Unfortunately nobody really knows what the situation is, and certainly not the ordinary lay-person such as me.
Spencer looks like a very ordinary thoroughly decent person, which he most certainly is.

But the give-away in this situation is signaled by the company that has published his book: namely Encounter Books which is very much a key player in the USA right-wing (Republican) noise machine.

The True Believers in our technocratic civilization.

The sub-title or promotional blurb for Encounter Books should be The Politics, Culture and Religion of True Believers. Check out their list of titles.
God is effectively a Judeo-Christian white man.

The West versus the Rest - which is the title of a book by one of Encounters featured authors.

The words True Belief are of course two words in capital letters used in this essay.

Pedantic as usual these two stark images sum up what Western techn0cratic Civilization is REALLY all about.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html

And applied right wing (Christian) politics via a review of an UNSPEAKABLY VILE film. On bringing "free" markets" with the assistance of the Christian "God" to the down-trodden masses.

One market under the Christian "God"!

http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner

Dear William, interesting but futile. Too little too late, where were all these scientists when the world, according to HSBC Bank, was diverting some 74bn pounds into carbon mitigation, which has achieved a global carbon reduction of what precisely?

We have launched a highly scientific, technical, muti-disciplined, research based, data critical debate into where? Yes, the public domain.

The big end of town, so vilified by the warmers is now the main financial beneficiary, along with extra taxes for governments. Europe is scrambling to shift to energy security as the promises of renewables fall far short of expectations; much of the western world is now saddled with eye wateringly costly and inefficient policies, infrastructure and technology.

Where was the contrary science when all this political folly was launched? If less than 200 scientists can sell a “pup” to the public, why couldn’t the thousands of scientists now sticking their hands up, have spoken out sooner

The author's erudite review does not endorse the view that climate science is settled, which the Government's socalled Climate Committee takes for granted in deliberating on the imposition of a carbon tax.

If the Committee and the anthropogenic-global-warming-supporting climate scientists are so sure that they are right, they should have no hesitation in agreeing to the holding of a royal commission into the veracity of climate science.

It is imperative that such a royal commission be held before legislation for any form of carbon tax is presented to the Parliament . As clearly explained by Nicholson, Biegler and Brooks ( see
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/emission-reductions-are-not-blowin-in-the-wind/story-fn59niix-1225962376534 )

a carbon tax will result in steeply escalating electricity prices, which while favouring the renewable energy suppliers, will damage the rest of the economy.

This is a complex paper and one difficult for a lay person to understand especially as the original sources are not readily available. However I feel able to make a few observations.

1. The discussion on cloud cover and temperature and the observation that the interpretation is ambiguous.
“But how do researchers know that “warmer temperatures caused a decrease in cloud cover, rather than the decrease in cloud cover causing warmer temperatures?”

Illustrates the point that a correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

2. In the discussion on the analysis on the graph referred to in the text as Figure 14.
“… shows that, very roughly, when the energy imbalance (due to forcings) is positive, the temperature increases; likewise when the imbalance is negative, temperature decreases. But this relationship is noisy.”
Now I have not seen this figure; but it seems to me that William Briggs, who is a professional statistician, is illustrating the dangers of “data mining.” This in my view illustrates the principle that by judicious selection of end points, and regression lines one can find support for one’s subjective viewpoint.

From the review it seems that Roy Spencers Book would be worth a read. A brief but simple discussion on the difficulties in ascribing causation in science is attributed to the late AB Hill. It can be found at the following site.
www.drabruzzi.com/hills_criteria_of_causation.htm

I support the suggestion of an Australian Royal Commission on this subject.

This is a very balanced book review by a professor who knows the importance of good statistical analysis.

Roy Spencer is a well known "contrarian" climate scientist and his research into 'negative' feedback is important, and must continue. However, as Briggs correctly identifies, Spencer's thesis is uncertain (and imo, not very robust).

One thing is certain: critics and sceptics of "modeling" will be ok with Spencer's brand of "modeling" - amusing.

2010 is the hottest year since temperatures were recorded.

2010 is not only not the hottest year since temperatures were recorded, it is turning out, in northern Europe at least, to be one of the coldest. You've got to admire the UK Met Office. Just as temperatures in Scotland and northern England dropped below those recorded at the North Pole, they announced 2010 as the hottest year on record. They achieved this marvellous result by 'recalibrating' the raw temperature data, which as a result now fits the computer projections.

If the UK Met Office was a private company, they'd be charged with fraud. They probably should be.

a Royal Commission is the only way to get to the truth behind all the 'science'. In the meantime; Europe is covered in snow and Australia is (mainly) dripping wet

579, that was after the figures were doctored, [sorry corrected] wasn't it?

Note too that the highest alleged rise in temperature comes from precisely those places where weather stations are fewest and furthest between -- especially the Arctic areas. Now, a sceptic might say that's because it's easier to fudge and 'homogenise' data from a few sparse weather stations where there is no independent data to check them against, but of course no scientist would be so biassed as to deliberately encourage his colleagues to fudge data and hide embarrassing results, would he?

Oh...

“But it would wrong to say, as many do say, that the PDO itself causes changes in the climate. This admonition holds also for ENSO. Thus, it’s no good pursuing PDO or ENSO saying that they can account for the observed warming. They cannot. They might be used in a statistical predictive sense, but are of little use as explanations of why the climate changes.”

It is difficult to grasp what the Author means by this statement, although I trust that it is not an attempt to support AGW.

To me that is like saying Christmas does not cause Christmas. It comes around when it is due to manifest, and if someone tried to point to a cause for the celebration and giving of gifts, other than Christmas itself, it would be ridiculous.

PDO and Enso come around when they do, and part of the phenomenon is global warming. Obviously they do not cause themselves, or cause global warming. They are themselves, and they manifest in some global warming.

If it is asserted that the warming comes from a source extraneous to the cycle , like human emissions, the assertion requires justification. It is clear that the warming is part and parcel of the natural cycles, and there is no room for such an assertion, unless it is based on some scientific proof.

The pretence that there was some “unallocated” global warming, not part of the phenomenon of the cycle, which was “likely” to be AGW, is empty, and has been refuted.

Thanks, Ho Hum it is nice of you to inform us that you have no idea what you are talking about, have no relevant comment to make, but then make pointless, irrelevant, off topic comments anyway. I am sure we could have managed without your time wasting observations.

579 must have been reading fraudulent, deceptively named sites like realclimate and the Skeptical Science, unless he made up this hottest year nonsense himself.

579 .. "2010 is the hottest year since temperatures were recorded."

So what?

should we all commit suicide?

What's your problem, adapt, or move aside .. what a foolish person!

The point of my comments are that to even to begin to understand what anyone has to say about controversial topics is that you have to consider the contexts in which they are said.

In this case the context was the publishing company, Encounter Books, and the world-view that they promote altogether. Which in the case of Encounter Books and those on the right side of the culture wars was and is summed up in the two stark images from the mural in the Dartmouth Library, and the recent applied politics of cruelty as described in the Logos Journal essay. To my way of thinking the Dartmouth images and the Logos essay both criticize the same toxic world-view.

