1.Many politicians don't understand the difference between trends and events, can't be bothered distinguishing, or do understand and are being deceitful about climate change issues, pandering to special interest groups with which they identify.

2.Climate denier politicians [they will deny they are deniers but skeptics, but there is a strong flow among the denier/skeptics I've listened to from skeptic to denier to conspiracy theorist] are often in cahoots with, or supported by, lobbyists who might/might not fund them. Just take Steve Fielding's trip to a US tobacco and oil company funded "think tank" to gather "evidence" for his erudite musings on the climate.

3.Some populist politicians, particularly neo-conservatives like Tony Abbott, waver on climate change according to how they read the polls;
4.Too much analysis within political parties of phenomena like climate change is about spin - bugger the facts or the vast body of evidence.

5.Too many politicians don't understand how science reaches conclusions, including the ultimate skeptical process of peer review.

6.I think the situation is less the politicisation of science than a rejection of science. Some of that is driven by politicians' religious views [no longer regarded as belonging to the personal realm to the detriment of the secular state] especially evangelical views, some of it by ignorance about science and scientific process, and some of it by allegiance to the relevant industries.

7.The rejection of science is leading us into a new dark age.

I agree with Jim McD's last few points - the problem can be summed up as a "bugger the science" attitude. Most politicians are profoundly scientifically illiterate which includes ignorance about scientific method. Another major problem is the media. According to Journalism 101, the reporter has to get two sides to a story so for all the credible scientists they interview (Will Steffen, David Karoly, Mike Raupach etc etc), they have to come up with a sceptic/denier like Bob Carter or Ian Plimer. Most reporters are too scientifically illiterate to tell whether Carter or Plimer is talking nonsense or not. Most reporters think any old scientist will do for an opinion when it's actually important to have a scientist who has published in the field of climate science, not in geology or astronomy. Never mind that 97% of climate scientists think climate change is real and anthropogenic in origin, reporters feel they still have to get "balance". Well bugger the balance, say I. Let them have a hard look at the evidence.

Speaking of the "catholic" church, many right-wing "catholics" are in the fore-front of the campaign to discredit the science. This is especially so in the USA.

That Pell chap from Sydney is squarely in this camp. Some promote the absurd notion that he is the best and brightest "catholic" intellectual in Australia.

If leading us to a fake war of climate change like Bush did was a crime, what say ye then?
REAL environmentalists don’t sit in the dark once a year with the lights turned for an hour and call it radical.
You remaining believers are just fake fear mongering and so called “liberals” who bow like Greenzis to a fat American politician promising to make the weather colder with taxes.
If any of you faded remaining believers still think the voting public will say YES to sacrifice and taxes to stop unstoppable warming, YOU are the new denier.
The vast majority of the deniers are now former believers, Liberals, progressives and other REAL environmentalists.
REAL environmentalists don't hope and wish and pray for misery for others and probably rubber neck car accidents too.
REAL environmentalists were happy and relieved that THE END OF THE WORLD was averted.

Taxpayers are feeding this guy.

There is so much wrong with this article that it's difficult to know where to start, especially with a limit of 350 words.

Most obviously, Rowan relies in large part on appeals to authority, rather than producing anything vaguely original in the way of evidence or thought. His motivation seems to be "Look at me, I'm politically correct."

Rowan claims "science" for himself, but claims those he wishes to attack are, almost by definition, not scientific - the old straw man technique. But the quality of his own "scientific" approach is revealed in one of his many appeals to authority, this time to the Gallup polls.

Public opinion polling always crashes on the rocks of civic competence. We could, if we wished, ask the public for their opinions on how much weight a planned bridge could carry. Whatever the sample's response, it would be of no account. Talk to engineers instead. Public opinion polls on topics like these have no validity whatsoever. People are generally not qualified to express an opinion.

But Rowan thinks its important that we know "the percentage of voters from both [US political] parties who agree that most scientists believe..." How profound. A sample of people "agree" on what they think others "believe". Thanks for sharing that with us.

Rowan's scientific skills at their height.

It is not a question of denying science. It is not a conspiratory theory or politicisation of science. The “greenhouse effect in relation to certain atmospheric gases, such as CO2 is well understood and is not denied.

What I question is the magnitude of the effect. What is the proof that radiative effects of atmospheric gases are the sole or at least the major determinant of future climate?

If there is a political angle, then it is more important to provide reasonably affordable power at times of extreme cold or extreme hot weather. The question of dealing with current problems has in my philosophy greater importance than any hypothetical doomsday scenario published by the warmers at some date in the distant future.

One other thing why is it ok for non published climate commentators to be pro anthropogenic global warming, but wrong (bordering on wicked) to be anti?

Anti Green,

Didn't you know. The scince is in. You're on the wrong side.

At least thats how they see it. They can't see that their attempts to impugn the motives of those scientists (and there are many) who question the AGW orthodoxy is politicisation of science.

Funny really. Well it would be if they weren't so mad keen on bankrupting us.

History has shown many of these 'scientist' to be pure charlatans who make some of the disgraced American evangelist look very mild. What happened to the promised ice age? What happened to the huge hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all? What has happened to global warming in Europe and America. These guys have no shame. They are certainly heretics when it comes to 'science'. Mind you the outcome of all predictions based on the evolution fantasy always turns out to be bad astrology. Twisted observations lead to twisted outcomes. The mug tax payer will pick up the bill.

“Mind you the outcome of all predictions based on the evolution fantasy always turns out to be bad astrology.”

With that, Runner sums up their philosophy very well for the Denialist camp

Oh Dear Michael, now we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. The “laying of blame” has its place in the trauma cycle and I think we know where you are. As a high profile person with a great deal of personal credibility at stake as a result of “nailing your colors to the mast”, you seem to have gone for the “Oh God, please let me be right” option.

You are probably right to focus upon politicians, but not right to focus only upon those politicians who disagree with you.

It would be fair to say that the AGW phenomena now survives only through political sponsorship however, politics is a fickle business and warmers sense that it is politics that will eventually end it.

The reason for this is because warmers have denied any open debate, they have told us that “the science is settled”, that there is “scientific consensus”, that the “majority of scientists agree” and that the worlds most respected institutions, scientific and political, have got the assessments right to such an extent that we must act.

Unfortunately, if the polls are even close, there is at least half the population who do not swallow this and the last time I looked we still get to vote.

So be it, now that warmers have successfully removed any further scientific debate you are left with politics and only politics. Politicians depend on votes, not science and as a consequence, you must continue to drive your proselytizing into the non-scientific public forum to create those votes.

I’m sorry but you started it. Now you have to wake up each morning with the “terrors” at the prospect that politics will let you down and utterly destroy your personal credibility.

A rock and a hard place I suspect. Warmers will never agree to open scientific debate, firstly because it is at best “flakey” and secondly because you know deep down you have been had.

