bonmot .. so who is debating the science?

Certainly none of the believer sites do, one of the ABC, ALPBC or Farfax sites are interested.

The science of AGW has never been debated ..

Why not a debate on the science, not all the scientists agree bonmot, so surely there is room for debate there, or do you want to shut that down with consensus thought? "Not a debate on the science rpg"

ah .. I get it, you only want to debate, what you want to debate, nothing that disagrees.

jeez, go back to the commune mate, we're sick of the group think.

Scientists debate science rpg. Insofar as 'climate science' I suspect you don't know enough about the details and nuances that is debated in the respected journals, conferences, lectures and so forth, to have any qualified input. Sure, have an opinion, but that is all it is, an unqualified opinion.

I don't know what you mean by "believer sites". Do you really think any of the university or scientific institution promulgates anti-science? Or NASA, or NOAA, or our own BoM or CSIRO, for that matter?

AGW has, is, and always will be debated - much debate is now about climate sensitivity and attribution - are you really saying it is not? And if you are, how do you know it isn't?

Sure, not all scientists agree - some climate scientists don't think human induced climate change is significant, the vast majority do. All real scientists debate this through the scientific process, not on online opinion sites.

As to you suggesting I go back to a commune, that is not conducive to constructive or rational debate, about anything, mate.

Of course Des belongs to the same Quadrant sponsored school of open minds that includes David Flint and Bill Muehlenberg.

Notice too that the Quadrant webpage features an advertisement for a conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute which specializes in promoting toxic spin, or more bluntly lies.

Its world-view can be summed up via the title of a book, namely: Toxic Sludge is Good for You.

I don’t know why all you people are arguing. I tried to get the message across in my earlier post. The big question in climate science has already been settled. Tested and accepted observations of the real world show that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cannot cause catastrophic global warming. This is why the alarmists have stopped repeating “the science is settled” and are now intent on convincing us that “the science is uncertain”. So, what has happened? Well since satellite data became available in the late seventies it has consistently shown us (Wentz et al. 2007) with scientific certainty that changes in evaporation in the real world are around four times as much as the IPCC has assumed. It has long been known that evaporation is three times as powerful as net greenhouse gas affected long wave radiation at cooling the earth. Evaporation cools the earth’s surface by around three times as much (78 Watts per square metre) as net outgoing greenhouse gas absorbable long wave radiation (26 W/sqm). Evaporation cools not just the surface, but also planet earth because the latent heat transferred from the surface, mainly the oceans (86%), to the atmosphere is released above most of the greenhouse gases, where it can easily radiate into space, but only a small percentage can penetrate the lower greenhouse gases and re-warm the earth’s surface. Wentz’s discovery alone gives us scientific certainty that a mooted doubling of CO2 could cause at most a moderate temperature increase of under 1°C, spread over a century. Even a 1°C rise in temperature is impossible because the evaporative cooling effect of a 1°C rise would exceed the net warming effect of the increase in CO2, indirect effects and the increase in outgoing long wave radiation due to the 1°C rise. The global circulation computer models that feed into the IPCC were able to predict scary temperatures because they are configured so that their virtual evaporative cooling of around 1 W/sqm is only quarter of the real world 5 W/sqm, for each 1°C rise in temperature.

My reading of the Royal Society's summary leads me to believe Des Moore is either very selective in his understanding, or is deliberately misleading.
Moore writes:
"The contrast with the conclusions drawn from the 2007 report of the IPCC is marked."

Where?

Paragraph 3 states (in part):
"This document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties."

LaurieC might be interested in paragraph 36, concerning water vapour:

"Climate models indicate that the overall climate sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the range 2oC to 4.5oC;"

Incidentally, LaurieC, you might also be interested in a recent New Scientist article, concerning a recent drop in the rate of evapotranspiration:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19565-water-cycle-goes-bust-as-the-world-gets-warmer.html

Anybody interested in a simple, low tech, solution?

A reforestation project in central Australia.

We dig a canal from Spencers Gulf through Lake Torrens to Lake Eyre. The evaporation rate of such a large shallow sea would be enormous. The clouds produced would make rain falling on the western slopes of the Great Dividing range &/or the eastern side of the Kimberleys, again all flowing inland.

The natural rainfall across all of central Australia would increase.

The trees, you collect mangrove seeds from around all our coast and plant them along the edge of the canal & Lake Eyre.

Massive wetlands to create more evaporation & aquaculture.

Hears the best part. No need to burn fossil fuels.

You reopen "Baxter" not as a Hitler Labour Camp, Stalinist Gulag or Maoist Re-Education Centre. You call it a "Rehabilitation Resource". All Radical, Extreme, Loony, Left, members of the Red/green/getup/labour Communist Coalition, after being arrested by ASIO for "Cultural & Economic Treason" could "be the change they want to see" and do the work manually with picks, shovels, wheelbarrows, etc.