"If the British group fudged their data, as alleged, it could not have been by much because they still got the same answer as the other groups."

Exactly! We KNOW that one set of data was riddled with errors, omissions and post-hoc adjustments for political purposes:

http://tinyurl.com/ycr4jq3

But the other data sets match it almost perfectly...

So what does that tell us?

All this hoopla from the denialists and skeptics has put doubt in a lot of peoples’ minds regarding the veracity of AGW.

However, I agree with Geoff Davies that ‘Çlimategate’ amounts to nothing more than a storm in a teacup and the denialists are on the wrong side of history.

Those against AGW have given it their best shot….and they did a pretty good job. But that’s it, they’ve effectively burnt themselves out, and the veracity of AGW will come to prevail.

In effect, the denialists have helped the cause, by basically getting it out of their system in one big tantrum, and in so doing, increased the resolve of those who a concerned about climate change, to show how foolish they are.

----

PS - Susan Prior, could you possibly insert the missing graphs in this article.

Geoff Davies is fudging. The contents of the hacked e-mails are only part of the damination of the IPCC report contents. That report was based on the work on climate history and the charting of temperatures over 150 years. That was the heralded solid basis for the conclusion the globe was warming.

Geoff omits to tell us the reason for the resignation of the Directer of the Hadley Unit at the University of East Anglia, the Unit that produced the info for the IPCC report, was not the contents of the e-mails but because the Unit had lost the raw data collected and used to formulate the history of world temperatures.

What sort of scientist losses his raw data?

No Geoff, sorry but your explanation has ignored the major relevant fact and as such you are unimformed or fudging. I reckon fudging. I'd have to ask why?

Geoff Davies, and Andrew Glikson – how to combat their “alarmist” statements?

1. They depend upon computer models. Crook stuff, those. Models should be generated using calculating machines; ah, too much like computers. Perhaps using the tool of logarithms would be acceptable – no; suspiciously modern, Napier dreamed them up only 300 years ago – and he was a Scotsman anyway – totally unacceptable. Best to get back to the quill and paper – Biblical Papyrus preferably.

2. The climate is always changing - have them by the short and curlies there! And life thrived after such changes – oh, better be quiet about that word after; most species died out in the process of change, if not in the first extinction the next, or the next – great slaughter: evolve to another species or terminate your line of evolution! Protozoans given special licence.

3. They have not the field experience, the long-term view of the history of life on earth. Wait a bit - just might have to put that one on hold, damn! It seems that these blokes have been poking into four billion years of the planet’s pedigree, wading through the spiky leaves of spinifex in the process.

4. Ah well, Homo sapiens is the pinnacle of evolution and designed to cope with anything mother nature can throw at it. So what, if we came down from the trees a couple of million years back to paddle around in grassland, –we survived the Hyenas; had the brains to develop fire-lighting capability for that. Pity about agriculture having capability of persistence only over the past ten thousand years; dare-say we have the brains to cope with conditions of three million years ago – sure to develop the evidence of that shortly.

Of course the "skeptics" have been very clever in their use of the word skeptic.

They have thus been able to frame the shouting match to make it look as though they are open minded about the situation.

But in Truth they are really just one-eyed true believers.And thus, in effect, lackeys for big business and their 24/7 "public relations" or rather global spin.

Just as those who call themselves skeptics re the existence of God, paranormal phenomenon and "alternative" (that is non-allopathic) healing methods. Such people are true believers in the reductionist dogmas of scientism.

quote from the change-agent...<<And many people..who claim scientists are conspiring on global warming..just to obtain research money overlook..the trillion-dollar incentives of fossil fuel..companies to conspire to deny global warming>>.

lol not that the quadrillions this new carbon dospennsation/credit will raise...through eternity.

ps please proove..not just billion...but trillions,...dude
from what time..you figuring this over?../..how much say since 2002..?

<<The scientists became suspicious..they were being set up in a political sting operation.>>>thats good because they were[and that were from govt and bankers...not big petro

<<They were receiving..seemingly>>>or unseemingly...seems by the emails they did unseemly things..chgange manuipluate data..mat..change data?..distort peer recvieuw...?

these are science BASICS..mate...add in the revelation of its a shame the data..dosnt reveal warming??

huh?

<<excessive requests,from people they weren’t familiar with?>>>
great name this extensove list of economists/lawyers and polititions/bankers....,

<<not only for publicly-available data..but for details of intermediate calculations,..for computer code,..even for computer code that would run on any platform.>>>oh and it seems compuyter programers and spooks

<<The full record of the emails is one of conscientious>>?..lol

the full list is extensive...the proof of their crime is in three

<<very hard-working/scientists..trying to ensure..the science wasn’t distorted by political interests.>>>yet funnilly enough the proof reveal;s they FAILED

<<Is the idea..of a sting operation/just another crazy conspiracy theory?>>>mate we had sars scares...y2k...bird flue....the meltdown..the BAILOUT...immediate bailout...seems we are getting the fear campain,,,again..when the tax...wont fix the problem..its supposed to cure

PERMITS TO POLUTE
mean they will be..permitted to polute
thus no change..except a subsidy to polute...lol

sold by spin merchants like you

<<What is striking is..how readily many people..who call themselves sceptics...>>>or scientists...climate scientists...whaTEVER CLIMATE CHANGE IS...climates change...i live in a sub tropical climate

sceptics//lol..<<have been willing to swallow..without question the>> science interpretation....<<spun from highly selected,..out-of-context emails>>>issued revealing an conspiricy to decieve

change numbers
subvert revieuw
create a fiction
support a lie

to bring on a cure/...that dont treat the symptom..one little bit
for a problem...their own email reveals...dosnt match their/your theor

"Sceptics and denialists misunderstand or misrepresent the scientific process." Rubbish, and we now know that Scientists in climate science do misrepresent data don't we?

Scientists are like anyone else in the community, attracted to money, these are not priests, oh .. I guess in your Consensual First Church of the Settled Scientists, they are.

You're not a climate scientist are you? AGW believers will complain about you mentioning Climate Science you know, or is that only if they are skeptical?

Other scientific areas will be tarnished by this little cartel in the UK, maybe there are other scientific frauds going on?

Usually the MSM are quite defendent of whistleblowers?

What's the problem? (worried about losing funding, a grant perhaps?)

If it's all good data and nothing to worry about - what's the issue?

You need to relax Geoff, methinks you protest too loudly. Do you think your credibility is being questioned? Should it be?

I'm sure if there's nothing in those email and source code, you wouldn't worry about them.

No one doubts that the climate changes or whether it is warming, and you know that don't you - the argument for us the Liberals etc, is whether it is man caused and even if it is, by how much - you try to make out that anyone who doubts, does not believe in science.

Your dishonest article is a typical "believer" attack and tries to weasel around things, tries to make out there's a conspiracy, mentions Exxon Mobil - and you wonder why people are beginning to suspect scientists (climate or not) are not straight up and down - I'll show your article to people to show just how tricky and sleazy scientists are trying to protect their little realms.

Like PM Rudd and all the hysterical ranters, you are alienating people .. keep it up, it helps the skeptical cause no end!

Apologies Ludwig. I wanted to get this article up quickly this morning which meant there was a slight delay between posting it and getting the urls for the graphs. It is all fixed now.
Susan - ed

There’s that silly “climate denialists” whine, again! The way this bloke puts it, people who are not in a frenzy about climate change are now denying that there is any such thing as ‘climate’, let alone climate change. There is no such word as ‘denialist’ either.

There is no point in listening to someone who cannot express himself properly in English, our national language.

This laziness in expression fits in with the climate hysterics’ laziness in the ‘science’ they claim backs up their man-made theory of climate change. Everyone else is wrong; dodgy computer models are right, even though they are not good enough to give accurate forecasts on a day to day or weekly basis,and their graphs and diagrams are right – just like the ‘hockey stick’ diagram?

“The denial of global warming by the Liberal Party is now exposed to the bright sunlight. Denialism lurks also in the other major parties, courtesy of the coal lobby.”

Oh Please! Labelling the Libs “denialists because they didn’t pass Rudd’s ridiculous ETS is typical of the hysteria surrounding this issue. Throw in the coal lobby for good measure! Already we are seeing “experts” from around the globe saying that an ETS is not the answer. If Rudd, Wong et al were really worried about climate change they wouldn’t be swanning around the globe telling anyone who will listen what great warriors they are. They would be curbing their ridiculously huge carbon footprint, employ a little technology (rather than jet aircraft) for meetings and get on with a few practical efforts at home.

