The CRU has rigorously investigated itself and found that there has been “absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" ?

Well, that's all right then.

Now to investigate whether Professor Jones actually did say that there had been almost no warming since 1995 ......

Oh dear Geoff, I note from your bio that <<His day job does not directly involve either climate science or economics,>> Just as well, don’t give it up, the day job I mean.

I suspect that more mere evidence will not change the denialists attitude one iota.
If you think the published results from data 5 years ago is alarming (and you should), you should see the latest raw data. Things have got a lot clearer.
Now knowing the tactics of the industry groups, I suspect we are going to get more FUD and more personal attacks as the science becomes clearer. Expect a small bunch of "scientists" (they won't be climatologists until industry can train some tame ones) to come out with some vague comments implying doubt, conspiracy, communism, etc.

ozandy

Well put and appropriately well observed.

It is a pity that the "sceptics" (sic) won't read or acknowledge that it has been pointed out that the disputed/denied data was/is available from other sources.
This raises the probability that the whole attack on EAU prior to the hack was a divide and conquer activity by those who were threatened by the AGW/ACC.
i.e. part of a similar orchestrated campaign that emanated from the same source as the attack on On scientific data by Big Tobacco's pet think tank. It is a campaign of that has been used to discredit the science by innuendo, denial and using revered people that have no real connection to the sciences involved.
It is an ideological one backed by elements in the Republican movement see Homeland web site and their supported sites.

The objections are politically driven.

A pox on *all* political parties whose first victim is objectivity and the public interest.

Ozandy, examinator,

So it's not true what Phil Jones is supposed to have said ? It's all some CIA-BBC fabrication ?

I doubt even the CIA could alter migration patterns of dozens of species and fudge the data from thousands of weather stations...but they faked the moon landing don't you know!
Seriously, how folks can get all stirred up about a worldwide conspiracy of geeks while letting the financial industry off the hook totally is just bizarre! Propping up millionaires with taxpayers money OK....but be afraid of the weather men, they want *more* funding!
I guess those who live by deceit and greed cannot imagine others living any other way. Sad.

When the report trumpeted by Davies in his extraordinary article came out the sceptics all cried whitewash and having read it I'd have to agree. Admittedly the deliberate fraud and misrepresentation part was going to far, but the CRU most emphatically have not lived up to the high traditions of science. However, considering the amount of funding flowing into global warming science it is not surprising, they cut corners. Perhaps they were behaving more like the public service than politicians.
Basically all the committe did was talk to the CRU members and accept their explanations. The chairman, Lord Oxburgh is, incidentally, chairman of a wind energy company. Can you imagine the screaming that would have gone on, had he been, say, chairman of a coal mining company?
I could say a great deal about Davies' article but his insistance in the teeth of all evidence that temperatures have not been cooling for a good chunk of the past decade is extraordinary. Certainly March was warm because of El Nino, but all but the die hard global warmers have now agreed that the trend over the past few years has been down, and that trend is expected to continue (or at least be steady state). The story now is that the real warming will kick in, in a few years. Davies could at least have been better informed about what his own side is saying.

1. The University of East Anglia’s Professor Jones has stated in an interview with the London Daily Mail that there has been no significant warming in the fifteen years to 2009. http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Dr Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts research shows that raw data has been tampered with across the world. Ignoring colder climate and higher altitude measuring stations, while relocating measuring stations to warmer climates has effectively shown a warming effect. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
Fears of sea level rise have been of concern to many Australians. Prof. R.M. (Bob) Carter. James Cook University advises that there is no dangerous trend.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC%20-%20aspects%20of%20sea-level%20rise%20in%20southern%20Australia%20Z.pdf
Dr Long has researched USA raw data and found that, in the case of rural temperatures they have been increased by about five times their actual temperatures. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf
2. Canadian Researcher Donna Laframboise headed a team of forty International researchers who have examined the IPCC AR4 Report and have found that 30% of the papers are not peer reviewed. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/
3. ClimateGate emails, when examined found a number of instances where publishers had been subjected to pressure to refuse to publish works critical of accepted UAE papers. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2602.htm
It was shown that peer review was not undertaken by impartial, anonymous peer review but to a member of that group of scientists who were well aware of the desired outcome. It was proven that, in a number of cases, access to raw data was refused due to a fear of an adverse finding. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/climategate_analysis.html

Ozandy, I think they call yours a 'tu quoque' ['you, too'] fallacy - in order to divert discussion about the sins of one's gods, you point out the worse sins of other people's gods.

