Meanwhile, the human population continues to grow rapidly and we as a species continue to get more and more out of balance with our life-support systems, to the great detriment of many other species and to our future wellbeing.

Where's the great debate or the great remediation effort on this great issue??

Why are we getting so hung up on climate change, which really is just one aspect of this greater problem?

How on earth can we still be worshipping a paradigm of rapid continuous growth and not be putting maximum effort into not only halting population growth but sending it into significant negative growth with great urgency, among other things.

Those who knock anthropogenic climate change have two great problems:

When faced with enormous uncertainty about something that has absolutely humungus potential consequences, we should be erring on the side of caution, and NOT spinning the silly line that we should do nothing until AGW is proven to be true and the consequences are proven to be significant.

And secondly, they are propping up the crazy business-as-usual continuous expansion paradigm, which is WAY past its use-by date.

Climate sceptics and denialists might gain a bit of credibility if they were seen to be addressing some of the other huge aspects of the global human imbalance with the environment and resource base. But they don't do this, do they. They just sit back and say; "she'll be right mate". Yeah, We'll be fine with 9 million people and a much greater rate of atmospheric carbon emissions, and all the rest of the huge and rapidly increasing human impacts on this planet's biosphere.

Just crackers!

Let's deal with climate change as though it is at the serious end of the spectrum of potential consequences. And for goodness sake, let's deal with the continuous human expansion issue with all the collective global effort that we can muster.

Funny how denialists keep repeating "no warming since 1998", when that (misleading) claim relies on the data set they love to hate, the global temperature estimates of the Hadley Centre of the BMO. See http://betternature.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/global-cooling-over/

The author needs to learn a bit more physics. A three-kilometer-thick ice sheet can lose a lot of ice from its interior because the entire ice sheet tends to spread and thin, even if it sits in a shallow basin. As the edges fall off, the resistance to interior spreading decreases. The only effect of the basin would be to slow the loss of the last 10-20% of the sheet.

For Greenland that means >80% of 7 meters = >5.6 meters of sea level rise, still far too much.

The West Antarctic sheet is not sitting in a basin, it is grounded below sea level. As it thins it would just float off. So all 7 meters of potential rise is fully available.

And you can't make conclusions about global effects by looking at a few locations.

Yes Ludwig I agree.

There was an essay titled Populate and Perish? in the OZ on Monday by Oliver Hartwich which trotted out the usual line re how those who argue for limits to growth of the human population, and everything else, are curmudgeonly anti-human.

Populate and Perish being the outcome of Oliver's "research" project into the top. As though anyone at the CIS would or could publish anything promoting a curb on human hubris.

Perhaps, you climate worriers should wonder why your movement needed to be so devious and deceitful (with manipulating and losing important data, hockey stick fiasco,the highly suspect CRU emails, adjusting weather station data in addition to hundreds of others instances),if the science was so straightforward?

It is clear that the constant fear mongering has backfired and the likes of Ian Plimer, who you berate as a 'denier', will be considered one of the few who could see the Science through the ideology.

Your arguments are directed toward generating an overwhelming fear of the 'world getting out of control' and that we westerners must pay vast amounts of money to fix it. Yet the Chinese are allowed to pour as much CO2 into the atmosphere as they like 'to catch up'?!
That's a smart idea,(not) it even contravenes your own theories.

Let's all sit back and watch as the 'greatest moral issue of the 21st century' is slowly consigned to the scrapheap of historical oddities and wait for the next bit of lunacy from the far Left and their financial backers.

"show no increase in hurricane activity in the last 40 years."

Finally someone has mentioned hurricanes or cyclones.

Very good, because the number of cyclones occurring per year have a significant impact on transportation of energy away from equatorial regions to other lattitudes.

Never heard hurricanes mentioned before.

Geoff Davies - your lecture about physics would carry a good deal more weight if you had understood the article.
The greenhouse scientists are not trying to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, for example, is actually melting as such. Its far too cold for that. It most certainly isn't hollowing out.

Instead, as the article says, they are claiming that the process of disintegration around the edges - the process that leads to ice bergs - is speeding up due to a slight increase in melt water at the bottom of the edges of the ice sheets. That's what Hanson was claiming when he came out here a few years back, and that's the pretext used for claiming the whole ice sheet would collapse, despite temperatures at the poles being far too cold for mass melting.

The author - and this is his field - points out that the greenland and west antartica ice cheets are in deep basins, so they ain't sliding anywhere.

Best to read the article.

Cliff Ollier is a scientist of high repute. His work is based on data and, yes, peer-reviewed articles. But I am sure that he would not claim that what he has set out is the end of it. There might be more data tomorrow.

There is in fact an extraordinary amount of data out there on just the single issue of sea-level rise. And the data do not all point in the one direction. We tend to point to the data that we like (I don't mean Cliff), and wave those at our opponents. They pick other data and return the compliment.

It is for that reason that I cannot accept that the 'science is settled' or that we need to get on with action 'to combat climate change', 'now'. We need a lot more knowledge and real, civil, serious debate between climate scientists and the rest of us.

Anyone who would like to see what such a debate might look like should go to Judith Curry's blog 'Climate etc', which has in a month scored an enormous audience interested in just such a discussion.

Thanks Professor Cliff Ollier for a little sanity. Unfortunately Green religion now has to much money at stake even know their lies and fear mongering is obvious to anyone who really wants to know.

Don -"We need a lot more knowledge and real, civil, serious debate between climate scientists and the rest of us."

Don, I don't believe a civil and serious debate can occur, because climate alarmist scientists are not primarily driven by science or are disinterested in the fact that pseuodoscience, bias or data tampering is rife. Some are well meaning but with a blind faith in institutions like the UN IPCC while others are simply self interested and willing to forsake scientific truth for personal gain.

While this should be a battle of ideas, it is not. Its a battle between science and a corrupt ideologically driven a self-promoting group who have swayed many legitimate scientists and directed the flow of funding away from real discussion and rewarded ideological purity.

If people doubt this, they should examine Julia Gillard's 'committee' to discuss the Carbon Tax issue - which can only be joined by the climate believers, thus ruling our any recognition that there may be another side to this story.

There must be global warming we need carbon taxes to feed the new derivative market and keep us all in poverty.

Professor Cliff Ollier has presented us with a careful analysis of the empirical data on sea level measurements. Clearly his paper does not support the ‘dangerous’ climate warming or climate change hypothesis.

Ludwig uses the so called “precautionary principle” to claim that we may be threated to use his words by, “humungus (sic) potential consequences.” The more one reads and learns about climate change, severe and devastating effects appear to be more and more unlikely. Nobody denies that carbon dioxide can absorb infra- red radiation and lead to some atmospheric warming. However the relation between absorption and atmospheric concentration is logarithmic. Thus it has indeed been suggested that any increase in atmospheric CO2 would have a miniscule effect.

To Ludwig and his colleagues, I assert that the evidence for dangerous climate change is flimsy in the extreme. I further assert that the economic and social cost of implementing -a carbon tax or an emission trading scheme, or a large scale switch to renewable energy sources - is far in excess of any reasonable and foreseeable danger from climate change.

Oh dear, I wonder how Cliff Ollier – is going to feel when a large chunk of the Greenland Icecap; slide off into the sea and raises sea levels by a few meters?
Yes the Arctic is a bit warmer Cliff. It may have escaped your notice but the Arctic Ocean has a whole lot less ice than it used to have. No this is not a plot by those devious global warmers, it is there for anyone who wants to take a ship or boat through what was impassable waters only a few years ago.
Now it could be that as the ice melts and disappears, the dark water gets a bit hotter than the white ice was. Could this possibly be a reason?
Oh well, time will tell. If you find yourself paddling about in the ground floor of your house in a canoe one day, you will know you were wrong.

Anti green,
Of course you are right, the economic and social cost of implementing -a carbon tax or an emission trading scheme, or a large scale switch to renewable energy sources - is far in excess of any reasonable and foreseeable danger from climate change.
If the climate change doomsayers are right and there really is a bad thing on it’s way, well we will all be rich and living in Mac castles, with all sorts of goodies to play with as the storm breaks over us.
What was it a NSW Pollie said a while ago? What’s the point of saving ourselves from climate change, if we don’t have an economy?

Climate change has been taking place for the last 40 years,
Be prepared to live underground,
I don't see how anyone can say there has been no change.
More drought, More rain, More intense sun, More destructive wind.
The score is on the board.
There's is something going on which makes it hard to plan for the longer term.
I still can't guarantee a crop this year.

ludwig "Climate sceptics and denialists might gain a bit of credibility if they were seen to be addressing some of the other huge aspects of the global human imbalance with the environment and resource base. But they don't do this, do they. They just sit back and say; "she'll be right mate"

What's your basis for saying that skeptics and denialists just sit back and say she'll be right mate about any other issues.

Like any alarmist, you're caught up in galloping exaggeration, if you want to have any credibility, you have to stop these adventures into hysteria and fantasy

How do you know I or many others are not buying up land to hold as forest so no one can ever exploit it?

Where's you evidence? Most of us are skeptical about CO2 being the bad guy,but not about say land clearing or many other things, and people say this constantly on OLO, but you appear to never see that, how selective are you?

You just "assume" that all skeptics are naturally adverse to anything you disagree with

What a huge leap of faith, but I guess pretty normal and totally expected of an alarmist.

I note you want the precautionary principle applied, is it just to global warming, or can we start bombing North Korea and Iran right now, since there is a threat that they will use nuclear weapons, better to be safe , let's bomb them now eh?

I expect though you will be selective in your alarmism though.

sarnian - one of the points about the article is that all the indicators are simply not showing the big increases in sea levels consistantly been forecast by the greens. We are, at best, seeing tiny increases. As for a large chunk of ice breaking off from greenland to reaise sea levels by the odd metre or so this is impossible, as the author points out. Most of the Greenland ice sheet rests in a big valley so it can hardly slide into the sea..

As is widely acknowledged Artic sea ice has nothing to do with sea levels. Summer ice levels fell to lows not seen since satellites started recorded the seasonal cycle - that's what you're referring to when you say no ice; there's plenty of ice in the winter - but there is some evidence that the artic summer ice has been low at times before that.

The big differnce is that this time we can see it by satellite and there has been talk of global warming.

Dear sarnian,

it is a nonsense to suggest a carbon tax, or increased taxes for anything, would damage the economy. There are vast quantities of capital available among obscenely wealthy corporations and individuals---the people who pay the least tax and enjoy the most profligate lifestyle perks.
The brain-dead pay-as-you-earn-mob is so used to reacting in a knee-jerk manner when the spook gets around, "tax hikes predicted", that they never stop to object that extra funding needed for carbon trading, hospitals or whatever, should be scooped off the top! No, it's like a natural law; "tax hikes" are bad "by definition"; it can only mean we all pay more. (Why can't it mean the fat cats pay more? Lots more! Internationally so they can't run away with their hoard!) But no, these benighted souls vote it down in droves at the ballot box because they believe the ideological claptrap fed them from the top down---that "austerity measures" don't apply to the wealthy. They don't question it. They applaud it. Thus we have the mind-boggling scenario, play-out recently wherein the "Labor Party" is nearly voted out of office by its own constituency for wanting to slice a fatty steak off the mining moguls (they should be boiled down into aspic!).
The ETS should be paid for, world-wide, from the salaries of the wealthy on a descending scale and creative accounting banned.
Heavens no! goes up the chant from their idiotic minions, "the economy would falter!"
Well the global economy is already a dead failure for the vast majority, while the rich get richer. The wealthy should pay for the ETS, and other infrastructure.

and nobody has mentioned what effect the eruptions of Mt St Helen's, Mt Pinatubo and the Goroka volcano has had on the climate.