Why does our “green” PM reject nuclear power out of hand? Australia should be leading the world in this low emitting technology. The only reason our per head emissions are so high is our reliance on coal fired power stations. Solar and wind power are not going to run Brisbane’s electric train network let alone the factories that produce wind turbines and solar panels. CO2 sequestration will require almost half of a stations output to function (if they could make it work).

Another simple solution would be to legislate for every vehicle (passenger and light delivery) sold after, say, 2014 be powered by natural gas or gas/electric hybrid.

There are many simple, effective solutions but the global power brokers are determined to get richer on the coat tails of carbon trading and ET schemes. In the eyes of the Gores and Goldman Sachs of this world GW is all about profit.

I must be naive but I thought that scepticism was the essence of science, with scientists constantly trying to disprove various theories. This is one of the principal reasons that I am convinced something stinks about the whole process. The hectoring of dissidents, labelling them as "deniers" (with the implied comparison to holocaust deniers), and the way the whole subject has been hijacked towards increased payments to the third world, confirms my belief that it is a put up job. If it were true that CO2 emissions must be reduced, they have to be reduced by everyone, rich and poor alike. The attempt to portray the third world as victims, rather than as villians, illustrates this. It should be remembered that 50 years ago the world population was 3 billion, and next year it will be 7 billion, with the third world responsible for 85% of the increase. Supporters of the third world claim that this doesn't matter because their emissions are so low, ignoring the huge immigration to the west who all soon start emitting at western rates. The proposals to pay huge sums to the third world so they will cut their emissions simply will not be approved. The simplest way to solve this is to tell them that if they don't cut their emissions they will lose the aid they currently receive. If that doesn't work bomb their cities, shell their ports, cut off all trade and aid until they comply. It worked with Serbia.

The other reason that makes me scepticial is that the IPCC assumes that emissions will continue to increase despite the fact that we a running out of oil, and particularly cheap oil. Again, the assumption that we will have continuous economic growth is very courageous considering that we may be entering a 40 year depression.

Geoff. I am a sceptic. But about what, do you think?

There is evidence for local and regional climate change in many places. But is this 'global' climate change (more accurately 'warming')? To my mind that is far from proven. It is evident that the main temperature series have been tampered with. Have a look, for example at the blink comparator of the GISS temperature series used in 1990 by Hansen et al, and that used now. It is evident that the early 20th C temperatures have been 'adjusted' down. It is also very evident that the delta Urban Heat Island effect (by which I mean changes in UHI effects) are contributing to apparent warming.

You seem to be convinced that CO2 is the worst/most serious problem. But how do YOU know that? The case has never been made in a compelling, engineering quality case that would pass normal due diligence required for stock exchange statements. In my view it is highly unlikely that CO2 is the problem. It is certainly not proven.

Focussing on CO2 is diverting attention/resources away from the real problems of AGW to a silly diversion.

The REAL issue relates to land-use factors. In short, we have disrupted natural hydrological cycles in many areas, leading to dehydration of the landscape. There is heaps of evidence that this is so - check Peter Andrews, Permaculture and lots of others. Industrial agriculture, destruction of vegetation in various ways, irrigation, chemicals, monocultures are all factors.

Roger Pielke Sr documents these factors in real detail, and provides substantial evidence.

Please use your critical thinking capabilities and have another look at the issues.

As if someone from the ANU would go against the 'consensus'. It would be like asking a lecturer at ANU to give a balanced and honest view of the Middle East conflicts.

Geoff writes in regards to Mr Fielding 'The scientists who feed such misinformation to politicians are guilty of an elementary misinterpretation of a data series, and an elementary misunderstanding of the nature of climate'

I suppose he would prefer the politicians to take data from the deceitful, omitted and corrupt data provided by the 'experts'. This is exactly how Gore and Flannery have been allowed to promote their fairytales with no questions being asked. It seems to me that the defenders of this corruption, deceit and lies have become the deniers of reality, not those demanding just a little bit of scientific evidence before committing the taxpayer to this fraudulent tax.

Just my 2c worth

In Sydney today the meteologist got the temperature wrong by 5C, this was from yesterday's prediction. If we cannot predict todays weather 1 day in advance with any accuracy

How can we estimate weather in 2050 with any accuracy?

The first thing that you learn in a science degree is that all scientists should be 'skeptics'. Climate scientists should start with the theory that human activity does not 'contribute ' to climate change, and then attempt to prove this theory wrong. There is always pressure (even at early stages in your career) to produce results that support your hypothesis or that may be financially beneficial, but a true scientist should always seek the truth. As a scientist I would like to see more criticism of the scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. By not criticizing the action of these people it harms the reputation of all scientists, regardless of your opinion on AGW.

Personally I would believe a set of data if it also included some analysis which does support the hypothesis, as you know that the researchers are not excluding or manipulating their results. Truth is, I began to become concerned that something dodgy was going on as soon as politicians got involved.

P.S. Is it not true that scientists claim we are 'contributing' to global warming, not 'causing', thus the effects of global warming will happen regardless. Why aren't green/conservation groups talking about this? I get really annoyed when I hear people talking about 'stabilizing global temperatures', as if we can actively maintain the climate status quo for eternity. Also, using 'The Greens' and 'sensible, cost-effective' is the same sentence... your kidding right?

Of course it's all a storm in a teacup, a three card trick designed to keep discussion away from the politically embarrassing truth.

Climate change is inevitable - further discussion is rather silly. It is also obvious that no matter what transpires at Copenhagen it will be too little too late - check out other links provided by Geoff. So debate should be about what is the best reaction to the inevitability, and quite obviously our political leaders want to avoid this issue, because they lack the political will to take appropriate action.

So it's important to keep us arguing about whether it's all scientific or not - as long as it keeps us away from meaningful discussion about what can and should be done.

As for the thought that anything we do in Australia will make any real difference - come on, pull the other leg! This is just the old cultural cringe resurfacing!

Have a look at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/breathing-space-on-climate-change/story-e6frg6zo-1225807897176

And Geoff - your previous posting is correct - Anamele is my pseudonym, but I haven't yet worked out how to change it to Peter McCloy.

If everything is above board and transparent why was it necessary for the SPM on page 2 change the definition of what constitutes CC to the all inclusive one of covering both natural and Anthroprogenic..and not make that clear when subsequently talking about CC.

Of course the real reason is that it confuses the issue and makes it almost impossible to manage,.The dishonest politicians go along with the dispreputable scientists to ensure that the populace remains suitably confused and thus beholden to this mystical and superior knowledge

What bunchs of frauds

Sorry, global warming has not been cancelled and here's the proof:

"One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea"

It's all in Al Gore's poem.

Religious and a romantic. I'm impressed.

He wrote it in his Lincoln Town Car limousine on the way to catch his private jet to Copenhagen which then had to take off and find a park at a nearby airport because there wasn't enough room for all the other private jets of the visiting luminaries.

Please remember to turn the light off when you leave the room or we'll all doomed.

<< The first thing that you learn in a science degree is that all scientists should be 'skeptics' >>

Fair enough Stezza.

<< Climate scientists should start with the theory that human activity does not 'contribute ' to climate change, and then attempt to prove this theory wrong. >>

No, no. They should start from the neutral position of having an open mind on whether or not human activity has a significant influence. That is, from a position of being skeptical about both positions.

So they shouldn’t become AGW ‘alarmists’ or ‘denialists’ unless they are sure of their position.

However, if they remain skeptics, they should most definitely err on the side of caution, that human activity could be causing dangerous climate change. And therefore they should be taking basically the same position as the alarmists or AGW advocates and fight for a major change away from our fossil fuel fuelled energy regime and towards renewable energy, and other greenhouse gas emission-reducing measures.

The alarmists/advocates and the skeptics should be aligned!! It should only be hardened denialists that are in the do-nothing business-as-usual camp!

This appears to be the least vitriolic forum on AGW yet, as much as the author tries to stir emotion.

Maybe AGW really has run its course.

Perhaps PM Rudd will debate Tony Abbott .. and pigs will fly.

Good article, Geoff Davies. However, it seems to me that most of the so-called climate "skeptics" here at OLO have invested far too much bluster and bile in denialism for a measured and reasonable argument like yours to have any chance of enlightening them.

Even in the face of the trenchant climate delusionism that we see here all too often, it's probably worth real scientists like you reiterating the science as often as possible. At least when the crap hits the fan, those of the denialists masquerading as skeptics who are still alive won't be able to say they weren't told.

without doubt the climate has changed. Is it natural or man made?