There will be little sympathy for “eco-bullies” when this phenomena collapses.

colinsett writes

'With that, Runner sums up their philosophy very well for the Denialist camp'

Yea and the philosophy of the alarmist camp is to hold no one accountable for decades of failed predictions and Government waste based on 'science' models. Just keep rewriting your textbooks as last months needs ripping up.

[Deleted. Attacks the author, but nothing else. Essentially a flame.]

Ladies and gentlemen, I propose a simple experiment. We take something for which there is no evidence -- a Martian invasion, say -- and offer large grants for research into it. We make the amounts of the grants, and their continued payment, closely contingent on findings that support the conclusion that said invasion is imminent and will have catastrophic results. I guarantee that we will have some positive findings within a few months. Any negative findings, of course, we simply bury. They are ours, after all -- we have paid for them.

In stage two of the experiment we release the positive results to a media which is avid for tales of disaster and destruction. They disseminate them in turn to the populace, who, becoming scared, turn to us for solace. We reassure them that we have the answer, and they merely have to abandon a few trivial rights and some minor worldly possessions to our control. They in turn vote us into power so we can continue our largesse to researchers.

No conspiracy -- who needs a conspiracy to explain people doing what comes naturally? Governments want power, scientists want grants, the media wants scare headlines. Work up a good apocalyptic scenario, and everyone benefits. Except for the public, of course, and who cares about them?

My experiment is ready to roll. All I need is a hundred billion dollars or so. And I bet I could get it too -- if it hadn't already been spent on funding AGW research.

None of the denilists commenting above have shown any evidence, as Michael is calling for, against AGW.

It is just repeated misinformation typical of polluties.

Ah PeterA, I love a bloke who has firm convictions, who can wrap up an argument, no ifs or buts:

"It is just repeated misinformation typical of polluties."

End of story. All else is folly.

Michael, you're right about how issues become politicised. I just hope that those who are seen as being on the wrong side, even if they are sincere in THEIR convictions, are not persecuted and penalised, and ultimately driven out of their fields of employment. The destruction of a person's life-purpose can be devastating, as you may know.

Joe Lane
Adelaide

Politicians will always believe whatever is personally advantageous for them - whether it's concocted visions of mythical WMDs or a massive armada of refugees coming over the horizon to rape our women and plunder our social services. It's always been done with an eye on the next election.

We have a senior opposition member who solemnly claims to believe in AGW yet quietly ferries some loony between venues in his electorate to speak out against the very same notion. One story for the public - another for his constituents.

The difference is that now equal time is given to all manner of denialist crackpots in the media and this seems to give them some sort of phoney authority.

It's interesting how, when it comes to discussing anthropogenic forcing of the climate system, there are now lots of people who will preach that everyone must learn to respect the scientific method, skeptical scientific enquiry, peer-review and the scientific consensus as determined by examination of the overall body of the scientific evidence and peer-review.

And yet when it comes to the examination of certain other scientific issues - for example, the worthiness and value of nuclear energy - the rules seem to change, and we're back to the same anti-scientific thinking, willful ignorance and resistance to knowledge, lack of skepticism, lack of critical thinking and lack of respect for the scientific method that seems to define so much dogmatic anti-nuclear pseudoscience.

PeterA, there is something I need to say to you.

Most of us would accept that if we need for instance, legal opinion, we would consult with a qualified legal professional. The same would apply to finance, investment, medical and a whole range of professional disciplines.

If the matter is of a critical importance it would be reasonable to seek a second opinion in order to validate the advice. The two (or more) opinions can then be “compared” to ensure that all the issues critical to me have been addressed in order that can I make and informed decision.

Does this make sense so far?

What we would NOT do in this situation is contact a journalist for legal advice, we would not contact a psychiatrist for financial advice and we would not ask an unqualified member of the public to go on the internet to find us a medical cure for a life threatening disorder.

If I did ask for a second opinion on any such matters, I would NOT expect to be told by the provider of the first opinion that I was a “denialist”, nor would I be told “the matter was settled” or that I was a “flat earther” or suffer public vilification from those who happen to think that the first opinion was “the only opinion”, correct or not.

It is irrelevant whether your opinion is right or wrong, what is important is that I am entitled to a second opinion on issues important to me.

I take AGW very seriously and I would like to get a second opinion, that second opinion must come from a dialogue between two or more equivalent professionals that disagree, and should cover all the issues I believe to be critical.

I don’t need you to tell me the professionals I wish to consult are, in your opinion, worthless and therefore not allowed.

That choice is MY business and NOT yours.

When next you post, please consider just how little you add to your credibility when you call people “polluties”.

Now do you get it?

popnperish, <<Never mind that 97% of climate scientists think climate change is real and anthropogenic in origin,>>

Can you please point me to anything that supports this assertion?

Thank you.

Spindoc,

popnperish can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the reference is to a Jan. 2009 report in the earth science journal Eos.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Here is a Wikipedia article on the degree of consensus

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

What is interesting here is that with the usual sort of scare, such as over fluoridated water, there may be a few maverick scientists leading the charge, but in general, the more people know about the subject, the less likely they are to believe in the scare. The exact opposite is true in the case of AGW. This doesn't prove that the consensus view on AGW has to be right and the mavericks wrong. The issue of positive and negative feedbacks, which is the real bone of contention, is extremely complicated, and even James Hansen talks in terms of probabilities, but dare I suggest that people who have passed stiff examinations in mathematics and physics, and have studied climate on a full-time basis, possibly for decades, are likely to know more about it than Runner. The fact that science is fallible doesn't stop you from getting onto airplanes or taking antibiotics.

It is also interesting that there isn't public controversy about a host of other scientific questions, such as whether the fine structure constant is different in very distant galaxies, whether birds are dinosaurs in the same way that bats are mammals, or whether the Etruscans migrated to Italy from the Near East. Non-scientists or scientists in other fields only seem to get involved when scientific findings, or their policy implications, pose a threat to their financial interests or pet ideology. What grounds are there for thinking that, say, the nuclear scientists and engineers know what they are talking about, but the climatologists are all idiots or involved in some sort of conspiracy? Since the truth isn't decided by what is more profitable or more comfortable to believe, the most rational approach must be to listen to the consensus of experts and rely on the self-correcting nature of science to bring us closer to the truth in the long run.

"It is also interesting that there isn't public controversy about a host of other scientific questions, such as whether the fine structure constant is different in very distant galaxies, whether birds are dinosaurs in the same way that bats are mammals, or whether the Etruscans migrated to Italy from the Near East. Non-scientists or scientists in other fields only seem to get involved when scientific findings, or their policy implications, pose a threat to their financial interests or pet ideology."

Or when the 'facts' put forward by the 'experts' are so egregiously wrong, and the costs of their 'solutions' so staggeringly high, that even a non-expert can see the enormous damage it will do to accept them without critical analysis and review.