Unlike most people who make comments on Online Opinion I freely acknowledge what the sources of my point of view re any and every given topic.

Meaning that any and every thing that all people say about any and every thing is conditioned by what they have read - without exception. Anyone who claims otherwise is just exercising a conceit. A conceit that is very common.

hiho hum, so are you saying there are no "legitimate" opinions that are not originally sourced from other material? That they should now be peer reviewed to our satisfaction, to be able to be posted at all .. sounds like we're heading back into AGW censorship. This is not a scientific site, it's an opinion site.

"Unlike most people who make comments on Online Opinion I freely acknowledge what the sources of my point of view re any and every given topic"

So attitudes I've spent a lifetime developing, have to now be sourced to your satisfaction? (if I'm to earn your grace?)

Why on earth would you insist on that, unless it's to stifle debate and accuse anyone skeptical of lacking authority or credibility.

I honestly wonder what you do or have done in your life to take such an attitude to other people.

.7 degree rise in temp; in the last decade. Another .7 rise in the next decade even if we do something to curb pollution now.
If we do nothing 4 or 5 degrees within 25-30 years.
Summer temps have been up to 45+ now. won't be able to stand another 4 or 5 degrees on top of that.
The landscape will change dramatically, the very survival of man kind hangs on what we do now.
Struggling nations will be worst hit, probably millions of deaths.
Much of AU will be uninhabitable.
The long term future is uncertain for the young of today,if we do nothing. It is up to the individual to make a difference. Don't blame it on govt;

579?

Pure unadulterated 'alarmism' does nothing for reasoned and rational discourse, let alone the action that is required.

May I humbly suggest you read (and understand) the IPCC's AR4, not some 'Dooms Day' book.

As Leo kindly puts it...............

"It is clear that the warming is part and parcel of the natural cycles, and there is no room for such an assertion, unless it is based on some scientific proof."

Thank you Leo for bring up the next case scenario.

Now what Leo has said there is very interesting indeed.

Natural cycles is in fact "combined" with everything else. And so is this.

I haven't heard much on mini or major extinctions. It could be fair to say this is exactly what the planet is at the beginning of, and if not...........WHY.

http://tinyurl.com/2fpjnxv

http://tinyurl.com/278w92n

http://tinyurl.com/27wg7lu

BLU

The world has never had a natural cycle like this one before.
There has been a shift going on since the 70's thats when i noticed changes taking place. People can stick their head in the sand and deny everything, thats easy. But what if they are wrong.
Every scientist has their own view, you can not go against temp; rise.
Who nows what's causing it. Pollution is a fair bet. It is a common denominator around the world.
So be a good little boy and get your solar system installed, and solar hot water. Rain water tanks, Do away with the garden, and make a nice display in its place with stones, so we can save water

579 .. what if you're the one who is wrong?

I expect like any extremist, it will shatter your world view.

What do you do when the facts change?

I change my mind .. but right now the facts don't support it.

What do you do 579?

Find a website with a better answer?

What is it you expect people to do .. you sound like a religious fanatic shrieking at everyone to repent as the end is nigh.

Do you think that a world convention to stop CO2 production is actually going to happen? China, India and Russia as well as the US, all stop their progress .. no way.

When people use hysteria and exaggerations to make their point, when they ridicule any skeptics, they undermine their own story, and you have what we have now, most of the population do not believe it is anything more than natural cycles, and if mankind is contributing in any small way, it's probably not CO2 (no proof) and giving money to the UN is probably just as good as throwing it away.

What do you believe will actually happen?

Ranting hasn't helped has it, and many have sure gone down that road. Pithy little statements pasted everywhere that this is the hottest year ever, before the end of the year .. smacks of religious fervor, not rational thought.

We'll adapt, as we always have, don't swallow all the doom laden prophecies, have a look at history, full of false prophets.

rpg: it seems you are at the other end of the spectrum to 579.

When you say "it's (AGW?) probably not CO2 (no proof)" - that indicates to me you don't understand science.

When you say "I change my mind (when the facts change) ... but right now the facts don't support it" - that indicates to me you don't understand the facts - or don't want the facts to be true.

Prove something in maths, sure.
Prove something in engineering, sure.
Prove something in science, nope.

Anyone who has had the most fundamental of training in science knows that you can't prove anything in science. I can't prove gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today. However, due to the weight of evidence supporting the theory, probably it will.

RPG My being wrong won't hurt anyone, your being wrong will be devastating.
I would rather ere on the side of caution than do nothing. The biggest byproduct of man is pollution, so it stands to reason to suspect that is the culprit. You don't have to be a scientist to determine that.
I assure you i am not religiously inclined, My view of religion is it does nothing but cause wars.
So do as i say and you will be forgiven maybe.

Funny isn't it RPG, these warmest types claim they have some understanding of physics, & then quote the IPCC's AR4 as if it was somehow something other than a laughing stock, having more holes in it than a prawn net. Next thing some of these people will be claiming that the UN is interested in Oz as anything other than a whipping boy, & a cash cow.

Bonmot, I suggest you go do some physics. Try some basic stuff. Oh, & don't expect to get anything scientific from a manifesto put out by a failing political organisation, with an axe to grind.

bonmot .. I'm an engineer, and this statement of yours "Anyone who has had the most fundamental of training in science knows that you can't prove anything in science."

is just rubbish .. please, it's just too stupid for words, so I won't even bother.

So you say the facts can't change? "When yada yada" - that indicates to me you don't understand the facts - or don't want the facts to be true"

A year ago, if you mentioned that there was any kind of solar influence on climate, you would have been howled done by "proofs" by the enlightened know all AGW believing scientific community, who claimed they could "prove" (see above .. and try not to blush) that the sun had zero influence on our climate .. yet today, there seems to be creeping in, since sunspot activity has all but ceased and we appear to be heading for cooling, papers that support that perhaps there is some influence from the sun .. that it doesn't just average out .

So the facts do change .. what do you do when this happens?

But of course, since nothing in science can be proved (!) this is all wasted on you.

Trying to be clever is one thing, but trying this on, is just the most ridiculous thing I have seen. You're not clever enough to turn my words around to entrap me, so don't bother, it won't change my worldview OK? Except to now decide you are not to be trusted in conversation.

579 is an eco activist and will squirm and wriggle out of anything, since he is religious and it's pointless trying to address his pithy statements. He clearly subscribes to the doing something is better than doing nothing, even if it stupid, theory. He wants to gamble on our future and try to stop the climate changing .. personally I'd rather see money poured into saving lives, halting malaria for instance, than wasted on climate science since at the end of the day, we can't change anything anyway, it's an expensive folly.

RPG You have lost it big time. There's nothing you can do about it so why bother. That is a cop out of the worst kind.
The balance of nature has been compromised in the very air we breath.
The affects of atmospheric pollution was known in the mid 1800's
At the rate global pollution is increasing the faster the effects of green house gasses are accumulating. That is kids stuff. Even a sceptic can see that, maybe. Big business will never acknowledge the word pollution. It's in their own interest not to.
That's about as simple as i can put it to you, that's grade 4 stuff.