I suggest an experiment, would all the man made beleivers, in order to capture carbon, put a plastic bag over their heads. This would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air we breath.

I do not accept the idea of AGW because I think that there are far too many holes in the science. One example among many concerns the origin and residence time of CO2 in the air. What follows here is the Abstract from a paper by Tom Segalstadt, Associated professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo.
'In a paper recently published in the international peer reviewed journal "Energy and Fuels" Dr. Robert Essenhigh (2009) Professor of Energy conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2 is about 5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is about 16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with the supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural souces(about 95%). Hence anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapour. The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperatures rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr Essenhogh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources'

I do not necessarily have to accept Segalstad's views, but at least I must consider them. It is untrue to say that the 'science is settled' for it clearly is not.

And if you want a really big problem that really does unarguably exist try human population growth!

Any scientist worth their salt is a sceptic.To accuse Tony Abbott or anyone who wants to see the whole truth of being a denalist, equated with holocaust deniars,is adhominen of the lowest order.

The science is not settled,and carbon derivatives traded by the Global corporates will not reduce CO2 one iota.

CJ in denial about skepticism, as usual.

I beg to differ.

To believe in AGW you need to be convinced of TWO things:
1) The earth is warming , &
2) That warming is due to anthropocentric factors

If the earth is warming, but it’s short term blip/cycle (and long term in earth terms is not a decade or two, or even a century!) --- AGW is false
If the earth is warming, even be it long term, but it’s not anthropogenically induced --- AGW is still false

AGWers have proposed remedial measures in the guise of “give the earth the benefit of the doubt” .
And if you’re talking insurance premium figures -- this may be fair strategy.

But such leading AGWers as Richard Tol are talking of “$US40 trillion in 2100”, much of which will seemingly go as compensation to developing nations.With such large stakes, it would be prudent to be more than a little SURE of your position .Especially since, when the AGW-special-funding has been burnt , it’s a safe bet that the developed world will still be required to contribute traditional aid to many such developing nations,.

Another reason we need to sceptical is quite a bit of the information we’re being fed belongs to the genre hard-sell shonk.
NewScientist [04/07/09] --- a magazine that just luuuuvs to spruik AGW.
i) Sea levels are rising
ii) A 1 metre will put 60million people at risk
iii) By 2100 it’s likely to be 130million,
[ conclusion: Decisive action is required to cut CO2 emissions now]
Question1: why would endangered nations grow from 60 to 130 million if they’re facing such dire straits?
Question2: why does the report NOT investigate the prudency of them controlling populations & settlement patterns?

Which all leads me to think AGW is NOT primarily about: “ Gee-whiz the world is warming, we’d better cut back on our polluting” or, “Gee-whiz we’re running out of oil, we’d better develop alternatives”. For the donor nations its more like , “Gee-whiz lets borrow a couple of billion and plunk it all on red 16 at the casino”

Like I said, bluster and bile. Ignorance prevails.

AGW is no longer a scientific issue, based on data, hypothesis testing, interpretation, modelling and extrapolation. It's become a fullblown political nightmare.

I really hope the denialists are right, because I can't see anything remotely effective coming out of Copenhagen. It'll be the ideological silliness we've just seen here writ large - any proposals that might actually reduce greenhouse emissions will be negotiated back to useless symbolic gestures, just like the abortion of an ETS that the Senate just rejected.

The only thing that will help will be if the climate delusionists prove to be correct, and that AGW is really a mass fantasy and conspiracy shared and promoted by the world's leading climate specialists, not to mention the great majority of ordinary people with access to media, internet and library resources.

I really, really hope that the climate delusionists are right.

A few "inconvenient truths" for those who would like to name themselves "sceptics" but in reality

1. Do not accept the basic laws of physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.
2. Have been fabricating numbers and false plots in their non-peer-review articles over the last 10 years.
3. Liberally use ad-hominem against climate scientists.
4. Raise absurd conspiracy theories against the world's premier climate science organizations (Hadley-Met, NASA/GISS, Potsdam, NSIDC, CSIRO).

And yet have the temerity to complain some scientists do not provide them with unpublished raw data ...

Especially Andy1 they pretend the laws of physics do not exist.

Scepticism is good.

Denial of reality is dysfunctional.

That is so silly Stephen.

The laws of physics don't allow AGW to be caused by CO2.

The only way their models can get a warming result is to assume a positive feedback from water vapour.

All the evidence to date is that the feedback is exactly the opposite, with any warming quickly cancelled by cloud formation. In that respect, AGW has been cancelled, although it is probably impossible to cancell something that never existed.

As before, a little honesty by your idles, & the host of B grade academics currently rushing into print would help.

Obviously they don't have the physics, or simply value their jobs, more than their future reputation. Still, I guess it is only the main players who will be despised in the future. The rest are easily forgotten.

Hasbeen,

You promised me some research that demonstrates that increasing CO2 levels are cancelled by declining water vapour levels. YOU HAVE NOT DELIVERED.

I have given you links to websites that explain the science and allow you to do you own calculations. This physics has been known for more than 100 years. It has nothing to do with some (not all) climate scientists playing hanky panky with data.

Increasing CO2 levels can, and everything else being equal, WILL, cause global warming. Increasing cloud cover MAY mitigate global warming. It MAY also trap more heat. It's a two-edged sword.

Another factor that may mitigate or delay CO2 driven global warming is increasing dust levels in the atmosphere.

BTW where did you get this figure of 95% or 98% or whatever of the greenhouse effect being caused by water vapour? It has no basis in reality.

What is true is that hot air can hold more water vapour than cooler air. More water evaporates from a hotter ocean surface than a cooler surface. The water vapour content of the air IS increasing. This IS AMPLIFYING the greenhouse effect.

The difficulty with climate science is this:

We are trying to detect what is still a weak signal from a noisy background. We are trying to detect the signal while it is weak precisely because if we wait for it to get strong it may be game over for human civilisation.

Scepticism is good.

Denialism is dysfunctional.

Any dispassionate individual looking at the evidence thus far should be able to see that the basic physics, coupled with observation, is strong enough to mandate action.

I WISH IT WEREN'T SO HASBEEN.

I truly do.

But it is what it is. Those of us in the reality based community will simply have to push ahead on this issue to the best of our ability.

To quote you back at yourself, you won't believe it no matter what the evidence.

we heard the media cry wolf too often

recall sadman insane..
and his weopens of mass destraction..
standing in the un ...with drawings?

recall the bird fluke..when pigs flew
it seems the latest children overboard media beat up

lets face it the spin merchants test market their proffitable spin
to sell us down the creek...im over their beat ups...if the media cant begin delivering real news...not sport.,,and spin...

and the 50/50 weather..[wether?...for casting..[or is it spinning]...todays talking points...econo-mists giving business certainty...lol...a new tax to rebuild yet more industry

a new cash cow...yes chicken little the moon is falling...maybe tghis time...maybe next time...itr may be true...but then it might be lies /spin and delusion...again

one thing is for sure....the media gets it on the fear side everytime..dosnt attempt to get it right..as the 5 media companies..entertaintment/conglomerates consolidate their powers..into 3...running their spin machine

now for the latest wepons of mass destraction...ho ho ho..yeah its media silly season...still...consumers..driven by fear..from the lackluster panic medium/media...to seek out comfort food...

let us alone...go spin your delusions to your kids...were trying to die in dignity here...from natural causes..if possable...with the air con on full if need be...and the heater..if you got it wrong again

If you are fair dinkum about global warming, well do something about it.
Don't wait for govt; to come up with mass ideas,It all starts with you.
What the general public has to do is cut down or out co2.
When the public achieves this there will be enough co2 savings for industry to continue. That is why they are collecting carbon credits.
It's far easier for the public members to cut down first, then work on business. Filthy diesel engines can be converted to LPG now.
Get a KW of power on ya roof, and solar ot water.
New houses should come standard with these things.
Run ya toilet with tank water.
It's all to easy to wait for govt; to tell you what to do, do something for yourself.

Climate scientists, enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame, have let the glare of the spotlights blind and befuddle their thinking.

Climate scientists are hell bent on threatening us all with the consequences of ignoring their prophecies of doom

However, they are very silent on the benefits to us all of implementing their strategies

So we lower some theoretical measure of supposed pollution?

What are the anticipated benefits?

Where are the “Cost : Benefit” analyses?

What is the added value of all this hysteria?