Nobody disputes whether birds are dinosaurs because nobody is going to make an ill-informed decision about it which will double their power bills.

[Deleted. Flame.]

I think that skeptics are like those who accept the data but have a different interpretation of the outcome.

Otherwise they are denialists.

These can be broken down into various groups-
1. Those who believe AGW is real but that we are powerless to stop it
2. Those who think the planet is warming naturally for some undisclosed reason, but not due to human activity
3. Those who believe that the planet is not warming at all and
4. Those who believe the planet is actually cooling.

The reasons for these views include-
1. Flawed data and/or interpretation
2. A conspiracy by world scientists to ensure the continuing flow of research money to themselves
3. A conspiracy by world governments to levy a whole new range of taxes
3. A conspiracy by the financial world to create a new maket to be exploited and
4. A plot by the Illuminati (or similar) to create a New World Government

In short - anything but the official view.

Despite all these alleged International conspiracies, nobody has broken ranks and no whistleblower has come forward so on balance, which scenario is most likely (than the bleeding obvious)?

If scientists warned us about an asteroid on a collision course with the Earth, I wonder who would take it seriously and who would choose denial?

Perhaps under these circumstances humanity simply deserves whatever is coming its way. Ignorance is apparently now a valid excuse and a choice.

Ask yourself. Do you really want the weather to be colder, as in all year round? It’s not cold enough for you? If the crisis was real after 24 years of warnings, we would be talking about it, not debating it’s existence. And besides, world emissions have dropped but CO2 levels still rise. What kind of a mean spirited human being would wish this on their kids anyways? And how is letting the scientists out number the protesters supposed to show commitment. This about unstoppable warming you know. SAVE THE PLANET is the cry of the tyrant and it is dragging environmentalism and progressivism down with it. I can’t keep doing this CO2 needless panic so count me out.

2011 brings us 25 years of “unstoppable warming” warnings from the thousands of consensus scientists apparently who somehow have always out numbered the climate change protesters. If crisis was real, not only would the scientists be marching, we would be talking about the crisis, not debating it’s existence. And it’s been two and a half decades. A quarter of a century.
A wave of former believers has arrived who see further belief dividing the efforts of environmentalism and worst of all, the dragging of the progressive message to the people, down with it. And how foolish do we all look? We act like we WANT this crisis to be real and we condemn our very own children to a DEATH BY CO2. We need love, not windmills. We need to act like liberals again who question and challenge authority, not bow to a fat American politician promising to tax the air and lower the seas and make the weather colder.
This was our Iraq War people. Our fear mongering with our climate WMD’s could keep us out of power for decades. Drop the CO2 and start anew I say.

What did the IPCC scientists all agree on?

1-Human CO2 is impacting the climate.

2-The effects will be:

a-"little if any to negligible"
to
b-"unstoppable warming' -as in death.

Remove the CO2 factor from the equation and nothing changes. We would still strive to be responsible environmentalists except the spear of fear is removed from our backs. And as far as being dedicated progressives, we sit in the dark for an hour once a year and call it radical

rache, interesting that you feel the need to explain skepticism and provide the differentiation between skeptics and denialists.

Unfortunately you carefully avoided the one explanation that matters.

I think most skeptics accept the CRU’s findings on warming. Professor Phil Jones stated in his testimony to the Parliamentary hearings in the UK, that there was no significant warming since 1995. I for one accept there is some global warming and I believe Professor Jones on this when he further says that the warming measured is not statistically significant.

That said I now await the two divergent sets of scientific opinion to get together and agree an explanation and if necessary, action. Why are you trying so hard to prevent this and why is your "assessment" more important than the CRU's?

Might I also point out that when you state << nobody has broken ranks and no whistleblower has come forward so on balance, >> can I point you to “Climategate”?

And before you tell me that these were “hacked”, the embedded data headers show that these files came from “archive” and could only have been accessed by “root level” password authority (the highest level) from within the CRU. Added to this the Norfolk Police investigation is stalled so no conclusions have “officially” been drawn. Both these facts counter your claims.

If you were to put as much effort into sticking to facts rather than inventing them, you might begin to understand that the groups of fellow Australians you are denigrating are capable of significantly clearer thinking than yourself.

Why else would you need to create excuses for those who do not share your faith? This only explains your insecurity and not mine.

rache, when you start to make up “excuses” the sections of our community that disagree with you, you are already lost

[Deleted. Wrong thread.]

Popnperish says "Never mind that 97% of climate scientists think climate change is real and anthropogenic in origin..."

Coincidentally, Andrew Bolt's blog yesterday sourced this article:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf which unpacked the 97 per cent scam.

Analysis of the original survey shows the real rate of support for human caused global warming is 0.73 per cent.

Shows how uncritical the warmers are and how desperate they are to find any sort of grubby statistic to support the frauds of the AGW charlatans.

Of all denialists KenH supports Michael's article the most firmly. Runner wins the laughs.

"Taxpayers are feeding this guy." As they do Senator Bernardi. Inconsistency and special pleading/ad-hoc reasoning.

"Most obviously, Rowan relies in large part on appeals to authority, rather than producing anything vaguely original in the way of evidence or thought....". Followed hypocritically the next day by;

"Coincidentally, Andrew Bolt's blog yesterday sourced this article:...". - Contradictory appeal to authority, void of science [Bolt is not an 'authority' but a durable denialist] and marked evidence by KenH to not *understand* the abuse of data strengthened further in part by a failure to grasp Bolt's mantra. If appeal to authority is proven then KenH has fallen to Tu quoque.

Also, from 97% [the correct figure] to "0.73%" is simply a flat earth argument. It deserves no respect, if not ridicule. "Grubby statistic". - Ad hominem.

Ian Enting's exposure of Plimer's statistical misconduct is an excellent and extensive example of how such blatant misinformation is spread;

http://bit.ly/eHc65r

As Michael noted evidence for aliens, faked moon landing - and I'll add poisonous/lethal/autism causing vaccines, hidden cancer cures, Big Pharma inventing disease, HIV being 'man made', etc, etc - are all analogues for Mr. Bolt's scurrilous, unconscionable republishing of junk science and manipulated statistics.

Also, again the above falls to a conspiracy theory without any explanation as to why/how scientists would/could be controlled en masse across the globe. The only refuge for such intellectual paucity is the Ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Michael must be applauded. This divide is so ubiquitous a Rapture-ready Young Earth Creationist Evangelical Christian referred to 'manipulation of science for ideological ends', citing Climate Change as a tone setter for his moral objection to the overwhelming evidence supporting Injecting Centres;

http://bit.ly/fTMHt8

A key demand of the ACL who giveth and taketh Christian votes away is the rejection of immediate action to reduce emission related damage. With Malcolm Fraser's exit from the old Liberal Party we can see it for the Christian Conservatives For An Australian Theocracy Party, populated by anti-critical thinking, ideology driven gnats that it has finally become.