YO!...SPINDOC....you said:

//The big end of town, so vilified by the warmers is now the main financial beneficiary, along with extra taxes for governments//

Please.. use "ALLEGED" warmers :)

The accuracy of the term 'warmers' is in inverse proportion to how much money the accusers stand to make if they can get the law changed.

Hasbeen
Post-grad physics is basic enough, thanks. Seeing you suggest that there is nothing scientific about that “manifesto”, perhaps then we should ignore Roy Spencer’s work on clouds – he is well cited in it. Any constructive comment to make about Briggs’ article?

rpg
So, you are an engineer! Congratulations, you can “prove” 1 + 1 = 2
You can’t “prove” the Sun will be there tomorrow.

Moving on: where did I say “facts can’t change”?

It appears you are confusing “facts” with assumptions (or premises). If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck – the weight of evidence would suggest it probably is a duck. The “fact” that a duck is a duck is a duck, does not mean I have the assumptions (or premises) about ducks correct. Assumptions can change – it’s got something to do with the ‘scientific method’ – you may have heard of it when you did engineering.

Next - I do not know of any scientist who has said “that the sun had zero influence on our climate”. Can you provide a link to the scientist/s who said that? I would like to verify your assertions myself, if you don’t mind.

Finally, your talk of entrapment just sounds a tad too paranoid, imho.

579
Rpg does have a valid point – I would say you are verging on eco-extremism. Ok, he is of the other extreme (metaphorically speaking of course) but that does not mean you are ‘right’ and he is ‘wrong’ (or vice versa) – it just means that if ‘we’ are to live in a future world together, ‘we’ have to sort out our differences. That’s what they are trying to do in Cancun. If the attitude/behaviour of you two is typical, I am not optimistic.

579: "My being wrong won't hurt anyone, your being wrong will be devastating."

On the contrary, your being wrong: a) will cause billions of dollars that could be spent on rational programs to benefit people and the planet to be spent instead on spurious 'research' into and unnecessary 'solutions' for a non-existent problem; b) will cause -- is already causing -- a massive drop in credibility and public trust for climate scientist, which will extend naturally to cover science in general.

There are plenty of people who already regard science and reason as the enemy. By persisting in massive, futile public spending in the name of 'science' you simply provide them with a bigger and better target.

Jon J
Some say (me included) Roy Spencer (remember him, the subject of Brigg's article?) does some excellent work/research from UAH on clouds and 'negative feedback' - I hasten to add this work/research is not as robust as some would think.

So, I'm trying to get my head around your comment about spending public money in the name of 'science'. Are you saying public funding for Spencer's work/research (to make it robust) should be stopped?

I would say funding 'climate science' is critical and needs increased funding. Who knows, there might be someone out there that could knock AGW for six. That in itself will save trillions and trillions.

Also, how do you know the "problem is non-existent"?

Bad luck 579, that 2010 did not qualify as the hottest year, but at least it has a chance to be the coldest year.

Of course, the usual frauds will announce in the new year that 2011 will be the hottest year ever. They have announced each new year as the hottest year ever, for the last twelve years.

They know that a lie only needs to be repeated often enough, to cause people to believe it.

The fraudulent presentation of global temperatures has had a few glitches, not least the climategate emails which gave the game away and made people aware of the fraud.

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann
“The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt

The lack of impartiality of these scientists is disgraceful.

Here is Phil Jones:” I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline”

He not only wishes to pretend there is global warming, he wants to hide global cooling.

If you are a scientist dependent on backing from the IPCC for funding, it is no use telling the truth about climate. The IPCC demand global warming.

They have all sorts of methods of misrepresenting warming as AGW, and a vital reason to do so.

The IPCC was established to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to the understanding of human induced climate change.

There has yet to be established any basis to assert that human activities have any but a negligible effect on climate change. The IPCC no longer has any reason to exist.

Leo Lane is partly correct.

2010 looks like the third hottest year on record,
not the hottest. I can't see how it could possibly
be the coldest year:

"A United Nations weather agency report found 2010
is almost certain to rank as one of the hottest three
years on record, while the past 10 years are the warmest
period since climate data began in 1850."

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/yzi

I'm sure somebody's explained to Leo that there is no
evidence for long term planetary cooling, so one wonders
why he engages in his own version of "fraudulent presentation
of global temperatures".

This is being discussed on:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

It does not look good for Spencers theory.

I see why Leo Lane claims it to be the coldest as he must have read a journalist report, that made it up - being discussed at http://www.realclimate.org/

Again misinformation from Leo Lane.

The scientists that he names and climategate, have all been investigated and totally cleared.

If Leo Lane has evidence otherwise then it should have been tabled and not keep on making statements that are manevestly incorrect.

Talk of hottest year coldest year seems to me to be meaningless. Especially as it is not clear if the measurements are based on non-randomly sited land stations, which over the years have been shown to follow various idiosyncratic protocols.

Reliable ocean temperatures using the Argos system and over lats 60N to 60S have only been available since about 2003. While satellite measurements covering the greater part of the globe have been available for about 40years only.

So those that quote hottest year data should also tell us under what system the measurements were recorded. They should provide some indication of sampling errors. It would also be useful if 95% confidence intervals were included, so one judge the precision associated with the claim.

I cannot help but think that the Met office indulges in “data mining” to make claims of hottest month, year, minute etc. in order to please their political masters. Or even to try and influence decision making at the Cancun meeting.

Bonmot:
<I would say funding 'climate science' is critical and needs increased funding. Who knows, there might be someone out there that could knock AGW for six. That in itself will save trillions and trillions.>

Excuse my naivety, Bonmot, but rather than just pumping more ATO dollars into research, shouldn't we be doing something more practical, like say putting a 20% surcharge on private jets, restaurant meals, international junkets (conferences) plasma tv's, Limos and SUV's? the proceeds going to AGW research? I'm just amazed that the funding for research has to be extracted under a veil of anonymity--consolidated revenue. Surely the high-end users should pay a premium? (if Yabby's reading, don't worry mate, exemption for yokels). Whether you like it or not, AGW is political, and it's about time you lot got your hands dirty! The minimifidianists, have a legitimate gripe, the scientific community is just another spineless hanger on. If you're going to ask for more funding, you're going to have to go in and bat for the cause, stand for something besides your bogus objectivity, or at least stop pretending you can do anything to help with all money and no action.
The scientific community is just another strand of conservative hegemony. You know what actions need to be undertaken, but you'll settle for more funding, right?
At least religious institutions occasionally stand up against the bullsh!t!

Thanks for the link Peter.
Spencer should pursue his thesis though, even if in the end he modifies it. I doubt it though; Roy does seem to have difficulty separating his Christian religious fervour from his scientific pursuit – believing it impossible for Man to dare impact on God’s climate.

Anti-green (love the tag)
Do you really think the experts haven’t considered temporal and spatial characteristics or other “idiosyncratic protocols”? Really, 'climate science’ is put under the microscope so much these days (rightly so I will add) that they have to dot every ‘i” and cross every ‘t’, and then deal with FOI requests.

You may find confidence levels are predicated in any data analysis they undertake – unlike the “assertions” of some others, Lindzen comes to mind.