If, setting up a ETS and following headlong into reducing supposed emissions back to 80% what they were theorised to be 20 years ago means that a seal colony will survive in Greenland and the Moose will continue to migrate from an icy wilderness I must ask – will it all be worth it ?

will Canada once again see a return of the fabled "northern penguin"?

Will it be worth a brass razzo when the supposed pollution limits are either exempted or ignored by the nations who represent 75% the world population and 100% the world population growth?

It sounds more and more like just a plan of self abuse of the developed world

Now, we all know the only outcome of self-abuse is to go blind

And with the tattered reputation for ethicacy of the so-called “science" of climate change,

I cannot help thinking that would just be another example of

The blind leading the blind.

We have in Australia a Cult, one that is anti-authoritarian and consequently anti-intellectual.
I say cult, because it has gone beyond healthy suspicion, to the point of fingers in the ears and la la la-ing with extraordinary ferocity lest something intelligent seep through.

Due to an environment bombards the public with so much false and or dubious information, they don't know who to believe.

This is exacerbated by a dysfunctional political system, a the government fails to lead, through fear of an interest groups lead backlash which might, heaven forbid, put them out of power.

On the other side, an opposition, it's now official (Abbott, Lateline), that sees its whole focus on being oppositional and discrediting the government regardless, to the exclusion of the interests of the country.

Abbott, last night admitted that he hadn't sought any scientist advice on AGW. He also admitted to changing his mind several times. This will undoubtedly appeal to the anti intellectualism of the cultist rump of Liberal support.

Who, from reading this and other sites, go to extraordinary irrational levels avoiding actual science (101 et al) to justify business as normal.

The denialists/sceptics (title is irrelevant) call the other side, without really understanding what they're inferring, alarmists, catastrophe-ists.

Ask yourself , if the alarmists et al are such, what is their motive? Do alarmists have some immunity to the drama of change? Or do you really believe that the majority of scientists and alarmists are insane, that they WANT to suffer uncertainty and traumatic change?

While the Anti-intellectual cultists are busy doing what their doing, global warming (anthropomorphic or not) is melting 150 cubic kilometres of ice extra each year from the Antarctic, adding to the Arctic and glaciers melting (observable, science fact, not opinion). What do they think is going to happen? What was telling on Lateline after Abbott was the new scientific data (worth a look).

Like it or no,t we need to prepare and that will cause massive expenditures, that in turn will affect our lives. So I ask What are you going to do about that?

eyejaw: "One example among many concerns the origin and residence time of CO2 in the air"

With respect to how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere, a year ago I heard an interview with Freeman Dyson, an AGW sceptic, which discussed among other things his debate with Robert May about the subject.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation/stories/2008/2444172.htm

I'll quote what Dyson said in that article directly, as he puts it much better than I can:

"Oh it's just a simple confusion between two ways of measuring the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He says carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for 100 years, I say it stays in the atmosphere for 10 years and the difference is very simple in that any particular molecule of carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for 10 years, that's a fact that is easily measurable. But it turns out for every carbon dioxide molecule that disappears into vegetation another one is released by what they call respiration which is essentially decay of leaves and grass so that every carbon dioxide molecule that's absorbed by a tree is replaced by another one except for a small fraction. So the 10-year lifetime is the lifetime of a molecule without replacement, the 100-year lifetime is the lifetime with replacement. It's a very simple confusion that we happen to use different definitions of lifetime."

Thus as far as I tell, there is no disagreement about the facts. Obviously, when it comes to whatever Green House effect the CO2 is going to have, the 100 year measurement is the more useful one. However the fast rate of recycling does effect arguments about how responses by vegetation could influence CO2 in the medium term. Disagreements about these potential eeffects of vegetation is where the true difference between May and Dyson lay.

As for Tom Segalstadt - his position is just plain weird. You can find a list of reasons why the CO2 rise is believed to be caused by humans here: http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html I find the isotope evidence the most convincing.

CJ, I too desperately hope that the denialists are right.

NOTHING of any substance can come out of Copenhagen.

Check out what NASA climate scientist, Dr James Hansen, had to say about the magnitude of the issue that we are up against and the hopelessness of the Copenhagen meeting, on Monday’s Lateline program.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/ Go to the segment titled; Climate scientist discusses Copenhagen summit. You only need to listen to about the first five minutes to get the picture.

Or read the transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm

----

I tried to post this post 14 hours ago but got brickwalled by the 2-posts-in-24-hours rule. Aaarrggh!!

That is enormously restrictive when you want to comment on new article threads that are hot–to-trot about current and very important topics! );>{

See my general thread on this complant! http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3272

CJ Morgan, I presume there are more who read these articles than comment on them. I write for them and for those who might be interested in some constructive discussion.

Regarding the latter, there have been some good questions raised in these comments (among the many assertions). But why do many here seem to just assume scientists haven’t thought of these questions already, and looked into them? Also, have those who are so sure there’s no proof, or it’s all been fudged, actually looked into the scientific literature, or just taken a cue from some website?

An example of a good question: if they can’t forecast next week’s weather, how can they forecast the climate in fifty years? Well, there are many systems that fluctuate erratically around a slowly-changing mean. The fluctuations are hard to predict, though the mean can be inferred from a longer-term average. Weather is the fluctuation, climate is the slowly changing mean. Climate can be predicted relatively well, compared with weather, paradoxical as that may seem at first.

Some other points raised in the comments have already been covered, as you would see from a more careful reading of the article and links. For example, of course there is still scientific debate, even some who question basic findings. This doesn’t automatically mean the science should be dismissed out of hand. The IPCC has determined that the great majority of scientists think humans are *contributing substantially* to global warming (to use properly careful phrasing). This is not proof, and isn’t presented as proof. It’s the profession’s best collective judgement, which is what is required by policy makers.

One more point. Yes climate fluctuates naturally. However it has been rather stable for the 10,000 years in which civilisation developed. Big changes are likely to disrupt and degrade the present global industrial system, with consequent falling living standards, poverty, death etc. I’m not willing to be as sanguine about that as some who comment here. When you talk about changes, the time scale is important, as well as the magnitude.

Come om Geoff, pull the other one mate. Stable for 10,000 years. A strange kind of stable.

A wine grape industry in northern England, & cows grazing Greenland during the medieval warm period. A fair bit hotter than today, say +3C.

Then how about fairs held on the ice on the thames during the little ice age. How much colder was that? How about -3C.

The kind of rubbish, pushed by you lot is exactly what makes it impossible for any thinking person to believe all the garbage you spin.

If you have anything like real evidence, put it on the table,

If some of it is a bit each way, try the truth, [I know that would feel strange to you], you could find a ready audience, once we can turn off our bull sh1t detectors.

Anyone who can believe your above post, either wants to believe, or is a simpleton.

“Climate scientists, enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame, have let the glare of the spotlights blind and befuddle their thinking.”

Couldn’t be further from the truth.

“Climate scientists are hell bent on threatening us all with the consequences of ignoring their prophecies of doom”.

Such a stupid statement, Col. But I'll defend your right to make them.

“However, they are very silent on the benefits to us all of implementing their strategies.”

Actually, it is the politicians, economists and captains of industry that will be implementing strategies. But some people, Col, have got their head so firmly buried in the mud (or stuck up their butt) that it is impossible for them to see that.

“So we lower some theoretical measure of supposed pollution? What are the anticipated benefits? Where are the “Cost : Benefit” analyses? What is the added value of all this hysteria?”

You really haven’t been paying attention, Col.

“If, setting up a ETS ... means that a seal colony will survive in Greenland and the Moose will continue to migrate from an icy wilderness ... will Canada once again see a return of the fabled "northern penguin ... will it all be worth it?”

Stop smoking the stuff Col, you always distort the big picture.

“Will it be worth a brass razzo when the supposed pollution limits are either exempted or ignored by the nations who represent 75% the world population and 100% the world population growth?”

Be part of the solution Col – surely you have gained some skills in your accountancy career that is not so narcissistic.

“It sounds more and more like just a plan of self abuse of the developed world ... Now, we all know the only outcome of self-abuse is to go blind ... And with the tattered reputation for ethicacy of the so-called “science" of climate change ... I cannot help thinking that would just be another example of the blind leading the blind.”

Col, as has been said before ... you are the one stroking it, and you are as misguided as ever.

Hasbeen: "A wine grape industry in northern England, & cows grazing Greenland during the medieval warm period. A fair bit hotter than today, say +3C."

