can all agree that this is a very, very complex science, a binary outcome cannot be the correct result

Well said SpinDoc - and Q&A is very well qualified, look at his website, quite the fortress of one thought area, there are even sections on how to deal with skeptics and training material. All skeptics (sorry, deniers - as if anyone denies the climate changes, but I get the drift, it's an insult intended to provoke and belittle) are dealt with in a sneering manner. Q&A has a vested interest as this is where he makes his income and fame in his world from, of course he is going to defend it against the barbarians, I'd expect no less.

Yes Q&A, at the moment, in your opinion there is no other scientific explanation to GW except CO2, but that doesn't mean that today's science is correct - only that it is today's science. My concern is that today's science is being used to bully people to an end that in years to come may be laughable, when we do know what causes climate to change.

Why is it this way? Because you don't have all the answers but can't face that there may be factors unknown, is it ego, I suspect so. Please don't tell me you know everything, you know what science is today and that's all.

Adapt and move on, the idea of shutting down our society in Australia by limiting coal use is wrong, and a reckless pursuit. It may be easier to just fund everyone to move out of Australia to Europe or somewhere else, because if we stay here and also stop coal use, we have to go nuclear, and our dear Greens have so muddied that paddock it is unusable in the near future.

rpg: you flatter that pompous, condescending poseur by referring to "the science". Even in this thread, KenH already called it on its repeat obnoxious and apparently self-indulgent pastime i.e., slagging people off with allegations that it knows to be untrue.

rpg, you seem to forget that it's MODELING and THEORY that these guys depend on. If "science" pertains to "knowledge" and our refinement of understanding (esp. about truth), then it follows that modeling and theory have at best very tenuous claims to such knowledge. That is why the widespread scientific dissent is so important: it reminds us that AGW still inhabits the realm of "pseudo-science". AGW claims scientific authority without it having been proven as fact; indeed, much detail indicates how temperature, ice core and sunspot records - inter alia - disprove AGW. Supporters of the creed make only isolated association of "suggestion" a la "cherry picking" where they seek to claim a parallel with our most recent decades.

Be fair to the many scientists who have a quite different version of "today's science". For example, Ottawa's Dr R Tim Patterson has plenty of detailed research as a prominent case of "today's science". Patterson does not assert firm conclusions except for his disproving many AGW modelers' claims to their own certainties, however outlandish.

Spindoc

For some time I too have said the “debate” is no longer about the science – rather, it is being played out within the realm of a political, economic and socio-cultural ‘bun fight’.

I would like to ask a favour of you (provided you can afford the time and bandwidth) ... I think it important to your statement:

“This debate is binary, circular and (in particular) a zero sum game.”

Please look/listen to the following lecture videos from the MIT Sloan School of Management, I think they are very pertinent to the points you raise.

The first is by Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Director, Centre for Global Change Science and is Co-Director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/509

The second (and I think most important to the mindset of “zero sum games”) talk is given by Professor John Sterman - it can be found about 18 minutes into the video.

He is also from MIT. His research includes systems thinking and organizational learning, computer simulation of corporate strategy, and the theory of nonlinear dynamics.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/606

I will be away till next Monday; I look forward to your response when I return.

If you want to understand what being vindictive is, look at rpg’s and mil-observer's most recent comments.
_______________

rpg

You are confusing me with somebody else – I don’t have a web site.

_______________

mil-observer

You resort to ad hom, a typical response from you when you don’t understand or accept an alternate POV.

Yeah, it's obnoxious alright. Provoke with gratuitous smears against simple references to URLs, then cry "ad hom" when chastised! But I find that such sophist tactics characterize the entire "movement" of the AGW-groupthink cult...I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of the nasty and manipulative behaviorist tactics given to the faithful on its website, as alluded by rpg.

Quotes from Patterson: "and you know how it all got started: In 1988, Hansen came out with his model, which predicted, what was it? - a 10-degree celsius increase in the next 50 years or so? It was like the super-computer equivalent of a Nintendo 64 or something; it was ridiculous! His model was so simplistic, it would be a *joke* today! The grid sizes were huge! Who could put any credence in it? But everybody jumped on it, and they said "this is it, this is it!"

"...Ruddiman wrote a textbook a couple years ago: he's...a carbon dioxide guy, who came out with a silly paper a couple of years ago that suggested that early Indians and early Western Europeans lighting campfires, was what staved off the next Ice Age...Anyway, he wrote this textbook, and he said, basically, here's the way the process works: the geologists collect data, and then they provide some interpretation, and the modelers take the data, and they run the model. But if the model doesn't correspond to the geology for which it was supposed to be a predictive tool, if it couldn't reproduce it, then perhaps the geologist had collected the data wrong!. I was reviewing this textbook, and I made the guy take it out, because it was the silliest statement that was ever made. That basically, if you have real physical data, and someone does a model of it to predict the future, and the model doesn't correspond to the actual collected data, *then there's a problem with the actual collected data*!"

[One of Patterson's CVs is at http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/expert.cfm?expertId=157]
"...professor of geology at Carleton University in Ottawa and a senior visiting fellow in the School of Geography at the Queen’s University of Belfast." etc.]

Well said spindoc. However, there are many things about the greenhouse science debate that almost all scientists would agree about. These include:
1 CO2, CH4 and water are all greenhouse gases.
2 Other factors such as changes in earth tilt, reflectivity of the land and sea surface and current and air circulation patterns will affect warming/cooling.
3 Both climate and CO2 levels have varied considerably in the past with temperature and CO2 level roughly rising and falling in line with each other. (Basis ice core and geological data.)
4 CH4 will be released as permafrost melts and may be released if a methane clathrate deposit is warmed to a critical temperature.
5 Atmospheric CO2 and CH4 are rising. Most of the recent CO2 rise is due to human activity.
6 CO2 levels in surface water is rising rapidly and, as a result, pH is falling. These changes may affect the viability of some species.
7 Greenland ice core data suggests that there have been some very sudden changes in temperature. (For example, a 10 deg C jumpapprox 10,500 yrs ago - see http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2004/262.html and a 12 deg C jump 14,700 years ago http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm

However, there are important unknowns and areas of disagreement. For example:
1 We don't know whether a small increase in temperature could lead to a large surge in methane concentration.
2 We dont know how close we are to a sudden climate switch like those metioned in 7 above.
3 Climate modelling will struggle to pick rapid changes like the examples quoted in 7 above.

CONCLUSION: Climate and sea chemistry will change but we should be uncertain about timing, magnitude in significance of human activity.

However, this uncertainity doesn't mean we shouldn't be acting:
1 We should be reducing population and taking other action to deal with inevitable climate change no matter what the cause.
2. We should be doing things to reduce emissions that can be justified on other grounds. (Such as reducing our dependance on oil.)
3. We should be balancing the risks associated doing something vs doing nothing.

Q&A, thanks for the links (I watched both) and hope you had a good trip.

We agree that the debate is no longer about science? I have presented my reasoning in points 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. I await yours.

If your basis for this comment is like John Sterman who said climate change is here, the cause is GHG, and so what do we do about it? Then sadly we have no common ground.

I doubt that you actually agree with any of the points I made as evidenced by the MIT lectures you asked me to view which support your position. Not my position at all.

To be fair, if you do support my position that the debate is not about science, I assume that like me, all scientific references will in future, be banished.

I should mention that I spent 40 years attending and sometimes lecturing at business schools in London, Munich, Singapore, Sydney and many in the USA. Without exception each is driven, motivated and focused upon revenue from sales of “courseware”. Most senior lecturers then sell books on the various topics to government and business. Too old to be impressed or influenced by this but thanks anyway.

These MIT lectures were possibly the scariest I have been exposed to for some time. John Sterman actually stated that the public must be involved, because (they will share the pain), that science is not enough (read “good” enough) and the public must influence policy. WHAT?

I think that says it all really. What we have are two camps, for and against; science is indeed not good enough to break the nexus. So we have deliberately forced the scientific debate into an unqualified public domain so that we can do what? Scare the cr*p out of people, baffle us with pseudo-science, and then expect the public to drive rational policy?

This is utter madness.

rpg, mil-observer, vindictive? It’s a provocative debate, See point 8. And accept your share of the responsibility.

John D, points 2 & 3 agreed, why can’t we get these on the agenda?

Smaller and smarter. There are no definitive answers on the currant global fears, but we all know there’s a problem. How can we fix it, can we fix it, or are we all worrying for nothing?

Who is the smartest? a kangaroo or a human. Well the kangaroo is. Why, because even the roo knows when to stop breeding when drought spreads its death. But humans know the climate is changing and yet we continue to multiply. Why? Oh I get it! We just keep on gambling and sit back and deal with what-ever comes. And this will do you think?
A world population management system. Our numbers is what is crippling us and this planet; the numbers don’t lie only humans do. 9.2 billion! Don’t even think that our old systems will hold together, and not to mention a world with billions of unemployed and starving people. Woops I forgot, were already there, aren’t we. Reducing population fixes most problems on this planet today. Three billion people on this planet is perfect, totally in balance with everyone and thing and more vacancies that our future children once leveling school then walk strait into a waiting precision. This is a smaller and smarter world. Nature will give us all a little kick, but by then, because of the lack of contingency plans, it’s just too late.

Why is the world gambling? Cause it sees no other choice. Wrong. We do have a choice and one step at a time will do nicely. If there is no opportunity for future children, what is the point of having them condemned in a world of NO vacancies? So more and more of the youth just wonder around with nothing to do. Great plan. If all governments were to reduce its people and educate and train our existing peoples, while the death rate moves along nicely, you will see unemployment start to fall, waiting lists for medical, and all the things we see choking daily at a slow struggle, in fifty years its all gone.