And your thought bubble about “the Met office indulges in “data mining”? Oh please, do you not realise how silly that sounds, particularly in light of ‘climategate’? Scientific bodies and institutions not only have to do the right thing, they have to be seen to be doing the right thing.

Squeers
You are absolutely right (except for the “conservative hegemony” bit) - sorry for giving the wrong impression

Oh yeah, Talisman
There is evidence for long term planetary cooling ... the Milankovitch cycle. In geologic time, we are heading into an ice age (in about 30,000 years time +/-).

Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the climate change we’re seeing now (Leo may beg to differ). Speaking of whom, have you tried putting "Leo Lane" + "climate" into your search engine? He pops up all over the place, repeating the same mantra everywhere. Sad really, he's got nothing new to add and increasingly sounds like someone with ADHD.

The year is not over yet. It makes as much sense to say 2010 is the coldest as to say it is the hottest. It makes more sense to wait until the year ends, unless you wish to support the AGW fraud, and baselessly allege warming..

Sad is it bonmot? Even sadder that you have nothing to contribute, and are reduced to making pathetic snide comments, in lieu of anything relating to the topic. I will stop repeating the truth when it is accepted, and I can move on.

The Met office has obviously been politicised, and your motive in saying” Scientific bodies and institutions not only have to do the right thing, they have to be seen to be doing the right thing.” is questionable. It has obviously been politically corrupted, as have the conflicted parties holding the puerile “clearing” of the Climategate miscreants. There has been no proper independent legal inquiry into this corrupt scandal, and it is long overdue.

It is as odious as the “clearing” of the UN, of the “Oil for Food” swindle which they ran. No independent judicial inquiry was held, and they had some friendly banker declare the UN “clean”. In practice, all he did was declare himself dirty.

I notice some fraud backer is referring us to realclimate, the site run by the Climategate miscreant, Michael Mann, of “hockey stick” infamy, and the deceptively named Skeptical Science, where no truthful comments are allowed, and they post endless weasel worded deceptive misdirection to support the unproven assertion of AGW.

*if Yabby's reading, don't worry mate, exemption for yokels*

I did read that Squeers and was about to suggest an extra tax on
all those with more then 2 kids. Makes perfect sense to me,
if we are going to tax people for overloading the environment,
we might as well be consistant.

There's that word again!

"It has obviously been politically corrupted, as have the conflicted parties holding the puerile “clearing” of the Climate-gate miscreants. There has been no proper independent legal inquiry into this corrupt scandal, and it is long overdue.

Corruption!

It just wont go away:)

BLUE

Acceptance of the claim that 2010 was the hottest year on record , shows how easily some can be conned, given that 1/12th of 2010 had yet to pass. December 2010 has been characterised by the coldest weather in over 20 years in the Northern hemisphere, while November passed in Brisbane without the temperature exceeding 30 degrees C, a very rare occurrence.

The claim that Climategate had been investigated and totally cleared, is subject to qualification. Were not the inquiries conducted by scientists and gullible UK politicians who believe in AG

Oops... I inadvertently left 'W' out of 'AGW'.

2010 the hottest yr on record? Who is collecting the data and how.Many of the data sites in the USA have been conpromised by being put on asfelt,near air conditioners etc.There is a clear agenda here to distort the reality for monetary gain.

Just because some ‘eco-extremist’ in this thread going by the tag ‘579’ says 2010 was the hottest year on record does not make it fact.

Most people would ‘fact-check’ themselves, from more credible sources - the World Meteorological Organisation, for example:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/index_en.html

One has to ask, why could not Raycom have linked to this, rather than go on a tirade about the Northern Hemisphere (checked Israel, Russia, China or Canada, Raycom) or wait for it ... Brisbane?

Arjay
Jeez mate, you really are into conspiracy theories. Do you really think the experts don’t know about the issues of weather-station placement? Do you really think they don’t know how to calibrate the instruments or compensate the errors? Do you really think you or some fluffed-up former TV weatherman knows more about it than they do? Do you really think the experts are that stupid?

Tell you what, rather than bang on about some wild conspiracy theory, go do some homework yourself - on who collects the data, and how they do it? Hint: start with the WMO and work through to BoM – on the way you will find that the data is collected by various scientific organisations, from all over the world.

Perhaps, just perhaps – you might come to realise that these dedicated and highly professional bodies aren’t in it for the money or some nonsense conspiracy.

Leo
I’ll bounce it back - do you have anything substantive to contribute about William Briggs’ review of Roy Spencer’s book? He has been subject of a few of my comments, unlike your same old same old.

The children are playing with their “chemistry sets” but why can’t they play nicely?

Willie Warmer and his friends are popping up from behind the lounge to throw their “links” at Contrary and his friends. Contrary’s team is doing likewise.

Willie Warmer insists that his “grown up” friends agree that his links are the best but Contrary’s team maintain that their “grown up” friends say Willie is cheating because they are only throwing links from the green box.

Contrary’s friends say that equal numbers of green and red links are supposed to be thrown as those are the “Chemistry Set Rules”.

Now children, says one adult, play fair and let each other join in the game.

We don’t want them to play in our game says Willie; we only like playing with green links. Well Willie, that hardly seems fair now does it? How can you only have one side represented, you can’t even have a Chemistry set game with only one side can you?

But, insists Willie, our green links are the only true links, we have more than them, we have more grown up friends that agree with us, ours are better made and they are made by “proper” link makers.

Well Contrary, how do you feel about that, why do you even want to play chemistry sets with Willie?

Well, because we want to test the chemistry set, no point in having it if we can’t play with it is there? The rules on the box lid say that we have to “test both the red and the green links otherwise the chemistry set won’t work”.

So Willie, why can’t you play by the rules?

‘Cos my important friends say that we have more green links, more grown up friends, and better links from proper link makers, says Willie.

(TBC

Contd.

Yes says an adult, you keep saying that and you really do believe it, but that didn’t answer the question now did it? The question was Willie, why won’t you play by the rules on the box lid?

Well, well, er! Says Willie, our box didn’t have a lid; anyway my “chemist” friends say I don’t need a lid or any rules if I don’t want to.

So why do you have a chemistry set if you don’t actually want to use it? Aren’t you just pretending to play chemistry sets? says the adult.

No, absolutely not says Willie, we have got soooo much “information”, and we have tested the chemistry and guess what it works!

How did you test it Willie? Well we got even more green links and they verified our conclusions. Isn’t it exciting?

Yes Willie, but didn’t that only “test” the green links?

Oh no, “our green links are the only true links, we have more than them, we have more grown up friends that agree with us, ours are better made and they are made by proper link makers.”

So Willie, how can you possibly know that this is true if you only have the green links that fits your green answer? Shouldn’t you check the green and the red links?

No stupid, because I have the all “information”, see!

You mean the scientific information? Yes, absolutely.

And as a scientist you can interpret all this information? Well, er! Actually no ‘cos obviously I’m not actually a scientist, but I do have some important scientific friends that produce links and they agree with us.

Green links Willie?