What, don't they have the statistics available for that? They happened years ago, and volcanoes are still erupting today. Don't they disturb the climate a whole heap more than humans do?

Shrode ,you are right.The so called experts haven't a clue how the complexity of climate works.They have been studying climate for a few decades,but climate works in cycles of thousands or millions of years.

The Sun is the biggest influence on climate.This is an ideological/political driven agenda.If AGW theory stopped tomorrow,hundreds and thousands of jobs would be at risk.It is now an industry with it's own agenda and bias.

Money is a powerful motivator even in the scientific community which has been starved of funds until the last few decades with the birth of AGW theory.Govts can make $ trillions in taxes and corporates can make $ trillions trading in carbon ,the basis of life and our energy.This sacred cow will not die and easy death.

<< The more one reads and learns about climate change, severe and devastating effects appear to be more and more unlikely. >>

Really, anti-green?

Don't forget that the rate of carbon emissions is most likely to rapidly increase for a long time to come - for as long as we have relatively easy access to fossil fuels and other energy sources can't compete.

I really do find it quite staggering with the climate-change-related changes we are seeing now, that anyone could think that we won't be in for some pretty major negative consequences if we just keep on doing what are doing now, at the same old progressively greater rate that we've always done it.

I note that there was nothing in your post about continuous human expansion. So while it might be a little off-topic, let me ask you: are you happy with continuous rapid population growth with no end in sight or do you think that we should make every effort to at least stabilise the population if not progressively reduce it?

Actually this is not off-topic at all. It is intimately linked to climate change.

<< What's your basis for saying that skeptics and denialists just sit back and say she'll be right mate about any other issues. >>

Amicus, what other great global issues are skeptics and denialists into?

Sorry to answer your question with a question, but I can't see that they'd be into any of them, by and large.

<< You just "assume" that all skeptics are naturally adverse to anything you disagree with >>

Well, I do assume that skeptics, by and large, with maybe a few exceptions, are just the sort of people that are well and truly on the wrong side of the fence, especially concerning never-ending economic growth and the promotion of never-ending population growth to prop it up.

Do you really think I'm too far wrong here Amicus?

Thank you for your comments
1. As I pointed out infra -red absorption bears a logarithmic relationship to CO2 concentration therefore by reference to the log curve an increment in concentration from say 0 to 100 ppm will have a much greater effect then say an increase from 300 to 400 ppm. Of course the curve increase to “infinity” but the gradient is smaller and smaller approaching zero at the “limit.”

2. You ask me about population growth. Well some 40years ago Paul Erlich published his book on population. Population was going to explode, yet we are still here, enjoying for the most part an improved standard of living.

3. Suppose you say, what if the population goes up by another increment? I can only state that by nature I am an optimist. I have every confidence that my grandchildren are bright enough to solve problems as they arise and on their merits. This undoubtedly will include the general adoption of technologies such as Nuclear Electricity Generation and the application of Genetic Engineering to agriculture and so on.

4. I agree with you on one point. I will not live long enough to know if my optimism will overcome your pessimism.

ouch, ludwig, what next?

skeptics and deniers are heretics?

burn them at the stake?

your religion is showing

now you are demonising people who do not believe what you do (or you think they do not believe as you do, just as bad eh? condemned by their implied actions? If you're not a believer, then what else are you not believing? probably buy vegetables from the supermarket! Car drivers, possibly and oh horrors they might even use air travel!)

mate, you need to stop and have a good think about where you're going with this.

hey, maybe you could make a video, blowing up non believers, children even .. oh wait

These creatures who believe in global warming, CO2 is bad and its child climate change, must all work for the government ensconced in reverse cycle air conditioning, to hold on to their bulldust so firmly, otherwise they must think their excreta doesn’t stink. But then ignorance is bliss as their next meeting is a repetition of the last and who cares as the public service go round and round and do not care what happens as long as their pay and pension are permanently guaranteed by guess who? The private sector and its enterprise, which is a word and workforce these bigbrothers always despise and hold in contempt as they think they are exempt, what hypocrisy and nonsensical mischief to suit the masters of the universe these greedy few. But then, I would consider some of these bloggers supporting this rubbish are only here to gain brownie points to give a leg up to a relative or favourite mate, and the complimentary dish of egg salad and cold chips with relish.

One commenter said “this is an ideological/political driven agenda” - I could not agree more.
I wasn’t sure who Cliff Ollier was until the first few pages of a web search returned his “status” - then it all made sense. Along with a few other well trod names exhorted with monotonous regularity by so called ‘climate change sceptics’, Cliff Ollier crops up time and time again in the blogosphere.

Of course, he is aided and abetted by the same worn out 'players' (retired geologists or not) playing the same old song song. Nevertheless, these players in this ideological game still hold influence with the mining industry lobby groups, here in Australia and overseas.

A scroll down the Lavoisier Group’s author and subject list http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-change-by-subject.php reveals not only Cliff Ollier, but the usual suspects.

Ollier also crops up at the Australian Climate Science Coalition http://www.auscsc.org.au/about_us.html

What I didn't expect (but am nevertheless unsurprised) is that the OLO commenter going by the name 'Don Aitken' heads a list by the “Australian League of Rights”

http://www.alor.org/Britain/Attempts%20to%20Change%20Climare%20are%20Futile.htm

This list also holds place within the Lavoisier Group too, although they add the Pope to their list of dignitaries. Yes, this is an ideological driven agenda directed by neo-conservative ‘right-wing’ think tanks and supported underneath by the 'tea-party' mindset.

As far the article goes, you will find that the vast majority of scientists involved in studying climate change do not suggest or invoke a "dangerous" warming anytime soon. Typically though, it is the so called "sceptics" that play on this word (and the 'science is settled' meme) to distort and blow it out of proportion. Yep, it is these idealogues that are the purveyors of FUD.

Shrode – climate data does show perturbations caused by large volcanic eruptions and anthropogenic emissions far outweigh those of our latest volcanic emissions.

Bonmot, every single one of your assertions could bounce right off the mirror and smack you in the face. *Exactly* the same, and more, could be said for the AGW lobby.

And, as always, you invoke the well-worn bogeyman, 'the mining lobby'; I'm surprised you were able to resist parrotting out 'Big Oil', as well. But, if you want to play a game of 'cui bono', shall we compare figures of just who is spending how much on pushing their agenda?

I think not. You might not, as Dr. Zaius warned, like what you find.

'The vast majority': the buzz-word of unsubstantiated ideologies everywhere. Who are this vast majority? I want names, I want numbers. If you're going to make such a blanket assertion, prove it.

'Scientists studying climate change' - what does that mean? The cosy little cadre swanning off to Portugal for secret meetings? The scientists who, as Tim Flannery admitted, almost all come from other fields? A geologist or physicist who reads a climate science paper and smells dodgy science at work?

to Bonmot:

Using my name in this way (not to mention being unable to spell it correctly) is a fine example of 'guilt by association'. I have nothing whatever to do with the League of Rights, which simply printed the list of signatories to a letter sent three years ago to the Secretary-General of the UN asking him to note that with respect to anthropogenic global warming the science was not in fact settled, exactly the point I made above. Now that I've looked at it again, the points made in that letter have been amplified in strength since — and, if I may say so, it is rather a distinguished list of signatories.

If you can only use this style of argument, it seems to me, you have really nothing to say.

whoa there, bonomt's found a conspiracy .. hang on, isn't it meant to be the other mob finding conspiracies?

bonmot, that is so hilarious, talk about desperate

Squeers,
My tongue was firmly in my cheek

Anti-green, I guess that is the difference between us in a nutshell - you are optimistic and I am pessimistic.

I can't see how the vast stores of fossil carbon that have accumulated over hundreds of millions of years can't lead to major climate change when they are largely released into the atmosphere, and the oceans, at the most phenomenal rate over the period of about one century.

I also think that Paul Ehrlich was basically right, but just a bit ahead of himself in the timelines of the consequences.

BTW, what sort of anti-greenness do you espouse - opposition to the Australian Greens or opposition to general green philosophies or ??

anti-green,
2. You ask me about population growth. Well some 40years ago Paul Erlich published his book on population. Population was going to explode; yet we are still here, enjoying for the most part an improved standard of living.

I wonder if the fifty million at any one time who are starving agree with that?

The world's current growth rate is about 1.3%, representing a doubling time of 54 years.
I do not think we will all be living a good standard of living with a world population of 14 billion, considering that there is starvation now.
Also of course, by then the world’s oil supply will have depleted to near zero.
You can grow very little food without oil.

Oops sorry, sarnian,
but it wasn't wasted, it's always nice to get up the noses of minimifidianists who, I agree with bonmot, tend to fit a certain demographic and right-wing political profile. I've tried to convince them elsewhere that however much they prevaricate and cherry-pick over the minutia of AGW (other impacts of our carbon emissions, such as ocean acidification, are indisputable) there is no disputing the ethics of human indifference to its devastating impact on the biosphere. For ethical/spiritual reasons alone we should be confronting the damage we've done.
As Chief Seattle, famously said:

"We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's grave behind, and he does not care. He kidnaps the earth from his children, and he does not care. His father's grave, and his children's birthright are forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert".

Well he got these unspeakable creatures right!

Ludwig, you are not just pessimistic, you are without a shred of backing for your assertions.

The global warming which occurred up to 1998 was .7 of a degree. All the alarmist nonsense is based on warming of less than one degree, with a degree of error of plus or minus one degree.

There is no science which shows any measurable effect by human emissions on global warming.

You do not need to be an optimist to know that CO2 is a beneficial gas, part of the carbon cycle essential to all life on earth. It is not pollution.

Despite the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1998, there has been no warming, since then, and there have been periods of cooling, despite the best efforts of the Climategate miscreants to hide the fact.

Mr. Climategate himself, Phil Jones, has said that there has been no global warming for 15 years.

The IPCC based its assertion that AGW was “very likely”, on estimates which, if correct would have resulted in the satellite instruments showing a “hotspot” in the troposphere, the “signature” of AGW. There is no hotspot, no signature, and no AGW.

Does being a pessimist preclude recognition of facts?

In your case, Ludwig, it appears so.

"I wasn’t sure who Cliff Ollier was until the first few pages of a web search returned his “status” - then it all made sense..."
-bonmot

Wow, ad hominem fallacy much? The validity of an argument is not contingent upon the person advancing said argument. It doesn't matter if it's Cliff Ollier or Chief Seattle advancing an argument: arguments must be assessed on their own merits, not on one's attitude toward the arguer.

"As far the article goes, you will find that the vast majority of scientists involved in studying climate change do not suggest or invoke a "dangerous" warming anytime soon. Typically though, it is the so called "sceptics" that play on this word..."
-bonmot

I agree with the first sentence. However, in my experience, it is invariably the hippy camp who wax hyperbolic about the dangers of climate change.

"As Chief Seattle, famously said:..."
-Squeers

What does this quote have to do with climatology? Folk in the hippy camp advancing poetical waffle in place of rational arguments is precisely the sort of thing that pisses off us minimifidianists, who would like to see the argument based on science and rationality rather than faith and spirituality.

Leo Lane
"You do not need to be an optimist to know that CO2 is a beneficial gas, part of the carbon cycle essential to all life on earth. It is not pollution."

CO2 in the atmosphere is pollution and not benificial, if it forms carboxylic acid and increases acidity of the oceans.