Geoff didn't give any sources, and neither did you. So I went looking and found this: http://j.mp/5z0vTh

That graph plots 8 different proxies for world temperature over the last 12,000 years. None show world wide variations of the sort you claim. In fact Geoff's characterisation of "Stable for 10,000 years" seems pretty good.

Perhaps you are cherry picking the data, using temperatures in a particular location rather than the world average we are discussing here?

Q&A “Actually, it is the politicians, economists and captains of industry that will be implementing strategies. But some people, Col, have got their head so firmly buried in the mud (or stuck up their butt) that it is impossible for them to see that.”

That in no way absolves even so called "scientists" from btheir duty to report what they anticipate to be the BENEFITS of the measures they would see imposed on the rest of us.

Of course, that assumes they can find any.

Being a humble accountant, in my professionally developed "sceptical" training and my own extensive practical experience of the ways of the world, especially when dealing with those who hanker after big lumps of other peoples money, -


I have found the primary reason why someone avoids promoting the BENEFITS of their own ideas / pet fetish / personal obsession is very simple


They make little issue of the BENEFITS because


There are absolutely NO BENEFITS to be gained.


the whole "Climate Change Circus" is worse than the fabled "Ponzi" scheme promoted by the Bernard Madoffs of the world

the only difference -

the so-called "scientists" of Climate Change, lacking the "silver tongue" of the professional conman, fall back on the intimidatory methods preferred by kidnappers and blackmailers, to extort their ill gotten gains.


So Q&A, postulate all you like where my mind might be,

all that does is confirm,

your own scientific endeavour and dedication is so spartan that your PERSONAL contribution is likley to be even less than most indolent "climate scientist", in short you are

A waste of good breathable air whose net contribution is measuable in negative contributory terms.

By the way are you still aspiring to emeritus ?

I love it when folk "don the mantle" of their aspirations.. .the sign of a first class fraud, pretending you are more than the sum of all your actual credentials

Q&A – is must be short for “Quaint & Antiquated”

or maybe "Questionable and Artificial"

either way, Q&A certainly represents nothing worth remembering

get the greenies to teach you how to make a carbon cap...first get ya tin foil...and make ya hat...[if the cap fits]

Leaked Copenhagen Document: World Bank To Control Climate Change Slush Fund
http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-climate-summit-in-disarray-after-danish-text-leak.html
The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank.



The climate change conference in Copenhagen is barely under way and
already a leaked draft agreement.... is pitting developing nations against their wealthier counterparts.

If the documents are accurate, the proposal would see more power in the hands of rich nations,
the UN's negotiating role sidelined ...and the Kyoto Protocol abandoned.

Developing nations are furious and say they will not sign on to an inequitable deal
that they argue would limit ...their economic growth.

Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher explains

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-39PIr-PGg

Copenhagen Con Men Launch Global Carbon Tax Heist
http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-con-men-launch-global-carbon-tax-heist.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/capping-emissions-trading-on-the-future.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/doomsday-global-warming-fearmongering-accompanies-copenhagen.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-meaning-of-climategate.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/epas-endangerment-finding-allows-big-government-to-regulate-carbon-emissions.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/woman-who-invented-credit-default-swaps-is-one-of-the-key-architects-of-carbon-derivatives-which-would-be-at-the-very-center-of-cap-and-trade.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pelosi-endorses-%e2%80%98global%e2%80%99-tax-on-stocks-bonds-and-other-financial-transactions.html
Guru Of Science Czar Holdren Called For Doubling CO2 Emissions
http://www.prisonplanet.com/guru-of-science-czar-holdren-called-for-doubling-co2-emissions.html

The guru of President Barack Obama’s science advisor, John P. Holdren, who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for draconian population control measures including sterilizing the water supply and introducing forced abortions, wrote that large amounts of carbon dioxide should be pumped into the atmosphere in order to aid plant growth and solve the food crisis.

Past Decade Warmest on Record, Says Group Involved With Climategate “Hide The Decline” Scandal
http://www.prisonplanet.com/past-decade-warmest-on-record-says-group-involved-with-climategate-hide-the-decline-scandal.html

Is this before or after they agreed to “hide the decline” in global warming?

EPA Says Breathing Is Deadly, But Radioactive Drinking Water Is Good For Us
http://www.prisonplanet.com/epa-says-breathing-is-deadly-but-radioactive-drinking-water-is-good-for-us.html

While the EPA declares the gas that we exhale to be a deadly poison, as protesters at Copenhagen decry the suffering of polar bears as their population figures increase to record levels, and as delegates in the Danish capital warn of the dastardly peril of cows farting, a New York Times report confirming that U.S. drinking water contains dangerous levels of arsenic, uranium and other radioactive substances barely gets noticed.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/skeptics-challenge-copenhagen-global-warming-summit.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/inhofe-markey-square-off-on-climategate-cnn.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/flashback-humans-depicted-as-virus-in-award-winning-cartoon.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-the-agw-druids-at-copenhagen-know-they-are-on-a-losing-wicket-and-it-shows.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-barack-obamas-rule-by-epa-decree-is-a-coup-detat-against-congress-made-in-britain.html

1)A lot of claims are being made about climate catastrophe(s). In fact it seems as with little boys, climate change involves all things nasty and puppy dogs tails. However this piece from Ziggy Switkowski offers a different perspective: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/we-are-already-adapting-to-warming/story-e6frg6zo-1225797967898

Note:
“To reveal a trend in insurance loss claims requires detailed adjustment of historical data to allow for population growth, inflation, increasing affluence and social trends towards living closer to the coast. Analyses of these data, reported in the ANZ Institute of Insurance and Finance Journal, produce surprising conclusions :
… there is no evidence in the time series of insured losses in recent decades of any effect of climate change.
There is no indication that tropical cyclones, the single largest category accounting for 32 per cent of all losses, are becoming more frequent or more dangerous….
Changes in sea levels have not translated into observable changes in insurance claims associated with coastal and riverine flooding.
To be sure, annual aggregate insurance costs continue to rise sharply but so far these are caused by societal factors and not anthropogenic climate change’

2) And perhaps here we have an example of how climate damage exaggerations arise :
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/thepast-decade--warmest-since-records-began-in-1850-20091208-khqv.html

It makes these claims:
---“This year has been the third-hottest on record in Australia, and is ranked as the fifth-warmest globally”
---“it highlights extreme weather conditions around the globe this year, including three 'exceptional heatwaves’ in Australia… in January and February, August and November…”
---''Maximum temperatures were well above normal across the entire continent, reaching 6 to 7 degrees above normal in some parts. …”

It’s virtually a carbon copy on many reports on many other parts of the world ( only the figures have been changed to conform with the IPCC storyline)
Most times one has little experience of those other places, so one can only swallow what is said.
However ( South East) Australia is home to many of us .
I find it hard, very hard, to reconcile my own first hand experience with the claims made in this report –does anyone else feel the same way?

OUG

The ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade continually trot out this guff;

<< Is this before or after they agreed to “hide the decline” in global warming? >>

They (and you) obviously don’t understand anything about what this refers to, or they (and you) are intentionally trying to distort and misrepresent the science.

The “Hide the Decline” refers to a WMO statement made in 1999. You can see it at ‘On the Status of Global Climate in 1999’. It has a diagram showing the three paleo-records described in a “hacked” UEA email.

However, if you have the capacity to read the paper by Keith Briffa where the ‘decline’ is present, it is explained and discussed why this spurious decline is removed from the model. This is the “divergence anomaly” of which you evidently know nothing about, but are so willing to distort.

A ‘temperature record’ is obtained by combining the current instrument record with proxy records from the past. There’s nothing underhand about removing a spurious decline — it’s explained in the papers, it has been extensively studied, and that’s why that particular record can’t be extended into the latter half of the twentieth century.

The speed at which the ‘Bolts’ of the world picked out this email and trumpeted it all over the net without any apparent effort to figure out what was being discussed is despicable. It’s not a hoax or a deception – it’s a simple repeat of what is already completely open and clear in the scientific literature, and exposes (yet again) the so-called “sceptics” as just the opposite - ideologues that jump on any possible hint of a problem and tout it as a grand conspiracy or chant the 'socialism by stealth" mantra.

It’s people like you that misrepresent and distort what the science is actually saying and whether you do this out of blind ignorance or with malicious intent, the effect is the same - dumb down the masses.

_____

Col

I would love to retire, I am being encouraged not to.

I think that Climategate says it all.We have 42 scientists of the innner circle at the Hadley Centre peer reviewing each others work ,victimising and ostracising anyone who disagrees with their conclusions,falsifying data,and colluding as a group to reach common outcomes.