Well er! Yes.

whenever man thinks he is God whether dressed up in pseudo science or some other arrogant mask we always see God having the last laugh. How wrong they all got it in Europe who was not suppose to see snow, our Eastern coast who wasted billions on desalination plants because the gurus said it wasn't going to rain again. Just like the textbooks on evolution will continue to be updated (albeit slowly) as fraud and deceit is uncovered again and again so the climate 'experts' will go hiding until the next drought or perceived change in a climate pattern. It is not 'mother nature' who is laughing but Father God at man's arrogance and stupidity.

William, you say -
"We do know that the IPCC models purposely incorporate positive feedback - and when the results are examined, they say, “Look at this dangerous positive feedback! Positive feedback, since it shows in the results of our models, must be real.” Circular thinking, of course."

- William this looks like assumption on your part as you've failed to explore the reasons - the science based reasons - for those feedbacks being considered to be positive. The scientific reasons to quantify various feedbacks and methodology to come up with their values - that have nothing to do with circular thinking - have been passed over by you.

Where's discussion of hindcasting? Validation? What happens to model results when those feedbacks are presumed neutral or negative? Do the results then show better or worse correlation with past climate changes? You seem to be implying that inclusion of positive feedbacks is not merely arbitrary but embodies deliberate intent to get preconceived results. If the preconceived result is correct correlation with past climate changes based on real physical processes, that's one thing but you seem to be implying something more sinister. This is a very serious suggestion and must be deeply insulting to the many honest scientists who study these areas of climate as they try to calculate feedback values whilst attempting to accurately describe and quantify real climate processes.

I think I'd like to see some climatologists with real expertise giving a critique of Spencer's claims rather than accept yours as being fair and informative.

Hi Spindoc

I like your send up of the young scientists.

While ever young people are indoctrinated at school and university by those who have ulterior motives we will be continually subjected to more and more rubbish from these dumbed down brainless robots.

If only these people could step back and take another look at how they have been programmed not to think for themselves.

The way to conquer the world is to get as many dumb followers as you can.

Bonmot,
You must be right here. I am sure the experts including statistician have considered in detail the points that I have raised. However, consideration does not imply that problems are solved. I write as a layman in these matters. However, recent publications, for example, the Royal Society make great use of the word “uncertainty.”

Surely, one can interpret the word “uncertainty” as meaning that there are errors in estimates. Some but not all errors are known and can at least in theory be corrected. Others are due to variations and fluctuations that are inherent to noisy data. It may be possible for experts to estimate the magnitude of errors and include confidence limits. Then there has to be the “unknown unknowns.”

What is the reason why climate organisations do not include a brief note on errors in conjunction with their public pronouncements? Is it because they do not think the public will understand error bars? Or is it because they fear it will reduce the impact of their statements? Or do they fear it would be politically unwise?

Following your posting I checked the WMO site and found this estimate:
“The globally averaged surface air temperature is estimated to increase from 1990 to 2100 by between 1.4°C and 5.8°C.”

It was not clear to me that this represented a confidence interval and at what level? However, it is a wide range and thus suggests that the estimate has low precision.

Given that it is in the nature of experts to indulge in academic debates with each other. I stand by my remark that statements such as “the hottest year” and so on, are too simplistic to be meaningful. It may also be doubted that calculating a weighted average of temperature measurements from a number disparate sources is a true index of global temperature

*our Eastern coast who wasted billions on desalination plants because the gurus said it wasn't going to rain again.*

ah runner, arn't you lucky that they built desalination plants on
the West Coast, in case it didn't rain one day. Otherwise there
would not be much coming out of your tap.

To rely on the Almighty for it to rain in time, rather then have
a backup for a major city, would be rather foolish.

One day those plants will be required. Better to have them there,
ready to go, then try praying, for it has been shown to be a dismal
failure as a solution.

Ken, do the words "hide the decline" sound like "deliberate intent" to you? Surely they sound like something more than a little "sinister"?

Do you think that making arbitrary "corrections" to a temperature record showing constant temperature for years, to produce a two degree increase, could be considered sinister? Try the Darwin raw, & corrected figures.

If not there is no hope for you.

After what we have seen from your climatologists, it's going to be quite some time before I'd except there is such a thing as a government funded "honest scientist" in the field.

Perhaps opening their workings to full inspection by interested parties would be a start. Without that as a minimum they will remain con men to any thinking adult.

For those who still insist on repeating
the ill-informed and erroneous scuttlebutt
about "hiding the decline", it was well and
truly explained to the UK’s Parliamentary Select
Committee on Science and Technology back in
February.

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/02/26/cru-explains-trick-and-hide-the-decline/

Unfortunately, there are still many people
around who refuse to acknowledge that AGW
is considered to be real according to the vast
majority of reputable climate scientists,
preferring instead to repeat the dishonest
spin of the denialist lobby.

As this and every other discussion about AGW
at this website show, there is little point in
arguing with these people, as they seem to be
trenchantly impervious to real evidence and reason.

Thanks to bonmot for the heads-up about one of
them in particular. That search string returned
hundreds of examples of the kind of bloody-minded
denialism to which I refer, and that's just one of them!

Leo Lane wants to get his information from where?
Under the bed from the tooth fairy

At least the web sites listed are supported by scientists.

And the web sites do allow anyone to put up a comment so do not believe the misinformation from Leo Lane.

As anyone can see if they visit the sites.

Yabby writes

'One day those plants will be required. Better to have them there,
ready to go, then try praying, for it has been shown to be a dismal
failure as a solution.'

A decent back up plan would of been to build more dams however unfortunately Green faith won out. Both Brisbane and Melbourne rejected commonsense and paid multiple millions when not needed because they listened to their High Priests who are now in hiding.

You also obviously have not seen how much water their is in the Kimberley's in WA. The West has always had 'climate change' like every other part of the world. You might not want to rely on the 'Almighty' but He is certainly a lot more reliable than those of Green faith as shown all up and down the Eastern sea board.

*You also obviously have not seen how much water their is in the Kimberley's in WA.*

I certainly have runner, but I am also aware of the fact of what it
would cost to pump it south, a few thousand km. Desalination plants
are a much cheaper way to do it.

*You might not want to rely on the 'Almighty' but He is certainly a lot more reliable than those of Green faith as shown all up and down the Eastern sea board.*

Oops runner, I recall a few hundred million praying for the last
pope. The old boy still fell off the perch. You are free to pray
for rain, but I don't like your chances.

If it doesent rain, even dams are not much good.

& if you believe that Talisman, you are just the one I'm looking for.

Mate I've got these bridges---.

Oops runner, I recall a few hundred million praying for the last
pope. The old boy still fell off the perch....lol.....sorry.lol..I have to run to the toilet before I pee myself...lol.....

BLUE

To all the climate Denialists:

1. Why don't you like the Radiative Forcing Equation? None of you are challenging the basic spectrometry of how Co2, methane, and other greenhouse gases actually interact with long wave length radiation are you?

2. What do you do about the fact that we are quickly running out of fossil fuels. We've pretty much burnt the cheap half, the low hanging fruit. From here on in the price will go up and the production will go down. They'll cost more. We've past peak oil, and are about to hit the arc of decline. Then we'll pass peak gas, and within 20 or so years pass peak coal!

