I'm no scientist but don't the numbers you've set out suggest that IPCC forecasts are fairly close to reality, albeit a little pessimistic? I am as skeptical as the next person about the climate change "industry" but if human-caused carbon and methane emissions do pose a threat to our continued pursuit of happy, healthy lives shouldn't we be actively engaged in doing something constructive about it?

Dead right, but with the oposition as a non believer it makes things harder to implement.

Mark Lawson here.
bitey and and 579
I don't get to the science or the policy issues at all in the article. The point is we have been assured that emissions have been runing at the top of the forecast range. In fact they haven't. If we were solely worried about methane then we don't have a problem. The CO2 forecasts may be construed as on track but they have been wildly oversold. No doubling by the turn of the century. So any temperature forecasts by the IPCC should be reduced accordingly - assuming we can agree that the IPCC models are correct - perhaps halved. The real kicker is that everyone is acting as if emissions are at the top of the range. There is no indication that the forecasts have been modified to take account of reality or that the climate modellers are aware of the problems. I strongly suspect they are using the old projections, which is ridiculous, particular for methane.

My sentiments exactly Curmudgeon !

Please, please don't keep introducing facts into the discussion.

Apart from anything else, they fade the curtains.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185430

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185434

bitey & 579, Why are you guys so desperate to steal from the poor, in order to give to, not even the rich, but the filthy, stinking, mega rich, international banksters who brought us the "Great Depression", 1987 stock market crash & 2008 GFC, so they can start the next speculative, green, gambling bubble?

Having had the opportunity to buy up shares in all manner of things at post crash prices.

While you are at it. Why are you also, so desperate to export even more jobs to Communist China? Sell QR National to foreigners? Why do you hate all our children so much? What have they done to you? Don't they deserve a good career?

Next you will be telling me that all our big screen TVs were not made in China, at all, but in huge factories all over rural & regional OZ belching pollution everywhere.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185443

Curmudgeon, Did you know, BTW that according to the ILO, OH&S "Survey" the most dangerous job in the world, is in fact "Spin Doctor". They all get giddy from spinning around, fall down & hit their heads. Which leaves them with a chronic, incurable, mental illness called "Reverse Psychology Psychosis". In which they are driven to embarrass themselves publicly, by compulsively telling obvious lies, while standing next to contrary facts & evidence.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185449

Garum Masala, Ditto.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185450

Pericles, Clever.

To ALL of you gentlemen. The liberal, labour, national & green parties have all failed us miserably.

How about we start a citizens lobby group or protest organisation? No loony lefties OR raving right.

Cracker Night, Friday 05/11/2010. We could gather in the Performing Arts complex forecourt to fire skyrockets across the river at Goanna B Liar or parliament house.

Ok, confirmation that CO2 emissions are increasing...check
Confirmation that CO2 emissions are pretty much spot on in the middle of IPCC forecasts...check
Inclusion of a graph that confirms that the average rate of CO2 emissions have increased by approx. 3-fold since 1965 (taking the multiple year averages shown)...check
A figure legend that essentially says “the acceleration in the rate of increase of CO2 emissions has been modest for a decade”...check
For methane emissions, confirmation that methane emissions greatly increased since 1984...check
Denial that the short term ‘plateau’ in methane atmospheric concentration increase appears to stop in 2007 and that the trend is upward again since then...check

A short scientific question for you Mark: Do you think it is more scientifically valid to project long term outcomes from long-term data eg. the trend of increase in CO2 emissions from 1960 to 2010?
or
to project long term outcomes from short term trends eg. your outlining that the rate of increase of CO2 emissions has ‘paused’ at 2ppm per year in the last few years (maybe the last 7 or so?, it’s hard to tell exactly which years you are using).
Leave it with you.

Mark,
A well researched, well presented article. And an insight into some of the editing needed to create the polished cocksure pronouncements that are trotted out by politicians, to further their agendas.

Reminds me of similar by , PROFESSOR STEPHEN SCHNEIDER on SBS
http://www.sbs.com.au/podcasts/Podcasts/insight/episode/109997/The-Sceptics-part-1
He used an analogy to explain how human derived CO2 overloads the system.

“If you have a bath tub and you turn it on so you're getting in a gallon coming in a minute right, and now the drain has opened up to a point where a gallon is going out in a minute. So there's a flow in and there's a flow out. That's an analogy to the fact that that there is a very large flow of carbon dioxide naturally going into the system in the summer time and coming out in the winter. Much larger than the 3%, I agree with that. However, it's in balance. The amounts are the same. So when you add the 3% it's 3% this year and next year and next year and next year…And it accumulates. So if all of a sudden I go to the bath tub and I make the gallon into 1.2 gallons and don't change the drain size in the bottom the water in the bath tub is going to rise.”

While no doubt intended to simplify matters –it fed the common illusion that the world prior to industrialisation was in equilibrium.