A pox on all gods. Zap ! Jesus, that was close ....

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some criticism of how FOI's got handled but no surprise that this independent assessment showed no doctoring of data or any reason to alter the conclusion that AGW is real and serious.
Multiple independent lines of research. Every leading institution that studies climate. Every peak scientific body. And still the denialists want us to pretend the impending impacts of climate change have no basis and we should continue to expand the activities that will ensure what we get is the worst case scenarios. And they think 'warmists' live in a bubble of unreality!

This issue isn't going to go away in the lifetimes of anyone now living. Given the devastation in SE Australia from record heatwave conditions in recent years, adding another 5 degrees C on top doesn't sound like something we should blithely accept as natural and normal. Not when every institution that studies climate tells us it's not natural and it is avoidable.
It could be that 'climategate' is the last big gasp of climate science denialism; sure, the commenters here will continue their quasi-religious disbelief but ultimately policy will come from the well informed and by governments that take the scientific advice they commission and recieve seriously.

Curmudgeon -

OK, my wording was loose, though I have made the point on OLO many times and it is clear in the link provided.

So try "the nonsense that the global warming trend ceased in 1998". The point is that there are many short-term influences on global temperature, such as el nino and volcanic eruptions. So the temperature fluctuates around a longer-term trend, revealed in 5-year or 10-year running averages. The fact that temperature was above trend in 2005 and below the trend in 2008 (in the NASA compilation) does not mean the trend has gone away. There are several precedents since 1980. After the below-trend years, the temperature shot up to new highs.

I don't know where you get the idea that "all but the die hard global warmers" think the trend will be down or steady from here on. There is no evidence for this, and the reasons for the recent pause are not a great mystery: the el nino - la nina cycle is an obvious enough influence that climatologists cautioned the world in 2007-8 that the la nina condition would cool the world temporarily but this should not be taken to indicate that the underlying trend had changed. Of course "sceptics" ignored the caution and have been doing exactly that ever since.

Perhaps we should all climb down from our ergonomic chairs, our ivory towers, our caves and our high horses and, regardless of whether or not there is global warming or cooling, and mindful of both the precautionary principle and the continuing degradation of our environment, propose what to do about it. For a start,

* stop deforestation for MacDonalds (Brazil), oil-palm production (Indonesia) and biofuel production (here), and start re-foresting parts of the north where rainfall is supposed to be increasing, use the unemployed labour up there for the next hundred years;

* tap all the renewable energy that's fit to tap, at a reasonable cost, plug it into the grid, and switch to hybrid and electric cars;

* re-cycle storm-water wherever possible, perhaps into a household grey-water system;

* strengthen piloting standards in Australian waters;

* get down on water and air pollution - tax the polluters, that shouldn't be a problem.

Now on to world peace.

and Mr Rudd's comment about climate change being the biggest moral challenge of the century has also been exonerated? No doubt he will remember this again when Mr Obama visits (if he has not got anything more important to do like last time he was scheduled to come).

Your results are only as good as your data. Phil Jones's main mistake was taking the data on trust because he WANTED to, instead of double-checking it for precisely that reason.

So how good IS the global surface temperature data? Apart from the disappearance of 80% of the stations, the urban heat island effect and all those minus signs in the wrong places?

http://tinyurl.com/y5a66y2

Gee, maybe Canada and Finland didn't have a balmy tropical winter after all...

Ahhh, I see Jon J, that epitome of science FUD ... Anthony Watts' (ex-weatherman extraordinaire) very own blogsite - way to go maaate :)

phoenix94, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 12:17:37 PM

Good onya Mate stick it right into them .