And why do you guys invest so much time and effort in protecting an industry that is unfairly subsidised? Fossil fuels increase particulate pollution that causes asthma, lung and throat cancer, and a bunch of other nasty diseases. But our taxpayer dollars pick up the health cost, and the coal companies sigh with gratitude. This is outrageous. The REAL cost of coal would probably not be reached even with a carbon tax!

Climate denialists too often come across as anti-science, but don't also realise that they are anti-public health, and anti-market. If you want a distorted energy market, leave things exactly the way they are. The BIGGEST subsidies for energy by far in this country go straight to King Coal and Big Oil. We're talking 10 billion dollars a year!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/07/1178390228019.html

I would like to see the feedback that Spencer talks about kick in - no sign of it at the moment just getting warmer every decade.

This was posted on a science blog.

I don’t understand how anyone can neglect these 4 basic facts:

1) Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus has the capacity to warm the planet (Tyndall, 1858).

3) By burning fossil fuels, humans activities are increasing the greenhouse gas concentration of the Earth (Arrhenius, 1896).

4) Increased greenhouse gas concentrations lead to more heat being trapped, warming the planet further (Arrhenius, 1896).

Anyone that is neglecting these basic facts without some substantial evidence that contradicts them should not be paid much heed.

It only stands to reason what man is doing is the global culprit, Who can say increased co2 is not responsible for increased cancer and asthma.

Eerrrrrmmm, you do know that burning Coal does actually increase asthma, throat cancer and lung cancer? This is a SIGNIFICANT cost to society, but the coal companies 'externalise' their costs to us the taxpayers. Nice of them hey?

As the article "What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted" by David Rose

(see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17PTNhzJR)

indicates, the warmists have raised their level of alarmism to influence the Cancun conference

"Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped."

Yeah Raycom, you've got us convinced. (Nudge nudge wink wink). Tens of thousands of scientific temperature stations around the globe can't be relied upon, decadal trends can't be read, and one slightly cooler El Nino year undoes all the warming we've seen in previous years — that of course we can't be sure of because somehow the author waves a magic wand and makes the hottest decade on record disappear. No really, climatologists must be shaking in their boots!

While the temperature records confirm that the GLOBAL temperature keeps rising, all that extra energy in the atmosphere is melting glaciers. Check this photo from NASA (given poor Raycom thinks the Met is in a conspiracy).
http://climate.nasa.gov/stateOfFlux/index.cfm

Then click through the rest of the photos under that one. Hopefully SEEING is BELIEVING (since the scientific data is not enough for some here).

Oops... I of course meant to say slightly cooler La Nina year. Haven't had enough coffee yet. But basically the above post from Raycon is complete and utter denialist rubbish. "No warming for 15 years" my left buttock! The temperature records say otherwise.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

Warmists appear to be in permanent eclipse.

Even the Royal Society acknowledges that since 1910, temperature increases have occurred in only two periods, namely from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to around 2000. It never ceases to amaze how warmists attribute such temperature rises to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. They work on the basis that if you say something often enough, people will believe you -- unfortunately, the gullible fall for that sort of brain washing.

Despite such august bodies as the IPCC searching for over 20 years, no one has been able to table scientific evidence that proves that global warming has been caused by anthropogenic gas emissions.

The IPCC has used its socalled climate models as an effective means of alarming the media, parliamentarians, and others. As these models have not been validated -- even the IPCC acknowledges this -- they cannot be relied on for predictive purposes

Peter A
I accept all your four points as correct.
The argument from my point of view is this
1. What is the magnitude of the CO2 radiative forcing in respect to other influences and forces on the atmospheric circulation?
2. The absorption of infrared radiation is related to the log of CO2 concentration and therefore as concentration increases the incremental absorption and subsequent re-radiation is smaller.
3. The earth is probably never in energy balance. The heat capacity of the earth including oceans should buffer any ill effects.
4. The question of water vapour, the moisture content of air masses which increases with temperature is seen by some such as the IPPC as a positive feedback. Others raise the question of increased cloud cover and negative feedback.
5. I have seen various estimates for the proportion of non-anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide.
6. Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere shows seasonal and geographical variation. It is not clear to me that this is due entirely to human activity.
7. Surface air temperature measurements from land stations are known to be erratic, non-random in location and not always operated according to vigorous protocol.
8. Satellite data has only been available for about forty years and the Argos system in operation for only about 5-6 years. Too short a time in my view to obtain meaningful trend lines.
9. The poor predictive value of climate models and the exaggerated claims in some sections of IPPC.
10. There are many known unknowns and unknown unknowns in climate science.

Very deceptive Raycom - 'mine-quoting' and 'spin-doctoring' The Royal Society - but I suspect typical.

Others may be interested in what The Royal Society really says:

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

Download the PDF to put Raycom's assertions in context.

Raycom says:

"They work on the basis that if you say something often enough, people will believe you -- unfortunately, the gullible fall for that sort of brain washing."

Yep, that's what he, Leo Lane and others here have been doing time and time again.

Hasbeen, you appear to think that one set of tree ring proxies for temperature in one region is proof of both no warming and of data manipulation. That you want actual measurements by thermometers to be discarded in favour of a dodgy batch of data to 'hide the incline' doesn't surprise me; it's about as good as arguments against AGW ever get. Like the 'statistically significant warming' question posed to Jones, it reveals more about who composed the question than about whether or not we have a real warming trend; it being a specific technical term and 15 years being too small a sample making it an impossibility. Whoever thought up the question surely knew this and knew that Jones would answer it honestly. The past 15 years is the warmest 15 years on record is ignored. A statistically significant warming trend for the past 21 years - that sample size being enough to get the 95% confidence needed - is real. 30 years, too. That's sinister. What Jones does deserve criticism for is his handling of a deluge of FOI requests.

None of the science by Jones has been shown to be wrong. None of the data shown to be distorted or misused. It is consistent with every other global temperature measure.

As for Darwin - a single location not the globe btw - the move of the weather station made a clear sudden drop in measured temperature, it was right to adjust it. You can see discussion of the bogus Darwin claims here - http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php - and for the hows and whys of temperature data adjustment in Australia try - http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel; using unadjusted data actually results in more apparent global warming, not less. As usual the deniers just say stuff that's wrong and hope no-one bothers to check. And ignore or deride anyone who does.

Raycom
So the physics of spectrometry that allows everything from the microwave to the internet is just to be ruled out? It’s all bunk? They can’t prove the basic radiative properties of carbon dioxide, water, methane? You’re amazing to even suggest that.

Watch this video at about 60 seconds in. It shows a *thermal* camera trying to peer through a tube of Co2 at a candle on the other side. When the tube is empty, the camera clearly shows heat flaring off the candle flame. Then Co2 is pumped into the tube. The heat is refracted away from the tube and can't hit the camera. To the thermal camera the flame winks out, while in the real world the candle burns. The heat can't get through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=related

Your reference to the post-WW2 'pause' in global warming is true enough. It happened. Thing is, climatologists know why. Sulfur from dirty coal stacks. They’ve got scrubbers now, to prevent the nasty acid rain we were suffering. So global *dimming* cleared up somewhat, and global warming returned. We KNOW about particulate sulfur and how it works. Some even propose shooting sulfur into the stratosphere and turning the sky white as a solution for global warming if we can’t get Co2 under control. Yuk. Goodbye blue Aussie sky. But here's the thing: we KNOW about it. You're acting like there's some big mystery post WW2 is just so much rubbish.