Extracted from the “Global Warmers Handbook.”

A temperature of 40 C or more in SE. Australia is proof positive of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

A Prolonged hard cold spell in covering the greater part of the Northern hemisphere is just a weather anomaly and can be safely ignored.

[Deleted. Responding to flame above and flaming in return.]

[Deleted. Part of sub-thread deleted above.]

Ask yourself. Do you really want the weather to be colder, as in all year round? It’s not cold enough for you? If the crisis was real after 24 years of warnings, we would be talking about it, not debating it’s existence. And besides, world emissions have dropped but CO2 levels still rise. What kind of a mean spirited human being would wish this on their kids anyways? And how is letting the scientists out number the protesters supposed to show commitment. This about unstoppable warming you know. SAVE THE PLANET is the cry of the tyrant and it is dragging environmentalism and progressivism down with it. I can’t keep doing this CO2 needless panic so count me out. Real Christians don't condemn their kids to death by CO2.

I have suspended a couple of posters for diverting the thread to Christianity and flaming each other in the process. Another just escaped suspension as his post was mostly not about picking a fight with Christians, although the last two pars were, and from what I can glean doing a Google search the first half of his last para is wrong http://www.arrcc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=181:speaking-for-australian-christian-lobby-climate-change-good-stewardship-required&catid=40:christian-resources&Itemid=11.

For some reason climate change brings out a lot of belligerence. And other agendas. Please stick to the topic and be civil to each other.

Hi Michael

You are right. "It is not just a matter of looking at bits of evidence here ans there and choosing what looks convenient to our beliefs." But then, cherry-picking is just what you do. You would "definitely start to doubt the science if the last seventeen years in a row were coller than the long term average in my old home state of South Australia."

Leaving aside the dubious quality of all "adjusted" measurements of average annual global mean temperatures, if you were in the UK (or EU) right now and experiencing the coldest December in 300 years, presumably you would reach the opposite conclusion?

Or would you do what some folk just did over at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and conjure up hitherto unreported (and unfalsifiable) "complex teleconnections in the climate system" to explain it away? - “Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005-06 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it.” [In Warmerland, even if it's snowing, it's still warming - and black is white, love is hate, sweet is sour, and science is stupidity.]

Michael, there are NO established laws of climate change. Despite the (increasingly desperate?) ex cathedra claims of many, this is a (rarely discussed) fact. It is irreducibly complex. And without laws, there can be no genuine predictive power, just guesstimates masquerading as "the-science-is-settled certainty". The truth is our political class, bless it, will never be able to control the Earth's elusive thermostat, even if we knew where to find it.

You also seem unaware of another fact - evidence of warming tells us nothing about what caused it - and this debate is all about CAUSATION. That's why we need a Royal Commission to expose publicly all the HUGE UNCERTAINTIES that have been deliberately hidden for far too long. Climategate was just the beginning. How many more UNPREDICTED EVENTS will it take before our institutions and governments wake up to climate science's darkest secrets?

Alice (in Warmerland)

Spindoc,
First of all I don’t think that Jones admitting data problems on temperatures in China is representative of the global situation or of the findings of the entire scientific community.

Secondly, on Climategate - I’d like to see some leaked emails between many prominent skeptics and their corporate sponsors.

Thirdly, I’m not trying to “prevent” any action or “create excuses” – just trying to understand why some people are in such utter denial over something that is potentially so important that they would grasp at anything and everything to disprove it.

It’s like the so-called debate between Evolutionists and Creationists. If it’s not one thing it must therefore automatically be the other.

Finally, what facts have I invented and who have I denigrated?

If you fall into one of the categories I listed, why not just stand up and admit it with pride?

With all the flaming taking place, what more evidence is needed of Anthropogenic Warming?
On the other hand, a draught of cool, calm logic is available on the knowns, unknowns, and probabilities from the Australian Academy of Science website. Personally, I like that one.

I am a scientist. I have a PhD in Upper Atmosphere Physics and experience in statistics, fluid dynamical numerical modeling and thermodynamic modeling.
The so-called greenhouse effect is a furphy because temperature of lower atmosphere is determined by convection not radiation. Even if troposphere gases were completely opaque, sea level air temperature and the adiabatic lapse rate would be much the same. The proportion of triatomic gases such as H2O and CO2 is the controlling factor but this has to do with their thermodynamic properties not with infrared absorption. The only “evidence” for anthropogenic global warming comes from coupled OAGCMs run by applied mathematicians and computer programmers who have a complete disregard for the scientific method and accepted methods of statistical inference. Differences between model predictions (hindcasts) and observations are attributed to mysterious “internal climate variation” (ICV) which is itself not modeled and cannot be predicted. ICV is a classic instance of Popper’s ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses by means of which failed theories are propped up in the face of contradictory evidence such as the present sequence of cold winters in the Northern Hemisphere. Comparison of variances of observed gridded sea level temperatures with OAGCM variances shows that the latter are significantly smaller indicating that these models do not fit the observations and are grossly over-damped. They therefore tend towards a trend line which is determined by model parameterization. In this case an assumption of “water vapour positive feedback” is used to fit the models to observed global temperature increases which occurred in the last 3 decades of the 20th century. This assumption is still hotly debated. NASA nadir radiometer data due to Spencer indicates that it is not justified.

These and other arguments are presented more comprehensively in my magazine “Science Heresy” – www.scienceheresy.com

Paleoclimate data from ice-cores and the Milankovic theory of orbital forcing are used, erroneously, by Hanson and others to determine “climate sensitivity”. My statistical analysis shows that Milankovic cycles account for less than 4 percent of the observed temperature variance and the fact that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years has been known for decades. Hence CO2 must be a tracer of global temperature change not the cause. Ice age temperatures varied by 15 deg C over the last half million years which makes the 0.8 deg C variation of the last century look rather insignificant. We live at a time when the climate is particularly benign. To attribute this insignificant variation to some sort of human influence is simply ludicrous.

My papers on climate model variances and on Milankovic were rejected by peer reviewed journals. Any paper or funding application which does not genuflect towards man-made climate change is unlikely to succeed. This may not be a conspiracy but it certainly looks like one. We do not yet understand climate and we never will while one particular PC theory gets all the funding and all the kudos.