I doubt a conversion is likely , they are fanatics , like Religious Monks .
Just imagine trying to convince a Monk that Jesus was actually Karl Sandilands uncle in drag.

Loudmouth
relevance?

Hasbeen
Who was that aimed at?

Qanda
Some times I hope Mrs Brown (Monty Python galaxy song fame)found some out there hey.
;-)

"....although their earlier methods might have exaggerated some effects in the so-called “hockey stick” graph (the subject of heated debate) which depicts temperatures over the past thousand years based on tree-ring data."

The scary thing about the Hockey Stick graph is that Mann only used selected tree ring data which suited his intended outcome. Using ALL the tree ring data we get an entirely different graph.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/

Secondly, basic Science tells us that tree ring growth is related to more than just temperature. e.g. rainfall etc so can be wildly out in years of low rainfall.

Surely, any thinking person would see that AGW is deeply flawed? Not if you are ideologically committed to the cause. Logic, then makes no headway.

Examinator, priceless! Hope so too, there's bugger all down here as our resident OLO dendrochronologists demonstrate by their salivating over WUWTF, ergo http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Geoff - okay, that's better. For whatever reason the headline (final measured) global warming has paused, as opposed to whatever the underlying trends might be. (Economists have similar arguments about "headline" and "underlying" inflation.) The problem, and its a big one, is that the global warming crowd forecast big increases in temperatures in that headline figure in 2001 and 2007, and this have not happened. In fact if we look back at the 1990 forecast by the IPCC (the first report) that's out by a country mile. The seasonal forecasts issued by the UK Met Office are also consistantly wrong.
But okay, internal variability such as changes in the great oceanic cyles (the IPD and AMO) may have disguised the supposed warming, and climate is vastly more complicated than we first supposed. So then how do we know the big increase between 1975 and 2000 (about) was not also an internal variation?
Anyway, back to the CRU. Its main sin is not to frankly admit all the problems climate forecasting faces. Far too much funding is at stake for that. They are lucky the Royal Society - a green bastion - chose the inquiry members. The findings should have harsher.

"Accusations of fraud or scientific misconduct have been widespread"

Absolutely Geoff, and I can understand why real scientists get peed-off:

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Climate-Scientist-Sues-National-Post-for-Libel-1151667.htm

Perhaps the reach of the court will extend to Anthony Watts.

OK I'll bite, qanda, what is "WUWTF" and why would anyone salivate over it - or is this secret code to those who "nudge nudge wink wink" are in the know?

Hey, howya doin Amicus!

1st of all, apologies for the typo. On the QWERTY keyboard, you will notice the 'F' just under and slightly to the left of the 'T'. I would have pressed the 'F' inadvertently.

It should have been 'WUWT' - no 'F' ... although there are those out there who would see the connotations with 'WTF' and apply it as appropriate :)

As for anyone salivating over it? WUWT is the well known (sorry) so called 'denialist' blogsite run and administered by a weatherman (at least in his previous life, although as Banjo pointed to - he seems to have been reincarnated as some kind of "expert" in dendochronolgy ... ROFLMHO). And dont' get me started on his "brand" of statistics!

His name? Anthony Watts - hence, Watts Up With That (aka WUWT).

Watts has NO credentials in any of the climate sciences whatsoever - but you wouldn't think so given he has achieved veritable 'messiah' status at groupthink conferences like those annual events organised and conducted by the Heartland Institute (remember?).

Indeed, WUWT is usually the 'home' and first 'port-of-call' to all those that think AGW is bunkum.

Check it out (follow Banjo's link). I used to post there but it got a tad tedious - being continually called a "forkwit" and such other descriptive 'niceties'.

Nevertheless, I still drop in to have a look from time to time ... and unsurprisingly, I drop out too - shaking my head in bemusement and disbelief at the musings of himself, his contributors and his 'church' of followers.

Oops ... I mean John J, or Atman's links.