The reality is there was/is never a goldilocks stasis, the system is always trending one way or another,and sometimes it goes to extremes, as happened in the ice ages or their reverse the medieval warming or mid-Pliocene warming- as might well be expected given the number and variability of natural inputs.

Horace
What Stephen Schneider had been trying to convey to ‘sceptics’ up until his recent death is very true. It appears that many people, including the author of this current article, still don’t understand the accumulation effects of ‘long lived green-house gases’, like CO2. Schneider simply said that the oceans, atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere (the collective bath tub) is not absorbing the extra carbon that is accumulating each year.

Horace, despite the author writing a “well presented” article, he has difficulty distinguishing between short term trends and long term projections, as Bugsy pointed out. For example, the global financial crisis actually had a negative effect on the bath tub analogy. Far from being “well researched”, the author also doesn’t acknowledge that the trends in shifting rainfall patterns, precipitation rates, desertification, extreme weather events, Arctic summer ice melt, and so on, are all tracking at the higher end of IPCC projections, contrary to what he says in his article.

The author is right in one respect, the economic scenarios (produced by econometricians, not scientists) that the IPCC use in some of their modeling do need to be revised, hopefully the revisions will be incorporated into the next IPCC report.

Horace, of course there is natural variability in a dynamic, non-linear climate system - always was, always will. In the geologic time frame that you allude to, yes - we are heading for another ice age. However, the problem (now) is the rate of change and the "trend" is for a warming planet. Unfortunately, it is people (like the author of this article) that find difficulty in separating the signal (climate) from the noise (weather or yearly CO2 concentration).

There's some people worried about the implications of doing anything about the amount of carbon being produced, rather than worring about doing nothing.
Forcasting the implications would be impossable.
Doing nothing could be drastic.
It would be far better to err on the side of caution rather than have any solutions held up by people who would rather do nothing.
Iron man Tony says it,s gods will therefor we should do nothing.
The sooner that " person " gets run over and Turnbull takes over the better off politics will be.

Mark Lawson fails to explore why short term variations to the strong continuing CO2 rise in the atmosohere occur or why he thinks they translate to long term trends that will continue to 2100. He appears to strongly oppose active measures to haul back emissions; does he think that unrestrained growth in fossil fuel use won't increase the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2? If not, where does he think the extra CO2 is going (ocean uptake?) and what will be the consequences of that? Does he think this problem stops at 2100 or at a doubling of CO2 levels?
Lawson merely attempts to keep the uninformed in a state of doubt in order to delay action on emissions and fails to explore the complexities - I think deliberately - in order to promote the impression that the unprecedented growth in CO2 levels is less significant or certain in the absence of real policy action than it is and that it won't have significant impacts. Cleverly done but his careless disregard for the climate consequences of successfully encouraging inaction on emissions deserves only condemnation.

I agree Ken.
It is the purveyors of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) that are not only damaging science, but also the very real effort that is required to tackle the issues that science has shown to be a cognizant threat.

I was looking at this http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11063 and see in the comments that Mark Lawson (Curmudgeon) is again trying his best at obfuscation. His efforts are aided and abetted by a political scientist (an oxymoron if ever there was one) who also engages in FUD. The political scientist gives the impression that there is so much doubt and uncertainty about (climate) science that we have to “analyse it first without reference to policy”. Well, hello – that is what the scientist’s have been doing. The scientists have and are still having a “really sober, sceptical and honest assembly of all the data, papers and other evidence for AGW”. They have a high level of certainty and confidence (not 100%) that we are facing some very serious times ahead. Sure, it will always be the case that politicians (and ‘political scientists’) and economists will determine the policies but as Arjay demonstrates (with more FUD), the conspiracy theorists will shout down good science all the time.

Mark Duffett’s link http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/467648a.html only adds to the importance of GRACE – it’s unfortunate (but typical) that people like Mark Lawson, Don Aitken, Arjay and other purveyors of FUD that they can’t see past their own ideological agenda.

Horus (not Horace) sorry for the typo.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185495

Bugsy, Please don't tell me that you are unaware of this scientific information which contradicts the global warmers. The 3rd link is to a documentary aired on 4 corners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLfBXRPoHRc

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4488155708142678419#

The kind of action being proposed by the Red/green/getup/labour Communist coalition will lead to Armageddon. Economically, with Australia's economy carefully structured to suffer the most. The "Great Depression" just wasn't good enough for you, you want more, so that all our assets can be bought up for peanuts & all our children sold into slavery.

Together with a destruction of Agriculture Worldwide that will wipe out Billions.

Why should you not be charged along with all the other loony lefties with conspiring to commit an ETS, Economic Treason Scam?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185512

bonmot, What part of "Global Dimming" & "Economic Terrorism" don't you understand?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185517

579, i was polite enough to answer your comments. You could try to answer mine, or don't you have any?