EVO

Well said EVO3.

Evos, probably why the world is in such a eco-political mess today is through the use of dangerous definitions like free-market and deregulation, both doubtless having lumped us with the bulk of the global recklessness that even children might understand.

Cheers, BB, WA.

EVO: "Who is the smartest? [sic] a kangaroo or a human. Well the kangaroo is."

Probably better if EVO speak's for EVO's self there.

Such matters as socio-economic justice, education and medical treatment are all proper concerns for mature political activism in progressive, compassionate, and efficient systems for humanity.

Green mysticism and its desperate, pessimistic eschatology result in one a logically disastrous regression of fascist/feudal genocide.

That's why dull, pampered hedge fund pigs like Al Gore just loves you guys.

Milly. Probably better if EVO speaks for EVO's self there.

I thought I was?

My opinion is just what it is, take it or leave it. Iam not very smart, but that's problely dew to the fact, that Iam married to a wombat!lol

EVO

Yeah, it'd also be illegal. Unless of course such secular green saints as Peter Singer had their way, contriving defences for bestiality based on whether "pain is involved", etc.

Well, kulu, since you asked. One may need to be a very well qualified scientist to understand some of the more complex aspects of climate science, but to regard the authority of climate scientists as beyond question just BECAUSE they are climate scientists, as you do, is to put them in place as a priesthood. Now that fits, because global warming has all the hallmarks of a cult. People like you “believe” in global warming. The problem is, logic and evidence and science are not about “belief”, they are about what is or is not.

The only “evidence” global warming is caused wholly or mainly by emissions of CO2 from human activity are computer models which have failed to predict the cooling of the past decade. Computer models are not substitutes for reality. Look out your window. Do you see any catastrophic global warming going on? If such a small increase in temperature (less than 1degC) is claimed to result in catastrophe ("WE'RE REACHED THE TIPPING POINT! SOMEBODY SHOULD DO SOMETHING! WE HAVEN'T A MOMENT TO SPARE!"), then we should see progressively greater catastrophes on a more or less daily basis as we drive from Melbourne to Cairns.

The average global temperature increase of 0.6C during the last century has already been nullified by cooling in the past decade.
The surface temperature record, the basis for IPCC scams, is from thermometers which have not been calibrated or validated, in many cases. The records from satellites and radiosonde balloons agree with each other, but not with the surface record, which, in any case, accounts for only a minority of the earth's surface. Many of the surface thermometers have been contaminated by the urban heat island effect, so their accuracy is nothing on which to wager the well being of your children.

In my experience, people like you know almost nothing about any of the issues related to the global warming scam, yet you cling to green left religious belief because that's where you're coming from, along with a whole lot of related ideological baggage.[CONTINUED]

So, kulu, what is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? It’s 0.02 per cent or thereabouts, depending on the reference source you use. What percentage is attributable to human beings? It’s about 0.004 per cent. And what per cent is generated by Australians? It’s about 0.00006 per cent. And if we eliminated all Australian CO2 emissions tomorrow, what effect would it have on global warming, assuming that global warming is being caused solely or mainly by human-originated CO2?

Pretty much none, but we’d destroy the economy overnight. You see, it is actually impossible to supply cities like Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane - or even small remote towns - with food, water or anything else without CO2 emissions. THAT is an incontrovertible fact and wishing it were not so is just arm waving.

Water vapour is not only present in the atmosphere in much greater concentrations than CO2(water vapour, variable from 1-4 per cent) but accounts for, according to some, up to 98 per cent of the so-called greenhouse effect.

Then there is the contribution of the sun, so vast that variations in average global temperature on earth can be entirely accounted for by solar variations. And there are variations in the earth's tilt, spin and orbit. And a variety of overlaying climate cycles. We don't need 0.004 per cent of the atmosphere to explain climate or global temperature changes. [CONTINUED]

The great global warming debate, Phase 2

Mil-observer. Its good to be green, but not in the face.
Its all a case of WHAT IF! BUT WE CAN START PREPARING JUST IN CASE
(520 million years ago, CO2 levels were 200 hundred times to what they are today, O2 was 30% less than to day. The sea creatures were happy, the sun was a bit warm, but basically calm. My defence on the matter lays with population, the two matters are separate.)

EVO

Well said EVO3, whether you are thinking about social justice, global warming etc. over-population is a common barrier to progress.

The global financial crisis is a good model for what is happening with population. Local mortage risks were reduced by spreading (globalizing) the risk. This reduced the risk that a local bank would get into debt if there was a rush of local loan failures. So what happened? Globalizing the risk gave local cowboys everywhere the confidence to take bigger risks. Then what happened? When it all started to fall apart the globalized risk led to globalized failure instead of a localized problem.

We are taking similar risks with food supply. Globalization of the world economy and the advances in transport over the last 150 years has minimized the risk of local droughts etc resulting in people starving. So how has the world responded to this reduced risk of famine? We are doing the equivalent of what the finacial engineers did and pushing up the world population and risk of a worldwide crash.

Have a think about how interlinked our world is becoming and how vulnerable the system is to even minor problems with these links. There are a number of examples of very widespread power crisis that flow from some minor, localized glitch. Or ask yourself how long our society would last if it was subjected to WW2 level bombing?

KenH,

You have given the game away by claiming global cooling has been the case in the last 10 years. You are not a skeptic in genuine search of the truth but a denier cherry picking facts to suit your purpose. OF COURSE if the highest average global temperature since the beginning of civilization was recorded 10 years ago then until the next record is set every year subsequent to that year will be cooler. A year 3 student could work that one out. What you conveniently forgot to mention was that 7 or 8 (forget the actual number) of the last 10 years were the hottest on record.

Now, you say only 0.02% of the atmosphere is made up of CO2 (it is now closer to 0.04 actually and pre-industrial revolution was in the order of only.03% but set that aside). Now answer me this. What if the CO2 levels were zero; could life on earth as we know it exist? Patently not. So if a mere .03% OF CO2 enabled us and other living things to tick along as we have been then would an increase of 35% not pose a threat to this existence. What about an increase of over 50%? Could that spell trouble do you think? CO2 levels have already gone up by 35% and are steadily wending their way upwards so that if you and your fellow doubters hold sway it will have increased by a further 20% or so within decades.

You selectively choose to express the increase in CO2 as a % of total atmospheric gases. Indeed it is a very small % (only 0.01% - not 0.004% as you state) but that is not a relevant comparison. I am only pleased we are not dealing with these tiny levels of ozone or CH4 (methane) in the atmosphere. What about these levels of say cyanide gas, would you be happy with that?

Part II Reply to KenH

KenH,

Believing in anthropogenic causes of climate change also cannot in any way be compared to religious beliefs which are based solely on faith without a shred of evidence needed to support those beliefs.
A wide body of evidence is, on the contrary, there to support the climate change hypothesis and while this does not conclusively prove its anthropogenic causes it is pointing to a very high probability of that being the case.

I am sticking with the probabilities not relying on faith.

kulu

Probabilities? What, is this a matter for bookmakers instead? What probabilities do the carbon-dioxiders rely on except for the “high probability” claimed in the bankers-run IPCC propaganda? Whether you realize it or not, such actual religion as yours is usually described as “Mammon”, or greedy Pharisee scum running the temple (think bail-outs AND fart tax/ETS, etc.).

I always thought that thinking for oneself should win out. But OK, if it's “probabilities” you want, then try these on for size:

- colder temperatures globally, including record deep freezes, in steady decreases since the late-1990s warm period
- increases to massive ice sheet volumes in both Arctic and Antarctic sea and land areas by last year
- correspondingly and conspicuously negligible sunspot activity in the past year

...all pointing to a high probability that AGW is just another self-interested financiers' scam.

The earth is probably heading into another Ice Age.

I still don’t understand why people think some Chemistry is deadly in the atmosphere; Clearly Methane is used in Kulu’s example to imply something – and it is a natural occurring gass at the very least.
It is an obvious falsehood to try implying that there are pockets of gasses – i.e. Methane - and by default imply that if a Jet engine flew through it- It may cause the sky to catch fire; That is not said directly , but it is the obvious implication made ;-
Methane ; H4 = H2+H2= H4
Hydrogen Atom “H2 “ H2 x 6= Carbon atom ; what is so difficult to understand ?

Nuclear Isotopic value is ?

These posts are dramatic confirmation that the public domain is no place for scientific debate.

I made the point earlier, that vested interests and politics have forced the debate upon an unqualified public because science cannot “confirm” one way or the other.

I have never in my lifetime, seen so much public effort expended in trying to understand and research such a complex scientific topic. The sheer volume of reference web sites, publications and commentary is truly staggering and perhaps reflects the concerns and fears expressed by everyone on OLO.

OLO’ers have reached an almost academic level of understanding which is rewarding in itself and deserves recognition for truly impressive achievements.

Because of this public effort, many of us feel passionate about our level of understanding and naturally, we tend to defend that position, just like real scientists. This often manifests as acrimony and frustration.

In the end we are just dedicated but well meaning amateurs. There’s good and bad news in this. The good is that the vested interests and politicians have given us the opportunity to support or not, the ETS policy they have offered.

The bad news is, sorry about this, that we really don’t have a clue, no qualifications, knowledge, experience or tools. What we do have is a virtual tsunami of interpretation, opinion and views on this topic. Some of which we chose to adopt, some we chose to reject. Why? because we can, not because we are qualified to make a scientific assessment.