Science does not grow out of consensus it grows out of controversy.

thankyou john for speaking out as one who knows the science

your not alone of course
seems someone been playing numbers games
likely one of the many economists pushing for their new tax

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/

the epa has become the dept for missinformation

From the EPA website :

The portion of North America covered by snow
has generally decreased since 1972&#65279;

http://www.epa.gov/

http://climate.rutgers.edu/

while yet others are saying a new iceage is here
http://theintelhub.com/2010/12/31/ice-age-is-here-says-geophysicist-global-warming-hoax-exposed-again/

meanwhile
a hard freeze is expected in tucon
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_2ee61ad5-90ee-5d1c-9772-d74db92cc25f.html

and a blizzard in oklahoma
http://www.kpho.com/news/26323705/detail.html

and the man who invented the scam
thinks its time to end the life of the useless eaters
[i think we know which half of the population..he is thinking of]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069775/the-man-who-invented-global-warming/

its sad the global warming mob...dont actually read..the links you put up
they been ignoring mine too..but such is life

how about this one
denmark took the bait..and gave away 7 billion to the scam..[so far]
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/denmark-gives-away-7b-usd-or-2-gdp-carbon-credit-traders

This whole global warming hysteria
is about selling you things you do not really want,
such as carbon credits..that are the feedstock for Enron-like scams,

global government that is already clearly fascistic,
ethanol fuels that provide less power cost more and wreck your car fuel system,
windmills that take more power..to keep from freezing than they provide, "Green" batteries that cost more while providing less power, and now "green" heating systems that will not actually heat in the middle of a cruel winter the global warming cultists assured us was a thing of the past.

How many more times will you stand for these frauds
being foisted at you before you decide enough is enough?

it has had its funny moments of course
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/yet_another_frostbitten_alarmist_cant_find_global_warming/

http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2008/09/lewis-gordon-pugh-unable-to-kayak-to.html

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/

even the data shows ice thickness has doubled
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/area-of-thick-arctic-ice-has-doubled-in-the-last-two-years/

here is a list of the other top ten scams
http://myamazingfact.blogspot.com/2010/12/protect-yourself-from-top-10-frauds-and.html

all that greenie funding by govts globally should top the list

but not to worry
we got the next scare ready to go
http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/experts-food-and-fuel-shortages.html

here is a flash back..for those who only caught onto the joke recently
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

Thank you Alice Thermopolis and John Reid for beautifuly written and succinct posts.

Don't expect you'll get any coherent responses from the warmists, though.

Firesnake's post demonstrates that he doesn't even know the difference between an appeal to authority and a reference to a source article.

Let me explain for your benefit, Firesnake: an example of an appeal to authority is when people like you say they "believe" in AGW because the IPCC or "the science" says it's so. No personal input required, get it?

A reference directs the reader's attention to another source of information, such as the Dennis Ambler article, "Climate Consensus Opiate: The 97% Solution", which I referenced via the Bolt blog. An intelligent person can then read that article and make the effort to check whether the figures add up. Obviously, you did not, which speaks volumes and explains your attack on Bolt, as well.

Checking a reference requires a bit more effort than simply adopting the pose.

The rest of Firesnake's post was seriously unhinged, as you might expect from somebody using such a pseudonym. Everybody should read it.

The quality of Rowan's article can be seen in this statement: "There just is no rival theory to global warming. Full stop."

As many would infer from, for example, John Reid's post, no theory is required, since 0.8degC warming is inconsequential. However, there are rival theories.

It is likely that earth's "average" temperature, whatever that might mean in practice, is determined primarily by variations in solar activity. Ice ages and warm periods come and go and anthropogenic carbon dioxide clearly has nothing to do with that process. We have been in a period of very low sunspot activity for several years and, hey, lots of ice and snow!

If AGW theory was as obviously sound as Rowan has claimed, why all the dodgy "adjustments" of the temperature record? Why the bullying and the scamming of the peer review process by the Climategate gang?

Thanks, OUG, for that revealing article:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069775/the-man-who-invented-global-warming/

I usually work for the Greens on election days, but I am very seriously thinking of winding that down - especially after reading that article.

There is a sort of logic in the progression from a belief in massive human impacts on the atmosphere (0.8 degree temperature rise and 5 cm sea-level rise in sixty years), despair that anything can really be done, and an ultimate belief that in order to restore some natural 'balance', humans should be expunged from the earth, preferably by attrition (starvation, wars, disease) or by other means if necessary.

So until the Greens explicitly denounce such neo-Malthusianism, and champion the right of developing nations to commit the same sins as the rest of the world has already, then I will stay home and watch the elections on TV :)

[To give the Greens credit where it is due, at least they do have a policy on refugees whose population implications go against neo-Malthusian control and reduction, but we'll see.]

Hopefully, we can cast hysterical nonsense aside and get back to fighting air and water pollution, land degradation, threats to entire species and so much else that accompanies 'development' and degrades the environment. Humans are ingenious, we can walk and chew at the same time.

Joe Lane

The Met Office predicted a Mild winter in Britain this year. Their 'science' based predictions were wildly inaccurate. It now appears the coldest December in 100 years descended upon the poor Brits. Regardless of all the arguments and the so-called 'science', how can anyone,in their right mind, possibly believe that the same people have got their 20-50 yr predictions correct when they cannot predict a season ahead?

John Reid,

As a self-professed scientist who has had PhD papers published I'm surprised to see you refer to the Milankovic cycles.

It's actually Milankovitch

Wobbles,

For some one trying a snide "self professed scientist" against John Reid (are you suggesting he's not what he claims to be?) you show little knowledge of very much at all.

English language spelling of foreign words and names is often problematical. How do you spell a Chinese name in English?

The issue is one of transliteration (look it up).

Milankovic translates from the Serbian Cyrrilic (prounounced "kirrilik", wobbles) and it's usually represented as Milankovic in English, the terminal "c" being pronounced as "ch" or "tch" if you prefer.

But John Reid's use of Milankovic is correct.

You stuffed up trying to sneer. What is it with Leftist losers?

An apology would be in order, but I don't expect you'll offer one.

Wobbles, this is the inimitable John Reid:

http://oceanicresources-ecor.amc.edu.au/John%20Reid%20CV2.pdf

A simple 'google' shows his 'claim to fame' in Quadrant.

Try doing a 'google scholar' with anything to do with 'climate change' and see what you get.

KenH
You stuffed up with your "What is it with Leftist losers?" quip.

Rational people (even pedants) from either the 'Right' or the 'Left' understand. You obviously have an ideological agenda.

An excuse from you is not expected.

And there will be no apology from me for a snide twerp. Nor to you.

Thank you for your support KenH (and Bonmot) but this is not a Left/Right issue.

It could perhaps be seen as a science/superstition issue, a truth/falsehood issue or a corruption/integrity issue but it is certainly not a Left/Right issue.

I find it saddening that the Left, in particular the ALP, have been fooled into thinking otherwise. They are going to have a hard time extricating themselves when the wheels fall off this particular bandwaggon.