BTW, i am not in favour of doing nothing. There is more than one way to skin a cat. This problem, if, there is one could be dealt with easily without all the destruction.

I propose a reforestation project in central Australia. If the Israeli's can make the Negev desert bloom then so can we.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185518

Ken Fabos, i think your sentiments & arguments are spot on, but the wrong way around. The Loony Lefties are clearly, deliberately trying to destroy both our environment & the economy so that, it will be easier for the Communist Chinese to take our country with all the resources they want, over.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185523

bonmot again, So we are trying to shut down the debate are we. How typical of the Red/green/getup/labour Communist coalition. In my experience whenever somebody accuses others, of some evil, "greatest moral challenge of our time", it usually means that they, are in fact the ones, guilty of committing the crime first.

Caste your eyes over this little beauty.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Pot, meet Kettle.

I think all the doom sayers, just might have given up having their favourite carbonate drink ;).

I am not sure you have properly thought through whatever it is you believe Formersnag.

Global dimming is a serious concern. I don't know where you got the idea that it contradicts the 'global warmers'? You did check out parts 4 and 5 of that documentary you posted, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayd5R2NkVcA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA74df19bWs&feature=related

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185585

Bugsy, if there is some truth to what the global warmers are saying, then reducing the burning of fossil fuels to quickly, without first planting billions of trees to breath in all the CO2 that is allegedly, already here, may reduce pollution, other than CO2 too quickly, removing the "shade cloth" effect caused by all the "Particulate Matter".

This might in fact trigger a catastrophic, fast warming, more deadly than even the worst scaremongering of the global warmers. Act too quickly, in the wrong way & you may, make the problem, way worse, in the short to medium term, before it gets better.

That's just the climate side, not the suicidal economics.

Nice to have you on board Formersnag. I don't think we are in any danger of reducing fossil fuel burning too quickly, do you? The challenge is that we can reduce them at all. And we need to. Global dimming is not going to save us forever, as the GHG concentrations continue to rise...

The take home message is that we can't just work on improving our air quality without tackling the GHG issue, and that means CO2.

EMISSIONS SHORT ? this is a disaster! ! !

After all the millions ($300mill to me mate Kathy Zoi and the 'Alliance for climate protection) I've invested to persuading the world that it's all real...and invested in Green companies, and Setting up futures exchanges for Carbon trading...

AAAAAAAAaaaaaarggggh... the value of my shares and my investment funds will contract and my stock holders will LYNCH me.

Mark Lawson here

Fellas - sorry I didn't look the posts again until just now. Thanks for the supporting stuff. A couple of references seem very interesting but I'll have to look at them a little later.

Bugsy, Bonmot and others - you are under the impression that the science is being called into question in the article. I didn't say a word about the science. Alkthough I have very severe reservations about the carbon cycle stuff - its virtually unproven - I did not discuss this in the article. I was merely pointing to what was actually happening, as opposed to what distinquished people were saying was happening.

A couple of posters asked if it was really fair to project a full century from 10 years of data. No, of course it wasn't. That was simply to give you an idea of how far out the CO2 projections are from reality, and by how much they have to change to get back in line with the top line projections, or the much vaunted doubling of concentrations by the turn of the century. Perhaps the present rate of increase in CO2 could accelerate, or perhaps CO2 concentrations might fall. Remember we are talking basically about one data point, and a bunch of computer projections over a full century which have already proved to be completely wrong for methane. Also remember that the projections cover a wide range, so its not surprising actual concentrations are still somwhere in the spread. The point about the article is that a lot of important people were talking hot air.

And some unimportant ones as well I see...

You won't admit you love me
And so how am I ever to know?
You always tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps

A million times I've asked you,
And then I ask you over again
You only answer
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps

If you can't make your mind up
We'll never get started
And I don't wanna wind up
Being parted, broken-hearted

So if you really love me
Say yes, but if you don't dear, confess
And please don't tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps

If you can't make your mind up
We'll never get started
And I don't wanna wind up
Being parted, broken-hearted

So if you really love me
Say yes, but if you don't dear, confess
And please don't tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps

Formersnag, you ask me “What part of "Global Dimming" & "Economic Terrorism" don't you (I) understand?”

I understand very well thank you, insofar that we have been spewing gigatons of sulphate aerosols, black soot and particulate matter into the atmosphere so much that it has contributed to a ‘cooling’ effect that masks an overall warming trend, particularly in the northern hemisphere.

What I don’t understand is that while you appear to grasp the concept of ‘global dimming and its consequences (including increased levels of atmospheric pollution like smog and ‘acid rain’ and increased levels of respiratory ailments like asthma), you yourself don’t seem capable of grasping the concept or consequences of global warming – even though the physics and chemistry of the phenomenon has been well known for over 100 years.