Q&A comments: <<For some time I too have said the “debate” is no longer about the science – rather, it is being played out within the realm of a political, economic and socio-cultural ‘bun fight’.>>

I replied to Q&A << To be fair, if you do support my position that the debate is not about science, I assume that like me, all scientific references will in future, be banished.>>

Who on OLO, is prepared to work through this debate without any reference to “scientific” content? Just to focus upon the socio- political and economic elements of these phenomena, no science

i would like these clever global/warming-tools..to explain how co2..[a heavy gas]..gets up above the lighter atmosphere gasses

[i seem to recall a co2/bubble that flowed out of a volcano vent killing 100's..about ten/years ago..it flowed..down-hill into a valley[ie it..didnt..float-up]

i recall dry/ice is co2..[i havnt yet been replied..how our breath floats on top of it..when our breath..creates a soap-bubble]

[i put it clumsy..as usual..[thus will explain the scene]

a kids-show..was blowing bubbles onto co2..[dry-ice returning to its co2..forming a mist hugging the ground..[after spilling out of the bowl]..

anyhow bubbles were blown..that floated down into the bowl of co2-gas[they floated,..even with co2 from our breath,..there was enough oxigen in the bubble to..FLOAT on the pure co2..!

get the absurdity..[you science/cabal-warning/nutters must KNOW co2 is heavier than air..!

[after all we are talking about a carbon-atom attatched to an oxigen-atom..[thus naturally heavier than an..'0'..with out a..'c'...

yet you endtime global warming prophets of DOOM..will still claim ignorance..[despite these simple science facts]

here is another..[single use air]..via.clean coal..[ie burn the air[then bury it forever]..ie use the air..[ONCE].and bury it..forever..

[HOW MUCH SPARE AIR..CAN WE BURY..TILL WE RUN OUT OF IT?

im told the plants scrub carbon..[c]..from the co2..making oxigen...[but that burying it means..we also bury our oxigen..[and your clever prophets of doom cant think it out;;lol

[worse your swallowing the deceptions to allow their latest tax grab]..are you cabal-change nutters as dumb as you appear to be..[or is there some hidden logic there somewhere]

us paying tax ..while the poluters get free carbon cash/credit..does what egsactly,..give more of our money to speculators cashing in on the co2 bubble?

[while the planet gets raped even more by industry retooling up for the brand new green ECONOMY..?

more green/jobs my butt

spain has lost 3 jobs for every green job it created

..[meaning govt needs a new tax..[cause the co2 tax is a global tax..[it raises nothing for national govts...[only multi-national carbon trading/traitors]bbbwankers...

so what other taxes will be loaded on the fewer workers..a tansaction tax on-top of the carbon-tax..[on-top of the carbom tax speculators bonuses?..a tax on bankfees?

Q&A, my confusion as to your website, or not, is due to possibly this post of yours on another thread .."Pericles .. Plimer raised some 'points', they had issues and are addressed here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/ .. I am not limited by word/post limits there."

If that's not your website, why would you say you are not limited by word/post limits? Or do you mean that's a site where most anything of the AGW belief can be posted without limit?

Also, I'm not trying to be facetious, or vindictive, I'm sorry you feel that way. This subject does put some folks on edge though.

I don't believe we understand enough about weather, let alone climate, to make the kind of judgments currently being held up worldwide that some people feel we should be gambling on.(or making Wagers on, sorry couldn't resist the dig)

In years to come there is a good chance, very good, that this age will be laughed at for it's gullibility and arrogance - but that's just my opinion.

Mil-observer,

I certainly think for myself but not in a vacuum. I formulate my opinions on the basis of evidence provided, in many cases by people who have spent decades investigating and thinking about issues, as well as on my own experience. In the absence of a cut and dried black or white answer to climate change hypotheses I accept the probabilities as they are explained just as I, after some thought rely to my doctor, accountant or lawyer to provide advice on matters on which they are expert and I am not.

Now mil-o have you satisfied yourself of the veracity of the claims you make by for example setting up a telescope and studying the sun spots yourself or relied on someone else’s work in that field to help form your opinions? Have you satisfied yourself too that your expert’s claims have been substantiated by other experts in the field through peer review or other rigorous process? Perhaps not. Perhaps you have done a detailed study of the ice sheets and sunspots yourself.

Have you considered the possibility or even the probability that your experts are misrepresenting or simply lying about the issues you take at face value?

One thing is for sure I rather do my own thinking than have you do it for me.

This is my last post on this thread.

John D. Sorry I took so long. The world engine is fueled by people. My answer to that is, if we reduce the worlds population and use the idea I put forward, in time the world will see what Iam talking about. Many fear the economy engine will fail with out more humans. Wrong! it becomes smaller and smarter, and IMHO, its the only answer that has any chance of working.

EVO

the worst thing is evo3cpo is dead serious..[and no doudt practices what he believes...because he surly couldnt be a hypocrite...lol..

[and he/she clearly has no kids..nor any mate]..and would definitivly practice what she/he preaches..lol..should any of his non children ever have the nerve to breed

[unles of course..its those others..who must die..so his clearly super genes can live on...lol...

you and yours are sad bro..really sad...you must have nightmares at night with all them lesser gene-types breeding and eating your food[taking your job...moving into your street/country...

farting in the air you need to breath..[bathing/peeing in the water you drink..touching your food with their unclean/unwashed hands..[spitting into your resterant meal...ejeculating in your booze

your a sad puppy dude

UOG. Here boy, here boy,... that's a good boy, sit! rollover! and if you behave yourself, I'll give you a biscuit.

UOG! In my research, do you know what Ive found UOG?, that people will convince themselves of absolutely anything.

God! its hard at the top. lol

EVO

The implied bestiality says it all

Spindoc

The trip was fine, thanks. I’m glad you were able to watch the MIT Sloan address.

Before I tackle your other ‘9 points’, I would like to clarify your statements;

1. You say “the (AGW) debate is binary”. This by definition means the debate is a “two-valued logic” system – implying someone is right and someone is wrong.

My response is that binary reasoning limits our knowledge and reduces ‘our’ response (to issues like AGW) to a feeble mindset. Computers operate in binary mode (on/off) and this alone explains why ‘artificial intelligence’ is so difficult to achieve.

However, humans have the ability to make decisions outside simplistic dualism (e.g. in/out, yes/no, right/wrong, black/white, capitalism/communism, theist/atheist, Christian/Muslim, conservative/liberal, guilty/not-guilty, AGWarmer/AGWdenier, etc). This human ability or capacity enables us to be distinguished from the ‘lesser intelligent’ animals or machines.

Unfortunately (as we have seen) many people don’t use this ability.

2. You say “the (AGW) debate is circular”. Also to be clear, this means the hypothesis (AGW) to be proved is assumed implicitly (or explicitly) in the premises.

This is a typical argument put forward by so called ‘deniers’ – it is a logical fallacy.

We can theorise that the Sun will shine tomorrow. However, we can’t “prove” it until we have finished conducting the experiment (waiting until tomorrow to see if the Sun actually shines).

Corollary: the only way to “prove” AGW is to conduct the experiment. This clearly is illogical (and unscientific) – we only have one test-tube to experiment with, the planet.

IMO, if anyone engages in “circular argument”, it is the ‘deniers’, e.g.

. A scientist provides a ‘simplified’ explanation of AGW

. An AGW ‘denier’ in rebuttal states “this begs the question (insert your own) ...

. The scientist explains why the rebuttal is incorrect and provides a more detailed explanation

. The AGW ‘denier’ argues the science is too complex to understand and accuses the scientist of obfuscation and appealing to authority

. The scientist attempts to provide a ‘simplified’ explanation to the ‘denier’s rebuttal ... and around and around we go.

Cont’d

Cont’d

3. Finally, you say “the (AGW) debate is a zero sum game”. Again to clarify, this means that there will be both winners and losers by the various stakeholders in addressing the issues of AGW.

Yes, this is one outcome and is founded on ‘power and control’ of limited resources by those seeking to expand their sphere of influence. The size of the cake is fixed. If I take a bigger slice, your slice will be correspondingly smaller. Winners are balanced by losers and it is a zero sum end game.

In terms of AGW, it is not uncommon for lobbyists to argue against acting on climate change due to their perceived loss of ‘competitive advantage’ e.g. the Lavoisier Group’s submission to the Garnaut Report, George W Bush’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the coal industry trying to find a future for ‘clean coal’ (sic), etc.

However, this adversarial approach to solving global issues is counterproductive, in my humble opinion.

If you are familiar with “zero sum game” analysis, then you would also be familiar with both “positive” and “negative” sum games (and the Nash Equilibrium). This is what the MIT Sloan lecture by John Sterman was alluding to – there are opportunities for growth and development in a sustainable way without succumbing to the tried (and failing) meme of the power and control freaks.

Clearly, there are smart and intelligent people who are trying to tackle the problems of AGW, from all countries around the world. Some will be meeting in Copenhagen in December and believe it or not, they accept the science of AGW. They are even now accepting (and negotiating) a real possibility of a positive sum game.

Nevertheless, the game becomes more complex as it progresses, and progress is exponentially more difficult to achieve the nearer an agreement becomes. Ergo, the last 10% of the negotiations will be harder than the previous 90%.

Ratification of Kyoto mk2 will prove even more testing, i.e. the last 1% the hardest of all.

tbc – those word/post limits got the better of me, again.

Hi Q&A,

Your “clarifications” are appreciated but misinterpret what I said.

1. I did not say the debate was the result of binary reasoning, but that it had “become” a binary outcome, for or against, no middle ground, thus a Binary result.

2. I suggested that the debate “had become circular” because science, at this point, is inconclusive. Thus there is no circuit breaker; we all agree to disagree in the absence of a scientific outcome. We have simply had to “adopt” someone else’s opinion because we are not qualified to create our own.

