Still at it I see ?

Has my own life and business activities taught you nothing ? :)

http://www.generationim.com/about/

You 'could' have seen that the above company is the 6th largest shareholder in 'Climate Exchange' LLc (Europe) but they were just bought out by ICE "International Climate EXchange" which wonder of wonders is headed by a bunch of OIL/Energy industry related directors....*hmmmmm*

Chairman and Chief Executive Jeffrey Sprecher:

Mr. Sprecher's leadership has been characterized by a focus on innovation, transparency and capital efficiency in the global derivatives markets. He has led numerous strategic initiatives that have enabled ICE to expand from a single asset class — energy — into five asset classes today. These initiatives have included numerous acquisitions, including the International Petroleum Exchange of London (2001), the New York Board of Trade (2007), Creditex (2008), The Clearing Corporation (2009) and the Climate Exchange (2010).

Me smelleth a rat of humungous proportions scurrying around the stock exchanges......

This article contains at least one BIG FAT LIE.

Note first its conclusion:
“Data provided by GRACE and other satellites … warns us of the consequences of continuing activity causing or contributing to global warming”

“GRACE also provides empirical evidence which refutes arguments put forward by those who contend that global warming is not occurring and claim there is no evidence that it is.”

Now, note, the evidence:
-- The Greenland Ice Cap
--Arctic Sea ice cover
-- The East Antarctic Ice Sheet
--And mischievously slotted with the above, Aquifers in Northern India and adjacent Pakistan.

The lie is, aquifer depletion in northern India and adjacent Pakistan has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with over exploitation due to over population. Now true, in passing the author does mention “No government program exists to limit population growth”
but its positioning, and both the fore and aft text which refers to the water being used to “ supplement rivers and rainfall” and “and reduced river flows due to glacier retreat in the Himalaya and Hindu-Kush mountains, yielding less water” creates the illusion (and I believe quite deliberately) that the root cause of aquifer depletion is climate change.

However, no where does the NASA link claim climate change as the case. And just the other day we were being told –AS YET MORE “EVIDENCE” OF AGW --the rate of river flow worldwide had INCREASED.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/worlds-fresh-water-flow-rises-rapidly-20101008-16c0k.html

Aquifer depletion on the subcontinent --and most other places in Asia for that matter –is a function of over population , NOT climate change.

Why would India or Pakistan or Bangladesh seek to tackle the difficult issue of reducing population growth/numbers when they are being continually told by people like John Le Mesurier that any resulting problems are caused by climate change --- and the West is dutybound to pick up the tab.

The article is almost as mischievous as ALP speakers in the senate, the other week, telling us that the Pakistan floods were without a doubt the result of climate change –despite there being much doubt in scientific circles about such.

HI Sarnian.

You said:

//There's non-so blind as them as does not want to see.//

I agree with this..... and your insights might be valuable on this thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4024

Here's a thought to extend, or complement yours about blindness (which also fits into the other thread I mentioned)

Imagine... a husband says to his wife...."Honey..I don't have enough room in the garage to re-assemble the engine of our car, do you mind if I do it in the lounge room?"

Of course she will go apoplectic.

So...after about a week, he brings in 4 sparkplugs and places them neatly in a corner. "Hmmmm"... irritating, but not the end of the world she thinks.

A week later, he brings in the distributor..... same reaction.

A week later he places the crankshaft in another corner....

etc.

Regarding GRACE.. well the importance is not so much on 'what' it reports, but 'how' its data is reported methinks.

My 2c. I work with climate scientists so I have the "bias" of deductions drawn from evidence:
The evidence for global warming comes from different sources:
1) Theory says it *should* happen.
2) Homogenised (standardised) data from ground stations world-wide say it is happening.
3) Homogenised sea surface station data says it is happening.
4) Correlated satellite data (calibration is tricky) says it is happening.
5) Bird, insect and flowering plant movements say it is happening.
6) Oil exploration and shipping says Arctic ice is decreasing, consistent with theory and other observations.
7) The scientific consensus amongst qualified climate scientists is about 97% for, 2% unconvinced and less then 1% against.
The jury is *not* still out...it has decided and has moved on to more detailed issues.
On the against side there is a massive anti-science movement paid for by energy companies. Like Big Tobacco they are forming "institutes" and hiring "sceptical scientists" (who are not climate experts!). These groups are leveraging the distrust engendered by Left-Right politics and the recent success with other anti-science such as anti-evolution ("teach the controversy!") and pro-war campaigns.
*All* scientists are professional sceptics. Transparency means they have to be to survive professionally. Forget conspiracy theories and "they do it for the money". This is so ironic as to be hilarious...or it would be if the anti-science weren't so well funded as compared to science itself.
Have a look at NewScientist's wrap up of the IPCC "controversy" and you will find it was a over-hyped storm in a teacup. Why aren't bankers and economists given 1/10th of this scrutiny?
The biggest risk from GW science is group-think. I believe the international scrutiny will prevent this from getting out of hand.
It's time the blatant lies and misinformation stopped. By all means be sceptical, but don't let yourself become a Right wing anti-science, pro-oil-profits tool.

Ozandy,
You have said it all, hit the nail on the head, right on the money,
I cannot fine more ways to agree with what you written.
If only this was taught in schools.
Well done.

Ozandy
A bit of a mishmash!

In the first part of your post,you talked about GW, the important "A" part was noticeable missing : according to you, AGW is true because things are changing! Well, few if any are saying the world is not changing.The issue of dispute is whether it's Anthropogenic driven.

Then you had this analysis of what made-up and drove the sceptic side:
i)“Like Big Tobacco they are forming "institutes" and hiring "sceptical scientists" (who are not climate experts!). These groups are leveraging the distrust engendered by Left-Right politics and the recent success with other anti-science such as anti-evolution ("teach the controversy!") and pro-war campaigns”.
ii)“ don't let yourself become a Right wing anti-science, pro-oil-profits tool.”

But Then -- after telling us all that -- you say:
“ Forget conspiracy theories and 'they do it for the money’”
It really had me puzzled --took me a while to figure out your meaning .Then, I had a Eureka! moment, what you were telling us was "it’s Ok to talk of your opponents as part of giant , evil conspiracy, but not Ok to talk about your side like that!

Then in closing you say: “ By all means be sceptical” ---after reading all that ---do we dare?

PS sarnian, re,"If only [Ozandy's view point/stance] was taught in schools".It is,dear Sarnian,it is!