As to your “economic terrorism” remark, I don’t understand how you can say that when you preface it with:
“The kind of action being proposed by the Red/green/getup/labour Communist coalition will lead to Armageddon. Economically, with Australia's economy carefully structured to suffer the most. The "Great Depression" just wasn't good enough for you, you want more, so that all our assets can be bought up for peanuts & all our children sold into slavery.

Together with a destruction of Agriculture Worldwide that will wipe out Billions.

Why should you not be charged along with all the other loony lefties with conspiring to commit an ETS, Economic Treason Scam?”

Are you sure you’re not looking in the mirror when you think/say these things?

There is hope though, you do concede that you’re “not in favour of doing nothing”. Why? Do you therefore think that we are really spewing too much GHG into the atmosphere so that we really do need to increase the carbon sink by planting trees in central Australia? I applaud your thinking, notwithstanding central Australia is marginally bigger than the Israeli desert and that water issues are also somewhat more pressing.

Btw, I did not say you were “trying to shut down debate”. But I take your point; you have cast yourself with those that shout down science with fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Mark Lawson – I did not say you were calling science into question (others here have), it is inferred. What I did say is that you promulgate FUD.

Mark, you dodge the short as well as longer term influences on emission rates in order to promulgate the views that the rate of growth of emissions is flattening by itself and that the various scenarios for emissions the IPCC examine represent predictions for emissions (they aren't) rather than how climate can be expected to change under a variety of possible conditions. Your insistence those are IPCC predictions that are 'proved wrong' shows how determined you are to misrepresent truth in order to promote your dangerously irresponsible views.

You are also neatly avoiding the obvious that successfully undermining moves to put any brakes on emissions - as you clearly want - will see them go higher without restraint. With atmospheric concentrations of CO2 still rising at the 'lower' rate of 2ppm per year the very idea that "perhaps they might fall" is obvious nonsense . Saying " Perhaps the present rate of increase in CO2 could accelerate" doesn't excuse the dishonesty in the "Perhaps they might fall" remark - when that depends on what we do and you are opposing limits on emissions. You might convince those supporters you thank that you have something genuine to contribute to debate on this issue but ultimately you can't compete for credibility with the world's leading scientific institutions/practitioners and the growing body of clear evidence of a warming world. Try publishing a real paper showing how CO2 levels can be expected to fall whilst emissions grow!

Formersnag, keep it up; all the genuinely concerned people, informed by real science won't be swayed by people telling them they're supporting a conspiracy that will see their kids sold into slavery and should be charged with treason - however it does give them a good insight into the mindset of the worst anti-climate science fundamentalists. (Mark, meet one of your supporters).

Mark Lawson here.
Ken Fabos - you have completely mistaken what I was saying. You think its something to do with climate. I pointed to what we can say about emissions, as opposed to what was being said, and dealt with climate projections in one line. I never put forward any views, as such.

If you have any substantial objections to what said, then what are they?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185603

AGIR, good to see you again. Which church do you attend? I may drop by one day, to say gday.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185625

bonmot, with the greatest respect to you, i do love your line about the mirror. In every comment on any subject, as a devout Anti Communist i always use what i call "mirroring" as a debating tactic. In that i mimic the debating style of my Communist opponents, or "throw their own cowtish back at them".

Recently their was an article by Liberal Senator Marice Payne. Despite her gender, it was written in a masculine style, as in a fair discussion, liberally sprinkled with facts, sources, references, leading in a linear, logical, fashion through to reasonable conclusions.

Whenever a Loony Lefty speaks, Male or not, we get shrieking, emotional, feminist style language like "greatest moral challenge of our time" "Wrecker" etc, without any science at all, or clearly rigged stats, vicious sarcastic verbal violence & endless spin.

Para 3, i don't understand, everything i have ever said accords with what you said in your 2nd para. Namely that AGW may be possible, but if it is, then it has been exaggerated out of all proportion & is being counteracted by "Global Dimming".

In between 1945 & 1965 Australia's economy was advancing, diverse & heading towards total independence from anybody.

Now it is extremely narrowly based on mining exports. It would take only the slightest drop in volume &/or prices to do extensive damage to our national bottom line.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#185654

Ken Fabos, done it again, namely repeat the exact opposite of what Mark Lawson said in his article & comments.

When you totally ignore, that i was "throwing your own cowtish back at you" & mimicking your OWN debating style. Was that one of those, Maxwell Smart style, i know, that you know, that i know, that you know that i know, type attempts at continuing to play "head f#%* mind games" even though you are losing, or are you intellectually incapable of seeing my subtle irony.

Mark, I don't think I've mistaken your point at all; it's everything about climate and climate science. You want to undermine public confidence in climate science's capacity to predict the climatic consequences of rising GHG's by implying they are engaged in (and should be precise at) predicting the rates of growth of GHG's rather than offering up a variety of scenarios with varying emissions and giving the likely outcomes for them.