Whether or not an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has created a global warming effect is debateable, but the formation of carboxylic acid in the oceans is a straight forward chemical reaction, that has to be occurring.

Curmudgeon -

No, you need to understand the argument better. I did not say an ice sheet would "slide" out of a basin, I said a thick ice sheet would spread and thin. The top can move even if the bottom does not. Unless it's in a 3-km-deep hole, which it's not. My point stands and this article's point is invalid.

<< ouch, ludwig, what next?

skeptics and deniers are heretics?

burn them at the stake?

your religion is showing >>

Whoa there Amicus. This is a tad over the top methinks!

I'm talking in general correlations, while you appear to be talking in hard and fast relationships in a strongly polarised manner.

Anyway I can't do this discussion justice at the moment while I'm travelling around and just popping briefly into internet cafes and the like. We'll take it up again at some future point, no doubt.

BTW, I AM a sceptic. But I believe that we should err on the side of caution towards reducing the potential impact of climate change, and all manner of other human impacts that we don't fuly understand.

This essentially means that I advocate just the same sort of strong action as those who believe that AGW is real and very serious.

Cheers.

Riz:
<"As Chief Seattle, famously said:..."
-Squeers

What does this quote have to do with climatology? Folk in the hippy camp advancing poetical waffle in place of rational arguments is precisely the sort of thing that pisses off us minimifidianists, who would like to see the argument based on science and rationality rather than faith and spirituality.>

Dear Riz,
there is nothing "hippy" about the quote above (which is a profound observation on the tendency of your precious economic rationalism) or my attitude to this debate. neither do I have time for "faith and spirituality" in the inane sense in which you portray it (in which, according to the "profile" mentioned above, many minimifidianists no doubt conceive it). It is simply a fact that there is an ethical dimension to this debate that cannot be denied or rationalised in the same way you and your ilk deny and rationalise the bleedin obvious--that we are having a devastating and unsustainable impact on the "whole" environment. Reducing carbon and other GG emissions is only one of a raft of radical changes that it is ethically and rationally incumbent upon us to make. Or is it "rational" to you that we go on indifferently destroying our own life support system? And is it ethical to you that we ignore the "collateral damage"--that is the major species-extinction event we are driving?
Don't kid yourself, the stand you take has nothing to do with "science and rationality".
The callous indifference and wilful blindness of you and your ignorant crew is what pisses me off!

The full Seattle text can be found here:
http://www.kyphilom.com/www/seattle.html

Ludwig,
You enquire as to my anti-green philosophies.

1. In 1945 Karl Popper published “The Open Societies and Its Enemies.” Popper selected Plato as the model for all totalitarian societies to come be they of the right or of the left. It is recognised that the Australian Greens are a part with much fanaticism and a strong Marxist and Stalinist authoritative wing. By this definition the Greens must be counted among the enemies of the open society.

2. Optimism to me implies a belief in progress. That scientific discoveries and technological innovation will lead to a better and happier world. Of course there have been major setbacks. The year 1945 was a sad year. The aftermath and misery of war was only too apparent. Cities destroyed, countries in economic ruin, nations on all sides suffered a massive loss of life; while of those that survived there were appalling physical and/or mental injury. Yet there was also an air of optimism, hope for a better future.

3. Fast forward to 2010, the world is not perfect; there are still many problems to solve. However, I suggest to you that on average compared to 65 years ago people live longer, have more wealth and are looking forward to a better future.

4. One of the big philosophical problems in science is deciding on cause and effect. Is an elevation of atmospheric carbon dioxide a major or sole cause of climate change? The late Austin Bradford Hill, an eminent medical statistician and epidemiologist suggested a number of criteria*. His criteria are not to be regarded as a check list. Rather as a framework to make scientific judgment. It is my judgment call that greenhouse theory is flawed. Clearly, you have made a different judgment.

5. Logical Positivism may no longer be in fashion. But I further believe that unless a statement (hypothesis) or predications from that hypothesis can be empirically verified, then that hypothesis is at best a meaningless statement.

*Hill AB. Proc Royal Soc Med. 1965; 58: 295-300

Anti-Green.

You sure know how to blow your trumpet, but unfortunately its coming from the wrong end. I know there's little point debating with you since your hard-line premature rantings can only service your own interests.

However, here is Sir David Attenborough to throw a little light on the facts.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCkQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DS9ob9WdbXx0&rct=j&q=david%20attenborough%20youtube&ei=e7ncTNaTFcikccSHuMIL&usg=AFQjCNGyn0IFbRvQS8MIgUQ_UeRd6zEglg&cad=rja

and

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCEQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DkWySAm8LaOo&rct=j&q=david%20attenborough%20youtube%20climate%20change&ei=prvcTKa3J4ayccGy2MMG&usg=AFQjCNH6lkOdbqE8zx-hKLwWXW0tWq6v6w&cad=rja

Enjoy.

BLUE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=fvw

And this.

http://www.google.com.au/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DFHYqbAjHbT8&rct=j&sa=X&ei=Mb7cTPSpDMHBcYzZvccL&ved=0CDMQuAIwBA&q=climate+change+facts+you+tube&usg=AFQjCNEBEK1rzOBcJqq2aqYaomE4Jdmiug&cad=rja

http://www.google.com.au/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DJO3IcD4VgGg&rct=j&sa=X&ei=Mb7cTPSpDMHBcYzZvccL&ved=0CC0QuAIwAw&q=climate+change+facts+you+tube&usg=AFQjCNFPzAywC0cNTO_-1UznaVc6i9MytQ&cad=rja

http://www.google.com.au/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DaPDyfNVUt08&rct=j&sa=X&ei=Mb7cTPSpDMHBcYzZvccL&ved=0CCcQuAIwAg&q=climate+change+facts+you+tube&usg=AFQjCNEXNcANSmtUuINGaIQApvzHl9SrNg&cad=rja

BLUE

What an appalling mish-mash of misinformation this article is. Just another deluded voice advocating denial, doubt and delay. Almost every 'fact' cited about climate is wrong. The very best satellite data on sea levels and Antarctic and Greenland ice-sheets that clearly show the opposite to Cliff's assertions are completely absent. The latest and best available data on Ocean Heat Content are brazenly denied... whilst a few cherry picked quotes from articles that don't even show what the author claims. I somehow doubt most of the scientists Cliff quotes would in any way support his conclusions -what utterly deceptive drivel. Why does OLO even publish this rubbish?

Bonmot, the Realists are fact driven. The alarmists lack facts or science to back their assertions.

There is no science which identifies any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. It is clear that, whatever effect carbon dioxide has on global warming, the last 15 years have shown no warming, while CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased.

Carbon dioxide cannot be shown to have any detrimental effects, while it is easy to show that it has beneficial effects.

The factors involved in climate are clearly not understood by the alarmists, and it is clear that any pretence that climate can be predicted is not sustainable.

Climate predictions by the IPCC have been 48% right. Predictions made by tossing a coin are 50% right.

IPCC predictions cost $10m. The superior predictions can be made with a $1.00 coin

It is difficult to say which of your assertions is the silliest. Perhaps:” climate data does show perturbations caused by large volcanic eruptions and anthropogenic emissions far outweigh those of our latest volcanic emissions”.

As climate data shows no measurable effect of human emissions, that comment is, marginally, the silliest.

The European effort in cutting emissions, at great detriment to their economy, gave rise to an assessment of how much their carbon emissions had been cut. It worked out to be the equivalent of four days of the Icelandic volcano’s emissions, which has been erupting for months. Another demonstration of ignorance of the alarmist side.

If we cut all human emissions world wide, it would have no measurable effect.

And Ken Fabos, following your baseless comment the other day that there is science to back AGW, have you now satisfied yourself that there is no such science?

If so, you might let us know, and withdraw your fatuous remark.

So there you go. Pick which model you like for your political or what ever motives you have and still.........there are the facts to the best of our smartest brains on the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ax0w1g9HI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B04LA-32blc&feature=related

IMO....Two things are happening and are the same.

Climate change/global warming.

Its was always going to happen any-way, and all we humans have done is Quickened up the processes.

Its as simple as that.

Now the Question is, what can be done. Well not much. All we can do is ride it out and take our losses.

Nature in time would of done the same thing whether we were here not.( just a lot slower )

Like I said, the human-race has just pushed the accelerator down.

19th century industrial revolution.

This is the price we pay for it.

BLU

Leo Lane.

"If we cut all human emissions world wide, it would have no measurable effect."

This is quite correct.

BLUE

When I first contributed to OLO, I thought that it was a great idea- a place where authors and readers of all kinds could try to push the boundaries of public discourse. The direction of that push, I thought, was towards a greater understanding of matters of public importance. The need for OLO, I assumed was due to the restricted and predictable utterances of the mainstream media, which either try to echo conventional sentiments so that they can draw an audience to advertisers, or are using their public mandate to push their particular editor/owner biases.

Maybe its my unreconstructed logical positivist/ modernist educational experiences that get in my way. My mob thought that the rules of engagement were that "opinion" (other than in matters of personal taste) was "informed opinion"- where inductive reasoning was applied to the data, to extrapolate to untested realms, and perhaps a bit beyond the boundaries of what was "public knowledge". We used to call it "speculation" It was fun, as part of the game was to explore new theories that would fit the data, Ockhams Razor notwithstanding. After a bit of fat-chewing and banter, we would acknowledge that while we were entitlled to our own opinions, we weren't entitled to our own facts. The discourse had to be cumulative- repetition of settled positions was considered poor form.

....continued

.... continued

Although it seems that Graham is trying to uphold these basic notion of enlightened discourse, I think that he is being let down by both authors and bloggers. I doubt whether any of Ollier's 300 publications look remotely like this one, in form or content. I assume that he played by the conventional rules of science to advance his career. Many other articles in OLO seem to be of the same ilk- people who have reputations that have been built on the strength and consistency of their intellect and with ideas that have been tested in some robust market or another. It seems like OLO has become a place for such people to exercise their alter egos, with the left side of their brain taking a holiday.

The bloggers are as predictable as Pavlov's dog. Ring the "climate change" bell and the same salivations appear to right and left. Abuse and vituperation passing as "robust opinion" with the same statements being made time and again- mainly views on the moral worthiness of those with whom they disagree. It is more like Alf Garnett than Monty Python.

Perhaps I was mistaken. OLO has become depressing. There is nothing positive to be learnt here.

Dear Jedimaster,

After such a sanctimonious sermon (as rhetorical and facetious as anything I've ever posted here, but in your case also condescending) I believe it would be more a statement of empirical fact than opinion to observe that you appear to be a supercilious twit.
One of the reason's nothing changes in this world is we're all tacitly or otherwise scolded to observe the proper form, in both tone and content. This fetish for "facts" for instance, whatever they may be, is trotted out by the denialist cohort here every time the debate raises its head. Of course they know that in a field of thousands of disputed facts they will always find sufficient dubiety to defend their prejudice. And that is what OLO, and other such sites, are about and shouldn't be ashamed of. Each side defends a preconceived prejudice, believing s/he is possessed of "robust opinion". My own prejudice informs me that human beings are utterly duplicitous and deluded, and so I generally take the side that casts us in the worst light--the ray of hope being that we could be better than we are. My mantra is that whatever the majority hold as true "must" be false. I rely on OLO to disabuse me of this prejudice, though without wishing to appear smug, I find myself all too often discomfortingly born out.
Since it has been repeatedly proved that "facts" and "evidence" are the slipperiest data of all, especially on climate change (they lurk mysteriously beneath the surface and give the lie to the baldest transparencies), I resort to a quaint old tradition called ethics, which doesn't have much currency, but I value it over your "facts" (have you read Dickens's "Hard Times" btw?).
Unless you can disabuse me of my prejudice, please spare me your fictitious factitiosness.