[phoenix94 (otoh) tends to link to the SPPI quite regularly. Science and Public Policy Institute, 'home' of Lord Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley - another neo-conservative think-tank and much akin to Heartland.]

THe science is settled mob in 1970. Nothing has changed

'Just check the predictions made on Earth Day 1970:

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

and even more for the comedy hour

;“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”'

Thanks Mr Bolt for drawing these false prophets to our attention. Unfortunately they are harder to shame than the Catholic church.

Didn't know the creationist was a follower of the neo-con shock-jock's sermons, but there you go.

And what did Revelations say again, runner?

Oops again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10330#168793

I should have added "designer".

Geoff

I apologise if this thread seems to be drifting, but this is OLO.

People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the truth.

Have you read the latest at AAAS, much to do with science and education?

"People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the truth."

You got that right, Qanda.

So what is the truth, please ? Am I in the right ball-park:

* That sea-levels have risen two inches in fifty years ?

* That average world temperatures have risen 0.7 degrees C in fifty years, but have not risen significantly over the last fifteen ?

Of course, while we wait for clarification, air and water pollution, and general environmental degradation, deforestation and destruction of animal habitat, soil degradation and depletion of fish stocks continue at ever-greater rates.

Question: is AGW a scam of the nuclear industry, and to hell with the environment ?

Joe

Joe, in the ball park but deliberately obtuse.

While this may sound simplistic (it is), what many people fail to appreciate is that those numbers you cite are significant. In geologic time they may not seem so, but over a few decades they are. If you can accept that 50 years (say) is required to separate the noise from the signal (e.g. natural variability from an un-natural warming trend) then you are on your way to understanding that we are skating on thin ice – the planet is ‘squealing’, Joe. The current episode of global warming is a symptom of human activity.

Your question. Interesting, most deniers (of AGW) seem to think it is the vast body of scientists and scientific institutions that are involved in a world-wide conspiracy. Maybe you’re right though, an even smaller coterie of nuclear conspirators is the culprit.

Seriously ... it’s going to take decades to adapt (some species won’t be able to) and it would be prudent to live in a more sustainable way (as you allude to), regardless of what you think about AGW.

Yes, people will believe only what they want to believe, regardless of the truth. Let me put it to you this way - do you really think people want to believe they are having a serious impact on the planet’s climate? I don’t, but I work in the field and research the stuff – and the truth hurts. And God forbid that people like runner are not loving (or caring for) His kingdom.

Qanda,

So it's two degrees in fifty years ? Two inches in fifty years ? That's it ?

But why do you assume that nothing can be done ? Why do you assume that everybody is happy to sit back and do nothing ? I'm quite happy with the precautionary principle, that, regardless of the extent of AGW, we should and can do many things right now: re-forest, switch to renewable energy ASAP, tax air pollution, buy back water now used for idiotic crops like cotton and rice, re-cycle storm-water for grey water household systems, etc., etc. And teach precautionary techniques of all sorts from the earliest years in school.

Alternatively, we could crawl into a cave somewhere with out cartons of baked beans and bottled water, and scream out at the world 'You'll all be sorry !'

>> So it's two degrees in fifty years ? Two inches in fifty years ? That's it ? <<

Joe, you are starting to sound like Basil again.

No, Joe – I DON’T “assume nothing can be done”, and I DON’T “assume that everybody is happy to sit back and do nothing” – quite the contrary, in fact. A lot can be done to meet the challenges of a warmer and wetter world, and there are many people, institutions, countries and captains of industry, that are doing these things ... although not enough, in my opinion.

Perhaps you are equating my despondency with human nature to crawling into a cave somewhere with a carton of baked beans and bottled water, and screaming out at the world 'you’ll all be sorry!’ I am not an AGW ‘alarmist’ but I do think what’s in store for humanity is alarming, even using ball-park Fawlty numbers.