You imply - but have given no reason to believe - emissions growth might slow or stall on it's own. Truth is it continues to grow and you clearly oppose measures to slow that growth. Your own 'forecast' of when doubling of CO2 might (not) be reached is not based in knowledge or reason and has no basis at all.

Your arguments are disingenuous at best; they are misleading and, I believe, deliberately designed to mislead. Perhaps Formersnag is impressed; I'm not.

Ken Fabos - no, you have missed the point. The people who keep on saying that CO2 emissions are running at the top of the forecast range are clearly wrong. The IPCC should be making this clear, but it has failed to act.You have not tried to deny this. Instead, you have tried to bag me for pointing it out. How can it be misleading to point out what is actually happening? What have the spread of results got to do with it? Instead of complaining to me, you should be lobbying the IPCC to rein in the people who make these statements. If anyone is misleading people it is the IPCC. You should not help them.

From the article:

"As readers will recall at the Copenhagen conference in December, and elsewhere, various prominent personalities declared that carbon emissions were running at the top of projections."

I must not have been following the wrong newsfeeds, because this reader certainly does not recall. Who are these "prominent personalities"? Elsewhere you have referred to "top scientists" and "important people", but I have never heard one name I could look up. Come to that I have never seen any kind of identifying reference to these "important people", or what they actually said. How about it Mark, could you provide a few references to these various important personalities and what they actually said? It's got to be around somewhere.

Some have asked whether the Great Global Dimming (GGD) holds any significance/ lessons?

Yes, indeed it does –here’s some background:

“Between 1950 and 1980 there was a …cooling period. At the time many scientist thought an ice age could be imminent. That cooling was later ascribed to fossil fuel burning and the affects of sulphur aerosols…modellers claimed success in tracking this past ‘global dimming’ by replicating the action of sulphate aerosol”*

But it’s significance is a little different to what Bonmot and Bugsy have indicated –here’s the real significance :
“Scientific opinion has however shifted in the last few years .It is now clear that sulphate pollution from either industrial emission or sources such a volcanoes could not have been responsible for the dimming”*

It’s worth repeating :

“Scientific opinion has however shifted in the last few years .It is now clear that sulphate pollution from either industrial emission or sources such a volcanoes could not have been responsible for the dimming”

So what looked initially like a validation of modelling –and still is cited by the late adopters as such – is in fact a damning indictment of the unreliability of such modelling (and consensus ).

“These models were validated by their apparent ability to replicate the past functions thought to be caused by pollution but now known to be natural , thus showing the mechanics of the models to be wrong “*

[ * from Chill By Peter Taylor]

Horus, why did you not provide a link, or citation? Or are you just trying to find something, anything, to justify your stance of inaction?

Bonmot,

1)Full citation: Taylor Peter, CHILL , Clairview 2009 --It’s a book, I don’t believe it’s on the net.

2) “ to justify your stance of inaction?” --Far from inaction, I’m all for renewable energy –I even turn off my lights for TWO hours on “Earth Hour” day/night.

Mark, when you forecast - or imply likelihood of - much reduced emissions through to 2100 on the basis of recent, mostly Global Financial Crisis related slowing of the growth of CO2 (which you fail to mention), you clearly imply, but don't actually say, the IPCC failing to predict it represents a general failure of their capacity to forecast anything (such as climate consequences of emissions growth), yes I think you are being disingenuous.
You are engaged in ongoing efforts to undermine the credibility of climate science as well as policy to slow future emissions growth - to prevent the high-end scenarios - and this is one more example of that.

No comment Mark?

I'd have thought you would have a long list of quotable quotes from these "various personalties" and "important people". Seeing as how your whole argument hinges on it, and they must be very important for your indignation at how the IPCC has failed to set them straight and shopuld not simply ignore them.

I for one would really like to know who they are, as they do appear to be dishonestly driving an agenda.

Who are they Mark? They can't be MacGuffins can they?

Thanks Horus, I'll read some book reviews.
Your 2nd para is encouraging.
I don't do the Earth Hour thing - I just economise on my bills without living in the dark ages :)

Hi Horus
Looked at some “Chill” reviews on Amazon (good place to buy some books now).
Alastair McIntosh gave a 4 star rating (not bad) for good reason

http://tinyurl.com/chill-review

and I found his comments about another reviewer quite pertinent

http://tinyurl.com/McIntosh-comment

Anyone can write a book Horus, and anyone can use a book to push a perceived agenda - not quite like peer reviewed scientific papers in well recognised scientific journals though.

I am reminded of Ian Plimer’s “Heaven & Earth” - the scientific community generally ‘bagged’ it for the factual errors it contained and his reticence in correcting them after its first publication.