This is the group that the IPCC bases all it's findings on!
It is an international scandal and people need to be held accountable.

The debate is not over climate change or heating but over the contribution of CO2 as a global warming gas.

Hasbeen -

as well as the graph pointed to by rstuart, try this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
The stable period I'm talking about is the bit right at the end with the 1-2 degree variations, compared with the 10-15 degree variations through the ice ages, and the prospective 4-6 degrees or more of current warming. We've been lucky to inhabit the most stable bit of the entire 450,000 year record, and now we're messing it up.

As rstuart implies, science is about more than anecdotes and local experience. It's about sleuthing what has been really going on. For example, the freezing Thames story. Turns out there were weirs on the Thames that made parts of it quite shallow, so it froze more readily. Since the weirs were removed it hasn't frozen. If you'd followed my link to the "full record" of the emails you'd have seen this story:
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091207/what-those-hacked-climate-e-mails-really-say?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+solveclimate%2Fblog+%28Solve+Climate%3A+Daily+Climate+News+and+Analysis%29
Or are you just into knee-jerk sneering and questioning people's motives.

Arjay -

The IPCC does not base its findings just on the Hadley results. There are several other main groups that also estimate global temperatures, and many other scientists who contribute and check. This is well known and frequently stated.

Q&A. In your post on 9 Dec at 5:53:12 I think that you misunderstand the significance of the divergence between the decline in the temperature indicated in the tree ring series and the temperature series itself.

Surely the real point is that if, during the period when we have instrumental support for temperature, there is no correlation between the tree ring proxy and the temperature series (which is obviously the case), then how can we be confident that, miraculously, the tree ring proxy is a good proxy for temperature going back 1000 years?

Perhaps you can explain where I am incorrect on this.

its funny...they decry..the freezing of europe/england,..as 'local events'...yet.then in the next breath..claim proof...via..LOCAL>>tree-rings...lol...

all your proof is local...yet..deney..the big/euro..freeze...
and the big warming of greenland...as having any validity..HYPOCRITS

then..the neo/enviro/nutters..q+a...quote...<<It’s people like you..that misrepresent and distort..what the science is actually saying..>>

WHAT/science..that feels..its''good science...
to tweak/formulate/select..the number's'...eliminate other..INCONVENIANT/numbers...

there is a joke...'science'..is not in agreement...
either all..local events are valid..or none

READ..THE LINKS...quoting/science...
http://www.infowars.com/cop15-a-neo-colonial-climate-regime-revealed/
http://www.infowars.com/bilderberg-founder-prince-bernhard-tried-to-overthrow-indonesian-government-become-viceroy/
http://www.infowars.com/carbon-sequestration-the-exercise-of-eminent-domain/
http://www.infowars.com/epa-threatens-command-and-control-economy-to-push-climate-change-agenda/
http://www.infowars.com/copenhagen-report-ipccs-damage-control-and-hitler-youth/
http://www.infowars.com/uk-group-proposes-using-carbon-offsets-to-stop-poor-from-breeding/
http://www.infowars.com/draft-copenhagen-climate-change-agreement-the-danish-text/

WHAT THE BIG PLAN IS?
http://www.infowars.com/cap-and-trade-is-a-tax-and-its-a-great-big-one/
http://www.infowars.com/gore-vidal-endorsed-environmental-authority-to-regulate-breeding-license-births/
http://www.infowars.com/russia-reigns-over-its-weather/
http://www.infowars.com/epa-says-breathing-is-deadly-but-radioactive-drinking-water-is-good-for-us/
http://www.infowars.com/climategate-global-warming-looking-more-like-a-hoax/
http://www.infowars.com/copenhagen-propaganda-and-scare-tactics/
monford on rt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto
monford on alex jones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZW-BF70TsI

http://www.prisonplanet.com/woman-who-invented-credit-default-swaps-is-one-of-the-key-architects-of-carbon-derivatives-which-would-be-at-the-very-center-of-cap-and-trade.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pelosi-endorses-%e2%80%98global%e2%80%99-tax-on-stocks-bonds-and-other-financial-transactions.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/skeptics-challenge-copenhagen-global-warming-summit.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/inhofe-markey-square-off-on-climategate-cnn.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/flashback-humans-depicted-as-virus-in-award-winning-cartoon.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-the-agw-druids-at-copenhagen-know-they-are-on-a-losing-wicket-and-it-shows.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-barack-obamas-rule-by-epa-decree-is-a-coup-detat-against-congress-made-in-britain.html

l Jazeera's Alan Fisher explains

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-39PIr-PGg

Copenhagen Con Men Launch Global Carbon Tax Heist
http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-con-men-launch-global-carbon-tax-heist.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/capping-emissions-trading-on-the-future.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/doomsday-global-warming-fearmongering-accompanies-copenhagen.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-meaning-of-climategate.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/epas-endangerment-finding-allows-big-government-to-regulate-carbon-emissions.html

Past Decade Warmest on Record, Says Group Involved With Climategate “Hide The Decline” Scandal
http://www.prisonplanet.com/past-decade-warmest-on-record-says-group-involved-with-climategate-hide-the-decline-scandal.html

Is this before or after they agreed to “hide the decline” in global warming?

its hard to know what energy...is getting in...through your tinfoil hat's

<<and whether you do this out of blind ignorance..or with malicious intent,...the effect is the same...dumb down the masses>>>..oh dear lordy...i..dumb down the masses..[who might chance upon my words...lol...in an opinion forum?

what about you lot of idiots...blathering your fears..into every media piece....
i defy anyone to explain..how the media HASNT dumbed down the masses...

its clear the media has a bit more influence..than i...lol

how despirite are you global alarmists...who have the media in ya pocket...
and have the ear of govt...yet claim to be protesting..[in cop/enhagen]...lol

see the joke YOUR NOT PROTESTING...at the carbon/cop-en-hang-em..
lovein...of our leaders and the protestors...GOT THE SAME ADGENDA....you know..how that happend?

Having an international meeting to work out what to do about climate change brings the deniers out but they've got nothing to compare with the accumulated science from multiple lines of reseach done by the world's leading institutions. Which still overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that warming is real and is almost certainly a result of human activities.

If the best the deniers have is insinuations based on quotes out of context and selected bits of selected graphs - selected to show the opposite of what all of the whole relevant graphs show - the debate is all over bar the shouting. I could wish for less shouting but, honestly, some of the commenters here do such a great job of showing why it's more sensible to get our climate science off scientists and institutions that study climate that I say let them rant.

Col Rouge: "That in no way absolves even so called "scientists" from btheir duty to report what they anticipate to be the BENEFITS of the measures they would see imposed on the rest of us."

Expecting the scientists to do the accounting is a bit much Col. They are having enough trouble predicting the effects of altering CO2 levels on sea levels, water availability, ocean Ph, disease spread, crop viability, coral reefs, rain forests, and what not. And now you want them to also do the job of pencil pushers like yourself. I think not. Let the scientists do what they are good at. We have more then enough pencil pushers around to do the arithmetic once they are given the results.

More to the point, that is exactly what has been done. Our politicians would be a bit remiss if they hadn't let the accountants at it to see what the various effect would be. Ever heard of the Stern review?

Horus: "it highlights extreme weather conditions around the globe this year, including three 'exceptional heatwaves’ in Australia… in January and February, August and November…"

I can't honest say I remember what happened in January and February, but I distinctly remember both August and November. They were downright weird. It was absolutely no surprise at all to see BOM say November was the hottest on record, with a +1.something degree anomaly.

Horus: "It’s virtually a carbon copy on many reports on many other parts of the world"

I don't see how that could be so for the Northern Hemisphere. Certainly it was a hot decade, but as the graph in Geoff's article shows the temperature has been dropping in the last 4 years and this years summer in the Northern Hemisphere was no exception, in particular this October was the coldest for some time in the USA. Apparently it takes a few months for our hot southern hemisphere El Nino temperatures to work they way across the equator. If it does, our Northern cousins are in for a bit of a shock.

“Expecting the scientists to do the accounting is a bit much Col” Hold on – these are the guys that took measurements and then, collated, interpolated, modeled, synthesized, hypothesized and even maybe massaged them. Surely, if they can juggle figures to come up with GW they can juggle a little more to come up with some benefits of their suggested actions. Not just a “save the world scenario” but something that may suggest any efforts are not in vain. For instance, Rudd and Wong’s ETS – They were going to save the planet be shearing 20% off Australia’s 1.4 (odd)% of the world’s emissions! Fantastic stuff. And for their next trick………?