Squeers, I hate to burst your self-righteous little bubble, but Chief Seattle never said any of the those feel-good, hippy homilies you attributed to him.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/seattle.asp

After all, we wouldn't want anyone promoting AGW to put out false data, now would we?

"The bloggers are as predictable as Pavlov's dog."

agreed, yet, the same can be said of you jediimaster

Deep Blue"all we humans have done is Quickened up the processes.
Its as simple as that."

Dead wrong. The processes have not quickened up, except in alarmist media releases with no basis in science or fact.

Ludwig:" I advocate just the same sort of strong action as those who believe that AGW is real and very serious.".

This makes you worse than the alarmists. If you know better than they do, why do you not advocate something sensible, instead of the same ineffective non solutions that they do?

perhaps if you have a problem with OLO jedimaster, instead of posting completely off topic with nothing to add and some suspect an agenda to suppress any comment or debate, you take it up directly with the publisher in direct email and not publicly?

I for one enjoy seeing the cut and thrust of people and their passions, and am not offended by people disagreeing with me, as often as I prefer they didn't. (I'm often wrong, but am able to learn)

it's their right and their duty in fact to express their difference of opinion, otherwise, we would assume everyone agrees with us and go about life not realizing there are indeed differences of opinion that people are passionately prone to defend.

you seem to be astonished that anyone could possibly behave the way they do, it's the real world out here, and people behave as they do because it reflects what the feel

I agree with squeers on this one "Unless you can disabuse me of my prejudice, please spare me your fictitious facetiousness."

Back on topic, Skeptics have lost the war in Australia, but for some reason alarmists still feel the need to "defend", with all the media resources, the BOM, CSIRO Big Government funding, Dept Climate Control etc, they still can't come to terms with the fact, most Australians simple do not believe in AGW.

I’ve just spent three months in Europe M.E and North Africa. My last study tour was 2006 and my goodness, how things have changed.

Hans Blick goes on record to state that renewables max out at 10% energy contribution, the United Arab Emirates announces a $20bn budget for three new nuclear power stations, Angela Merkel announces that their 19 nuclear power stations will not be decommissioned as planned and that Germany will open new coal fired power stations, burning guess what? “Lignite”. These will operate at 42% thermal efficiency of course.

As austerity strikes Europe very hard, more and more questions are being asked publicly about the costs of carbon mitigation and renewables.

The Telegraph columnist, Christopher Booker, speaking to British MPs in the House of Commons, London, on Climate Fools Day.

"The Climate Change Act was not only by far the most expensive law ever passed by Parliament, it represented as great a collective flight from reality as this once great institution has ever witnessed. It is time that flight from reality began seriously to be reversed. And I would like to think that the fight-back for reality might begin here today.”

“Two things were particularly astonishing about this new law of the land, The first was its truly mind-boggling cost to the British people, estimated by the government to be up to £18.3 billion every year for the next 40 years, which if you add it up comes to more than £700 billion. The other was that not a single one of the MPs who voted for the Bill could have begun to explain how such a target could be met in practice without closing down virtually the entire UK economy, almost totally dependent as it now is on computers and fossil fuels.”

It seems that the whole carbon phenomena exist through political sponsorship and the financial returns of the investments in carbon industries made by many politicians.

Whatever is going on in the rest of the world seems not to be reflected on OLO. Is it because we don’t know or don’t want to know?

Thanks anti-green for elucidating your philosophical position.

I'd like to explore it further, but not now. It can wait until I return home and can spend the time to do it justice.

----

I wrote: << I advocate just the same sort of strong action as those who believe that AGW is real and very serious. >>

Leo Lane replied: << This makes you worse than the alarmists. If you know better than they do, why do you not advocate something sensible, instead of the same ineffective non solutions that they do? >>

Dear oh deary me, Leo. This makes me worse than the alarmists!?!?! Pfff. I'd love to know how you reach this crazy conclusion!

The worst people in this debate are those that not only think we can continue business as usual, including the usual state of never-ending expansion, but also just completely condemn all those who see it differently.

<< If we cut all human emissions world wide, it would have no measurable effect. >>

What?? How do you know? You don't! You cannot possibly make such an assertion and expect to maintain any credibility!

Erring on the side of caution with respect to climate change is just one aspect of the absolute need to err on the side of caution with ALL human impacts on the environment, resource base and hence on the ability for us to sustain a high quality of wellbeing.

Nothing can be more basic than this. To ridicule this fundamental precautionary principle or those who espouse it is just bonkers.

Bonmot and others have all made interesting and relevant points about the nonsense spouted by Professor Ollier who’s knowledge of his subject does appear, to be kind, somewhat limited.

But should we not be grateful to Ollier? After all, has he not shown that le Mesuriers’ article, The Creeping Menace, is entirely wrong?

According to Ollier, we can all relax, secure in the knowledge that sea levels are not rising, that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are not melting but in fact are growing and that measurements made by the GRACE satellite are wrong or have been “doctored” by a cabal of wicked climate scientists.

Ken Fobos should be more charitable in his assessment of what the Professor has had to say. Its all very well confusing us with informed comment but quite a lot of OLO readers want to be reassured rather than face reality.

Geof Davies may know a fair bit about ice but is it fair to point out to the “Professor” that the WAIS is a marine ice sheet resting on the seabed, is highly vulnerable and is not “protected” by the basin in which it does not sit. As I say, let us not get confused by facts, particularly if they challenge the belief that ignorance is bliss.

So thank you Professor Ollier for your generous helping of bliss. What would we do without your contribution?

Dear Ludwig,

With this comment: <<< If we cut all human emissions world wide, it would have no measurable effect. >>> Leo Lane was presumably referring to the fact that the Co2 from the last several years has yet to register. Of course there would be a measurable effect, but not for a few years. He seems to think that because there's a time lag there's not point in acting.
Spindoc's anecdotal evidence of a gw backflip is interesting if unsurprising. Actually, I don't think it's any different here; there doesn't seem to me to be the public will to tackle AGW because of the money involved. It's fascinating, btw, that spindoc conflates lack of will with the reality of the phenomenon: if we all don't believe, it'll go away..
The best capitalist hope for addressing AGW is of course treating it opportunistically--new markets (kind of self-defeating due to emissions as by-product and continuing growth) to develop? But I don't think so.
The big issue that surely must come into play is peak-oil (which presumably most here also don't believe in) which, according to projections, could put an end to capitalism and its coefficient (AGW), the bummer being that half the human population would die viciously as a result--so maybe leave that one in the too hard basket.

But anyway, if anyone's interested in these issues, my question (nominally addressed to Ludwig because he's against growth, and capitalism can't function without it)is how can we address climate change (reduce emissions) and reduce the population at the same time, under capitalism, baring in mind that emissions could easily be equated as by-product of wealth-creation?
I contend that degeneration of the biosphere is directly attributable to the capitalist mode of production; that is, surplus capital, perpetually reinvested in new ventures, thus driving more growth (and concomitant emissions) and so (not)ad infinitum.

How prescient of me!
Have just listened to this short segment on the science show:
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl?s=rn/scienceshow_item&d=rn/scienceshow/audio/items&r=ssw_13112010_1205.ram&w=ssw_13112010_1205.asx&t=Peak%20oil%20-%20%20the%20slow%20slide%20down%20-%2013%20November%202010

Squeers, it seems, is upholding that great tradition of climate alarmists: every time they're proved to have made a false statement, they simply pretend it never happened.

Dear Clownfish,
I thought a response was unnecessary. I never imagined the Seattle rhetoric was "authentic", at the very least it had to be a translation, and it's hard to imagine an Indian chief writing in such a poetic, indeed romantic, fashion. I haven't read the link you provided, as it doesn't matter. It's the content that matters, which is ethical; it is a text that deliberately tries to manipulate our ethical/aesthetic (always close together) sensibilities. The same problem applies to all texts. Do you suppose history books or autobiographies deal in "facts," for instance? Or that its more authentic if it's from the horse's mouth? To the extent that they pretend to deal in "truth", or "facts" they're poor accounts, or at least biased and secondary. Authenticity is a whore. This is exactly what science tries to overcome, and it's no mean feat! I'm often attacking science for its hubris, that rather than objectifying reality it translates it in its own terms. The great thing about climate science is that the data is corroborated ethically and aesthetically, unless you're a desert inside.
It doesn't matter who wrote the Seattle text, it's truth is "poignant" rather than "authentic" "factual".

Can I please urge everyong to listen to the "whole" of today's science show, as climate change was also addressed. But sorry, nothing in it that will help the minimifidianists.

Squeers: The ABC Science Show is a bit slow off the mark. Over a year ago, OLO had an article which came to much the same conclusions about Peak Oil as have the academics of Upsala Uni. See http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9407

Squeers, you seem to be arguing that without population growth economies can neither develop or expand – but is that so? Increased productivity, more efficient use of resources and innovation can result in economic development so maybe Ludwig has a point.

Blowing the Whistle on Climate Science.

The following paragraphs have been extracted from a paper on the Lavoisier site.
Global warming enthusiasts please take note.

“The Western Climate Establishment is cheating:

* Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt.
*Officials hide the Argo data, which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.
* They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.
* Climate scientists frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming, but don’t mention the full story: the planet started warming before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.
* Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme that imitates the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading peer-reviewed climate journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?
* The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western climate establishment, are all skeptical. As are many scientists from other branches of science, and many retired climate scientists (who no longer have anything to lose by speaking their minds). “

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climate-corruption-lavoisier.pdf

Irrespective of their being evidence for climate change or not, it is time to become more responsible in our treatment of the earth, our home.

If we can do it cleaner and more efficiently than is the current norm, then why aren't we?

Dear Agnostic of Mittagong,
Peak oil is as old as Methuselah, I know that and so does the science show. But I was particularly pleased that the content reflected just what I’d been saying. I’m not immune to flattery.
<Squeers, you seem to be arguing that without population growth economies can neither develop or expand – but is that so? Increased productivity, more efficient use of resources and innovation can result in economic development so maybe Ludwig has a point.>
It seems logical to me that for a system dependent upon economic growth, population growth is mandatory, since once a bourgeoisie reaches a certain stage of satiety, stagflation sets in, look at Japan. That is why Australia is reliant on immigration, and the idea of “managing our borders” is fantasy (not to mention hilarious). Of course capitalism has to be congratulated for feeding off its own consumer base so successfully as well; but the poor beasts are so fat and unwieldy that they can’t possibly keep it up, no matter how much extra sugar is added, or how great the next Apple product is. Of course the real capital is made in exports, but apart from resources that’s a precarious and cut-throat prospect. Much better to grow the population at home--the infrastructure creates jobs. What do you think Costello’s “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country was all about”? He loves kids?
But even supposing we can maintain economic growth with a stagnant population at home (doubtful to say the least), the growth has to be sustained somewhere, and the by-product is pollution, no matter how green we try to be. The reason I bring this up is because many who support action on AGW haven’t thought this through; they seem to think they can fix it and continue business as usual. Climate change is absolutely pegged to industrialisation, which is driven by economic fundamentalism: economic growth.
So are you prepared to ditch capitalism to keep the planet habitable (for everyone)? Because the inconvenient truth is, that’s what it will take.

Nice try, Squeers, but no cigar.

'I never imagined the Seattle rhetoric was "authentic"'? Really? Then why did you preface it with, 'as Chief Seattle famously said'?