3. The debate has become a “zero sum game” means no winners and no losers, because until and unless there is a scientific conclusion, self evidently the debate cannot be resolved either way, no winners, no losers and no end game. Now that is logic.
Your position remains that, << This is a typical argument put forward by so called ‘deniers’ – it is a logical fallacy.>> Can you please explain?

Your academic explanations of the above are excellent however; they vividly support my assertion that this scientific debate should positively not be in the public domain where it is exposed to manipulation, potentially generating political and economic disadvantage for our nation. We are not qualified to make such far reaching decisions in the absence of unfettered scientific process. If there were scientific certainty there would be no debate.

Indulge me. We are building a new jet liner which we must have because we “think” the current planes are ripping the ozone layer apart. (Implied urgency and threat). Our scientists and technicians are undecided but we “must” make a political commitment to a solution. We have made available to the public, as many “interpretations” of the data as possible hoping that the public, media, academia and intelligentsia will support whatever policy decisions governments might make. Our main problems are the lift/drag coefficient algorithms for the airframe profile and the thrust modeling for the exit vectors on the power units. There is some “scientific” consensus on the issues but nothing is proven.

What would you do?

(Continued)

(Continued)

Q&A,

<< . Computers operate in binary mode (on/off) and this alone explains why ‘artificial intelligence’ is so difficult to achieve>>.

Not so, “Computers” are a composite of (from the top down) human interface (GUI), applications, operating system, driver routines, OSI Stack, POPS Interpretive, Instruction set (machine code) and the processor. The processor is the only component that is binary, it can only “add”, “subtract” or “compare”, nothing else. It’s logic and intelligence is driven by hard wired “Boolean algebra”, very fast and very powerful, nothing whatsoever to do with (AI) artificial intelligence. AI is an “application” whose logic derives from algorithms written by “Quant’s”. Far from being “difficult to achieve” AI is the most prolific application today, its in your car, washing machine, DVD player, Mobile phone, iPod and hundreds of appliances. The most sophisticated and intense, non-military AI applications are in “games and simulator” software. It’s back to school for you my boy.

Your second post May 25.

I’ve addressed my concerns about “assumption closes” in earlier posts. Your response is seeded with assumption closes that AGW is “the” definitive problem. Everything after that assumption is so what do we do about it?. This is also the case in the MIT Sloan lecture by John Sterman.

<< Addressing the issues of AGW>>, <<tackle the problems of AGW>>, <<, they accept the science of AGW>>, << They are even now accepting (and negotiating)….>>.

Your case is clearly that you believe AGW “Is”. To others AGW “Is not”.

Isn’t it interesting, everyone seems to have a view on the science but nobody is interested in looking at how we have arrived at the impasse?

Looking forward to your response to the nine points.

Now I too am out of ammo.

tbc

Spindoc

You have responded before my reply to your 9 points, no matter.

A. You have misunderstood my response, see point 9.

B. You keep wanting absolutes, see 4, 5 below. Is light a particle or a wave?

C. Spin it all you like spindoc, a zero sum game is as I described – did you not understand the cake?

D. “Your position ... Can you please explain?” I did, under the point of circular argument and by example. Our current dialogue is another.

E. “This scientific debate ...” I agree with you.

“If there were scientific certainty there would be no debate” –again you demonstrate a need for absolutes and again, science doesn’t work like that..

F. Computer stuff: you know very well my meaning of on/off.

G. Ammo? That's sick.

1. I assume you are very well aware of the “significant” bodies, institutions and academies of science that overwhelm the likes of the OISM’s so called “petition project”, touted by ‘deniers’ and promulgated by organisations like the Heartland Institute, the Lavoisier Group, Institute of Public Affairs, and a plethora of “denialist” blog sites (Marohasy, WUWT etc) and propagandist columnists (Bolt, Booker et al).

If you mean the latter (rather than the former) distort and misrepresent the science, I agree.

2. This point perplexes me. What exactly are you “in, or out” of? As a self proclaimed “agnostic” I would have thought you were not ‘in’ or ‘out’ of anything.

Anyway, please see my previous post on ‘binary reasoning’.

I do not understand the point you are making about “research data, scientific interpretation, scientific modelling, media, politics, and public commentary”. Can you please explain precisely what you are trying to say?

3. I think I understand what you are saying and tend to agree, albeit I would prefer the term ‘trust’. I only say this because a lot of people can’t distinguish science from religion. A “belief based value system” is premised on unconditional faith (in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for example). Trust in your local GP.

Cont’d

Cont’d

4. Science is never conclusive or absolute, it’s about probabilities – I (and others) have tried to explain this numerous times. If you cannot understand this, then like you say, “sadly we have no common ground”. Pro or Anti (or binary) has got nothing to do with it.

5. Spindoc, you keep rabbeting on about “proof”, “science is inconclusive”, etc. when time after time, here and elsewhere, the scientific process has been explained. It’s obvious you only have the capacity to think in terms of absolutes, a binary world (see previous post). This is unfortunate.

Let me try to explain it this way:

The CO2 molecule absorbs infra-red radiation with a roughly logarithmic relationship to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This can be observed and measured as a vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere. In other words, stratospheric cooling is a result of less energy lost to space – it’s a little more complex (adiabat) but I am sure you can understand that.

I will change my mind about AGW when the observed (and measurable) fact of stratospheric cooling disappears.

I don’t know what you mean by an “intellectual or academic croaker”, but I agree (and have said so many times before you appeared on OLO) that politics and economics are muddying the waters. What else do you expect, really?

Scientists can only ever deliver the message. It is up to politicians, economists and captains of industry to deal with the message. It is no longer about the science.

6. Please explain this more clearly (not the binary bit, addressed elsewhere). I haven’t a clue what your point is.

7. I couldn’t agree more.

8. To clear the air, you think I have been vindictive towards you. I apologise if I have shown some malicious ill-will or intent to harm you. Nevertheless, I thought you would have seen the difference between my response to you and rpg & MO’s response to me.

9. Congratulations, exactly my point (see my previous post on “binary reasoning”.

Spindoc,

You are correct about there being division in the scientific community about AGW, but are exaggerating its extent. This survey from the January Eos (an earth science journal) shows that the more people know about the science, the more likely they are to believe that AGW is highly probable. Active climate scientists like Q%A were 97% in agreement.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

If we need 100% agreement or absolute proof before we can take any action, then nothing will ever happen (analysis paralysis). A good analogy might be with what Thabo Mbeki's government did in South Africa. We now know that antiretrovirals can keep the HIV virus at bay and prevent transmission from mother to baby. However, there were a few scientists who thought that the HIV virus was not the cause of AIDS, most prominently Peter Duesberg, a molecular biologist. Mbeki ignored the medical establishment and relied on the mavericks, withholding antiretrovirals from his people. The result was lots of dead bodies. There is no absolute proof that the bulk of the climate scientists are right about AGW, but they are in a better position to know than anyone else.

[One nasty spin by Divergence against Thabo Mbeki, whereas Al Gore himself led the campaign from Congress to prevent generic AIDS medicines, especially needed in poor countries like South Africa. Such a coincidence: surely Divergence didn't just read my posting at the cross-thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8920#142233 ? Keep exposing your own black marks, carbon-dioxide folk...]

Q&A: "Science is never conclusive or absolute, it’s about probabilities".

That's about one of the most “absolutist” and conclusive statements I've ever read anywhere.

Imagine a Johannes Kepler or Albert Einstein fronting up to the examiners with: “Look, guys, it's just my own, subjective, personal, woolly-headed liberalist interpretation on the universe. I'm not claiming any insight into a "truth" or anything like that, so don't take it TOO seriously”!

So what "probabilities" does Q&A mean? Ah, a numbers game of “peer review” perhaps? Or the “probabilities” as asserted by IPCC? Or just some bookmaker's hunch on some scientists' and economists' form? Well, despite its ridiculous nature, the latter becomes more and more feasible under such a spineless ideology, as yet higher stakes and prices turn “The Science” into just another room in “The Casino”.

However its determination, the probability-instead-of-truth point reveals the hypocrisy and corruption promised by the combined weaknesses of liberalism and modernism. That is a big problem throughout the academy, made worse the more politicized a field becomes.

If, for example, the IPCC could not be “conclusive” about AGW, why then did it draw *conclusions*? And if, for another example, the IPCC could not be “absolute” about AGW, why then help initiate an *absolutist* economic tyranny basing itself on something so *absolute* as a valuation of the unknowable i.e., “carbon credits”?

Spindoc: the problem is not keeping “the science” out of the political-economic debate; it's about keeping the corrupt politics and the even more corrupt monetarist economics out of the science.

Mil-ob,

See this London Times article on Mbeki and his government's response to AIDS

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5235539.ece

You can find many more such sources if you do a search on "Mbeki AIDS denial". See also the Wikipedia article on "AIDS denial" for fuller account:

"Former South African president, Thabo Mbeki's government was widely criticized for delaying the rollout of programs to provide antiretroviral drugs to people with advanced HIV disease and to HIV-positive pregnant women. The national treatment program began only after the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) brought a legal case against Government ministers, claiming they were responsible for the deaths of 600 HIV-positive people a day who could not access medication.[89][77] South Africa was one of the last countries in the region to begin such a treatment program, and roll-out has been much slower than planned.[84]

At the XVI International AIDS Conference, Stephen Lewis, U.N. special envoy for AIDS in Africa, attacked Mbeki's government for its slow response to the AIDS epidemic and reliance on denialist claims..."

Of course this doesn't excuse the Western drug companies for their own bad behaviour in Africa, but the issue is more complicated than your simple picture of baddies and goodies. I must admit that I don't read all of your posts, as I find them quite tiresome, with constant unprovoked insults and abuse, plus your tendency to impute the very worst of motives, on no evidence, to anyone who disagrees with you.