Interesting that you mention Stern. It seems some of the most vocal in this debate have not been the scientists but the economists. This should send shivers up the spines of any thinking person. Garnauts’ vision of credits, compensation, imputations, permit revenues etc. is a dog’s breakfast.

I am not suggesting that Governments do nothing but setting up and maintaining a massive bureaucracy to govern any scheme is pointless and wasteful in the extreme. If the Government wishes to throw huge sums of our money at GW, throw it at the ground level where it might do some good. Not to the lofty towers of an already bloated financial sector.

I am old enough to remember many unusual seasons. Unseasonal rainfall, colder than usual, hotter than usual seasons – fierce storms – hail covering the ground like snow……a Christmas so hot that unlit candles melted in their holders. And yet today any unusual event is a direct result of GW. Only yesterday we were treated to this little gem in an OLO piece “ Frequent cyclones, drought and floods have become almost regular phenomena. It is true that the poor are hardest hit by such climate-change related disasters.” The writer obviously doesn’t live in Australia.

Herbert

The significance of the divergence is a “problem”, recognised as such by dendrochronologists themselves. The ‘decline’ hasn’t been ‘hidden’, as some people want to believe.

The reliability (of the method) is tested by omitting some of the instrumental data and seeing how the reconstruction matches the known climate at some past time (e.g. volcanic residue, micro-flora, isotopes, etc). I’m sure many people don’t understand this and perhaps take ‘hide the decline’ out of context – for various, nefarious, reasons.

Reconstructions can be tested against historical sources of climate information that go back centuries, and overall reliability is tested with different methodologies, and with different proxy choices (tree rings, corals, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites, etc). If they vary widely, then proxy reconstructions wouldn’t be very reliable. However, if they are consistent (they are) then we can have confidence they’re robust. That’s why the so called “MBH hockey stick” isn’t crucial – there’s dozens of hockey sticks, from many different proxies and from many different sources, that all show the same thing – the warming trend is up. Ok, the methodology of any proxy reconstruction is complicated (I’m no expert) – but, the principles are not.

Obviously, uncertainties do increase the further you go back in time - and the ‘divergence problem’ for trees less than 50 yrs old is, well ... problematic. Agreed, further research must be carried out to explain the ‘divergence’ – but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Much of the misinformation (intentional or otherwise) that surrounds this issue is because people mistake a reconstruction of the past with a present ‘attribution’ – and of course, that’s impossible.
_______

OUG

Don’t’ flatter yourself, what I said was;

“It’s people LIKE you that misrepresent and distort what the science is actually saying”

You’re only one under god, after all.

And-by-the-look-of-your-stupefying-mind-numbing-posts ... you-preach-dogma-like-any-other-religious-fundamentalist-extremist.

Funny that.
_______

Arjay, you say;

<< This is the group that the IPCC bases all its findings on! >>

Really?
_______

Rstuart

Col’s not an economist/econometrician. Nevertheless, the benefits should be obvious to even the most-myopic-misguided-misanthropic-maccountant ... whatever.

Geoff Davies,

Your link posted Thursday 10 December 2009 at 12:21:48 PM does not appear to work.




Damn you to hell! Now we shall all have to scroll reams of gamboge text ... just to find ... the odd character ... the few words of black script ... http://step-change-in-the-data-input ...lol ... ur rite up their with the inventor of the chainsaw and the dune buggy ...

may u face hyphenation geoff-Davies!

Sum just don't nowe less is more ... but u have to goe an spiol it 4 every 1 .. u have brung about a v ery bad climate change on olo ... http://its-good-if-you-know-how-to-beat-the-system-and-the-word-count-in-gedit-will-not-help-you

http://may-u-all-rot-in-copenhagen-and-the-caviar-have-salmonella-in-it

http://could-not-leave-well-alone-and-CO2-to-do-its-photosynthetic-thing-could-you

NOT lol



Just a little divergence - I will decline any kudos, in graphic fashion if necessary.

Listen to the audio of Dr Tim Ball climatologist.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=related
This will give you a real insight into the Climategate debacle.

Prof Wegman was asked to arbitrate on the hockey stick fabrication.He found that 42 scientists publish together and keep the peer reviews in house.They control the whole process.The Hadley Centre controls the global data on temps and Geoff Davies and others are trying to downplay its importance.

In 1995 Prof Denning received an email form Jonathon Overpeck of the Hadley Centre," We must get rid of the Medieval Warming period."Overpeck thought that Prof Denning was a manipulator of data like himself.

This group have lowered the data of past temps to enhance their present data.

As Dr Tim Ball observes,he finds no comfort in being right and is sad about the fact that science has being put into disrepute.It is scientific fraud and who will believe them when they actually do have firm data on a real impending catastrophe?

Arjay: "Listen to the audio of Dr Tim Ball climatologist"

Ah yes, Dr Tim Ball. You really know how to pick your sources.

Dr Ball did indeed work for 28 years at the University of Winnipeg. The first 20 of them was a lecturer, and the last 8 were as a Professor of Geography. While he has indeed published several peer reviewed papers, none were in the subject of climatology. When he stated in a newspaper piece was a Professor of Climatology, a real Professor of Climatology published an open letter denying the claim. Ball sued, but withdrew the suite when the University and the newspaper defended it. You can read the defence here: http://j.mp/7KKKdZ

After leaving the University Ball took on the post as scientific advisor to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. He also took up a post with Frontier Centre for Public Policy (a private think tank funded by corporate donations) and writes articles for Tech Central Station, a web site also partially funded by oil industry.

On joining those organisations Ball started attacking AGW, and as your post show his tireless efforts continue to this very day. He has also argued the hole in Ozone layer was caused by the Sun's activity, not CFC's.

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

I think it is fair to say Dr Ball's primary concern when making a statement about science is not whether it is true or not, but rather how much he will be paid for making it.

Having just sat through a 7 (not in order)of a series of 23 University lectures on the known global warming science it is clear to me that most deniers/sceptics simple don't understand what's being spoken about.
e.g. outputs:
- Volcanoes put out on average: .1 giga tonne of CO2 per year
- Industry : 7.0 G/T p.a.
- Deforestation : 2.0 G/T p.a.

Natural absorption
- Trees : 2.5 G/T p.a.
- Seas : 2.5 G/T p.a.

It is clear we're producing more CO2 than is naturally absorbed.

From Ice cores science is able to determine the CO2 levels in the air in history, specifically they have determined that these levels were relatively constant for a period of 1000 years untill the 1700s at about 280 parts per million. Today its almost 350 ppm.

The science to this point is incontestable except around the irrelevant, extreme edges.

From there the chemistry and mechanism of natural uptake is also well known and largely undisputed.

This happen in three stages
-Ocean Invasion (sea absorption): 75% of airborne CO2 will be absorbed in about 1000 years .
- next the Calcium Carbonate cycle: will absorb another 15% over 2-10000 years.
- The final stage "the weathering thermostat" will take 500000 years to absorb the last 10% i.e. to 1700 levels.

Also known is what is called is the band saturation effect which means that the temperature will not decrease at the same rate as the CO2.
There will be a large blimp before the long tail.

As I understand it not much of the above is in dispute at all.
What is less sure is the rate of change. What generally accepted is that the IPCC report was on the low side of change. However recent results have suggested a faster rate.

Given the *known science* as outlined above coupled with multiple sources for raw data, the tinkering by EAU CRU is a blip in an otherwise unequivocal scientific conclusion.

Dr Geoff Davies, Who is Inigo Owen Jones ?

rstuart. Tim Ball specialised in climatology.Again we see the adhominen vultures trying to discredit people of real integrity.They want to discredit Tim Ball because he does not fit into the Global view of climate that many PC police want us all to percieve.Of couse there will be lies printed about Dr Ball because he does not fit into the mainstream view of the Corporates,Greens or the UN in their views on CO2.

Al Gore is the biggest con man ever to traverse the planet.It is all about carbon derivatives being traded on the share market and enlaving the world in taxes to support the UN's objective and the corporates,of a New World Order.Just google NWO.Even Jannet Albrechtsen and Lord Monkton smell a big rat and they are from the right.

Thanks Forrest, I needed a laugh

Thanks Arjay, I needed a laugh.

Thanks rstewart, your link gave me a laugh too

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

It has much more info than wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball

As far as I know, even the Heartland Institute has tried to get Ball to temper his, ummm, er, musings.