Bonmot,

This is where/how the proponents of AGW lose at lot of credibility:
“Anyone can write a book Horus, and anyone can use a book to push a perceived agenda - not quite like peer reviewed scientific papers in well recognised scientific journals though.”

It has become something of a standard that those who believe in AGW will seek to discredit the messenger rather than analyse the message. Such is not a scientific approach –it is more akin to a defence of a religion.

I urge you to buy the book and read his analysis,it is very thorough and his sources are "peer reviewed".

And then there’s this:
“I am reminded of Ian Plimer’s “Heaven & Earth” - the scientific community generally ‘bagged’ it for the factual errors it contained and his reticence in correcting them after its first publication.”

( to use “scientific community” as if there is this monolith block that supports your position is inaccurate –but for the sake of simplicity we’ll let it by)

Why was the same “scientific community” silent in the face of the “ factual errors” in Al Gore’s An inconvenient Truth ?

Why in the face of the IPCC climategate revelations was the response of practically all of the proponents of AGW on OLO, one of “we need to prosecute the hackers” rather than, “ We need to do a thorough investigation into the workings/ methodology of the scientists involved”

It appears that for quite a number, the AGW platform has become a quasi–religion.

Er, Horus
It has become something of a standard that those who DON'T believe in AGW will seek to discredit the IPCC (the messenger) rather than analyse the message.

The 1000's of papers referenced in the IPCC reports are peer reviewed too. While I have placed an order and will read "Chill" (and place it alongside my copy of Heaven & Earth) I suspect you haven't read any of the scientific papers referenced in AR4.

It is well known in the "scientific community" that Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician. He got the Nobel Peace prize not for the science, but for drawing attention to the seriousness of global warming and its potential impact on world peace. That is an inconvenient fact, but there you are.

Horus, you may not like the results of the investigations that were conducted in the aftermath of 'climategate' but the science still stands. As to others who post here, and their history, I can't answer for them.

I would agree that most people really haven't got a clue about the science, but that in and of itself does not mean the science is wrong, or that you should equate science with a religion, it most definitely isn't.

Bonmot,

"It has become something of a standard that those who DON'T believe in AGW will seek to discredit the IPCC"

During the course of these discussions I don’t believe I have said anything derogatory about the IPCC!


But hey, since you brought it up: “The 1000's of papers referenced in the IPCC reports are peer reviewed too”

Er, what happened with these, then:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc?CMP=AFCYAH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-graph-ipcc-report

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC_AfricaCrops.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

Seems like they dont need too much outside help --in the IPCC(self) discrediting dept.

Horus, I have read some of your OLO history – it’s not rocket science to see what you think about the IPCC. Your link to media shock jocks like Fred Pearce, Jonathan Leake and the Guardian newspaper, together to some other obscure web site about ‘applied information systems’, is to demonstrate what, scientific understanding?

What, you can't link to research institutions, or academies of science, or recognised individuals or establishments that actually study, report and disseminate the scientific research? Must you just rely on MSM or something you picked up from some blog?

Sheesh, your last post is akin to linking to Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, or some other unbeknown and obscure web site - the epitome of rational, forthright and logical thinking? Most would say not.

The AR4 contains 4 substantial reports together with a comprehensive technical summary. What, or which part, do you think is demonstrably flawed to the extent that you think your last post indicates?

You now seem to be focusing on impacts and what to do about them (yes, there is a difference between WG1, WG2 and WG3) rather than the basis of the science itself – well done, welcome to the challenge of preparing for the future and not living in an insular society.

Bonmot,

<<< Your link to media shock jocks like Fred Pearce Jonathan Leake and the Guardian newspaper,... your last post is akin to linking to Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman>>>

The links were commenting on IPCC errors.
The fact that you’re no wiser –and are still bleating :
<<< What, or which part, do you think is demonstrably flawed>>>
I can only guess, shows that your were so busy trying to heap scorn on the source , that you forgot to read the content!
So let me give a summary:
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/509-the-never-ending-scandal-new-list-of-errors-in-ipcc-report.html

Hardly the sort of mistakes (if mistakes they were?) that a careful, scientific body would be expected to make.

And, your holier-than-thou tone is a more than a little hollow when one considers some of the colourful characters the IPCC has shared the rostrum with.

<<<What, you can't link to research institutions, or academies of science, or recognised individuals or establishments that actually study, report and disseminate the scientific research? Must you just rely on MSM or something you picked up from some blog?>>>

You confuse IPCC “consensus” with scientific community consensus. What you should have said was you hadn’t seen any such studies. But the fact that you haven’t seen such studies is likely to be more a failing in you observational skills than any reflection as to the existence or veracity such studies.

Here’s one you can start on –when you finish digesting it I’ll get you more:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/05pielke.pdf

Bonmot,
<<< welcome to the challenge of preparing for the future and not living in an insular society>>>

If the opposite to being insular is to uncritically adopt the latest craze –give me a little insularity!