Thanks KenH for a wonderfully entertaining PDF.
I don't believe I have ever seen a more egregious example of selective spin.
First we are told over 10,000 scientists were invited to poll, of which only 3,146 responded; fair enough. There are one or two sciences that don't have a great deal to do with climate studies; maybe even around 70%, perhaps?
Then we are told out of those 3,146 scientists who bothered to respond,
“90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2."
IOW, out of all the scientists who responded, (3,146) 90% agreed that the Earth is getting warmer, and 82% believe that humans share some measure of responsibility.
But wait! Only 77 out of the 3,146 could be considered climate specialists, and of these 75 believed in AGW, or 97% of the climate 'specialists'.
But this is where it really gets precious.
“It is disingenuous to now use the “climate scientists” as a new population sample size. The response figure of 3,146 is the figure against which the 75 out of 77 should be compared and in this case we get not 97% but just 2.38%.”
Huh?
All This figure indicates is that out of all scientists who responded, 2.38% were climate 'specialists'. It has no bearing on their beliefs; those have already been given.
“When the figure of 75 believers is
set against that number, we get a mere 0.73%
of the scientists they contacted who agreed
with their loaded questions.”
Untrue. We have already been given the stats for the 3,146; they were 90% and 82%, remember?
“However a headline of “0.73% of CLIMATE scientists think that humans are affecting the climate doesn’t quite have the same ring as 97% does it?”
Well no, especially when it's completely untrue.
In the space of 2 paragraphs, all 3,146 scientists become Climate scientists, but only the 75 (out of 77) specialists get to have their vote counted.
But it's only the 'ratbag left' who ever fudge the numbers, eh?

Thanks for the reminder Grim,

about KenH "coincidentally" trolling the 'dumb-down' antics of Andrew Bolt's (denialist) blog and his subsequent linking to the neo-con think-tank of Christopher Monckton (the 'Lord') and Dennis Ambler's 'Science & Public Policy Institute'.

Here's another take on Ambler's rambles:

http://davec.org/tag/dennis-ambler/

Pretty much sums-up and thumbs-up what you've been saying, eh.

Using KenH's words: "Shows how uncritical the 'sceptics' are and how desperate they are to find any sort of grubby statistic to support their AGW (anti-global warming) conspiracy theory."

You are right John, it is not a Left/Right issue - it's a global issue.

Michael Rowan: " If this is so, then as I have recently detailed there is a very large and diverse group of conspirators among scientists and other experts: the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and its equivalent organisations in the US and the UK, the CSIRO, the IPCC, the members of the various recent enquires into the soundness of climate science, and the peak scientific organisations in Australia, the UK and the US, not to mention the Encyclopaedia Britannica. "

The IPCC is the ringleader of this warmist lot. It was set up to find scientific proof for AGW, but after 20 years of searching has failed to come up with any convincing scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused global warming. Nevertheless, the IPCC has been very effective in conning the media, parliamentarians and others with alarmist propaganda.

So as to attract ongoing research funding, the CSIRO and the Australian Government's scientific advisers are aligned with the IPCC.

The folly of the UK BOM's forecasts for the 2010-11 Northern winter is well documented.

The Australian BOM's forecast for the 2010 Spring was nothing to be proud of -- see
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/could-the-australian-bom-get-it-more-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-157862

If Michael Rowan and others of his ilk are so convinced about AGW, they should support the holding of a Royal Commission into the veracity of the climate science, so as to resolve whether the conspiracy exists.

Both sides don't have a clue and you all know it. Yes..some are going to take advantage of the matter.....well no big surprise on that one. Your all look at each other to who has the creditability and for what reasons....well....when money is concerned with who rollies the biggest dice......human-nature comes into play every time.

This debate is not about finding the true causes of what man-kind is facing...is about you and what it means to you in your short lives.

http://tinyurl.com/2bws4hh

Co2 is a real threat....because we cant breath it. Your not going to stop your fossil fuel addiction.....your not going to stop growing......your not going to stop eating this planet alive.....so why pretend that you care, its not in your life-time, is it?

Humans have just sped up the processes of a natural/man-made event....which now the run-way train has no breaks for.

Enjoy your extinction......there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Because you cant fix it. Human grow/trees gone=wheres the 02 going to come from in the future/=oceans dieing=pollution growth= all the information is right in front of you all.....but you cant see:)

While humans will not learn....pointless on all other fronts.

BLUE

"Nevertheless, the IPCC has been very effective in conning the media, parliamentarians and others with alarmist propaganda."
Apparently not. If we go back to that very entertaining PDF KenH was kind enough to direct us to and check the summary, we find that while 90% of all scientists polled believed the Earth was getting warmer, and 82% believed Humankind shared some culpability, and 97% of climate specialists believed in AGW, a poll of laypeople showed only 58% believed in AGW.
The summary supplied ended with this paragraph:
"It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who under-
stand the nuances and scientific basis
of long-­ term climate processes. The
challenge, rather, appears to be how
to effectively communicate this fact to
policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Michael

The climate scientists you defend have much in common with medieval astrologers. Both (i) exploit public anxiety about weather and climate; (ii) have their high priests, sacred texts and fundamentalist followers; (iii) derive most of their authority from hypothetical models based on obscure relationships that very few understand (and even fewer audit); (iv) claim their models have infallible predictive power; (v) make alarmist predictions; (vi) urge kings and queens to take immediate action to avoid destruction; (vii) confuse consequence with cause and causation with correlation; (vi) gain financially from their prognostications; and sometimes (vii) depose kings and queens and disrupt kingdoms.

No surprise, then, that "climate change" (aka AGW) is such a politicised issue; and a space where eco-religion and dodgy science collide with reality - the reality of a world in a constant state of unpredictable and uncontrollable change - in a supernova of apocalyptic nonsense?

Enjoy the spectacle!

Alice (in Warmerland)

Alice (and Michael),

Yes, I hope that your analogy does not extend to witch-burning ! So often, in areas where ideologies collide, the Righteous in power feel compelled to identify and excoriate the non-believers or, even more dangerous, the doubters.

I certainly hope that anybody who has expressed scepticism about some of the claims of AGW-proponents does not suffer discrimination and dismissal from their employment for their honestly-held beliefs. This wrong-headedness can have devastating consequences.

Joe Lane

Michael Rowan's claim that the science of climate change is well supported by evidence, indicates that he is very selective in his reading on the subject.

He argues that there is no climate science conspiracy, by suggesting that the conduct of the key players is beyond reproach. For a contrary view, he would do well to refer to Dr David Evans' report, "Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?". See
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.html

Grim,

If you think that the key questions asked of "climate scientists" in the article linked in my earlier post are in any way valid, you have a problem. Here they are:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels,do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

I'll ignore your selective misquoting.

Since pretty well everybody acknowledges that we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age, everybody agrees "mean global temperatures" are rising, but earlier periods were considerably warmer. It was a crass question, designed to misrepresent "consensus".

As for the second question, define "significant". And which particular "human activity" are we talking about? Human activity has certainly had an impact through urbanisation and agriculture, for example. That doesn't mean emissions of human-produced carbon dioxide have had any impact at all. Self-described "climate scientists" have been stuffing around since the early 1970s with nothing - NOTHING - to show for their efforts except dodgy computer models. Oh, and inflated research budgets, of course.