What I DO assume is that most people have little understanding of a few salient points, not least:

• The ‘enhanced green-house effect’
• ‘radiative forcing’
• The ‘Earth’s energy imbalance’
• ‘climate sensitivity’
• The ‘global climate monitoring system’
• ‘time series statistical analysis’

If they did, they would also understand that 2 degrees and 2 inches (in fifty years) is NOT ‘it’. Given that we are belching billions and billions of tonnes of heat-trapping GHG’s into the atmosphere (increasing exponentially every year) ‘it’ will get worse. How much worse? We’re tracking at the high end of the IPCC projections.

How to address this ignorance is a problem, but it can be overcome with reasoned explanation, appropriate and rational public discourse. However, there is a bigger problem – there is a concerted effort by those that would lose their power and control (if policies and actions were implemented to address AGW) to deny and delay, to sow the seeds of doubt, to distort and misrepresent anything that gives credence to the robustness of the science. We need real leadership to counte

Qanda,

'How to address this ignorance is a problem, but it can be overcome with reasoned explanation, appropriate and rational public discourse.'

Well, thank goodness we have experts like you around, to instruct the ignorant.

Are emissions really increasing exponentially ? Each Saturday, the national newspaper publishes emission totals for the previous week, for most states and nationally: each week so far this year, the total has been less than the corresponding week last year, and to date, this year's total is well down on last year's total to this time. Of course, that's The Australian, that muck-raking, capitalist-consumerist, lickspittle rag, but it's probably the best we've got to go on at the moment.

So, what is 'it' ? Am I under or over ? And what can we do about it ? I know this is not the right postmodern question to ask - I should be listing causes and consequences, not seeking remedies, and that I should be finding who is at fault (modernism, capitalism, technology, consumerism of course) and denouncing the futility of changing minds and doing anything, that it's all too late, only fools would want to try to do anything about it.

But I guess I'm an irredeemably pre-postmodern modern old f@rt.

Still, I'm ready and willing to do something about it: just tell me what :)

Joe

I'd start by learning the difference between "significant/ significance" as it is used in common language, and "statistical significance" as it used by scientists and statisticians.

Hint: statistical significance has nothing to to do with importance.

You might even be able to convince someone who knows the difference t hat it's not a complete waste of time in having a converstaion with you.

Bugsy,

Yes, from memory Prof. Jones cited a figure of 0.07 degrees C, at the 95 % confidence level of about 0.07 degrees C, something like that ? i.e. somewhere between 0 and 0.14 degrees C, over fifteen years ?

But regardless of how many angels we can fit on the head of this particular pin, what are we going to do about it, assuming there is some actual warming - something other than building a tropical beach shack on a Tasmanian mountain ? i.e. something remedial, restorative, whatever you like to call it ? Why assume that there is nothing we can do and just look around for who to curse ?

Surely we would have done/can do something about the environment - renewables, and recycling, and re-forestation, etc., etc. - even if there had/has been no global warming ? AGW is not the be-all and end-all. (?)

qanda - sorry, my attention was elsewhere for a couple of days. What at AAAS?

Loudmouth - well I'm pleased you recognise the many ways we're trashing the planet, apart from global warming, as well as the precautionary principle. Most "sceptics" don't recognise either.

Regarding your question "Is that it?", the worry is that many of the consequences are accelerating. Ice melting is a big one, and it's difficult to rule out meters of sea level rise by 2100 (and more after that). (Also difficult to say it will happen.) The biggest danger with global warming is that we pass (have passed?) a tipping point beyond which natural responses take over and push the world to 4, 6 or even more degrees of warming. For example, if enough CO2 and methane leak out of melting tundra, they might become the dominant warmers. There are about 10 other mechanisms that could also cause runaway warming. I've summarised some of this in a longish article on my blog site http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/last-call-on-climate/ .

The world is a complex place, so that much warming would have dramatic consequences that are impossible to forecast in any detail, but we know that many ecosystems would be ripped apart (some species can migrate, others can't), many species would go extinct, others would proliferate, causing plagues and epidemics. Modern global industrial civilisation would quickly collapse into more localised forms that would struggle to adapt. Food production would probably plummet. Political and social chaos, and wars over dwindling resources, would probably be widespread. And so on.

