<< 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?