One might also ask why the survey specifically sought the views of "climate scientists" - the gang involved in Climategate and their hangers-on - when geologists, astrophysicists and others have crucial perspectives on the issues in question. One thing that came out of Climategate was that at least some "climate scientists" were deficient in some specialised knowledge they were applying - statistics, for example, as we have seen also in the survey in question.

Neither Michael Rowan nor any of the others posting here have challenged a single line of John Reid's posts. Can't have it both ways: put up or shut up. I guess they've shut up.

John Reid observes that these issues can be seen as "science/superstition" "truth/falsehood"or "corruption/integrity",but they are also left/right issues. Rowan's article,in fact, claims "conservative politicians have declared war on science" and he's almost right: just insert "dodgy" before "science" and understand that there are conservative politicians in left of centre parties.

I would refer anybody who is interested in the history of AGW (and similar) skepticism - how and when in came about, who is behind it and why - to read the book "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, or just listen to the recent ABC Podcast here -http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3101369.htm

It may surprise a few people.

Rache,

I guess ad hominem arguments can take many forms, from the crudest insults to the more sophisticated inference of satanic conspiracy on the part of one's adversaries, and appeals to authority on one's own part. Thanks for your addition to the genre, but any decent scientist would surely suggest that doubt and scepticism are legitimate positions on any issue. 'Ad rem' should always be the preferred pathway of investigation.

The Inquisition was set up partly to root out doubters and exterminate sceptics but, as Galileo so rightly pointed out, the world still moves. Torture and burning are no longer options, so I do hope that honest and sincere people are not having their careers ruined when they express doubts and demand evidence.

Joe Lane

A timely reminder Rache, thanks. Another excellent source can be accessed here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Indeed, since the 1800’s scientists have become increasingly aware of the adverse impact on the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial biosphere caused by human activity. This ‘unintended consequence’ has been exacerbated by exponential growth in energy production, population growth and unfettered consumption.

I recommend looking at the embedded links for a more detailed account.

Contrary to the shrill ‘Galileo’ meme so called ‘sceptics’ continually assert, if anyone can be compared to that remarkable man, it would be Svante Arrenhius – virtually pilloried and virtually condemned by the scientific community at the time. Today, his hypothesis is the foundation stone for the orthodoxy it has become.

Moreover, not one robust counter theory exists to explain the global warming the planet has been experiencing since industrialisation – but I say, let them keep trying.

It’s amusing really, and sad – some people try to justify their ignorance, and their inaction, by whatever means they can – so long as they can stay mired in their warm and fuzzy comfort zone.

Here's the author's bio:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/author.htm

Thanks for the serve, Bonmot, you confirm my argument :)

Yes, of course, there is evidence of global warming over the past sixty years: a couple of inches' sea-level rise, close to a degree temperature-rise. If these are human-induced trends, and if governments and economies do nothing whatever in the next fifty years and keep using the same old technologies, sea-levels could rise by anything up to thirty cm, and temperatures by a couple of degrees, over the next fifty years - which could have major natural and human consequences.

But we all have the right - perhaps the obligation - to question how, how much, and what to do about it, without being pilloried, or perhaps being dismissed from our positions. I'm sure, as a decent and well-informed person, that you would agree :)

Joe Lane

Of course Joe - which part:

<< Moreover, not one robust counter theory exists to explain the global warming the planet has been experiencing since industrialisation – but I say, let them keep trying. >>

don't you understand?

The antics of the so called "sceptics", Joe, is to imply or infer that the real experts wouldn't have a clue, about anything. Perhaps, just perhaps Joe ... that is the intent of the power, money and control freaks, the BAU vested interests, the manipulators of people's thoughts?

Oh no Joe, you're not a sheep, you're not a lemming - you're just Loudmouth. That is not ad hom, btw.

You haven't read Oreskes, or Weart - that is obvious. And that dear Loudmouth, confirms my point ... about 'armchair pseudoscientists' being taken out of their warm and fuzzy comfort zone.

Oh, and smiley back at ya.

What about the sun bonmot.

The NIPCC says that solar activity may have a role to play in the warming of the earth.http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/NIPCC.pdf.pdf

The problem with this debate is that it was taken over too soon by the green movement. Those who aren't green have VERY little faith in the pronouncements of the green elite. Many of their demands on issues outside of climate change seem unreasonable (often extremely so) to avergae people.

The NIPCC has a signed plea from 31 000 scientists asking the US gov't to ignore the claims of AGW. from the fourth report of the IPCC.

You want to tell us that all these people are stooges? Really?

Isn't it much more likely that people on both sides of the debate are following the science, responsibly, and coming up with opposite conclusions. It would hardly be the first time.

You're right, Bonmot, there are evil people in the world, as well as stooges, dupes, fools, naive and thoughtless people of all sorts. There are conspiracies, cartels, fascist and semi-fascist regimes, and all manner of corporate criminals who couldn't give a toss about the environment as long as they can make money from it.

And there are, quite legitimately, sceptics as well. It IS possible to hold the evidence at arm's length, as it were, and not be too impressed by it. Two inches of sea-level rise ? Less than a degree temperature-rise ? An assumption that few governments will do much about it all ?

For many years, I've worked on polling booths for the Greens. I don't think I'm a dupe, and even less some sort of conpirator against the planet. Semper ad rem, my dear Bonmot.

Joe

Ah yes, Paul ... which part of this http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11431#194841 did you not understand?

No Paul, this debate was taken over too soon by politics, per se ... of all persuasions. You have profoundly demonstrated this with your link to the inimitable neo-con right-wing ‘think tank’ and their so called ‘non-governmental international panel on climate change’(sarc) – you do remember Abbott’s “crap” or Morano’s “hoax” quips, don’t you?

Ok, of course the Sun plays a role in warming the Earth – no scientist says it doesn’t. Yep, there are some scientists who actually study the stuff. Not the 31,000 mind you, but quite a few. Some study galactic cosmic rays too, and magnetic flux, and Sun spots, and, and ... and, all sorts of other things, like Earth's radiative energy balance, and all sorts of other fascinating stuff. Gee, even some of my best friends are ‘Sun’ experts.

A tad facetious - but you get the drift. Guess what? Take out the enhanced greenhouse effect and nuttin-but-nuttin explains the warming trend the planet has been experiencing in the geologic time of a breath.

Oh yeah, Paul - I would say 97:3 is substantial – that is not to say the 3 are wrong. They just haven’t got anything robust to counter AGW with, yet.

Joe/Paul

I would agree, people (from all sides) are entitled to be cynical, about all sorts of things (especially these days of sensationalised news in short, swift sixty-second soundbites. However, they are NOT entitled to be sceptical UNLESS they are prepared to do what real sceptics do – a.k.a. do the science yourself.