Thabo Mbeki's domestic publicity merely tried making the most of a bad situation to deflect attention from the horrible squeeze Big Pharma held his country in - a situation of extortionate, imperialist cruelty against South Africa's poor in particular, and against the developing world in general.

Your posts aren't "tiresome" at all; just predictably misleading as their only sources are such propagandistic imperial fluff as The London Times.

Yeah, not tiresome, but boring nonetheless. I'll always have the time and energy to bury them and genocidal crypto-racists like your vile self.

Have a NICE day.

Hi Q&A, Sorry I jumped the gun on your response to the nine points; hope we are now in synch.

We do have some common ground and even those points where we might disagree we are developing an understanding of respective positions which I find positive. In order to further develop this understanding, I will address those issues in point form.

A. I may have misunderstood your response, I thought we were agreeing that if the only thing scientists agree on that it is very complex, then the current two state outcome, AGW ‘ers vs. Deniers cannot be correct, therefore the real answer must by definition, be a composite.
B. Plus 4. & 5. <<You keep wanting absolutes>>, << science is never conclusive, it’s about probabilities>>, that I <<keep rabbeting on about “proof”>> and that <<science is inconclusive>> Science is conclusive, it is about proof. Science is about hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and repeating the test with a consistent result. On the other hand possibilities, probabilities and contingencies are a product of human imagination.
C. Did I <<not understand the cake?>>. You said it yourself, << The size of the cake is fixed. If I take a bigger slice, your slice will be correspondingly smaller. Winners are balanced by losers and it is a zero sum end game>> and << this adversarial approach to solving global issues is counterproductive>>. Correct, that is why “Rule Number One” states, do not try to take a bigger slice, instead, grow the cake, otherwise there will be winners and losers and it will create an adversarial situation.
D. I think this refers my point 3. of my post Tuesday, 26 May, 4.29 pm. I simply presented my logic in asserting that the debate has become the zero sum game. Your assertion was << This is a typical argument put forward by so called ‘deniers’ – it is a logical fallacy>>, I’ve explained my logic, can you explain why it is a “logical fallacy”?
E. I said, “If there were scientific certainty there would be no debate”. How can that possibly be incorrect?

( tbc)

(continued)

F. Computer stuff: I asserted that the debate had reached a binary state, that of Deniers or AGW’ers, for or against or pro or anti. It was your reference to computers and artificial intelligence to which I was responding. Apart from being wrong, your reference to computers and AI are not pertinent.
G. Ammo? That’s sick. Q&A, I was simply referring to the fact that I’d run into post and word limits as you had done previously. No offense intended.


1. I said << To believe that there is no significant body of scientific opposition to GHG induced GW is unsustainable>>. Until we can demonstrate scientific agreement my point is not invalidated by how many on each side or who they are.
2. “In or Out”, nothing to do with binary reasoning, just the two state outcome. See point F.
About << “research data, scientific interpretation, scientific modeling, media, politics, and public commentary” The public are not qualified to form a view of our own, we can only, adopt someone else’s opinion. We cannot do scientific research or interpret research or model it. That leaves us with the media, politics and non peer reviewed public opinion. I might have faith or trust in my GP, but these guys? Forget it.
3. See 2.
4. Strongly disagree, see B. plus 4. & 5
5. Strongly disagree, see B. plus 4. & 5. Nice of you to allude to my “unfortunate” limited intellect (tish tish). I guess your next post will determine who has the limited intellectual capacity? This emanates from your incorrect assertion that I have referred to the debate as “Binary”, “Circular” and a “Z S G”. You keep giving academic process explanations. I say again, not process, but outcome. Since you asked, “Intellectual or Academic Croaker” Those with a despondent, defeatist, grumbling, rumor-mongering enmity that prevents facts ever replacing a stubborn ideology. Also, no science, remember?
6. I’ll add something on Entity Relationship Analysis on my next post.

Over to you.

mil-observer

It is obvious you haven’t taken the trouble to research your own claims.

It is even more obvious you know nothing of Einstein or the scientific method.

Not knowing does not pass for scepticism. It is simply ignorance.

Spindoc

We all have a life. Time permitting, I hope to get back to you on the weekend.

Another quick test of Q&A's pretentiousness with the cliché and condescension (wow, stop press!) i.e., “Science is never conclusive or absolute” and “...obvious you know nothing of Einstein...”. But Einstein redefined “absolute space” and “absolute time” with reference to the speed of light as a new, encompassing absolute in “relativity”. That was rather “conclusive” too, yet Q&A tells us with absolute certainty that “science is never conclusive”. What an absolute clown!

And what of the language? E.g., “Time permitting, I shall obtain the capacity to utilize more pompous middle-class, pretentious and posterior diction and erudition, replete with numerous, novel verbosities”, etc. A proper wind balloon. Maybe that's why Q&A's so convinced about AGW: floating up with other blimps like Al Gore there must be some extra wafts of hot air.

Repulsive pomposity, obviously just another boring result of the monetarist and political fictions to which such class-obsessed poseurs cling like no-hoping, effete junkies.

Q&A/Spindoc,

Have been reading your too and froing with some interest and wanted to add a few comments:

1. Science.

Your disagreement about the 'scientific method' is somewhat semantic.

Spindoc's description: "Science is about hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and repeating the test with a consistent result" is correct, however, all the testing in the world doesn't prove (in the scientific 'absolute' sense), that a hypothesis is correct. There always remains the possibility that some later devised test will not be passed. The constant testing of a hypothesis merely produces an ever increasing probability that the hypothesis is correct, but never certainty. In that sense, Q&A is correct, that "science is never conclusive, it’s about probabilities."

The real question is, for any particular hypothesis, how well it stands up to testing.

Now, one FUNDAMENTAL issue is the limitation of the scientific method: The testing of a hypothesis is only reliable IF, AND ONLY IF, ALL THE VARIABLES in the experiment can be controlled and measured.

This is an issue which affects different areas of scientific study more than others. You may have heard 'physics and chemistry' described as 'hard' sciences, and psychology and biology as 'soft' sciences. The origin of these expressions is, broadly speaking, the imperfect experimental processes which have to be used in the soft sciences because of the varying difficulty in isolating and measuring the variables for any particular hypothesis. This inevitably leads to 'softer'LESS RELIABLE results.

The 'softer' the science, the less reliable.

(continued)

2. Scientific Consensus.

Science has always progressed by the minority or individual contradicting the accepted view, and it follows that the number of people believing something has nothing to do with its truth.

Tthe credibility of those who argue on such a basis ought to be treated with suspicion.


3. Is Global Warming a bad thing?

Everyone is jumping up and down based on the assumption that global warming is bad thing. There is plenty of material identifying dramatic negative consequences, but precious little addressing the upsides.

For example, the press likes to report all the extra deaths and damage which will be caused by the increased tropical storms suspected as being caused by global warming, but no one ever bothers to mention the reduced deaths from cold and greater crop yields in cooler climes which are just as attributable to global warming as the storms.

Observe that life, both plant and animal, is generally more diverse and plentiful in warmer climates. This is a valuable clue as to the likely longer term impact of global warming.

Only when the pros and cons are weighed against each other can any useful assessment be made as to whether global warming will be a net good or bad thing.

Reading suggestion:

Lomborg's "the skeptical environmentalist" - an expose on alarmist conclusions.

“Lomborg's "the skeptical environmentalist" - an expose on alarmist conclusions.”

Not quite an expose Kalin1. Should global warming cease (or escalate) and business as usual prevails, and since you alluded to physics and chemistry as the “hard” sciences, what do you advise we do about the ecological desecration caused from the emissions of fossil fuel chemicals, a proven from chemical analyses of air, rivers, soil, oceans, food animals, marine life and humans?

Do we continue to burn fossil fuels or draw “alarmist conclusions” from the evidence that’s been provided for decades?

Western governments will advise you that pollutant industries are heavily regulated. This statement is fraudulent at best since accredited laboratories' analyses of chemicals in Australia’s rivers and coastlines continue to reveal that they are heavily contaminated by self-regulated industries – these results cannot be easily manipulated though one Australian NATA accredited laboratory (currently employed by Xstrata) is under investigation.

Similar chemical analyses around the globe on the planet's ecosystems draw the same conclusion. Any remediation (if any) costs are rarely provided by the culprits. The taxpayer foots the bill and much of the contamination is now irreversible.

Further elaboration on specific chemicals of concern can be provided at your request.

Dare I say Kalin1 that you have overlooked the sleeper emerging in a crisis between the interplay of hazardous fossil fuel emissions (associated and other industrial pollutants), water, food and all life on the planet?

Q&A, as promised, something on Entity Relationship Analysis (ERA) as it applies to complex issues such as the AGW debate. Mostly used today for computer applications and database design however, long before this, circa 1980, it became a backbone for business analysis to support Change Management and Business Process Re-engineering. The principle being that complex analysis from the bottom up is futile. Like an inversion the pyramid of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the top level deals only with the lowest common denominators, say 8-10 entities. Level two describes these further into say 30-50 entities, next to say 100-500 and so on down the layers of the pyramid into the content layers of tens of thousands or millions of entities. Imagine trying to understand the structure of a company with $100 billion in sales, 135,000 employees operating in 35 countries? That’s the level of complexity we can deal with.

