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).