To RStuart & Co

If we are to rubbish/discredit Tim Ball (& others on the sceptics side) because some of their views are unorthodox. And we are consistent: true to principle as all true persons of science are. Then perhaps we need to rubbish/discredit this man too
http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm

What do say AGWers, do we “Prick him down” too?.

Horus, we don't rubbish people merely because their views are 'unorthodox'. Einsteins theories were 'unorthodox'. We rubbish them because they are wrong, and clearly so.

Newton is an excellent example, in that while you can be considered great because of some successes, it doesn't matter what they think because science shows us what's true or not. When a scientist proposes an idea, they have to test it, or at least have someone else test it. I see Dr. Ball doing a lot of talking and not much testing.

At least Newton tested his alchemic theories. Not having them work should be a dead giveaway as to the validity of those views. Einstein tested his and showed they were likely right.

“Horus, we don't rubbish people merely because their views are 'unorthodox'. Einsteins theories were 'unorthodox'. We rubbish them because they are wrong, and clearly so.”
Thanks Bugsy, you have the GW er’s attitude in a nutshell. Don’t loose those blinkers mate.

Oh, and I do hope every contributor has gone online and perused the proposed Copenhagen Draft. If this document (or anything remotely like it) is signed agreed we are all in trouble. Pay careful attention to the section on financing – you will find out what the faceless figures behind all this are really up to.

do we have food to burn?

As a National Geographic Report
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080130-AP-haiti-eatin.html

..confirmed,..“With food/prices rising,..Haiti’s poorest/can’t afford even..a daily plate/of rice,..and some/poor..must take desperate measures..to fill their bellies,”..by...“eating mud,”..partly as a consequence..of “increasing global demand....for biofuels.”

In April/last year,.World Bank..President Robert..Zoellick..
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89545855

admitted that biofuels..were a..“significant contributor”..to soaring food prices..that have led to riots in countries such as Haiti,Egypt,the Philippines,..and even Italy.

“We estimate that..a doubling of food prices..over the last three years..could potentially push..100 million people in low-income countries...deeper into poverty,”..he stated.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/biofuels-drive-up-world-food-prices

..“That’s how serious..this is,..these people,..by their scientific fraud..and financial fraud,a’re profiting enormously….while people die of starvation..in a dozen regions of the world….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ogXcobtiY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBAVT7XzCZA

it is a scandal..of the worst proportion..our own fellow creatures..are being killed by starvation..because these people have lied..and..made up the science..and hidden it so nobody else..could check,”..said Monckton.

If the measures.currently being debated at the Copenhagen summit..in the name of fighting global warming are passed,..we can only expect a further assault..on the already horrifying plight of the population of the third world.

http://www.youtube.com/v/j6bXxC1d_rE&rel

In the leaked Copenhagen text that emerged earlier this week,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
..leaders of third world countries..were horrified to discover that developed nations..would take on less of a burden than anticipated

..and that more..would be demanded of poorer countries..despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions would further cripple..their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

In addition,..the leaked paper..revealed that funds from climate financing,..originally allocated to go to the UN and..then be doled out piecemeal to third world nations,..would instead..be paid directly..into..the coffers of the World Bank..and IMF,..[organizations that have made a habit out of..looting poorer countries.with crippling loans that cannot be paid back,...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVTfnxZ0_cY

and..forcing..such countries to hand over their entire infrastructure..to globalist loan sharks.

The fact that policies..arising out of..the contrived science of global warming..are already killing people in vast numbers in the third world..further illustrates

the fact that the entire climate change movement..is a Malthusian offshoot..of the profusely stated goal..on behalf of the global elite..to eliminate a huge chunk of the global population..via modern-day eugenics.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-population-reduction-agenda-for-dummies.html

http://www.infowars.com/brownshirt-youth-corps-invade-monckton-speech/
http://www.infowars.com/copenhagens-implications-for-american-sovereignty/
http://www.infowars.com/1991-un-policy-paper-describes-exact-purpose-and-trajectory-of-current-copenhagen-treaty/

http://www.infowars.com/china-says-population-control-key-to-copenhagen-deal/

http://www.infowars.com/third-world-under-attack-from-genocidal-climate-change-policy/

mate Colonialism:..Soros..Wants Poorer Nations..To Take On Green Debt..EU pledges USD 10bn to fight global warming...and create new third world debt..at intrest..

The European Union nations..have pledged EUR 7.2 billion..
http://www.prisonplanet.com/eu-pledges-usd-10bn-to-fight-global-warming.html
(USD 10.6 billion) to help developing nations fight global warming...no doudt lent...at intrest...our taxes..with copnditions attatched such as one child policy..but it gets worse..remember its our taxes paying this next bubble into green dictators/ship


Billionaire George Soros has suggested that poorer nations be persuaded to take on what he describes as..“green loans”..in the name of combating climate change,..a policy that would land the already cripplingly poor third world with even more debt, payable to globalist institutions such as the IMF.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-colonialism-soros-wants-poorer-nations-to-take-on-green-debt.html

Furious Reaction..To Sick Editorial Calling For Global One Child Dictatorship
http://www.prisonplanet.com/furious-reaction-to-sick-editorial-calling-for-global-one-child-dictatorship.html

An article featured in Canada’s/Financial Post newspaper..calling for China’s draconian one child policy,..where woman are kidnapped off the streets,..drugged,..and forced to undergo compulsory abortions,..to be imposed worldwide has been met with widespread hostile reaction,...yet such measures..are being debated at the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.


Copenhagen climate change:..‘US should spend as much on global warming as war’
http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-climate-change-us-should-spend-as-much-on-global-warming-as-war.html
Poor countries have demanded that the US spends as much on tackling climate change..as it does on warfare.



Copenhagen climate change summit:
The world is COOLING not warming says scientist Peter Taylor … and we’re not prepared
http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-climate-change-summit-the-world-is-cooling-not-warming-says-scientist-peter-taylor-and-were-not-prepared.html

In his provocative book Chill,..he warns that the world is cooling not warming..and that solutions proposed at Copenhagen ignore the risks of a possible return of the Ice Age…



Obama’s Top Climate Advisers..Can’t Get Doomsday Story Straight..While Testifying Before Same Committee..on Same Day

Which is it–6 feet..or 3.5 feet?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama%e2%80%99s-top-climate-advisers-can%e2%80%99t-get-doomsday-story-straight-while-testifying-before-same-committee-on-same-day.html

Now EU Wants Global Transaction Tax To Fund More Bailouts
http://www.prisonplanet.com/now-eu-wants-global-transaction-tax-to-fund-more-bailouts.html

On the heels of a similar proposal being pushed in Copenhagen in the name of fighting global warming,..the European Union has asked the IMF to introduce a global tax on financial transactions in order to fund more bailouts..in other words,..the globalists are devising yet more ways..to plunder the taxpayer..into servitude..to the private banks that they own.

Bazz: "I originally thought the decline being talked about was the one from 1998 but it is clear now, especially as the emails are dated about 1999 or 2000, that they were on about matching the tree ring data to the thermometer data since 1960 and hiding a fall in the tree data."

Would you like me to explain the below in further detail?

<< The significance of the divergence is a “problem”, recognised as such by dendrochronologists themselves. The ‘decline’ hasn’t been ‘hidden’, as some people want to believe.

The reliability (of the method) is tested by omitting some of the instrumental data and seeing how the reconstruction matches the known climate at some past time (e.g. volcanic residue, micro-flora, isotopes, etc). I’m sure many people don’t understand this and perhaps take ‘hide the decline’ out of context – for various, nefarious, reasons.

Reconstructions can be tested against historical sources of climate information that go back centuries, and overall reliability is tested with different methodologies, and with different proxy choices (tree rings, corals, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites, etc). If they vary widely, then proxy reconstructions wouldn’t be very reliable. However, if they are consistent (they are) then we can have confidence they’re robust. That’s why the so called “MBH hockey stick” isn’t crucial – there’s dozens of hockey sticks, from many different proxies and from many different sources, that all show the same thing – the warming trend is up. Ok, the methodology of any proxy reconstruction is complicated (I’m no expert) – but, the principles are not.

Obviously, uncertainties do increase the further you go back in time - and the ‘divergence problem’ for trees less than 50 yrs old is, well ... problematic. Agreed, further research must be carried out to explain the ‘divergence’ – but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Much of the misinformation (intentional or otherwise) that surrounds this issue is because people mistake a reconstruction of the past with a present ‘attribution’ – and of course, that’s impossible. >>

You obviously still don't understand "hide the decline".

Cont'd

Sorry folks, pasted to wrong thread.