You sound like the director of the “Great Global Warming Swindle” —  Anthony Durkin who was just jerkin his gherkin.

It’s such a tired old myth, number 12 of the top 29 myths.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming.html

These arguments are so old and tired and worn out now. Can’t you just drop it? The fact that they get trotted out DESPITE the continual new data shows they’re dogma, not science.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

Eclipse Now

It is naive to suggest that the CO2 tube experiment is representative of the action of an atmospheric CO2 concentration of less than 4 parts per 10,000.

You may benefit from reading Anti-green's comment about causation.

Instead of clutching at straws, simply table the scientific evidence that illustrates that global warming has been caused by anthropogenic gas emissions.

There is another study just published that appears to dispute Spencer:-

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/09/science-cloud-feedback-likely-positive/#more-38131

Raycom
Just go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ and download there new publication 'The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism' or visit the home page all the information is their.
Or you could contribute to the discussion on their web site anyone can.

PeterA,
I respect your post here, and apologise for my tone in the other thread. I hadn't had my usual dose of coffee when I read this morning's post in the Nuclear thread. Apologies.

Well, where were we? Ahh, that's right ... Roy Spencer's negative feedback (pun not intended).

Peter, here's a direct link to Dessler's Science paper:

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Note that "Previous work (Spencer, Lindzen and Co) has generally focused on just part of the problem (for example, the tropics or low clouds), and these analyses differ EVEN (my emphasis) on the sign of the cloud feedback."

Anti-green: you might observe the error bars.

You might also note:
"... owing to the apparent time-scale dependence of the cloud feedback and the uncertainty in the observed short-term cloud feedback, we cannot use this analysis to reduce the present range of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 to 4.5 K".

Will this help take off the blinkers? Probably not.
Don't get me wrong, I admire your tenacity in asking probing questions, really. But, like most so called 'sceptics', you refuse to accept the answers when explained to you (what I think about that attitude has no bearing). Anyway, also like most so called 'sceptics', you change the goal posts, if not the entire playing field, if it appears you don't like the answers.

Raycom, don't bother reading Dessler's paper - you have demonstrated you wouldn't understand anyway.

anti-green I think the book I referenced to may answer your questions/doubts if not I am sure that emailing the author he will or the web site will provide information.

Eclipse Now accepted.

Skeptical Science is a warmist site, which would be as much help in assessing the true picture as would Real Climate, run by Michael Mann of “hockey stick” infamy.

It states:

“The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism looks at both the evidence that human activity is causing global warming and the ways that climate ‘skeptic’ arguments can mislead by presenting only small pieces of the puzzle rather than the full picture.”

This means that they pick out realist positions and put up arguments as to why they are misleading. For instance they will take the valid statement that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on global climate.

They will then point out that the CO2 output of human activities has been measured. Of course that is not the question to be answered.

They will point out that warming has been shown locally in the well known “heat island” effect.
Again, this avoids the question, which is the effect on global, not local, climate.

Once it is accepted, from careful observation, that the warmist arguments are never honest, and that, upon analysis, their arguments do not stand up, your mind will be a lot clearer, and the truth of the position is more easily perceived.

Their weasel worded efforts are quite cleverly designed, as they are prepared by experts in confusion and misdirection.

Read Robert Carter’s clearly and openly set out “Climate: The Counter Consensus”.

If you have any doubts, as to Robert Carter's status, read some of the baseless sliming, of him, done by the warmists, who have no valid counter arguments to his clarification of the position, and are reduced to invective, in their impotence, when faced with the truth.

Leo

Have you got anything substantive to say about the Science paper?

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Oh yeah, that's right ... it's not science. Your rants are boring.

Peter A
Thank you very much for your reference to the Dessler Paper. I regret that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in the discipline to provide a proper critic.
It is of course an example of computer modelling. I quote from the paper.

“For the problem of long term climate change what we really want to determine is the cloud feedback in response to long term climate change. Unfortunately, it may be decades before a direct measurement is possible.”

Talk of changing goal posts is a little unfair as this is a vast subject covering numerous disciplines; so to compress all thoughts into 350 words is impossible. I will refrain, with the greatest of difficulty, in noting a tendency among the “warming fraternity” to play the man rather than the ball.

This is the philosophical problem should we wait until all evidence is in before taking action. Especially as that action will have serious and unforseen financial and economic consequence, that maybe orders of magnitude worse than any reasonable expectation of an adverse climate change. No prize for guessing I am all for wait and see.

Antigreen:
<This is the philosophical [sic] problem should we wait until all evidence is in before taking action[?]>

You and your pals amaze me. So you think you're a philosopher on this issue!

Certainly there's some ambiguity about climate change; variety of causes, degree, effects, the planet's adaptability to affliction etc.--though the weight of expert analysis across the whole myriad spectrum adds up to scientific consensus. Climate change is of course a geological phenomena that ordinarily barely admits of measurements taken in our speck of human time. It is a stupendous task to come up with absolute predictions based on (from our perspective) virtually infinite complexity and interaction, yet the anthropogenic effect is unambiguously in evidence, even if there is no precedent to gauge it by, or way to be sure how these effects will ultimately manifest. So because scientists can't make 100% extrapolations (which makes mapping the human genome look trivial) it's business as usual?
Your "wait and sea" approach is IDIOTIC.
Are you also waiting to see if in fact we ARE clearing the Amazon; polluting waterways; draining groundwater; salianating and desertifying arable land; destroying fauna, habitat and flora in what amounts to a mass extinction event; polluting and acidifying our oceans; poisoning the food chain with innumerable chemicals, hormones, heavy metals etc etc.
Are you also playing wait and see with these manifest realities, or do you concede that humans are the direct cause?
According to Aristotle the central philosophical consideration for humanity is "how should we live?"

It might do you good to ponder that question.
But you're no philosopher!

This was great...

"Your "wait and sea" approach is IDIOTIC.
Are you also waiting to see if in fact we ARE clearing the Amazon; polluting waterways; draining groundwater; salianating and desertifying arable land; destroying fauna, habitat and flora in what amounts to a mass extinction event; polluting and acidifying our oceans; poisoning the food chain with innumerable chemicals, hormones, heavy metals etc etc.
Are you also playing wait and see with these manifest realities, or do you concede that humans are the direct cause?
According to Aristotle the central philosophical consideration for humanity is "how should we live?"

It might do you good to ponder that question.
But you're no philosopher!"

I like it when someone gets on a roll. Nice work. We live in an era of 'peak everything...' and your paragraphs above concisely touched on titanic issues, each involving desperate struggles between great powers. We live in exponentially dangerous — and potentially exponentially rewarding — times. Which way the coin flips depends on how much denial we face in the coming years.