You can try some post-modernist sleight-of-hand all you like, but what you were essentially doing was arguing from authority.

Would you have bothered quoting the same words if they were from Doris Hagglethorpe of Stoke Newington? I think not.

Anti-green.

I see one of the links I printed has given you fuel for your debate. Great! Because the reason that it was put, was for the fact that its meant to be dismissed.
While there is a lot of fraud out there, I still think the two forces with the combined affects of population growth and the models that the you-tube links 1.2 and 3 have given, show there's something in the science,s and I doubt Sir David Attenborough would put his good name to any fraudulent.

However trusting any reports from governments or independently, one must take some with a pinch of salt. Since conspiracy investigations have shown that they know what's going on, they making people debate the situation with the full understandings of what the big-picture is.

They would put it in their off record silent ways..........We KNOW BEST, While we all go around in circles.

Anyway. The vote is still out on whats going on.

This is something else you can add.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fCP_nHRjP8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYeSo7VHdag&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InPbrTpSHFo&feature=channel
Perhaps I was mistaken. OLO has become depressing. There is nothing positive to be learnt here.
Posted by Jedimaster, Friday, 12 November 2010 5:40:52 PM

Jedimaster. If we don't hear all, then where not getting the full picture.

Leo lane.

Deep Blue"all we humans have done is Quickened up the processes.
Its as simple as that."

Dead wrong. The processes have not quickened up, except in alarmist media releases with no basis in science or fact.

I beg the differ Leo. Human impact its self on the environment is quite clear and a good way of explaining it is, just set up dominoes on your kitchen floor and see how one thing affects another.

BLU

"which is a profound observation on the tendency of your precious economic rationalism."
-Squeers

A profound demonstration of the principle that if you don't know what you're talking about, it is always wisest to keep your mouth shut (or your fingers off the keyboard).

I am not an economic rationalist. I don't know what economic rationalism is. I don't really know much about what economics is, 'coz I only studied it for one year in high school, found it very boring, didn't do very well, and resolved never to have aught to do with it again. I do know that economics is not a science, despite what some folk claim, 'coz I am very interested in science and I know it looks like when I see it. I tend to regard economics as more of a black art - it corrupts the souls of those who study it, and should only be messed with if you really know what you're doing.

"It is simply a fact that there is an ethical dimension to this debate that cannot be denied or rationalised in the same way you and your ilk deny and rationalise the bleedin obvious--that we are having a devastating and unsustainable impact on the "whole" environment."
-Squeers

I believe that 'facts' aren't facts unless without a supporting body of evidence or a logical proof. Otherwise they're merely assertions. You made no attempt to prove in any way that there is an ethical dimension to this debate, so rightly I should take your simple fact with a hefty grain of salt. But I'm in a very good mood, so I'll charitably take it as axiomatic.

The hypothesis that we are having a devastating and unsustainable impact on the "whole" environment is not 'bleedin obvious' unless it is self-apparent (it's not) or until it has been tested and shown to be sound, or logically proven. Happily, it is a testable hypothesis. Then again, it is much easier to make assertions about man's vandalism of Gaia than it is to produce evidence for said assertions.
to be continued..

continued..

So let's not bother with crazy ideas like testing hypotheses or basing policy on evidence. Let's rely on emotive arguments and platitudes, and sod the data. Hey, it's worked so well in the past.*
*sarcasm

"Since it has been repeatedly proved that "facts" and "evidence" are the slipperiest data of all..."
-Squeers

Yeah, why am I not surprised? I'd be shytting bricks laughing if it weren't so sad that you truly believe that logic and empirical data meets a lower standard of proof than hearsay, conjecture, opinion, faith, etc.

And how did they prove it if "evidence" is so dodgy?

"I resort to a quaint old tradition called ethics, which doesn't have much currency, but I value it over your "facts"..."
-Squeers

Again, why am I not surprised?

According to the great Dr. Phil: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig". And you can dress up 'emotive arguments' in 'a quaint old tradition called ethics', but it still won't beat empiricism or logic even if they were bound and blindfolded.

"Leo Lane was presumably referring to the fact that the Co2 from the last several years has yet to register. Of course there would be a measurable effect, but not for a few years. He seems to think that because there's a time lag there's not point in acting.
Spindoc's anecdotal evidence of a gw backflip is interesting if unsurprising. Actually, I don't think it's any different here; there doesn't seem to me to be the public will to tackle AGW because of the money involved. It's fascinating, btw, that spindoc conflates lack of will with the reality of the phenomenon:"
-Squeers

So now you're all about evidence and logic? Only when it suits you, I guess. You twist and turn like a... twisty turny thing.

George Jetson :)
"If we can do it cleaner and more efficiently than is the current norm, then why aren't we?"

Perhaps because 'we' only believe what 'we' want to believe, science has got nothing to do with it.

The American Psychological Association has published a report on 'Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges.'

Fascinating reading http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.pdf

and puts Riz's comments into perspective:

<< according to the great Dr. Phil: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" (reminds me of the Sarah Palin kerfuffle) ...

... And you can dress up 'emotive arguments' in 'a quaint old tradition called ethics', but it still won't beat empiricism or logic even if they were bound and blindfolded (I agree). >>

Squeers, the point I was making was “Whatever is going on in the rest of the world seems not to be reflected on OLO. Is it because we don’t know or don’t want to know?”

I would have thought that for a country like Germany that committed earlier and deeper to carbon reduction, a decision to now stay with nuclear and announce new dirty coal (lignite) power generation, would have been a significant issue worthy of debate on OLO?

In rushing to defend AGW against the threat of “back flip”, are you not making the point for me? Either you don’t know or worse, you don’t want to know.

Rather than dismissing the information as “anecdotal”, why don’t comment as to “why” these decisions have been made by Germany? Surely that is the issue to be discussed here, not whether or not it is “anecdotal”.

So why do you think these announcements have been made? After all we started out with AGW to “reduce carbon emissions”, now one of the main players is going to burn dirty coal? Please explain?

Dear Clownfish,
The defence I offered is correct and born out by poststructuralist philosophy. Supposing Seattle did write the text; it would still not be "authentic" as all meaning is cultural and part of a diachronic intertext the writer uses. If this were not so, a text's import would be incomprehensible; signifiers do not point unproblematically to signifieds. The "rhetorical truth" of the Seattle text is what makes it authentic, not its authorial authenticity.

Dear Riz,
For shame! You've completely misrepresented me; cherry-picked what I said and taken me out of context. Why am "I" not surprised?

Dear Spindoc,
I didn't use the word "anecdotal" to insult you; what you put forward was anecdotal, unless you can establish that your minute and partial experience is representative of what "the rest of the world".

Moreover, I didn't "defend AGW against the threat of “back flip”"; I agreed with you, saying that "there doesn't seem to me to be the public will [here] to tackle AGW because of the money involved". OlO seems to me evenly divided on the issue--though in the crunch there would, imo, be many back-sliders.

There are coal-fired power stations being built all over the world and Australia continues to export the fuel. The whole world is of course dependent upon fossil fuel, and more importantly enthral to an economic fundamentalism that demands the extraction of profit. This is the single biggest reason for our failure to act. Profit is derived from growth and innovation and the (non-human) means of production is fuel. Retaining that dynamic in a conservative paradigm of decreasing emissions is non sequitur. We cannot act effectively on climate change without wealthy countries suffering immensely (the poor half wouldn't notice). Even many professed devotees to the cause would suffer a failure of will when it came to the crunch.
Any conspiracy consists, imo, in the knowledge on high that human population must plummet. I suspect that the push is on to harness the incredible power of the capitalist dynamic to drive innovation dedicated to ultimate survival "before" the inevitable crash. The survival of wealthy elites.

Just to clarify my thesis,
the global push to to address climate and develop cleaner fuel, by diverting vast funds and R&D to the project, cannot save the world's burgeoning human population or western lifestyle on anything like the current scale. This is CDF. The idea, and 'twas ever thus, is to save the Quality: develop the technology for survival (in style) with a momentous technological push, convincing the industrious masses that we can turn things around. And we probably can, but only for the chosen people. The wealthy and powerful are using us to build them an Ark...

Squeers, not even close to an answer. I asked, "why do you think these announcements have been made? After all we started out with AGW to “reduce carbon emissions”, now one of the main players is going to burn dirty coal? Please explain?"

Stop being so obtuse and give us your opinin.

No cause for alarm
Global temperatures are projected rise 3.5 degrees C. over the next 25 years, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday,
Now I have read that if the temperature gets up by this amount, then there probably will not be any life South of Paris and North of Brisbane.
This is a forecast put out by a top body and yet so far I have seen no news headlines on any of the media about this.
I would have thought to get back to the original article that we every reason for alarm.
Yes I know the denialists will come out in droves bleating that it is all diabolical plot and there is no evidence or even that the evidence is the other way but…..
Surely if there is any chance that this report is correct. We should be alarmed?

http://www.google.com.au/#q=Global+temperature+to+rise+3.5+degrees+C.+by+2035:&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=7WHfTK7xL43BcaTE2ZcM&start=10&sa=N&fp=cba8a17de49d72a7

Not so, Squeers. Your proposition has no validity.

The current science is that natural cycles govern global warming, and cooling, and the 800 year lag is not relevant. The simple fact is that human emissions have no measurable effect on climate change, no matter how you twist and turn.

The now disproven guess of the IPCC that it was very likely, is the closest the alarmists ever came to proof of any effect by human emissions. The satellite instruments were going to give the proof, according to the IPCC, and they did not.

There is no scientific basis for AGW.

As for lack of will to tackle the non existent problem, why do you think ratbags like the greens are in parliament, if not because people are misled into believing nonsense like AGW?

Now you are showing your ignorance, Ludwig. What science have you discovered that shows human emissions have any measurable effect on climate? Let us have it now, and you will retrieve some of your credibility, which is, at the moment, non existent.

The people who have criticized Professor Ollier have come up with no basis. His article is correct, and no one has shown otherwise.

Geoff Davies not only comes up with no valid criticism, but says:” The West Antarctic sheet is not sitting in a basin, it is grounded below sea level. As it thins it would just float off. So all 7 meters of potential rise is fully available.”

The Southern Hemisphere has shown no warming since 1979.It is virtually impossible for the Antarctic Ice Sheet to melt, and if it did happen it would take a period of centuries. The net balance of ice, right now, is increasing.

Geoff is a committed alarmist, and makes irrelevant comments like this in the hope of misleading people into believing in AGW.

By the way Geoff, you did not come back with any scientific basis for AGW, on any of the occasions you were asked. Would you mind confirming that despite the $100 billion spent on research, there is no such science, and AGW is unproven?

Sarnian. I predict that by 2035, global temperature will have dropped by 4 degrees, and I have the same ability as the IPCC to predict global temperatures: NONE.

The story to which you refer us is based on the proposition that human emissions cause global warming, and we all know that there is no scientific proof of that. We also know that while currently CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing, the global temperature is falling.

However, on past experience of world temperatures, related to the activity of the sun, it is highly likely that we are entering a prolonged period of cooling.

You say “if there is any chance”. I can tell you without doubt, that there is no chance of establishing a valid scientific basis for the prediction. It is a sick joke.

There is no scientific principle known as the precautionary principle, which you seem to advocate. It is unworkable political nonsense to assert such a thing.

Human beings have no ability to modify world temperatures, by cutting emissions or otherwise.

Dear Spindoc,
Sorry but I'll leave you to figure out whatever your problem is (I'm obtuse?)