AGW and ERA:

Level 1.
Key, raw scientific measurements, 8-10 uncontested research/measurement indicators.
EXCLUSIVE TO SCIENCE

Level 2.
Interpretation of raw data, 30-50 contested but scientific “interpretations”.
EXCLUSIVE TO SCIENCE

Level 3.
Scientific Predictions/projections of the “interpretations”. The 30-50 interpretations are modeled on computers, using algorithms to “assume “the value of variables/unknowns. Now dealing with 100-500 entities.
EXLUSIVE TO SCIENCE

Level 4.
Media, current affairs, news, non peer reviewed publications, books, lobby groups, opinion makers, politics, religion, industry groups, conservationists etc., etc.
Now into tens of thousands of entities.
NON-SCIENTIFIC PUBLIC DOMAIN. (a “futile” layer)

Level 5.
Public debate, now into millions of entities, each expressing their “adopted” opinions.
(The public cannot function in scientific domains; we “listen” to science from both sides but must still “adopt” a position because science is inconclusive. We are then left with the most complex (futile), yet non-scientific layers relying on the “opinion” generated by others in the public domain. The lower the level, the lower the analytical value of the entity.
NON-SCIENTIFIC PUBLIC DOMAIN (a “futile” layer)

This analysis supports my assertion that the public has been thrown into a sea of “content” from where we can only grasp at driftwood.

"This analysis supports my assertion that the public has been thrown into a sea of “content” from where we can only grasp at driftwood."

How condescending and what an insult to the public - particularly to those trained in environmental toxicology.

Go to bed spindoc!

proto-gore-as..you make claims that are uninformed..or worse designed to confuse

as spindoc clearly pointed out re his point 5...we have not had an informed debate..[i see only name calling in response to valid points]

your response is as pathetic as your put down<<..How condescending and what an insult to the public..particularly to those trained in environmental toxicology>>>..now let us get this straight..[your saying the public includes those trained in toxicology..[or consists solely of toxicologists]

either way mate you conmment barely rates any informed reply..[why you golabal tax lovers persist in your futile denyal to debait our rebuttal..is revealing your not intrested as much in the facts as ridiculing any who oppose your lemming like rush to create this new burdon/cash-tax-cow..upon the people with minimal egsamination of the facts

so mate how do you gain from this new tax?...who pays for the unused credits?..who markets them..[who collects the generouse commisions on re selling these credits..[how does this tax fix the envioronment]

the questions get rather extensive..[its interesting to note the last two spokes-persons on the topic..on lateline are an econimist and an industriualist...mainly saying they want certainty..

[certainty..they can take to the bank and create into green/credit..from our tax debit..funding yet more polution to rebuild green...

mate we poluted /poisend the earth to get here..went broke getting here...now big buisness wants our tax..to do it all over again

trying to turn..the fast failing/indusrial economy into the boom/bubble green economy..this globalist tax is a tax,..that dosnt go to govt..but to big buisness carbon/tax securities traders/speculators..bankers and industrialists..to regear up their credit to do more polution

you bloggers are trying to silence thinking..by beating up delusional fears..playing the man..not rebutting the mans facts..hoping to quickly move from planing into yet more industrialisation,

hoping..to be skipping the debate..before the computer fantisy models become revealed as lies..made by sellouts..paid to decieve the people into a NEW global tax..green subsidy for big businnes..[how come the big poluters get credits..yet the slave/wage/poor just get a new tax?]

Kalin1, I think that to a (greater or lesser) degree, some of the "soft" sciences like biology have been, for several decades, in the thrall of a generation of scientists who came of age in the atmosphere of the 1960s ecology movement.

Not to put too fine a point on it: a generation of hippies, who early on became conditioned to embrace an eschatological worldview that sees western, industrialised society as fundamentally and implacably at war with "mother nature". This is perhaps most overtly seen in James Lovelock's "Gaia" theory.

This generation, perhaps as a result of growing up in what Jeff Nuttall identified as a "bomb culture" atmosphere of cold wars and giant bug-style "nature's revenge" movies, seems to be profoundly imbued with an almost Wagnerian doom-obsession. Every problem is seen, not as a problem to be overcome with patience and forward planning, but as an imminent cataclysm that will brook no delay.

Perhaps it is also a problem inherent in a "soft" science, but biology and its related disciplines also seem to be fields disproportionately at the mercy of practitioners like Norman Myers who, to be blunt, seem quite apt to pull the most alarming figures out of their proverbial (witness the infamous, conventional wisdom of "40 000 species a year" extinction rates).

Perhaps a generation of scientists just needs to have a cup of tea, a Bex, and a good lie-down.

So, here we are in the archives of an old thread thinking Spindoc and Q&A could “slug it out” on our own, seems there remains much interest in this thread.

For those interested in commenting how this thread has evolved, this is the current state of play.

I’ve long held the view that the public debate on GW is flawed. I’ll go further and suggest that there has been no informed debate. IMO there are two key reasons for this.

Firstly, that those who have decided that AGW exists, is caused by human generated atmospheric carbon and that an ETS is the answer, have, by their passionate support, inhibited any open or informed debate.

Secondly, I’ve tried to discover the sources, type and value of the information upon which so many have based their acceptance of AGW.

In order to understand this public phenomenon, we need to eliminate argument by science because it is inconclusive, which has actually caused the current standoff.

In response to a question from Q&A, I’ve posted the results of an analysis of source, type and value of the available information behind this debate. (See post Friday, 29 May 2009 11:31:04 AM). Also mentioned in this post is the nature of the analytical template, its common use and its capacity for dealing with very complex information sets. There are other tools should any OLO’ers prefer to offer one.

All you have to do is look at the template and decide where you, as an individual, sourced the information upon which you made your decision. It is possible that you have a scientific qualification, in which case you are able to form your own scientific conclusion. For the rest of us we have two choices. We can base our opinion upon those offered by the non scientific public domain in levels 4 & 5 (very low value), or have faith/trust in the scientific community because we are not qualified to understand it. Remembering of course that even levels 2 & 3 information is contested science. Hence the origin of the term “consensus science”.

(continued)

"either way mate you conmment barely rates any informed reply"

Tsk tsk UOG - it took three paragraphs to tell me that?

"so mate how do you gain from this new tax?..."

Well UOG, I've already offered an alternative, in writing to the Commonwealth government. I like to do my serious work offline but I do enjoy reading the delusional mumbo jumbo of the divinely guided here who are driven by unrestrained greed - the tyrants who aren't interested in offering any solutions to benefit the common good.

And why are you asking me about the ETS anyway - I'm opposed to it! Duh!

(continued)

Kailin1 you raise some good points but I cannot accept that "science is never conclusive, it’s about probabilities." There is no science in “probabilities” except to the extent that we can model “probabilities” once human imagination has thought them up. Possibilities, probabilities and contingencies are products of imagination not science.

As to whether we are talking “soft” or “hard” science? I can readily accept a continuum where soft science is a “one” and hard science is a “ten”. Then we can evaluate how “hard” the science must be against the magnitude of the problem. I feel this debate has been promoted as “high” magnitude in order to allow “soft” science as acceptable.

I would not like to be the one to explain to the residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki that both bombs went off by fluke as it was only “soft” science.

Protagoras, I mentioned in the first part of this post that those who have already “nailed their AGW colors to the mast” seem to be inhibiting any open or informed debate.

You say; << How condescending and what an insult to the public - particularly to those trained in environmental toxicology. Go to bed spindoc!>>.

My acknowledgement of public determination and effort as posted in this thread Sunday, 24 May 2009 11:08:04 AM reads;

“I have never in my lifetime, seen so much public effort expended in trying to understand and research such a complex scientific topic. The sheer volume of reference web sites, publications and commentary is truly staggering and perhaps reflects the concerns and fears expressed by everyone on OLO.

OLO’ers have reached an almost academic level of understanding which is rewarding in itself and deserves recognition for truly impressive achievements.”

<< Go to bed spindoc!>>.? Perhaps if you “got out of bed” Protagoras you might not keep making such an idiot of yourself.

You could redeem yourself by responding to the ERA source information template I posted?

As “Arnie” says, “C’moan, yoo cun doo eet”

No science though and definitely no more poetry, please.

"I like to do my serious work offline..."

Don't fret, Protagoras. No one could be under the misapprehension that what you write here is meant to be serious.

Protagoras,

I'd be pleased to hear the specific "chemicals of concern" and a little more detail regarding "the ecological desecration caused from the emissions of fossil fuel chemicals" because contrary to what you say the "ecological desecrations" are not well defined and in large part are not, as you say, "proven." Lomborg's book, The skeptical Environmentalist punched awfully big holes in many of the alarmist claims of "ecological descration" and the science behind those claims.

And no, I haven't missed the "sleeper emerging in a crisis between the interplay of hazardous fossil fuel emissions (associated and other industrial pollutants), water, food and all life on the planet" it's just that Lomborg's book and some of my other wider reading have made me realise that the evidence of this "emerging crisis" is much thinner that many would have us believe, puting in doubt its very existence. Please try your luck and explain this "sleeper emerging crisis" with examples.

Clownfish,

Loved your suggestion that a certain generation of scientists take some bex and have a good lie down. Hysterical.

I suspect there is more than a silo of grain of truth in your 'hippy' generational theory.

Norman Myer - Noting your comment on this guy:

A Wikipedia search, which indicates he is a professor of a prestigious Business School, it isn't clear about his actual qualifications beyond his initial BA. It does state "Myers abandoned life as a schoolteacher in order to make his way as a professional photographer of African wildlife, and thence to an additional career as a freelance lecturer on the subject with an increasing interest in environmental matters. He went back to university and obtained a Ph.D from Berkeley in 1973."

In short, it doesn't appear he has formal scientific qualifications. His expertise is presumably based on his extensive travel experiences in places like Africa. Although his beliefs are probably sincere, his knowledge of the environment appears limited to his personal observations. He very likely has encountered real environmental problems in the places he has travelled, but that does not reliable evidence the whole world is in crisis.