>> Are emissions really increasing exponentially ? Each Saturday, the national newspaper publishes emission totals for the previous week, for most states and nationally: each week so far this year, the total has been less than the corresponding week last year, and to date, this year's total is well down on last year's total to this time. Of course, that's The Australian, that muck-raking, capitalist-consumerist, lickspittle rag, but it's probably the best we've got to go on at the moment. <<

No Joe, you don't need me to instruct you, but it would help if you at least understood that there is another world outside Australia ... it is a global problem after all.

You could try here;

http://cait.wri.org/

All you need is the capacity to register and the capacity to tick a few boxes, and it won't cost a cent.

As far as doing something about it? Perhaps you can find some ideas from Geoff's web site. But to reiterate, you don't need me to instruct you.

And yes, you are under.
And yes, you are still being obtuse - fool or not.

Geoff

The current issue, with features on education and science literacy

http://www.sciencemag.org/current.dtl

Loudmouth,

"Yes, from memory Prof. Jones cited a figure of 0.07 degrees C, at the 95 % confidence level of about 0.07 degrees C, something like that ? i.e. somewhere between 0 and 0.14 degrees C, over fifteen years ? "

How about no. Apart from your memory being exceptionally poor, and your not understanding what confidence levels mean (even though Jone's didn't use confidence levels), the numbers you state are pulled from nowhere. Not one of them is correct in any sense of the word.

I don't think we are talking about angels and pins when discussing this. People are trying to do something about the real climate change, including what so many 'sceptics' say we should do, and thats prepare to adapt. Agricultural scientists are preparing to adapt, but they are still unsure as to what the changes are yet to be.

It doesn't help when you see science PhDs seriously misrepresenting statistics to laypeople just to push their own agendas.

The only way to protect yourself from appearing ignorant is to actually learn what the scientists are actually saying. Try reading and comprehending some commentary that you don't agree with for a change.

And when I talk about science PhDs, I do mean the likes of Marohasy, who has a PhD in identifying insects, but you'd never guess it with the tripe she writes.

At this moment there are bigger issues than perceived AGW.We have to stop Israel's push for war against Iran.I'mageddon very tense about this nonsense.

Joe, I'll simplify with a pertinent example.

China has been developing exponentially, most pronounced over the last 50 years ... with concomitant growth in green-house gas emissions.

So much so that they are now the greatest emitters of GHG's on the planet, despite them doing far more than the US to mitigate the problems - as they should.

The US has taken 200 yrs, China has taken 50. Does that make sense?

This is not to say other countries, even under the flawed Kyoto Protocol, are not doing their bit. Imagine how much better it could be under a much better global system.

Growth in emissions for China:

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Emissions/Emis_moreFigs/China_coal+oil+gas.pdf

The rate of increase increases (i.e. exponentially) particularly since about 1950.

And the Y-axis? Mega-amounts of GHG's.

Now, where were we?

>> Much of the impetus for the denial that humans (significantly) cause global warming comes from industry (and ideologically motivated individuals and) groups selfishly pursuing their own short-term interests.

They are supported by a large corps of poorly-informed "instant experts" who gullibly accept the deliberate distortions of the industry (and ideologically motivated) groups.

Much of this resistance to the conclusions of 'climate science' seems to come from those who cannot countenance any change to the form of growth-obsessed consumer capitalism currently dominant in the world, despite ample evidence that the climate problem could be solved without drastic changes to our quality of life.

The last resort of denialism is "conspiracy theories", and we can confidently anticipate claims that the Oxburgh committee, comprising scientists as it does, is part of the alleged conspiracy and not to be believed. <<

http://tinyurl.com/Back-On-Topic

Good article Geoff!

If I may summarise: The 'deny-n-delay brigade' will shout, with their eyes tightly shut and their hands clasped firmly to their ears, that the inquiry's conclusions are a conspiracy to hide a conspiracy.