“Germany led the world in putting up solar panels, funded by E47 billion ($66bn) in subsidies. The lasting legacy is a massive bill and lost of inefficient solar technology sitting on rooftops throughout a cloudy , delivering a trivial 0.1 per cent of the total energy supply” [Bjorn Lomborg – The Australian 14/10/10]

If the IPCC and its confederates had not played new-world-order games, we may have been a lot further down the road to a cleaner environment and more sustainable society.

Horus, for the 1000’s of sources and the 1000’s of scientific papers assessed by the IPCC, I for one am gobsmacked that they didn’t make more errors – but that’s just me.

Just over a week ago, the IPCC strengthened a number of its processes and procedures as a consequence of the recommendations made by the independent review by the Inter-Academy Council (IAC).

In fact, it was the IPCC itself (together with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon) that requested this review (in March this year). The IAC published its review at the end of August.

Obviously, the IAC recommendations are important to improve the way the IPCC works and how it is governed. The IPCC is taking decisive action to respond to these recommendations in a way that is transparent and open, ensuring that the highest quality assessments are produced and made available to the international community. No one should expect anything less, except maybe those that would like to see the IPCC burned at the stake or disbanded altogether.

The IPCC will implement many of the IAC recommendations, including; guidance on uncertainty and non-peer-reviewed literature. Moreover, the IPCC will set up a task group which will address the establishment of an Executive Committee to review the key responsibilities of the Secretariat, as well as the terms of reference of Chair and Co-chairs of the Working Groups.

The IPCC will also implement a rigorous conflict of interest policy and develop a communication strategy to help in disseminating the science better to non-scientists. It will also form task groups to address other IAC recommendations related to IPCC procedures for the preparation of the assessment reports.

Will any of this satisfy the naysayer? Probably not, but there you go.

As to your link to Chris Landsea’s 2005 paper – so what? It is well known that his ‘hissy fit’ with the IPCC soon thereafter caused a sensation on anti-global-warming blogsites and op-eds written by shock-jock columnists in MSM.

It is also well known (at least to those who do research in the field) that you cannot attribute any one extreme weather event to global warming.

Chris Landsea agrees that as global warming continues; ocean heat uptake, Hadley and Walker Cell activity, ENSO, etc all exacerbate an increase in atmospheric energy levels that are seen to be driven by the enhanced green house effect.

In other words, the more energy you put into the system, the more the system will react to try and maintain the equilibrium – evidenced regionally by more atmospheric moisture and more rain/snow, or more severe drought and shifting rain patterns (please don't confuse this with frequency/intensity of tropical cyclones), etc.

This is not to say there are not any uncertainties (there are) or that the level of anticipated emissions won’t change in any future AR5 climate projections (they will).

Horus, there are many papers published that don’t see the light of day in MSM that add to the weight of evidence in support of AGW. I can’t help but feel you hope someone (like Landsea) will shoot it (AGW) all down - sorry buddy, it won’t happen any time soon.

“the fact that you haven’t seen such studies is likely to be more a failing in you observational skills than any reflection as to the existence or veracity such studies ... here’s one you can start on –when you finish digesting it I’ll get you more ...”

Oh golly-golly, can’t wait :)

You may like to check out some of these, I do all the time – it’s part of my job.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/

Horus, if you want to play “show me yours and I’ll show you mine”, go look for another play-mate.

Thanks for your link to Benny Peiser’s blog site - I expected nothing less.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html

Your last missive? Scientist's don't play politics.

Bonmot,
Before we get lost in the rhetorical flourishes and self congratulatory back slapping (“I do all the time – it’s part of my job”) , let’s recap how we got to where we are:

Bonmot sniped: “Anyone can write a book Horus, and anyone can use a book to push a perceived agenda - not quite like peer reviewed scientific papers in well recognised scientific journals though”
( The IPCC is made of sugars and spice ands all things nice,and the rest,snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails!)

Horus responded: With a series of links outlining some well known
(to others, at least!) IPCC gaffes.
Bonmot responded: “Your last post is …akin to linking to Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman,… “
then –having not read the links -- asked again “ What, or which part, do you think is demonstrably flawed”

Horus responded: with another link
Bonmot again goes on the character assassinate the messenger campaign.

But, when he can’t deny it any longer :“for the 1000’s of sources and the 1000’s of scientific papers assessed by the IPCC, I for one am gobsmacked that they didn’t make more errors “
(Well! no one is perfect.)

(BUT… the IPCC will be prefect from here on in!)
“The IPCC is taking decisive action… in a way that is transparent and open, ensuring that the highest quality assessments are produced and made available to the international community….
The IPCC will also implement a rigorous conflict of interest policy and develop a communication strategy to help in disseminating the science better to non-scientists…”

And guess what, it thought of it all on its ownsome!

