Hi Ho Hum, out with the conspiracy theories and conspiracy sites so soon.

Do you really believe all people are not really skeptical, unless paid to be so?

How do you explain all the Australians who were so not worried by AGW, they didn't all vote Greens?

If they were "really" worried, surely they would have, oh, I forgot, they are being paid to be skeptical.

No, I think a lot of folks who can't deal with people having a differing opinion can only assume there are nefarious forces at work.

Reducing CO2 in Australia, by taxing the blazes out of us, is irrelevant in the world. China and India will not be going there, so it's a folly.

Good article, but leaves a lot out too, Don is right, you need to see both sides of this, not just the continual blinkered view.

If our governments are serious about global warming - aren't all our government's problems all "global", especially those they cause themselves - Our governments continue to let "developers" destroy much of our forests, the one thing existing that rejuvenates the atmosphere, They export our coal to other countries some of which are very unconcerned about polution and the warming from that. Unfortunately I don't think that our politicans have the right perspective about doing anything right, the economy, the wellfare of the workers or the wellfare of our land, I haven't seen any example of such action, and I am very concerned.

Like Steven Meyer I had my schooling in S Africa - hoe gaan dit? But you seem a bit confused to me!

1. You say: "Well-established laws of basic physics suggest a significant impact on climate if we continue pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere". Well, how significant? Have you done statistical analysis of the observed impact? It is actually statistically insignificant? The physics may well be sound, but the quantitative significance has never been demonstrated AND verified from observation, so you are wrong when you say "the evidence tends to support the physics". It does NOT. At the most obvious level the increases in [CO2] since 1900 is 40%, and the global mean temperature (GMT) rise has been just 0.7oC since then, within known error bands and natural variation. Ever taken your own temperature? Would a rise of 0.7oC kill you?

2. You are simply wrong when you say "The average lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is 60 - 100 years". The fact is that the stock of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 820 GtC at the moment and growing at just 0.4% p.a. on average since 1958. However about 15% comes down to earth and seas mainly by photosynthesis and/or dissolving in the oceans before being returned to the atmosphere by respiration and/or exhalation, which means the time for complete turnover of the stock is just 7 years. You as a physicist by training should know that CO2 is a well mixed gas in constant circulation, and manifestly the average life of any given molecule "up there" is just 7 years; the C molecules in our own bodies' bones have an average total life therein of say 80 years before "dust to dust" etc! Ja, get your facts straight, man!
[to be continued in next post]

Tom Tiddler's response to Steven Meyer (cont.)

3. Next, you say "the difficult to quantify risks coupled with the difficulty of reversing the effects of extra CO2 in the short term suggests that the only prudent response is to begin to take steps to reduce CO2 emissions". What about the risks of reducing world food production when CO2 emissions are cut? About 56% of annual emissions are taken up by increased photosynthesis (in addition to the annual cycle) (only 44% of emissions remain airborne, see Knorr GRL 2009). When [CO2] was only 280 ppm in 1750-1800, world population was only one billion and eating less pro rata than today's 7 billion. On average 40% of all cereal consumption comprises carbon. You did not know that did you? When James Hansen gets us back to 280 ppm from today's 390, what will the 9 billion around in 2050? If you are like most of the climate scientists and economists I know, eg Ross Garnaut, you could not care less. But I hope you are more compassionate.

4. You add "We may not know everything but we know enough to say that the risks of continuing with business as usual are high". Not true, they are not, Cape Town would do just fine even if temperatures did rise by 3oC as claimed by IPCC, you must remember as I do its very cold winters with snow not far inland. Glasgow (ave T <10oC) would do much better. Ever been to Dubai? there the ave T is about 30 oC p.a., 20oC higher than in Glasgow - more people have migrated there since 1970, many from Glasgow, than to Glasgow! Get rreal man!
As for your physics, that is a good exposition, but fatally, lacking any statistical proof. Have you ever regressed dT against d[CO2](i.e. annual atmospheric CO2) and d[H2O](i.e. annual change in atmospheric water vapour)? I have.
[to be continued]

[Tom Tiddler, cont.]

[Regressing changes in temperature against changes in [CO2] and H2O]...The d[CO2] has close to zero effect, the d[H2O] is preponderant, it is not a feedback as you claim but the prime mover, and d[CO2] has no impact on d[H2O] (which is mostly determined by dT and solar surface radiation, and d[CO2] has no discernible impact on dT anywhere on earth, least of all on dT at Mauna Loa, Pt Barrow, and Cape Grim where it is measured).

In short, good physics requires empirical/statistical confirmation. Of that there is none to show [CO2] plays any significant role in climate (which is no doubt why the 3,000 pages of IPCC AR4 display not a single regression result).

Tom Tiddler's alter ego is Tim Curtin. Email me (tcurtin <at> bigblue.net.au) for a copy of my regression results.

Steven, one of the key difficulties I have with your article is the volume of scientific evidence you have available yet still fall back on the precautionary principle.

The analogies you use with defense systems, interest rates and medical conditions are invalid. They are different because, unlike climate change, none of your analogies are the subject of a single entity (IPCC), selectively drawing on contaminated, singular perspective science. By your own acknowledgement, “Certain scientists have behaved badly. Some have fudged their data. The shocking behavior of some scientists does not alter the laws of physics.”

What you fail to recognize is that these are the very scientists that were the main contributors to the IPCC assements and upon which political decisions have been founded. They still refuse to release the data upon which they drew their conclusions, that they made every effort to exclude contrary scientific views and, with the support of those still proselytizing AGW, are still preventing any open debate on AGW.

This is a recent example for you to explain. Our PM has announced that the Productivity Commission will “examine climate change” Really? Does this mean that we will finally have an open and balance debate on the basis for AGW claims? No of course not.

What we will get is an inquiry to “calculate effective carbon prices” in other countries to make sure we will “not disadvantage Australia in relation to its trading partners”. It will draw heavily upon the “eight climate change papers by economist Ross Garnaut”. Well Steven, I guess that fixes the open and balanced debate.

There is no debate that will examine the basis for AGW, just an assumption close that AGW “is” so we will do something about it, your position exactly.

Why, if you accept “scientists behaving badly”, would you not support a full examination of the basis for their contaminated conclusions?