In fact, if the dogmatic denialists (check out Leo Lane's last) have nothing intelligent to say, I'll leave you to it.

..Since you folk are so enamoured of conspiracy theories, I thought I'd give you a plausible one to think over...
But it just don't hit the right cords, does it?

'Poststructuralist'? Spare me. Now I *know* you're full of it. Anyone who takes seriously the prolix bullsh!t of w@nkers like Derrida is either a fool or a deceiver.

Which one are you, Squeers?

How about your all full of it and its the same game but with not one of you that has anything. Humans will drill all for money! A 1000 years from now..........you lot are going to look like twits.

Blue

There is an article in the New York Times that is worth reading.

'As Glaciers Melt, Science Seeks Data on Rising Seas'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html?_r=2&ref=global-home

Now these are scientists at the ice face doing actual research.

And these and the previous posting I think put paid to this opinion piece as not based on facts.

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/2010/articles/report_notes_ice_receding.html

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/24/greenland-melting-noaa-2010-arctic-report-card/

I repeat.....

Yes I know the denialists will come out in droves bleating that it is all diabolical plot and there is no evidence or even that the evidence is the other way but…..
Surely if there is any chance that this report is correct. We should be alarmed?

As you say Squeers, you are obtuse, and further comment on your nonsense is not warranted.

Peter A, if you read the article, to which you supplied the link, you will see that it has no basis in science, and the comments are obviously limited to those who make comments favourable to unscientific nonsense. This is typical of the dishonesty of alarmist sites. The fairness available on OLO is completely absent in the promotion of the AGW fraud.

sarnian, as I pointed out, in detail, in a previuos post, there is no possible justification for what you said in the first place, much less for repeating it.

Cliff Ollier's article has a sound factual and scientific base which is lost on the alarmists, who are interested only in repeating unsustainable nonsense.

There is no scientific basis for AGW, because it has been shown that the effect of human emissions is negligible, and has no measurable effect. We cannot control or affect the climate.

The data from the satellite instruments ended the IPCC's prospects of misleading us with estimates that the satellite data has demonstrated to be exaggerated and incorrect.

If any of you have any scientific basis for saying otherwise, then respond with the science upon which you rely, instead of with fatuous and substance deficient remarks. The IPCC has failed, to find any such science, but you are welcome to have a try.

Dear Leo Lane (and motley crew),
it is you that is obtuse. If you have anything intelligent to say, I shall comment. But if you're just going to be a bunch of noisy Galahs I'll leave you to it.
BTW did anyone happen to catch this segment on Breakfast this a.m?
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl?s=rn/breakfast_item&d=rn/breakfast/audio/items&r=bst_15112010_0810.ram&w=bst_15112010_0810.asx&t=Who%20is%20driving%20the%20campaign%20against%20climate%20science?%20-%2015%20November%202010

Well I never!

Now I have to apologize for that last out-burst and deniers are ( most annoying ) and motivated by Big industrial money-makers. Their reasons behind their actions are as clear and transparent with the most BASIC of human drives........power and money.

Anyway....Iam putting this post back up.

So there you go. Pick which model you like for your political or what ever motives you have and still.........there are the facts to the best of our smartest brains on the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ax0w1g9HI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B04LA-32blc&feature=related

IMO....Two things are happening and are the same.

Climate change/global warming.

Its was always going to happen any-way, and all we humans have done is Quickened up the processes.

Its as simple as that.

Now the Question is, what can be done. Well not much. All we can do is ride it out and take our losses.

Nature in time would of done the same thing whether we were here not.( just a lot slower )

Like I said, the human-race has just pushed the accelerator down.

19th century industrial revolution.

This is the price we pay for it.

See people will not except the facts until the sky falls right down on top of their heads, and even then they will try and say its some other cause.


Climate change/global warming. IS REAL.

The earth is sensitive. We live in a very thin little bubble, and just like a burning frying pan in the kitchen, the smoke does full the room just like we are all doing to the earth,
just a bigger scale.

BLU

Squeers: Thanks for the link to Fran Kelly's 10 minute interview with Naomi Oreski. What she had to say about the FUD machine typified some of the comments here.

The link worked for me, but sometimes it's better to post in a shortened format, say from 'tiny url', e.g. http://tinyurl.com/2837asj

This is the home page: http://tinyurl.com/

Here's another of the professor's lectures : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio in more detail.

Leo Lane

Politicians have a habit of avoiding answering hard questions so I repeat.

“Surely if there is any chance that this report is correct. We should be alarmed?”

A straight answer would be appreciated.

Yes deep blue, climate change is real. It was around long before we were, and we have had no effect on it. I asked if you had science which shows otherwise.

Human emissions have no measureable effect on climate change.

Sarnian, the answer is NO, because there is the same chance of the opposite being true. Is you comprehension impaired, sarnian? I spelt it out clearly, above.

Have you found some science that says human emissions have any but a negligible effect on global warming?

Bonmot, Naiomi Oreskes is the person who first posted a study purporting to show a consensus on global warming. There has never been a consensus, and if there were it would be irrelevant to science.

Naiomi Oreskes has been completely discredited.

How about looking for some reputable science, bonmot. You will not find it on Wikipedia. Come back when you have proof that human emissions have any measurable effect on global warming.

Goodbye.

Leo Lane

So you would be willing to take a 50/50 chance on the survival of the human race and most of life on earth?

This is getting more interesting on the conspiracy side now .. alarmists allege skeptics are accusing scientists and media of conspiring on AGW.

Yet, we see so many claims that skeptics are only thus when they are paid by big .. (insert bogie man here, Oil is popular)

This is a little like not being able to admit that people naturally are finding the whole AGW hysterics, doomsaying and regular scare mongering tiresome and unbelievable, they have to actually be convinced or paid to be skeptical (ozandy statedon OLO that he could prove any skeptic was in the pay of .. Big Oil possibly)

Interestingly enough, this is similar to the Democrats in the US, not being able to understand people don't like their policies, or them and have voted for someone else - they believe it was the Tea Party who did it. Even if the Tea Party drew attention to it, like skeptics do about many things, it was ordinary people who turned, with or without coaxing. The Dems believe the "right" conspired to convince Dem voting public otherwise., which means they will not learn from this and will continue with stupid policies. People do not believe, or like them is the truth.

To constantly state that people are only skeptical because of Big Oil, or whomever, just means you have decided people cannot make up their own minds. This is a delusion, people are not that stupid. You alarmists, have not convinced them.

You might be convinced of something, it doesn't mean everyone is and blaming it on a 3rd party,means you have suspended logic completely.

BTW the Dems, re-electing Pelosi, just confirms, they don't get it.

So alarmists believe there is a conspiracy to turn people skeptical? Most people are skeptical anyway, and when you add the hysterics and exaggeration, they turn off, they don't even bother with the science, they just assume if you bluster and wave your arms hysterically all the time, you're an idiot .. alarmist. To top it off, you want to raise taxes and you want money all the time.

Leo lane. ( GOOD BY ) I hope your not leaving the debate? While we agree on at lease half of what is nature at its normal best, the other half ( human impact ) will not be fully known until a longer period of data time can be viewed.

However, with the human race not seeing their breeding problems, and 9.2 billion or more is expected in the next 40years, can you rule out what similar activities that volcano's cause....(that we can see in ice cores).... wouldn't it be fair to say that pollution and ecosystem collapse done with human environmental damage which this is one of the main lungs of the planet ( The amazon rain-Forest and others ) is vital for all living things and still No-one is taking that into account when we have agreed that climate change and our damage to the planet with overpopulation.... will in fact collide to form a catastrophic disastrous situation?

I can see it a mile away or maybe you have a different view.

BLUE

Continued.

So that would mean temperatures would rise whether or not Co2 is a factor. Either way the human race is in trouble.

http://tinyurl.com/24953ly

http://tinyurl.com/27queuw

So just like anything that out breeds its self, for us, there's only one course of action!

Tell the world to slow down.

Oh and thanks for the link (tinyurls) Bonmot.

BLUE

http://tinyurl.com/2dtrpw8

http://tinyurl.com/24x5wu4

http://tinyurl.com/26tb9rp

Just testing.

BLU

No, sarnian, you would have to decide for which disaster to prepare; the one prophesied by the ridiculous article to which you provided a link, or the opposite one put forward in my slightly less ridiculous proposal, that the world will cool drastically.

The world is not warming, and has not been for 15 years, according to the climategate miscreant, Phil Jones. The southern hemisphere has not warmed for 21 years, according to the satellite instruments.

There is no scientific demonstration that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

Are you as dense as you pretend to be sarnian? I said goodbye because I thought that you, and the other alarmists, would have the decency to go away, until you had a scientific basis for AGW. Since there is no such basis, you would not be back, hence I said goodbye.

In your case sarnian, you also need a scientific basis for the precutionary principle which you advocate. There is none.

blue .. "I can see it a mile away", uh huh .. you're wasted here commenting on forums like this, you should be out betting on racehorses, since you can see the future.

Any idea how many prophets of doom are correct? (zero?)

I can't remember his name, but there was a leader in Europe who used to pay fortune tellers, and then when they were wrong he used to have them killed, it sorted them out quickly and made them consider their exaggerated claims.

We should bring that back, and insist on measurable targets.

This line you're taking is now completely off topic and this little gem underlines it "So that would mean temperatures would rise whether or not Co2 is a factor. Either way the human race is in trouble"

So you don't really care about the argument or debate about CO2 or AGW at all, this is just a platform for your rants on over population?

Correct?

What do you think is going to happen?

That people will stop having children, of course not - so what do we do about it?

Nothing. There is no country on earth that will agree to limit it's children unless it is under complete totalitarian control, like China.

That's a long way off for the rest of the world. Certainly the planet could easily go way higher than it is now, and the various prophets of doom about population have been ranting for hundreds of years and still it goes on.

Calm down, it may never happen, there could be disease, or meteor strike or any manner of things,but for sure someone trying to start a religious campaign, will not succeed - nice try though, not.

Dear Bonmot,
thanks for the tips. I am a techno-moron.

Dear Amicus,
while you appear to dutifully fill your quotient, of words, there's no apparent substance? Or else 'tis too deep for me.
I'm sorry but you and your comrades are not sceptics, which is bipartisan, but minimifidianists. I bet you are decided upon which end of the boiled egg should smashed..
Squeers and I continue to agonise..

oh squeers, so obtuse, there you are coming up with new ways and names to try to bait skeptics and yet, you remain confused, so many true believers are aren't they?

There's an easy solution, go back to the soothing ABC and listen to the calming voices tell that the world is as it should be, and not to go near those who doubt or ask questions.

All will be well, just adapt, it's what we keep saying, just adapt.

"You've completely misrepresented me; cherry-picked what I said and taken me out of context. Why am "I" not surprised?"
-Squeers

Dear Squeers,

No, no I haven't. Sophistry will get you nowhere. I have cherry-picked, but only 'coz the word limit on posts prevents me quoting folks' entire arguments, so I focus on the most pertinent points. I haven't taken you out of context, or misrepresented you. I would appreciate the courtesy of a proper rebuttal of my arguments, rather than this half-arsed attempt to avoid the debate you were so keen to have just the other day.

Gentleman.

Stop the on-line I know it all. I know how many years some of you have put into this.

Please!

Can we all afford to gamble on this time and date. The leaders of the world have at best, 20 to 30 years of life left. Dont you think knowing what they know, when the study of humans come into the equations, what would you do and say when old and nothing to loose?

We need younger men and women in power and not these old and out of date 20th century non-thinkers.

Sorry! Just letting out some steam.

