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