Rapscallion - quibble, quibble, quibble – that’s what you climate scientists, real pollution deniers and alarmists have learnt to do in your climate studies and post-modern, qualitative policy making culture - which is simply pathological. This modus operandi (post-normal science) can be traced back to the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia, where in developing policy to justify a global carbon cap and trade finance system, evaluative analysis and critique used in the humanities has been harnessed. The reality however, is that climate modelling is flawed in its simple failing to fully acknowledge the massive and unknown physical effects on climate, temperature, water cycle, and everything, that deforestation is causing. With such unknown variability caused by the physical effects of deforestation, any data collection and modelling of greenhouse gas damage is rendered insignificant. Further, the computer modelling of climate science has not fully acknowledged the role the oceans play in absorbing and belching greenhouse gases as they roll over in immensely complex and variable cycles. This belching in particular is equal to or greater in volume than all of the fossil fuel burning and agriculture greenhouse gases combined in a given time frame. What difference will a carbon dioxide emissions trading reduction scheme make, especially in relatively tiny countries like Australia and the United Kingdom? Science can only make truthful and accurate conclusions when variables are limited and known. The long term effects of deforestation are unknown as it goes on unabated, as it has increasingly for thousands of years.

davida says:

>> The long term effects of deforestation are unknown as it goes on unabated, as it has increasingly for thousands of years. <<

Who's arguing in favour of deforestation?
The long term effects are surely already being felt if it's been going on for such epochal periods as you say, but in fact it is possible or even likely that deforestation increases the albedo or reflectivity of the earth's surface and thus has a cooling effect. So if we want to cool the earth, let's destroy all the forests? No, but it's wrong to assert that this effect has not been taken into a consideration of radiative forcings. It doesn't explain the recent unprecedented rate of warming. You say, 'Rapscallion - quibble, quibble, quibble', but I don't know what on earth you are quibbling about. Perhaps my reaction to we are unique's comment? He/she didn't mention deforestation, and bushfires hardly equal deforestation. So...?

Your comment contains the usual denialists' assertions about climate science and the things you insist the scientists ignore; but they don't. And this...

>> Further, the computer modelling of climate science has not fully acknowledged the role the oceans play in absorbing and belching greenhouse gases as they roll over in immensely complex and variable cycles. <<

... is incorrect, notwithstanding the intestinal imagery. And you have left out the fact that the 'belching' cycles are immensely long when it comes to the transfer of CO2 to the lower depths of the ocean, in the range of 500 to 1000 years - that's your 'given time frame'. It's the inability of the upper regions of the ocean to absorb the extra CO2 that is one of the main concerns. /cont...

This, from davida...

>> What difference will a carbon dioxide emissions trading reduction scheme make, especially in relatively tiny countries like Australia and the United Kingdom? <<

... I partially agree with. The ETR scheme is just smoke and mirrors, no doubt about it. But implicit in your statement is an acceptance of AGW. A better system would be something like a straight carbon tax. The point about 'tiny countries' has been dealt with over and over; this argument is pathetically weak (assuming the adoption of a more effective scheme than ETR) - after all, why not include in your list other 'relatively tiny' countries like France, Canada, Iran, South Africa and so on, whose emissions are in range of ours or the UK's? Where do you stop? In terms of absolute levels the UK is 8th and Australia 16th; just where do YOU draw the line between relatively large and tiny? Even among the industrialised countries Australia's total emissions are not far below those of countries like South Korea and Italy. No point in their cutting emissions either?

Your phrase 'real pollution deniers' has an ironic ring, of course, but am I denying pollution of any kind? Put your straw men away. Come on, what you really mean is that CO2 is not 'real pollution'! It's a natural trace element, plants need it and we breathe it out, blah, blah, blah. As I said earlier, read The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart at:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

One of the quotes from Ian Read's excellent article: "This idea of a furtherance of an agenda is reinforced by Michael Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and a co-ordinating lead author for the chapter on “Climate Scenario Development” (3rd IPCC Report), in his book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, in which he states, “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.”

My contributing comment to the OLO Forum was: Keep sending up the toxins into the atmosphere via bushfires and nothing will remain of the layers! Simplified.

If I wish to raise some lateral thinking points Rapscallion that in actual fact relate to global warming and the article Ian Read has contributed I will continue to do so regardless of your objections as to whether or not I am not sticking to an author's points.

Enjoy your week

Solve our water problem first , when we have the water then we can attack the CO2 problem by simply growing Trees.

We need our Government to encourage our People to be inventive in the area of Desalination of Seawater using Solar Evaporator's and using Condensers powered by forcefully evaporating Water(as a refrigerant) by reducing Atmospheric pressure (Vacuum) thereby chilling the water vapor by Latent Heat of Evaporation to recover the product (water vapor) from the Solar Evaporator.
No one can say this proposal will not work because this is exactly what happens in nature where the "Condensate is called Rain".

Tree's from Adelaide to Perth anyone ?

Hi ShazBaz,

The north is supposed to be getting more rain, due to AGW. So why not solve two or three problems in one go, over the next hundred years or so, and pay able-bodied Aboriginal people from remote communities across the entire north, from Cairns and Croydon across to Broome, (a) to plant suitable tree species by the billions, preferably building and furniture timber (NOT for firewood) and (b) to put in the necessary infrastructure - small dams and reservoirs, pipelines, subsidiary piping systems, roads, (and later, saw-mills) and so on. There would be plenty of work for everybody up there and forever more, at that rate.

On drip-irrigation, those trees could be harvestable (and replaceable) in thirty or forty years, which gives the Aboriginal people there time to train up a whole generation of sawmill operators, machinery operators and drivers, managers, cabinet-makers, builders and so on.

With the extra watering sources, communities could also, obviously, be setting up their own vegetable gardens (and chook yards, etc.) to feed their populations with good fresh food, not the fast-food crap that is now dished out in remote Aboriginal communities.

In this way:

* AGW - down;

* Aboriginal unemployment - down;

* Aboriginal health - up.

Win - win - win !

Now, how to lead the horse to water ?

Joe Lane