If Iam wrong.....put your post down with all you have got, and I will see you all tomorrow.

Good luck.

BLUE

Riz:
<I would appreciate the courtesy of a proper rebuttal of my arguments, rather than this half-arsed attempt to avoid the debate you were so keen to have just the other day.>

Dear Riz,
economic rationalism is the system we all bow down to as though it were a God.

If you can't see the bleedin obvious, that humans are having a devastating impact on the whole biosphere, widely and compellingly reported across all media, or that it's unethical, I can't help you. You must be from Minimifidia (which neighbours Blefuscu and Lilliput).

The rest of your two posts "do", as I said, misrepresent me.
Moreover, they do not contain any "arguments", unless I missed something? Ergo I cannot rebut them.

Leo Lane,
It is always the refuge of the uneducated and moronic masses to resort to abuse and obfuscation.
No I will not “go away”.
I will continue to try and educate anyone that I think is on the wrong track and needs enlightening.
I may not have too much longer to see the unfolding drama that is the so called civilized world, tearing itself apart though greed and lack of knowledge because I am getting towards the end of my life but I intend to try and live for at least another 10 years, simple so I can say: “I told you so”.
As an aside, I understand that Exxon will pay up to $10,000 for a published article that rubbishes Global warming. Are you hoping for a hand out from that source?

sarnian "It is always the refuge of the uneducated and moronic masses to resort to abuse and obfuscation."

you forgot conspiracy theories ..

"As an aside, I understand that Exxon will pay up to $10,000 for a published article that rubbishes Global warming. Are you hoping for a hand out from that source?"

Oh wait, there you go ..

Do you have any proof Exxon does that, I don't mean from conspiracy sites? Then why not go public, I'm sure it be worldwide attention.

Unless of course, it just more FUD from the AGW believer industry .. is it?

Are you BS'ing, just for effect?

Do you understand what slander means?

Do you wonder why people are skeptical of AGW when it's believers resort to slander, and BS?

Mind you, thanks for the support, I can point to this as yet another example of hysteria and exaggeration by AGW believers.

Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels

Exxon Mobil Corporation
2008 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments
Public Information and Policy Research
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/gcr_contributions_public_policy08.pdf

I could go on but what’s the point when you are trying to talk to someone with their head in the sand.
The result is that you will not hear and you will get sand in your eyes.

Sarnian, I remember this: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environmental_law/2007/02/exxon_mobil_res.html

Naomi Oreskes is right, people like Amicus just regurgitate and throw back what they themselves are being charged with.

Sarnian,

Neither of those links is very persuasive. The Guardian's piece is two and half years old, and the notion of a Greenpeace spokesman objecting to the funding of rival groups is ludicrous. The Royal Society's writing to Exxon asking them to stop funding groups it didn't like looked like cheek at the time, and is worse now. The Exxon list consists of 120+ recipients. The reason for the asterisk isn't made clear, and the total amount the 120 divide up is $7 million. In terms of Exxon's revenue, that's rounding error.

Given the very large amounts of government and grant money that have gone into AGW research, what are you complaining of? Do you think that no money at all should be spent on questioning the orthodoxy?

"If you can't see the bleedin obvious, that humans are having a devastating impact on the whole biosphere, widely and compellingly reported across all media, or that it's unethical..."
-Squeers

See, there you go again, advancing your BELIEFS as if they were somehow as valid as empirical arguments. They're not, and you can't make beliefs meet the same standard of proof as empirical arguments by prefacing them with the phrase 'bleedin obvious'. That's not how rational argument works, I'm afraid.

And since you are, once again, resorting to unsubstantiated allegations in the place of empirical argument - and perpetuating the sophistry that you're making sound arguments to boot - it should be self-apparent to all but yourself that I haven't misrepresented you. Misrepresenting you would look something like this: you have a thourough grasp of the conventions of rational argument, and consequently never fail to advance a strong argument.

"Moreover, they do not contain any "arguments", unless I missed something?"
-Squeers

Only the argument that faith, emotion, opinion, hearsay, conjecture etc. are a less valid basis for rational arguments than logic or empiricism. I can understand why you'd choose to ignore this argument, as you seem to take it as a fait accompli that all forms of argument are equally valid, no matter how irrational they may be.

Dear Riz,
so let me get this straight; you want me to provide evidence that Humanity is devastating the whole biosphere--the biosphere being the "global sum of all ecosystems"?
Perhaps my terminology is what you object to? The biosphere is an evolving complex system that will no doubt continue to prosper and adapt, even if we radically alter the environmental limitations/conditions under which that occurs? There is something to this pedantic argument; in wishing to preserve, even romanticise, the current state of biodiversity, or florescence, we impose our snapshot, our moment in time view of nature, on its dynamic, which, like capitalist economics, is based on "creative destruction". It could be that we are driving an evolutionary experiment that leads to something momentous? But momentousness is also a human construction, whereas nature seems devoted to banality? And yet this too is a presumption upon nature's motives that we infer based on the fragment of time we have to consider nature's longue duree..
..Yet I doubt this is the tendency of your thinking?
On the ethics side of the ledger, perhaps you object that such is pure metaphysics? In which case you plunge us heartily into the cut and thrust of natural evolution which, 'tis true, cares nothing for nonsensical human notions like right and wrong?
Yet I would counter that this is where we transcend nature, or nature begins to transcend herself?
..Yet am I right in thinking that your position is less complicated? You simply don't agree that we are devastating the biosphere as it is, as it appears to us, in this scrap of geological time we occupy?
You surely don't argue that our presence goes unnoticed, that is unregistered, by the biosphere? If so, I suggest you consult with it--as we document it.

How about you now explain to me "your" notion that we are not harming the biosphere, and are not subject to ethical considerations?
Fairs fair; I've put up tons of substance on this thread, you've put up none (nothing new there). How about you offer "me" some evidence-based argument and I'll respond?

Iam going to look at the Conspiracy theory's just for a moment. This one in particular comes into focus on the grounds that greedy capitalists just might of set this all up as this link spells out.

What do you think of this?

So its fair to say that human impact is the main cause of AGW. So which ever way you look at it, mankind is having an effect.

So therefor its true in what I said.....We have just sped up the processes realistically. And see the more that human population expands, The worse it gets for all living things.

Oh and you do need to gamble with that fact.

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

BLUE

Iam going to look at the Conspiracy theory's just for a moment. This one in particular comes into focus on the grounds that greedy capitalists just might of set this all up as this link spells out.

What do you think of this?

So its fair to say that human impact is the main cause of AGW. So which ever way you look at it, mankind is having an effect.

So therefor its true in what I said.....We have just sped up the processes realistically. And see the more that human population expands, The worse it gets for all living things.

Oh and you dont need to gamble with that fact.

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

BLUE

Volcanic outflows have a greater effect on this planets livability and the earths self balance to sustaining life than a bunch of publicly funded windbag academics.

"so let me get this straight; you want me to provide evidence that Humanity is devastating the whole biosphere"
-Squeers

Aye. Journal articles from Nature and Science are preferred, but as long as the journal isn't dodgy then it's all good.

"How about you now explain to me "your" notion that we are not harming the biosphere, and are not subject to ethical considerations?"
-Squeers

I've never made this claim, so there is no onus on me to prove it. You can't see it, but I'm rolling my eyes.

"I've put up tons of substance on this thread"
-Squeers

Liar. If you had, we wouldn't be having this discusion.

Copy, George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister, said new European-wide taxes might now be needed to fund bail-outs.

“We need a mechanism which can be funded through different forms and different ways,” he said. “My proposal is that taxes such as a financial tax or carbon dioxide taxes could be important revenues and resources for funding such a mechanism.”

Deep Blue, "So its fair to say that human impact is the main cause of AGW"

No it is not. The point I have made above is that there is no scientific basis for asserting that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

Despite the predictions of the alarmists, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has accompanied global cooling, not warming. There has been no warming since 1998.

Whatever effect human emissions have is insignificant.

I invited anyone who thought otherwise to submit a scientific basis.

No one has, because despite the outlay of $100 billion in research, there is no such scientific proof.

Your assertion is nonsense Deep Blue.

Riz and Riz Too: Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.

I do not appreciate being called a liar. Whatever my failings I am not that.

There is a world of "evidence" out there, both phenomenal and documented, for you to consult for yourself(selves), but I sense your state of blissful ignorance is not disposed to be educated.
So a big Raspberry to you!

"Riz and Riz Too: Tweedledum and Tweedledumber."
-Squeers

Same person, actually. But my, what an original and clever witticism.*
*sarcasm

"I do not appreciate being called a liar. Whatever my failings I am not that."
-Squeers

Double liar. When you make a demonstrably untruthful claim, which you know to be untruthful when you are making it, you are most definitely a liar. If you like, I can use the term 'sophist' instead. That way, you can pretend that your lies make you sophisticated.

"There is a world of "evidence" out there, both phenomenal and documented, for you to consult for yourself(selves), but I sense your state of blissful ignorance is not disposed to be educated.
So a big Raspberry to you!"
-Squeers

So despite there being a 'world' of evidence out there, you're just too lazy to produce even a fraction of it? I find that difficult to believe. It would mean you're even lazier than me, and nobody is lazier than me. I rather suspect that the reason you're not producing evidence is 'coz you haven't got any to produce. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Looks like the graffiti walls of sesame street are in fine order today:) That to last set of posts got a laugh out of me:) Leo, as I said earlier the vote is still out. But here is another theory model.

1. Now on one hand we have the natural change of our world.

2. On the other hand we have the effects of the industrial age.

3. Over-Population puts an untold pressure on all life supports.

4. Planet has cycles which it follows regardless of mans presence.

5. The cooling and heating are what I call, the pendulum affect.

6. As the cycles continue,the pendulum affect make us think humans are at fault.

7. Facts state, that the pendulum affect will always continue until it stops on one or the other. ( hot or cold )( ice age or tropical bliss ) right now until recently, worlds climate was in the middle.
Hence the next line down.

8. Also this is the longest period of peace and tranquility. World overdue for change.

9. Change usually takes 10,s of 1000,s of years. ETC.

10. In this century, change has happened at a rate not seen before.

11. White seals once sat on ice covered rocks in winter, now white seals sit on black rocks and now sticks out like sore thumb.

12. Leo lane has evolved not to see changes, and climate scientists are now warning of pending danger:)

1. Leo...extinction rates are up...........why...........answer please.
2. Global change right through-out the earths history has never been this fast.................why....................answer please.
3. Climate change maybe a contributing factor to all these invents.............if not...............please supply proof.

BLUE

Here is a few more links that show scam or fact.

http://tinyurl.com/2bqfure

http://tinyurl.com/28pzw26

http://tinyurl.com/2bwrr5l

http://tinyurl.com/2b4lab2

Now its plain and simple maths on this so to speak. Volcano's cause rapid climate change. right. Humans at this point time and probably all time, will never come close to what if all of what is excepted in the links, and if all were to erupt at once, and its looking highly likely, we will all see rapid climate change.

Just some food for thought.

Like I said, the votes are still not in. ( Mother earth is waking up )

Hold on to your sits. It might be a bumpy ride.

If not, tell me why.

BLUE

From the Horse’s Mouth as relayed on Andrew Bolt’s Blog this morning.
Senior IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer*.spells it out:

“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War … one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

• “Ottmar Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. The deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change” with Ramón Pichs Madruga from Cuba and Youba Sokona from Mali.”

Comment: The more I read and learn about the IPCC, the more I become convinced that the IPCC is just another climate activist association with a political agenda; but no scientific credibility or integrity.

