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.