Eclipse Now,
I'm interested in your "potentially exponentially rewarding" times (as derivative). Can you elaborate? Is there a silver lining to the "peak everything" we're driving (actually, that's not an exaggeration)? Presumably you see our future as not only transcending nature, but exterminating the whole nasty business and moving on to some kind of post-natural state?
Seriously, I'm fascinated with the positivist mindset that extrapolates its fascination with empiricism to a purely instrumental way of life. Are we talking some form of "transhumanism", or do you just mean rewarding in terms of bucks?

Eclipse now,
sorry, I think I misunderstood your tone. We seem to be on the same side.

Hi squeers.

This is my summary of life, the universe and everything.

http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/eclipse/

Basically, I chose the tag "eclipse" years ago because it means itself and it's opposite. It can mean to cast into darkness, which I think is a real possibility for the modern world (even if I think it is improbable, it is still frighteningly POSSIBLE).

It can also mean to so outshine some other or previous achievement that it is eclipsed while YOU shine.

Basically I think we have the technology to beat peak oil, global warming, and many other HORRIBLE challenges ahead of us IF we can get the *political willpower* behind it. Sadly, I think some of the technologies we have will be unpopular.

EG: New Urbanism: how we design our cities could take us half the way towards solving peak oil and global warming and restoring local ecologies. See this 4 minute summary video "Built to last" which shows how what we build is either our greatest danger or greatest hope. Yet, sadly, many are frightened of density and can't get past the old industrial city scapes, and see suburbia as some sort of Nirvana. Oh well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGJt_YXIoJI

EG: I support the fast-tracking of Gen3 nuclear power until we have finally developed Gen4 nukes that can EAT nuclear waste and could run the world on today's waste for 500 years. Gen4 nukes are on the way, and GE even has a plan for one called the S-PRiSM. And 500 years of free fuel just sitting there, and they call it a WASTE PROBLEM! Wow! In 500 years we might have the next big thing... supercapacitor batteries cheap enough to make renewables viable? Space based solar power? Fusion? Who knows?

Anyway, I'm not a "Singularity" Geek awaiting some kind of techno-rapture. I also see a long and grinding Greater Depression lasting a generation or so as a very real possibility, with an outside chance of Mad Max.

So we have the tools to make it, but do we have the willpower? That's the question.

Eclipse Now,
thanks for information and the link to your very well designed, and written, site.
I agree with everything there, though I think you're more optimistic than I am. I don't think there's any question of human survival, but in greatly reduced numbers. Crucially, for me the fundamental reason for our failure to act is our economic system; we're addicted to growth and glut. The paradox is that our system is both the only hope for developing the kind of transcendence you talk about, and it's the reason transcendence is demanded. I see the human population as it is--the means of production and development--as analogous to an Apollo rocket. All that mass of redundant material is needed to transcend the atmosphere, after which, having expended itself, it falls back to Earth. The capitalist juggernaut amounts to the same concentration of enormous power, but the way it's displaced is random and uncoordinated, extravagant and destructive. Transcendence would be tantamount to a happy accident; it's certainly not the goal, at this stage; the raison d'etra of the whole thing is simply "more".
Then a question is whether that human fuel can develop sustainable solutions, for the survivors, that is before the planet calls a halt to the whole evolutionary (unthinking) experiment. Another problem, of course, is geo-political strife both now and in the aftermath of inevitable collapse. Will civilisation be able to pick itself back up? And then the ethical/philosophical issues have to be addressed; can humanity transcend itself? it's biological retardedness and morbid melancholia associated with alienation from nature? When you talk about "potentially exponentially rewarding" times, I wonder if you've considered in what sense you mean "rewarding"? This seems to presuppose the reward of human contentment, but without considering what that entails. Thus, what do humans need to be happy, or at least not to be unhappy? Can a technologically advanced and sustainable human world be considered transcendent if its denizens are miserable and still plagued by existential questions?
But I've drifted a bit from peak oil, so time permitted I'll reserve future comments for your web page.

I do not consider that words such as “idiotic” advance debate or provide new and useful information.

Like it or not humans hold diverse views on all subjects. The “world of ideas “is not homogeneous; to deny this is to be oblivious to the diversity of human culture. For instance, I have written in previous posts that life is better today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. People live longer, and have greater wealth and much more. The environment of cities has improved; consider slum renovations, clean air acts and improvement in the quality of many waterways, such as the London Thames.

At the time of writing Cancun has not yet come to an end. It appears that talks are deadlock –LOL. If there is an agreed statement on climate change, you can be sure that it will be bland and meaningless.

One other thing I do support nuclear power both on grounds of health and safety and also as being environmentally beneficial.

"God mocks the 20,000 Cancun alarmists, now debating fresh ways to scare us about global warming. He’s sent them not just blizzards burying Europe in snow, but six straight days of record low December temperatures in Cancun itself."

Sorry could not resist this, posted by Andrew Bolt 11th Dec

Anti-green,

Andrew Bolt wants to be careful, he could get himself sued for making such offensive remarks >:(

Joe

Anti-green

Given your response (Friday, 1:05:40) I think you are confusing me with PeterA - I linked to the full Dessler paper in which you quoted an excerpt.

It’s a pity you could not acknowledge Dessler’s observations - preferring to focus only on computer modeling. I'm not surprised though, you have shown an innate capacity to only read (or cherry-pick) what you want to read.

Do everybody (and yourself) a favour – take off the blinkers. I do, I have to - that's my profession. I have a gut feeling you used to be a 'real' sceptic (probably because of a profession) - but now? I think you are past it, retired, can't do it any more - whatever.

You're right though, that's playing the messenger - just like everybody and their dogs wants to 'kill' the IPCC, they/re the messenger after all!

<< Talk of changing goal posts is a little unfair as this is a vast subject covering numerous disciplines; so to compress all thoughts into 350 words is impossible >>

Precisely, but you are quite prepared to “compress” a vast body of literature into your 'innocuous' 10 point POV argument:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11314#192079

You must know each point has been answered/addressed in the already published literature, numerous times - and has been addressed numerous times in scientific/research institute's web sites? Unless of course you only frequent the 'denialosphere'.

Anti-green, it would really help rational discourse if you would do some real homework.

Ok, you say a “philosophical problem” – I agree. Ergo, it's NOT about the science!

It could equally be said that INACTION “will have serious and unforseen financial and economic consequences”.

Are you proposing SFA?

I would take your comments more seriously, anti-green, if you would refrain from such tunnel visioned hypocritical missives, exemplified most recently in your last 2 posts:

<< I do not consider that words such as “idiotic” advance debate or provide new and useful information >>

Not my words but fair enough ... BUT, you promptly follow up with an Andrew Bolt epistle ... just so hypocritical!

Anti-green,
Actually, the religious analogies can be useful. For instance I’d compare today’s Minimifidianists with the rabble of Noah’s day. Instead of the word of God warning of imminent disaster, it’s now the scientific community, our secular Gods, warning of Nature’s imminent wrath. True to form, of course, you all laugh such authoritative injunctions to scorn. I call that “IDIOTIC”. Unfortunately, what’s happening now is not a parable.

Do you know irony is..........once all you fuel junkies run's out of your gods infliction with the dead animals of time gone past........lol....you will have NO choice but to come to the greens.

BLUE

Just a tesssssze