Deep Blue

1 Extinction rates are not up, except in the lying assertions of the greens.
2. Climate change has been far faster at different times in the past. Over the last 110 years there has been mild warming, and mild cooling. At 1998 there had been a net warming of seven tenths of one degree. A tiny amount, and certainly not fast, by any stretch of even a deranged greenie’s imagination. There has been mild cooling since that time.
3 Climate change is real, and if those events had occurred, which they have not, then climate change would no doubt be a factor. Human emissions have no significance in climate change. AGW, despite an expenditure of $100 billion dollars in research, has not been shown to exist.

Human beings progress through trial and error, but you have contributed sufficient error to warrant you being excused from any more contribution for this life and the next

You are incapable of being correct about anything, going by your efforts here, which puts you way ahead of anyone else in producing error. (with the probable exception of the fact challenged Squeers)

Anti-green, there is a difference between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Ottmar Edenhofer (Chair of Working Group 3, IPCC) is correct - the upcoming UNFCCC conference in Mexico will not be about the science. The UNFCCC conferences are like that, always have been, always will be.

Cast your mind back to Copenhagen, Bali, and further. The UNFCCC meetings are a conference of the parties (COP). They deal with 'how and when policies' to address a changing climate. They do not 'do science' because the politicians and economists can't change the science. Neither can they when the IPCC reports are issued.

Leo lane.

You have just proven that you only take into account what you want to hear. I maybe slightly off topic here, but you seem to be looking at this with blinkers on. You haven't even examined the model. You just when strait into denial mode and when back to your normal rant.

"You are incapable of being correct about anything, going by your efforts here, which puts you way ahead of anyone else in producing error. (with the probable exception of the fact challenged Squeers)"

So your saying, overpopulation NO EFFECT! ok.

Pollution that's nothing to worry about, fine.

Volcanic activity, again no contest, good.

Extinction rates normal, oh your doing well. ( if the plants and animals are dieing out, I guess by your logic we're fine, man! wearing those horse shades must be a frill and a half.

You have not read one thing in combination with all that's so evident.

Go down to Woolworth and get some glass cleaner.

There must be something inhibiting the clarity of glasses.

BLU

Bonmot There is no confusion. The IPPC is a purveyor of junk science. The members of the UNFCCC uncritically accept the junk. After all as Edenhofer pointed out, the so called anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is a useful tool to further the redistribution of the world’s wealth.
It seems to me that the United Nations must be following a Marxist agenda.

A nice little look at human ingenuity and environmental sensitivity:
http://www.gasland.com.au/

Gives one goose-bumps doesn't it..

"The IPPC is a purveyor of junk science ... The members of the UNFCCC uncritically accept the junk ... the United Nations must be following a Marxist agenda."

Right, understand. Perhaps you should have a quiet word to the Marxists in the Republican Party:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111806072.html

Debate policy issues, sure (we may even agree on a few). But your last post, no - I don't think there would be any point.

Here is what the official of the IPCC had to say:

“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. -- Ottmar Edenhofer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010”

Having been shown up in the attempt to establish lies as science, the IPCC now blatantly announce that they are thieves. They are still lying, of course:” developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere”.

There is no scientific or factual basis for this outrageous, untrue statement, by this parasitic organisation.

Still a backer of fraud, bonmot? Any chance you will consider facts and science as a basis for your future statements? You have ignored them, to date.

Ludwig and the three stooges here, talking of overpopulation, seem not to have heard of Paul Ehrlich. They are not aware of the reason that asserting the overpopulation nonsense is not a favoured way to be a clown these days. It has been done before.

Paul Ehrlich in 1968 wrote one of the biggest best-sellers in the history of pseudo-scientific literature, The Population Bomb.

He argued that population growth would eventually, inevitably lead mankind to three choices: Stop making new humans, stop consuming resources, or starve to death.

The book started ”The battle to feed all of humanity is over … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” …“By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.”

And he’s been wrong on every count. Humans, rather than sitting in caves waiting to get eaten by sabre tooth tigers, invented spears. Faced with floods, we invented the sandbag as an alternative to drowning and mildew. And when faced with shortage of resources, we adapt.

And humanity in the past forty years has adapted – learning to grow crops where we didn’t before, learning to conserve farmland and water, developing new crops and practices.

Extracted from “A Life of Hot Air”:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/07/ehrlichs-lifetime-of-hot-air/

People are looking for new ways to make asses of themselves, these days, rather than repeat Ehrlich’s way of demonstrating one's idiocy.

Here's a small collection of vids to sum up how much poo human-kind is in. Just watch and tell us Leo its all going to be fine, like Leo and his ilk seem to think. They only see 1/5 of the over-all problems we face today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp-Xe21-gHY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyOD2YTu_Lg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_9SutNmfFk&feature=related

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RYGwsF4dT4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kI_-Q47Sfc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSip5sJQ0ak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3keZgpX4wU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1XGxo3vB2Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvqU_L5PZtk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

The world is in crises even if Leo Lane is right. Now he tries to palm off someone who was just doing the maths as he seen it in his own time, very weak indeed Leo. See world leaders know the systems are collapsing, they know when and how the next distinction of man will happen. Their religious kin have let the cat out of the bag. They will just go underground while everyone dies on top. Its the capitalist Noah's ark for the rich. The rich shall inherent the earth, well whats left.

The whole world is just a powder keg just waiting for something to set it off. What will it be?

BLUE

Deep Blue, seek help, you are in a bad way.

Leo Lane,

You wrote: "And humanity in the past forty years has adapted - learning to grow crops where we didn't before, learning to conserve farmland and water, developing new crops and practices".

As a matter of fact, humankind has managed to do precisely the opposite - degrading the land and depleting water supplies throughout the world.

http://www.webofcreation.org/Earth%20Solutions/Water.htm

Poirot.

He'll never confess! He knows he hasn't got a leg to stand on. This is why we call them specialist in the area of delusion. All the information that's been supplied by myself and others, he has simply dismissed all foreseeable logic. 300 hundred million people are dieing right now without adequate drinking water or water to grow food. Leo thinks there's not a world crises! hello Mr ed.... that just the top of the ice-berg. ( punt intended ) ice-glaciers provide a substantial amount of city-town water in many countries, AND ITS SHRINKING. LEO. You know you have your little island to stand on, because of the fact it cant be proven one way or the other, however the world as a whole is being affected by human activity on a massive scale. I cant think why you only look at 1/5 of the problem.

Being a troll doesn't mean you have intelligence; and in this case you may need to get help and fast:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd555495x54&feature=related

If global warming is a scam! an overpopulated planet isn't; and as humans starve to death, the last thing they will be thing about is your 1/5.

Live well Mr lemming.lol.

BLUE

I don't expect Leo Lane will bother to read the link I provided, so just wanted to add that the WTO has been instrumental in pushing developing countries towards privatising water. This together with the depletion of aquifiers from overproduction (where surplus grain is left to rot in fields or is stored in warehouses to inflate prices) is adding to the problem of access to water, especially for people in third world countries.

There's also this interesting little snippet in the article to do with developing golf courses for tourism in many poorer countries: Apparently it takes 2.5 billion gallons of water per day to irrigate the world's golf courses. It would take 2.5 billion gallons of water per day to support 4.7 billion people at the U.N.'s daily minimum. An interesting comparison in priorities.

Here are some vids that make my point on how the numbers of people are going to have a greater effect than...........well! You know the rest of the story about our species.

Its quite sad that greed men and women have made the dense numbers of people just to fill their shop and fuel there factories.

http://tinyurl.com/2g7v8q3

http://tinyurl.com/27y3x5b

Destroy a planet for dollar.lol. and forget about the human by product.....you fools.

Well done.

BLUE

jeez, what's with all the propaganda video links, is someone trying "convert" the heretics?

We get it, you have religion, do you mind not going all evangelist on us bonmot.

It's not science, it's just propaganda videos, which apparently, you like very much, yay for you!

sorry, meant deep blue .. who seems familiar somehow .. been here before under a different tag?

That's ok rpg, I tend to agree - 'deep blue' seems appropriate to the moniker.

I tend to stay clear of extremists from whatever direction they come from and if that applies to 'deep blue' so be it. That being said, I suspect the videos he has linked to are pertinent to his argument - when I have the time I might watch.

If Dr Ollier was, a glaciologist or had any reputation in this field, one would have expected to find that he had at least one peer-reviewed publication to his credit. His only paper published in a reputable journal (Geoscientist, March 2010) was roundly discredited and shown to be wrong by Michael Hambrey et al. (Geoscientist, April 2010) who come to the conclusion that …

“Ollier argues that ice sheets are inherently stable (1) because current patterns of flow are unrelated to modern climate, (2) because basal lubrication is not important, (3) because meltwater does not form on the surface of ice sheets, and (4) because iceberg calving dynamics do not influence the interior of ice sheets. Above we have explained why each of these assumptions is incorrect.”

Unlike his Geoscientist critics, Ollier is not a glaciologist and does not know what he is talking about.

Agnostic:

You'll have to do better than this. Climate is a vast field, and no one is expert in it all. You can prefer someone else's account to Professor Ollier's, but it would be helpful if you showed why you do. Are you able to read all the material and come to a considered view yourself? One of the problems with all this is that there are thousands of articles, and they point in many directions. I don't know which ones are right, and no one else does either.

But I think you can say that the science is by no means settled, and until there is more understanding, and more knowledge, it would be sensible to travel slowly in policy terms.

But sledging people who are knowledgeable doesn't seem to me either creditable or useful.

Agnostic: just because Ollier (along with John Nicol, Bob Carter, David Evans, William Kininmonth, John McLean, Ian Plimer, Tom Quirk and a few others advising the Australian Climate Science Coalition) thinks human induced climate change is the greatest hoax that the scientific community has inflicted on mankind does not mean he doesn't know his geology or soil science, he clearly does.

Bonmot

I do not dispute or challenge Dr Olliers knowledge of or expertise in geology but I certainly do challenge his knowledge of glaciology given the statements he makes in his article No Cause for Alarm, put forward as a critique of Le Mesuriers article, The Creeping Menace.

And I am not alone. Four reputable glaciologists show that on four fundamental points, Ollier is wrong. It is worth reading why the consider him misleading and wrong at http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page7523.html

In No Cause for Alarm, Ollier makes a number of sweeping statements, such as “increased temperature is supposed to increase sea level mainly by melting the ice-caps, which is impossible”. In other words, ice caps are impervious to temperature, which is clearly nonsense and is shown to be such by Michael Hambrey et al.

Ollier asserts that in reality the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy kilometre-deep basins and that if sliding were operative they could only slide into the basin. This ignores the fact (pointed out by Geoff Davies, Thursday, 11 November 2010 9:27:22 AM) that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a marine ice sheet largely grounded on the seabed, or that it is exposed to the effects of warmer water currents penetrating the Southern Ocean.

Ollier claims “there is no melting in the interior of ice sheets - it is far too cold”. Again Michael Hambrey et al show that this is a misleading and false assumption and that such melting does occur, a fact also pointed out by Geoff Davies. It is all very well to make claims which fly in the face of empirical evidence which shows that the polar ice caps are loosing ice and that has and will have an effect on seal level. However, such claims have to be supported by evidence and Ollier offers none. Simply saying a thing is so does not make it fact.

As you have pointed out, Olliers membership of the Lavoisier Group does raise suspicions of his scientific claims. All I am doing is drawing attention to the fact that those suspicions are well founded, a conclusion succinctly reached by Ken Fabos (12 Nov).