Will it change anything? Nope

Goodness, I surmise that qanda has dispensed with the "I'm objective and not a skeptic nor alarmist" stance previously touted - after a gloat of this proportion, I think he's firmly in the warmist alarmist nyah nyah nyah camp.

I'd be embarassed if I'd been defended by a review like that by those reviewers, a bit like the police investigating themselves.

If you want to clear the air, that's not the way to do it, the head of the review is in the renewable energy business and they almost tanked when the whole climategate thing happened.

You use people with vested interests, it is obvious the result you want, and get. Is it convincing, of course not - so to the keyboards, attack the skeptics, if the report was any good - you wouldn't need to.

Will it change anything, of course not, it doesn't clear the air at all - and people like Geoff and qanda know that so they feel they have to prop it up now with articles and little derogatory running commentaries about what people will do.

You miss the point both of you, but acknowledge it sub-consciously, as you try to build back up the facade.

good luck!

>> The 'deny-n-delay brigade' will shout, with their eyes tightly shut and their hands clasped firmly to their ears, that the inquiry's conclusions are a conspiracy to hide a conspiracy. <<

Odo enters on queue, stage right.

qanda on cue, tries to supress any debate or response and tries to silence any skeptics.

Bullying and sneering, the Australian scientific way eh qanda?

nothing changes does it

Mission Accomplished - the "deny and delay brigade" loses a battle, CRU ClimateGate, wins a War - ETS....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/27/2883282.htm?section=justin

This will keep the easily amused happy for days! (skeptics as well, at last some sanity prevails)

Not suppressing debate, just highlighting the deliberate distortions, misrepresentations and lies of those that will not benefit by adopting pro-active strategies and policies to tackle climate change.

Those that do not deliberately distort, misrepresent or lie are stuck in the mire of their own ignorance, or their own tunnel visioned ideology. Ignorance can be overcome, the latter most likely not.

If the real sceptics/contrarians can come up with a robust, alternative reason for global warming since we started spewing vast amounts of energy into the atmosphere, they would have. They haven't.

Until they do, nothing else can explain the warming without concluding that the enhanced green-house gas effect is real and poses a significant risk - not the Sun, not galactic cosmic rays, not the Milankovitch cycle, not volcanoes, nor any other naturally occurring phenomenon.

On the other hand, the only thing the unreal pseudo-sceptics/'deny-n-delay brigade' can do is regurgitate the same-old same-old, they have nothing new to add to the 'debate' - as Odo so aptly demonstrates. Why? Because published scientific paper after published scientific paper is continually adding to the robustness of AGW.

But hey, it only takes one robust counter theory to debunk the whole edifice of AGW ... where is it? And yes, we should still continue to look for it.

So no odo, I would be the last to silence legitimate science inquiry - indeed, I actually promote it. Whether you believe that or not, I don't give a fig.

As to your last "mission accomplished" chime, reminiscent of George W's in Iraq ... what else did you really expect? Your luminescence is really, not that bright!

For what it's worth, it doesn't take the brightest globe in the chandelier to shed light on the reality that until the US and China do something substantive (like putting a real price on carbon), it was pointless for pip-squeaks like Australia to do anything as effective.

>> Goodness, I surmise that qanda has dispensed with the "I'm objective and not a skeptic nor alarmist" stance previously touted - after a gloat of this proportion, I think he's firmly in the warmist alarmist nyah nyah nyah camp. <<

I'll say it again for the somewhat challenged neuron, odo:

I am a scientist by profession, by training and by wont - we are all sceptics, in the scientific sense of the word. I am assuming (not a safe thing to do btw) that you understand what that means and can distinguish the difference to your 'scepticism' (which I would deem more appropriately as cynicism).

I am satisfied that the planet is warming, and has been warming, due to humanity releasing vast amounts of energy into the atmosphere. If that makes me a so called 'warmist', so be it.

However, I am not a so called 'alarmist' as you impugn. Alarmists typically say things like; the ice sheets are going to collapse and sea levels will rise by 6 metres (or more) by 2100, or similar ruined and doomed hissy-fitting.

