I have a problem with this.

As I tend to do, whenever the content of the message depends entirely on the messenger.

With all the hot air being vented, the only surprise is that our climate does not yet resemble that of our near neighbour, Venus.

http://www.universetoday.com/36296/climate-of-venus/

"Venus used to have an atmosphere similar to our own. But at some point in Venus’ past, its global magnetosphere shut down. Without this global force field, the Sun‘s solar wind was able to reach the planet and tear away at its atmosphere, stripping away the lighter atoms. The lightest atom is hydrogen, of course, one of the constituents of water. Recent observations by ESA’s Venus Express showed that this process is still going on today. 2 x 1024 atoms of hydrogen are being blasted off Venus into space every second."

So I guess the next question must be, how good are we at protecting our magnetosphere?

Any thoughts?

Stephen, you stopped your physics a bit too soon mate. Yes before you got to the bit that says a cooler body can not transfer heat to a warmer body. That kind of stops heat coming back from the atmosphere.

Then we had those leading climate scientists , who were a "bit naughty", telling lies fudging, [that means falsifying in fact] data & such like. Then you say something about that not effecting the science. Sorry mate, that doesn't hold water.

What you have to ask is, why those naughty blokes fudged their data, & that answer gives you set & match conclusion on the topic.

They did not falsify dater because it supported their hypothesis, for that's all it is. They cheated because the data was disproving it. Hide the decline is far from hard to understand, I would have thought.

So mate, nicely put, but all wrong, because you didn't go far enough.

Go a bit further with your explanation, & if you can get it to hold water, try again. I for one am easily convinced, if you have convincing evidence.

Bonmot:

You say that I am wrong to argue that outcomes are largely based on models, and go on:

'Whether Don Aitkin (in making such misconstrued or distorted statements) does this intentionally or not doesn't really matter, he does so from "authority". As such he does real science (not political science) a disservice.'

But, bonmot, how am I arguing from 'authority'? I have seen the debate you refer to, and the participants disagree about this very matter. If you prefer one to the other that is your choice, and you are entitled to make it. But your choice does not show that the other was wrong!

It is because of the way in which quite reasonable scientists argue to different conclusions from the same set of data, and have nothing but recourse to the use of models, in some cases, that in my view the science is not settled at all.

Over the last few decades living standards in Asia have risen considerably. To deny many more millions this right on the premise that we 'might' be warming the planet is ridiculous and immoral. The likes of Flannery, Gore and Dick Smith want to preach to others while consuming more carbon credits in a week than most could in a life time. Added to this the lame duck US President has shown that he has no intention of doing anything about the US consumption except talk rhetoric (like Mr Rudd who would not even risk an election on the issue). Many of the 'science is settled brigade' continue on with the hide of rhinos refusing to be embarassed by false claims and ridiculous predictions. Politicians claim the bushfires in Victoria were a result of gw knowing full well that their failed Green policies (refusal to burn off) were far more responsible than some myth. Australians are being shown to be gullible fools in racing ahead so as to pay even more for electricity and gas.

Steven Meyer is a qualified physist, Banker, Insurance person and Water?Energy?communications? person without any qualifications to lecture us all on Climate Science.

I suspect Steven's major in Physics isn't related to the topic he lectures us on. I might be wrong but I suspect if he was a climate scientist he'd have highlighted it in his resume.

Oh dear oh dear is the well shrinking?

Ho hum bitey, bon mot and others

Thank you for your kind words.

A few comments:

GREENHOUSE EFFECT

The fact of the greenhouse effect is not disputed by any serious scientist who has studied the atmosphere. It’s been understood for decades. The study of the atmospheric greenhouse effect long predates the current controversy about AGW.

While I have simplified – perhaps oversimplified - the mechanism it is as I’ve described. This too is not doubted by any physicists who have studied the atmosphere. It really is very basic physics. Most of the effects I’ve described can be reproduced in the lab and are as a matter of routine.

Below is a link to the Britannica article on the atmospheric greenhouse effect for those who are interested.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/245233/greenhouse-effect

I learned long ago that people will believe what they want to believe. So if you choose to disbelieve well-established basic science so be it. There’s nothing I can do about it.

But if you sincerely want to understand the physics underpinning the greenhouse effect here is my challenge to you. Many universities – eg Melbourne - have an “ask the expert” section on their website. Phone and ask someone to explain the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

And if you are not prepared to do the “hard yards” of trying to understand the science that what weight should I place on your “contribution” to the AGW debate?

DON AITKIN

It works like this. The moisture carrying capacity of the atmosphere depends on temperature. In simple terms, add some CO2 and average temperature rises. This tends to increase the level of atmospheric water vapour. Water vapour, being a greenhouse gas, induces a further temperature rise. And so on.

However every “iteration” adds less water vapour so the result is not a runaway chain reaction but a magnification of the effect. Hence no “catastrophe” but more warming.

On the whole I agree that I have not said enough about the uncertainties involved. My original piece was 4,000 words. Graham cut it to 1,600.
In my defence my first section was called “Decision making under uncertainty”.