Take the example of deforestation. Lomborg's book identified why some of the widely accepted studies showing dramatic global deforestation are in fact flawed because they compare estimates of forest levels many years apart without taking into account fundamentally different definitions of forest land (which were not always available or clear). Indulging in a little fictitious, but illustrative example:

One study in 1950 says the land of OZ is 20% covered in forest.

A second study in 2000 finds the land of Oz is covered by 10% of forest.

On the face of these two studies it would be 'clear' that half the forest land of Oz has been lost in just 50 years.

A close look at the each study may, however, reveal that in fact the first study included savanna lands (where tree cover was only 30% in its definition of forest, and this made up half the 'forest' in that study).

The later study excluded savanna lands from its definition of forest. Suddenly, the calamity of deforestation in the land of Oz is transformed into virtual stability, as forests apart from Savanna 'forests' still provided 10% coverage. This is exactly the kind of error you find in spades whenever you examine the evidence underlying global conclusions which is based on local environmental conditions.

If annecdotal observations appear to support the alarmist global conclusions it is at least in large part because the bad news - the fallen tree/extinct species is so much more visible than the subtle good news - the growing saplings/evolution of new species.
(continued)
Spindoc,

You said: "Possibilities, probabilities and contingencies are products of imagination not science."

Read up on what Einstein had to say about imagination and science. Without imagination there is no science because imagination is required to ask the 'why' questions upon which science is grounded. As I said before your and Q&A's debate about probabilites v proving this is rather semantic.

Now where has Q&A gone?

Kalin1

Why do you seemingly resort to using Lomborg's book as a "climate” bible for only the gullible or ill-informed would refer to an author noted by scientists and economists for his monumental blunders? Furthermore, Lomborg is a statistician and has no training in the environmental sciences.

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

http://www.grist.org/article/lomborg-the-clever-persons-climate-change-skeptic

http://www.grist.org/article/risk-mismanagement

http://www.seib.org/climate-and-energy/Ackerman_CoolIt.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601979.html

Lomborg tells us that progress to date has been achieved through hard work, the market and reasonable regulations.

He also said in 2001: “We will not lose our forests; we will not run out or water. We have reduced atmospheric pollution in the cities of the developed world and have good reason to believe that this will also be achieved in the developing world. Our oceans have not been defiled, our rivers have become cleaner and support more life. ... Nor is waste a particularly big problem. .. ... And, finally, our chemical worries and fear of pesticides are misplaced and counterproductive.” Huh?

1. Forests: Brazil planted a record area of forest plantations in 2006 even as more than 13,000 square kilometers of natural forest in the Amazon were lost. Separately a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) showed that Brazil accounted for 73% (31,000 square kilometres per year) of the deforestation of natural forests in South America (42,000 square kilometres per year) in 2000-2005.

2. Pollution: “The images show the temperature increase and increased pollution for every region in the UK. It is particularly striking to see the extent of temperature and pollution increases in the large cities which have such a detrimental effect on the quality of life in those locations".

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/UK-record-heatwave-and-rising-pollution-observed-by-eyes-in-the-sky-3A-Images-reveal-hotspots-3825-1/

3. Rivers: “Authorities say an acid problem in the Murray's lower lakes and adjoining Coorong wetlands in South Australia is the worst seen anywhere in the world:”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/29/2584861.htm

“THE Swan and Canning rivers are polluted with toxic levels of cancer-causing heavy metals, pesticides and hydrocarbons, a three-year sediment study has found:”

"The health of the Swan and Canning rivers has no chance of improving unless pollution entering the waterway is cut by almost half in the next seven years..."

Contd......

Dear, dear, Protagoras, at it again with the alarmists' (and Creationists') favourite sport: cherry-picking, selective use of data, and outright lies (witness the ads on this very site: "The forests are the earth's lungs". This has been known to be false since the 1970s, so why are green alarmists still peddling an outright lie?).

For instance, your boogedy-boogedy-scary! figures on the Amazon: It might be honest to acknowledge that 31,000 km2 represents just 0.4% of the Amazon? You also fail to mention that the 2000-2005 rate was a peak (excepting an unusual spike in 1995), and has been declining steadily since.

As I pointed out in this thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8902, when green groups quote figures on the Amazon, they could at least be honest enough to compare oranges with oranges.

Your quote on pollution is also in keeping, using a highly unusual instance to make a false, sweeping generalisation.

Similarly your quotes on rivers. The Murray is suffering from a lethal combination of severe drought and government mismanagement: Exactly how does this destroy Lomborg's assertions on global river health?

And why is Lomborg's training as a statistician a problem? He does just what a statistician is supposed to: Analyse the data. Unfortunately for the alarmists, the data turns out not to be too supportive of their claims.

As I've pointed out before (and you've notably failed to answer), neither Al Gore, Sting, Prince Charles are environmental scientists; Tim Flannery has no qualification in climatology. You don't seem to have a problem with them rabbitting on about the imminent threat to Mother Gaia? (I remember Tim banging on about Gaia theory in the late 70s; I thought it was rubbish, but just meaninglessly harmless dope talk).

I note that certain people and publications were very quick to try and rubbish Lomborg - but then threatened to sue him when he replied, point by point, to their claims. And this was after trying to pressure his publishers into submitting his as-yet-unpublished book, to a kangaroo court of the very people he'd most heavily criticised.

Inquisitions always were afraid of the truth getting out.

“And why is Lomborg's training as a statistician a problem?”

Poor old Clownfish who keeps feigning knowledge on the topic. Eh….Clownfish I threw in the “statistician” fish for the trolls to swallow and you took the bait. Lomborg is not a qualified statistician.

“The Murray is suffering from a lethal combination of severe drought and government mismanagement: Exactly how does this destroy Lomborg's assertions on global river health?. “

Well you see Clownfish if you weren’t a sausage banger, you would be able to digest the post more accurately since Lomborg declared way back in the late nineties, when his book was released in Denmark that :

“Progress to date has been achieved through hard work, the market and reasonable regulations.”

Murray River – "progress, regulations, market??" Ten years after Lomborg's fraudulent claims, the Murray's on life support. Catch on Clownfish? No I thought not.

Anyway Clownfish I have much better things to attend to on a Sunday than to read the honkings of retarded trolls. Meanwhile I note Kulin1’s claim:

“it's just that Lomborg's book and some of my other wider reading have made me realise that the evidence of this "emerging crisis" is much thinner”

Please supply me with references to your “wider reading” Kulin1. I look forward to reading them. I appear to be the only one providing any evidence here. However, I’m no skinflint and following are a few more links, including an article published in the respected journal “Nature,” which the more enlightened may find interesting:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6860/full/414149a0.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg18693.html

"The EU Fleet and Chronic Hydrocarbon Contamination of the Oceans:"

http://oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/europe/reports/marpol_eu_chr_hyd_eng.pdf

The contents of the article above (or its relevance to the topic) will be lost on you Clownfish I’m afraid but cheer up - even delusional, catatonic eco-vandals are entitled to express an opinion on the catastrophic consequences of A/hydrocarbon pollution.

Poor old Protagoras, you really are on the ropes, aren't you? It's easy enough to tell: once the spittle starts flying uncontrollably and you resort to schoolyard name-calling.

Er, I would suspect that someone who "is trained in the use of mathematics and statistics in the social sciences", and who lectures in statistics, could reasonably be called a statistician.

"The job of statistician is considered a profession ... most employment as a statistician requires a minimum of a masters degree in statistics or a related field." (which Lomborg has).

Your foaming at the mouth about the Murray river is as irrelevant as anything else you claim: Lomborg is talking about the state of the environment on a global scale. One isolated, local instance does not therefore disprove his claim.

No wonder you almost never answer a question directly: whenever you do, you're invariably caught out.

Clownfish: protag is not "on the ropes" - s/he is rather caught up and bound very tightly in them, all due to protag's own choice.

Not that I have any special animus for David Flint-style queens (or other varieties for that matter). It just seems particularly repugnant when they presume that their predilections grant them special privilege to so glibly taunt, condescend, pose and distract attention from serious issues, instead trying to make all politics and all economics nothing more than just another bunch of fashion statements for the society pages.

[for background psychodramatic insight, see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8920#142411 ]

Protag: "I threw in the “statistician” fish for the trolls to swallow and you took the bait. Lomborg is not a qualified statistician."

In a world of uncertainty, it's comforting to know some things never change, like Protag's unending juvenility...

...and Peter McMahon writing paperweight pieces, and still somehow placing his finger firmly off the pulse.

Protagoras,

Sorry, I haven't kept a list of citations, but have certainly read books from both sides, though none recently (am still reading Lomborg).

As to your links, they contain more material than I have had time to examine over the weekend, but was interested in some of the critique on Lomborg's book and also on his criticism of "An Inconvenient Truth." The first link was extremely informative provided you take on board the bias (which I admit cuts both ways).

I was aware of some of the criticisms of Lomborg's books, but really what they amount to is "hey, some of his points aren't right." I haven't seen anything which shows he is broadly wrong in saying that many of the claims of the environmental movement are flawed or misleading. Referring to the material on the first link you provided - to a website by biologist Kåre Fog, and the references relied upon by both Lomborg and Fog, the FOA report on deforestation:

It is alleged Lomborg's position on deforestation (that there may be more forest than 50 years ago) is deliberately misleading in referring to older data, when more recent 'reliable' data now exists. However this criticism is flawed in two ways. This older data was itself relied upon by some environmentalists as the basis for their conclusions, and more fundamentally, the so called more recent 'reliable' data is no where near as reliable as contended. For example, the country by country data available led the FOA to conclude that forests are being lost at the net rate of 9.4 million hectares a year globally, but to put that in perspective, it estimates global forest cover at 3,869 million hectares as of the year 2000, so the actually estimated loss in percentage terms is estimated at 0.24% per year. Although that figure is moderately alarming, The problem with this data is, as the FOA report concedes:

"In many countries, primary information on forest area was not available or was not reliable. Other countries lacked a time series of forest area information. In these instances, FRA 2000 had to rely on secondary information and/or expert estimates. Table 1-1 summarizes the information availability for forest area. The world average reference year for source data is 1994, with considerably older dates in some developing countries. A high proportion of developing countries had to rely on expert opinion for the latest area estimates. Furthermore, fewer than half of all countries have time series information with high compatibility between the observations."