Oh no odo, I am not an alarmist, what I say is that the (latest) IPCC projections are alarming enough; 80 cm +/- by 2100.

I also say the the planet is "squealing", this is not 'alarmist' because it is real and it is happening now. It would be prudent to tread carefully odo, in more ways than one.

"So no odo, I would be the last to silence legitimate science inquiry - indeed, I actually promote it. Whether you believe that or not, I don't give a fig."

qanda who does not "give a fig" takes nearly 7oo words to explain this .. methinks you protest too much.

"It would be prudent to tread carefully odo, in more ways than one." Is this a threat qanda? Do I risk a thrashing with a limp lettuce leaf? Such is scientific inquiry in Australia now, threats to heretics.

Hopefully the excessive funding to discovering man-induced climate change in all aspects of life will conclude and now be spent as it should be, on adaption and enjoying what the world brings us, instead of this Scientific naval gazing and denial of climate change by means we clearly do not yet understand.

I see odo has still got his eyes shut and his hands over his ears.

And his paranoia? Just oh so obvious.

>> "It would be prudent to tread carefully odo, in more ways than one." Is this a threat qanda? Do I risk a thrashing with a limp lettuce leaf? Such is scientific inquiry in Australia now, threats to heretics. <<

Yes odo, it would be prudent to tread carefully, in more ways than one – for example;

1. slow the ravenous consumption of coal, oil and gas
2. discontinue the rapacious plunder of rain forests
3. plant food crops to feed people, not to fuel the West’s transport fleet
4. stop subsidising anachronistic coal fired power plants
5. prudent investment in renewable energy resources and technology
6. rethink the (un)reality of CO2 sequestration and storage
7. refine our agricultural practices
8. re-examine our capture and use of water resources
9. invest in efficient mass transport systems
10. re-evaluate town planning policies
11. design more fuel efficient means of transport
12. yada, yada, yada ... sheesh, add your friggin own - you can't be that stupid!

odo, you are oh so starting to sound like my own personal sock-puppet.

I can assure the onlookers, he is not. And while odo might consider himself a heretic, I don’t think he is - an ignorant blow-in (who doesn’t understand nor is prepared to understand ‘climate science) maybe, but certainly no odo, not a heretic.

Oh, odo,

Having re-assessed, you are probably right - you are a waste of space, and a waste of time.

qanda the environmental activist, lists his wishes:

1. slow the ravenous consumption of coal, oil and gas
2. discontinue the rapacious plunder of rain forests
3. plant food crops to feed people, not to fuel the West’s transport fleet
4. stop subsidising anachronistic coal fired power plants
5. prudent investment in renewable energy resources and technology
6. rethink the (un)reality of CO2 sequestration and storage
7. refine our agricultural practices
8. re-examine our capture and use of water resources
9. invest in efficient mass transport systems
10. re-evaluate town planning policies
11. design more fuel efficient means of transport
12. yada, yada, yada ... sheesh, add your friggin own - you can't be that stupid!

that's great - so how does that relate to man-made climate change due to CO2 increases?

you're an activist who has admitted he invests in renewables, so have a vested interest - like someone who invests in the tobacco industry would say, there's no problem, I'm not biased - qanda, of course you are and thus are trying to prop up the typical position of someone worried abuot his investments.

Everytime a warmist is cornered on the whole CO2 thing, off they go into activism .. you're a warmist, not an objective observer.

you're really into the insults aren't you .. calm down, it's just an opinion.

Something's really bugging you isn't it - does the government pulling outof the ETS make you think your renewable investments might go down the tube, better play up that man made CO2 warming thing again, maybe you'll get a dead cat bounce and be able to sell the shares off.

qanda, the government has announced plan B, after a shelacking in the press, and is now going to pour money into renewables - so you'll be fine after all.

Your vested interests no longer have to rely directly on AGW alarmism, yay!

You'll be able to rake in money AND ignore those skeptics.

Isn't it great to be a capitalist?