HOGWASH!
The IPCC was caught out –it’s first response was to deny –then it tried to excuse.

Only when it was unavoidable did it undertake a review.

I was reading a defense of the IPCC in a magazine the other day –it sounded just like your last post, except that --- it was printed 3 years ago!

You appear to have missed your calling Bonmot, you have all the qualities necessary to make really devious politician!

Bonmot,
And, if you have “ read some of [ my] OLO history” you will have found that I have not denied that there are changes/trends – there always are.

So comments like:
“Chris Landsea agrees that as global warming continues; ocean heat uptake”, are irrelevant.

And comments like:
“ weight of evidence in support of AGW” would better be worded “the weight of evidence in support of [warming]” .You and others have ( too eagerly) extrapolated that it’s anthropogenically driven.

There is a lot of politics vested in it being found to be anthropogenically driven; the AGW platform has been deeply political since day one.

And some of your other comments are too naive to be believed
--“scientists don’t play politics” – rather like saying priests are above and beyond carnal desires, and
--“it is also well known (at least to those who do research in the field) that you cannot attribute any one extreme weather event to global warming.”
[lucky you left yourself an out, Eh!:( “at least to those who do research in the field)]
Judging by the almost daily media & politician hyping of AGW, I'd say perhaps its --well known-- ONLY amongst those “who do research in the field” !
And they , it seems, are perfectly happly to let the wild stories like --we had the hottest/cooldest/windiest/wettest/driest day on record, therefore AGW is valid --run, just so long as it brings in more attention and funding.

Horus

When I said;

“The AR4 contains 4 substantial reports together with a comprehensive technical summary. What, or which part, do you think is demonstrably flawed to the extent that you think your last post indicates?”

I was trying to point out that the “IPCC gaffes” you focussed on were in the sections on ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ (WG2) and ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’ (WG3). None of the issues you raised demonstrate a flaw in the ‘Science of Climate Change’ (WG1). It is a common misconception and some people use it to decry and claim foul the physical basis of the science.

I would agree that due to the nature of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) politics does raise its 'ugly' head. That is where the debate on what to do, and when to do it, stifles any real action. However, let us be clear on this, the politicians in that forum (and others) can’t change the science.

In other words Horus, the science is what the science is. No politician or economist can change that. The politicians and the economists (not the scientists) will be the ones making the decisions on the ‘how’ and the ‘when’ – WG2 & WG3 issues. I must say it is perplexing, amusing even, that some politicians have a climate change policy even though they think it’s all "crap".

I think the best thing we can do is try to live in a more sustainable way. It will put the brakes on taking fast action on climate change, but it will have the same long term effect. Hopefully it won’t be too late.

My last comment here Horus, I have obviously caused you consternation – last post on a Saturday night and first on a Sunday morning?
There are better things we could be doing.
Bye

Nice to have you back on board Mark.

Now I'd like to repeat my question:

Who are these 'important people' that you say claimed that emissions were running at the top of the forecasts, and do you have a quote for any of them?

Thanks.

I really would like an answer, as I think it is an important point, ansd it is important to know who these people are, so that we can petition them.

Ok, back to the topic.
Mark, I’m not sure whether your pronouncements are made with duplicitous intent, or that you in fact really don’t understand the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (I suspect a bit of both). Fact-check, each storyline (and the 40 or so scenarios) assumes a distinctly different direction for future developments, such that the storylines differ in increasingly irreversible ways. Together they describe divergent futures that encompass a significant portion of the underlying uncertainties in the main driving forces. They cover a wide range of characteristics such as population growth, economic development, and technological change. For this reason, their plausibility should not be considered solely on the basis of an extrapolation of ‘current’ economic, technological, and social trends.

Of this I am convinced, you exhibit what appears to be an inherent failure (for whatever reason) to understand the uncertainties expressed and acknowledged by the IPCC when it commissioned the SRES. It is obvious that when a MSM writer puts his own ‘take’ or interpretation on the short term trends, there is a very good chance that they are flawed (at best) or obscure what the SRES was intended to be used for in the first place, at worst. Sure, the document does need revisiting, however the SRES was never meant to be taken out of the context in which it was to be used. For example, you don’t seem to understand that uncertainties may be different in different applications - climate modelling; assessment of impacts, vulnerability, mitigation, and adaptation options; or policy analysis. It would be a stupid and unwise move to throw the baby out with the bathwater based on unsound premises. You seem quite readily prepared to do that.

It looks like Mark has gone missing in action.

The following paper pre-empts Mark Lawson’s latest OLO articles/comments and his again(?) to be released book, by 2 years.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22970.pdf

There are others.

Mark, (if you happen to check back in) this might interest you:

http://cbe.anu.edu.au/research/papers/pdf/wp526.pdf

As you say, “leave it with you”.