Overall, and despite the use of remote sensing surveys, at the conclusion of the FOA report it considered that the "precision was high, at ±3 percent "likely range" for forest area." It inevitably follows that an estimated change of .24% per year can not be considered remotely reliable in the face of a margin of error for forest size of +/- 3.0%. Even accepting this modest error rate as constant for earlier time periods (it would likely be much greater given the artificial inferences used to estimate the earlier time periods) an estimated rate of change of .24% is profoundly unreliable in the rate of such an error rate in the underlying gross forest estimates. It follows that according to the FOA's statistics, an increase, rather than a decrease in forest area is within the margins of error of the data set.

The above is just one example, but ultimately matters not whether Lomborg is entirely right, but that he demonstrates at least a significant level of exaggeration and deception being perpetrated by environmentalists which ought to be enough to make us pause and have a good long look at the claims for GW, its causes, and its consequences.

Also, I'd suggest you drop a bunch of your other links. The second link you posted in your reply was a rant by angry bloggers. None of which assists either your cause or civil debate.

Enough for now.. life beckons.

“Also, I'd suggest you drop a bunch of your other links. The second link you posted in your reply was a rant by angry bloggers. None of which assists either your cause or civil debate.”

Kalin1 – the article I provided for your perusal in my “second link” which had been re-published by the reputable Grist Magazine, was authored by Joseph Romm – author, physicist and climate expert and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

“A rant by angry bloggers?”

Your provision of manipulative disinformation does not assist either your cause or civil debate.

Protagoras: "...civil debate".

Finally, I have no option but to use that hackneyed hackronym: l.o.l.!

Good luck to you Kalin. I won't give you any advice on "civil debating" with Protag, as you clearly have your head in the right place, and can draw your own conclusions from her non-response. Just suggest that you consider the follow words in relation to that head and Protag: 'brick', 'a', 'your', 'banging', 'wall' and 'against'.

Spindoc

Personal commitments have intervened since my last comment and I see a lot of water has passed under the bridge, I will try and catch up.

I have to say this spindoc, it is patently clear that you (and people like mil-observer) still do not understand the scientific process. Yes, hypothesis testing, repeatability, etc is extremely important in the search for “truth”, however, it only takes one apple to upset the cart ... then it’s back to the drawing boards.

For example; Newtonian physics has served us well since, well ... Newton’s time. Even today we rely on his theories to launch satellites, fly planes and kill people. However, while Newton’s theories can very very probably explain motion and trajectories very very well in our day to day life, they fall apart (and are improbable) at extreme velocities and extreme gravitational fields. In other words, Newtonian physics is not conclusive, nor are they absolute – regardless of your human imagination.

Same thing with Einstein. It is very probable that his theories on relativity will serve us well, and to his chagrin, kill even more people. But know this, his popular equation E = mc^2 was only corroborated a couple of years ago ... 103 years after it was derived. Now we talk of worm holes, parallel universes and string theory. So, it may be (is possible) that even Einstein’s theories are not probable enough, not conclusive.

Same thing with the enhanced greenhouse effect. The theory has been around for over 100 years, the physics and chemistry of CO2 (and other GHG’s) is very well understood. The hypothesis has been tested time and time again, to such an extent that the rigour of the scientific process has resulted in the theory becoming very robust. However, again, it only takes one other apple to tip the cart. This has not been done. Yet.

As I said, I will change my mind about AGW when the observed (and measurable) fact of stratospheric cooling disappears.

Cont’d

Cont’d

You also don’t understand zero sum games. In terms of climate change issues, our cake is the planet; you cannot make the cake bigger. To solve the issues facing us, we (humanity) must work together for a non-zero end game (positive end game to be more specific).

The only way to do this is if all the stakeholders (while recognising each other’s differences) work together to overcome a common problem. It is not, nor has it become, a binary outcome as you state. Politicians and economists, social and religious structures, and most reasonable people recognise there is a global problem. They are contracting or converging to have a win-win ... a positive sum end game (i.e. no losers in the big scheme of things).

Am I optimistic? I would like to be, but no ... not really. Whilst I’ll trust my science, I am losing ‘faith’ in the human condition :-(

Having said that, I think I will go and have a drink :-)

Later.

Q&A, thanks for the follow up and the points you raised. Having previously agreed that our debate is less about science and more about a socio-political phenomena, it’s disappointing that we have to go back to science. All I can do is refer you to my previous points addressing these, to which I might add, you have not responded.

<<I have to say this spindoc, it is patently clear that you (and people like mil-observer) still do not understand the scientific process.>>

Now that was not very nice was it? I can’t speak for mil-observer, but to trash my 40 years in engineering and science does not reflect well on you.

<<You also don’t understand zero sum games. In terms of climate change issues, our cake is the planet; you cannot make the cake bigger.>>

Actually I do understand. In terms of “climate change issues” the cake is the “issues” not the “planet”. I think you transposed the “object” just to give yourself “wiggle room”. I might add that the “issues cake” is restricted artificially by the limitations imposed by the AGW’ers. By limiting the debate to pre-formed parameters, e.g. the globe “is” warming, the cause “is” atmospheric carbon and the answer “is” an ETS, the debate is prevented from including other considerations (AGW’ers stopping the debate cake from being grown).

<<Politicians and economists, social and religious structures, and most reasonable people recognize there is a global problem.>>

Not nice Q&A, Two points. Firstly, I’m not a politician, economist or a social and religious structure, and because my views differ from these, that means I fail as “reasonable person”. Secondly, what on earth have these people got to do with science? Their “scientific” views have absolutely no value, their socio-political views do.

(continued)

Continued)

As to the matters of biosphere science, I can’t comment, I’m not qualified in the discipline. What I will address are your comments about Newton and Einstein. Science is based upon doubt but supported by products of our imagination, we consider possibilities, probabilities then model them, then work out some contingencies. All scientists try to progress from soft science towards hard science. The climate change debate is “soft” science at the moment.

It does not serve your case well to suggest that <<Einstein’s theories are not probable enough, not conclusive. >> Tell that to the victims in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Yes, science is never finished however; we can all recognize the bits that are “hard science”.

As pointed out in a previous post, “As to whether we are talking “soft” or “hard” science? I can readily accept a continuum where soft science is a “one” and hard science is a “ten”. Then we can evaluate how “hard” the science must be against the magnitude of the problem. I feel this debate has been promoted as “high” magnitude in order to allow “soft” science as acceptable”.

I think I’ve taken each of your points head on and responded to them, if any were missed please point me to them. Since you appear to avoid taking key issues head on and seem reluctant to do so, I guess we have reached an impasse; we will have to agree to disagree.

Shame really, we covered some good starting points but failed to make it to a conclusion.

Catch you on another thread I’m sure, enjoy your drink :-)

I'm sorry spindoc has decided to take his ball home without letting me catch up with the rest of his issues.

Ball, bat and wickets still in play Q&A. Just thought from your comments that you were all tied up with "busy". Would love to keep the dialogue going.

Q&A, still waiting for you to catch up with the rest of the issues?

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26793

extract/quote<<...predictive programming,..they tell some fictionalized story of a woman’s life..in the future..where the entire world is destroyed due to overpopulation,global warming and resource depletion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pcZuSDq2SE

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Earth2100
The earth is a hellhole,the whole middle of the United States is an unlivable desert with no water,..they tell a fictional story of a plague killing people en masse..and how everyone has to be quarantined to fight it,..

the US is in total bedlam but NY and California are the only places you can live because they are..“sustainable”..cities.

..they have some musical-interlude where they have..Obama’s voice speaking about how all the changes we made in the past saved us..(in the shows present).etc...It really sounded like Obama actually personally recorded this just for this propaganda piece.

At the end they say..how this whole disaster scenario is not set in stone,..and how we can avert catastrophe..(even though they made this whole thing up)..if we only change our way of life and re-engineer our entire society through living..“sustainably.”..based no doudt on a compulsory carbon tax..carbon creditfor big business..[who's market/value is determined by market speculators]

What they don’t tell you..air conditioning is not considered sustainable,..eating meat is not considered sustainable,..having appliances in your house is not sustainable,..having suburban housing is not sustainable,..driving a car or using any fossil-fuels is not sustainable,..

these are all things globalist millionaires..who no doubt lives a life of poverty and chastity)..feel must no longer be allowed to be used by those of us in the..“affluent middle class.”

InformationLiberation Analysis:

We are talking about,..turning the US into a literal third world dictatorship..If these people get their way it will be hell on earth,..this propaganda is so dangerous..it must be exposed for what it is.

Read the quotes of these top globalists below and ask yourself if this is a world you want to live in,..continues at link
http://www.infowars.com/earth-2100-new-world-order-agenda-on-primetime-television/

With the environment as a front which is often the case with the New World Order’s Agenda the Illuminati’s premise..of the Human Condition as the enemy..and the need to decrease us in order to sustain this planet is clear and present..see the Georgia Guidestones
http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm

Spindoc

Been away. It looks like other OLO articles have overtaken this thread.

One under God, if you, Cheryl and that other bloke who has been banned, continue with your profligate use of the earth's resources, the scenarios depicted above may well come to fruition.

David