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]