Nope, you can’t and you won’t, for obvious reasons. Next best thing? Adopt your preferred outcome on ideological, religious or socio-cultural standing – science will not have anything to do with it.

The vast majority of those that have done and are doing the science are pretty well damn sure that the planet has got problems and we (humanity) have played a significant role in them – believe it or not.

Now, I'm outa here - must finish a report.

The Warming debate

Should not have been led by greens

But by business?

[yeah right]

Bonmot,

No, not cynical - sceptical. Cynicism is utterly useless, but scepticism is absolutely necessary, I would have thought, for any serious scientist.

That's an interesting form of 'appeal to authority' though, Bonmot: if you are not a scientist and/or can't do the science, shut your mouth and obey those who say they are and/or can.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm reasonably intelligent and can follow an argument if it is spelt out in simple enough terms. Two inches of sea-level rise and less than a degree temperature-rise over sixty years, in a world where many governments and firms are moving quickly to jump onto the green band-wagon (and good on them) - forgive me but I do not think that, in my non-scientist ignorance, I should be panicking, not just yet.

There is so much that can be done, and may well be done, over the next twenty, thirty, fifty years: massive tree-planting across the north (since the annual precipitation up there is supposed to be increasing) might go some way to taking up some of the excess CO2, for example. Fourth- and fifth-generation nuclear energy, as a second or third resort, or geothermal energy, or wave-energy, etc. - these are all options and combined with electric-vehicle technology, who knows ? Free, and more frequent and versatile, public transport may encourage far more people to leave their cars at home anyway.

I certainly support the precautionary principle, provided it is not used as some pretext to suspend democratic rights. So for all that, no, I'm not inclined to panic about the imminent swamping of coastal suburbs or drastic temperature rise frying us.

Joe

Loudmouth,
The conspiratorial tag seems to be more directed to those supporting the convential view more than toward the skeptics (Taxes, grants, world government).

Galileo was not the target of scientific skeptics and his peers as much as he was pilloried by the establishment (in this case the Church) because he threatened their security.

As per Rache's reference, in this case it is the self-interests of free-marketeers and certain industries that are trying to avoid further regulation that is under threat, and these are the very people who are financing the skeptic movement. As the reference shows, they've done it before and are employing the very same tactics.

You’re right Joe, scepticism is absolutely necessary for any serious scientist.

Allow me to put it this way: I trust my doctor, I won't trust him to do surgery on my heart. Similarly, I trust my electrician, but there is no way I will let him do my plumbing, or service my car, or teach my girl biology. I would not ask them to shut their mouth if they have an opinion about something they have not been trained in, but I would be foolish to give them more credence than those who have the specific expertise I need. In other words, I defer to the experts. Corollary: How many cancer specialists do you need to see before you take decisive action?

I agree, no one should panic (about global warming) – the world will not end anytime soon. However, adaptation and mitigation measures will take time. Unfortunately, the politicians and economists can’t see past the next election cycle or trade weighted index.

Nevertheless, sea levels, temperatures, extreme weather, and so on – are inexorably rising. Sure, maybe not as much as the “alarmists” would have us believe, but certainly enough to worry countries’ top military and policy strategists. Why? Because of the pressures global warming will place on countries’ resources – food, water, energy, population, transport, etc.

59 cm +/- a bit by 2100 might not seem like much to you Joe, but tell that to the Bangladeshes (for example) who just might want to jump onto a few boats to Xmas Island.

Another 3 degrees C +/- a bit by 2100 also might not seem like much, but the rate of change is extraordinarily high (by comparison) and to be sure, it takes time to move a ‘food bowl’.

Regardless of all this, and uncertainties which are acknowledged, who said time stopped in 2100?

Ps: for a ‘greenie’, I like your idea about 4-gen nuclear – that really is encouraging. I guess anyone can be an environmentalist – from any side of politics :)

Wobbles, about Galileo and the Church, yep.

Came across this in my morning reading. Would anyone trust a doctor with this sort of track record at diagnosis http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/james-hansen-1986-within-15-years-temps-will-be-hotter-than-past-100000-years/?

Perhaps being a climate scientist doesn't actually give you much insight into climate at all.

BTW, the Galileo argument is trotted out all the time, but it doesn't hold up. Galileo was persecuted by the establishment, which at the time was the Catholic Church. The people being persecuted by the establishment are the global warming skeptics, not the proponents. Whether they will turn-out to be as correct as Galileo we'll never know, because we'll be dead by the time the answer is available.

Actually Graham, your addition to the analogy fails. Diagnosis is not the same as prediction. Doctors of all types make predictions that are quite often wrong and yet I would still trust them. For example if a doctor measures my blood pressure and cholesterol levels and finds out what sort of lifestyle I lead, then they will likely make a prediction of what sort of life expectancy I could have if I continued on the same path and made no changes. This prediction is likely to be wrong, but that would not change the level of trust in my doctor.

I am not certain whether being a climate scientist gives you much 'insight' into climate, but there is one thing I can be certain about:
NOT being a climate scientist certainly does not give you any special insight into climate.

Well, the Catholic Church often feels persecuted by scientists these days as well Graham.

I for one am glad those weather predictions didn't work out.
The church has got good reason to be worried about science, they have been supporting mythology for hundreds of years.
Extreme weather patterns around the world is somewhat a worry. We have got to get onto reducing our dependance on oil, and cut the pollution in the atmosphere down.
With the political situation it is going to be hard to make unpopular decisions, about forcing change, especially when the other side does not believe in climate change.

What 'persecution'?

Which 'establishment' is this?

Not the Church or State

Are climate 'denialists' persecuted? So far, they seem to be winning.
All these govmints who apparently are so anxious to throw huge amounts of money to scientists to prove AGW is real, don't seem so anxious to do anything about it, do they?
We laymen can't stand up and argue against scientists, either for or against; that would be arrogance of the first degree. But what we can do, is carefully analyse the arguments presented, and check for obvious inconsistencies, fallacies and logical flaws; starting with the one that profit driven science bodies should be more credible than science bodies funded by governments which are clearly reluctant to act on the recommendations of the science bodies.
So called 'sceptics' keep trotting out the argument that scientists will falsify or flavour their evidence to appease whoever funds them.
Which government, anywhere in the world, wants to hear that they should raise taxes to make life better for voters yet to be born?
Certainly not in this country.
For the record, I would describe myself as a climate sceptic. I have no faith in the reliability of predictions on climate, anymore than I have faith in the ability of BOM to predict the weather more than 3 days in advance. Yet I keep finding myself arguing on the side of the so called 'alarmists'; largely because no one has managed to convince me that:
a) pollution is a good thing;
b) squandering irreplaceable resources is a good thing;
c) that ignoring the needs of future generations is a good thing.
I happen to believe that incremental changes in the way we do things do not have to be costly; in fact, the main problems in the environment and the economy all appear to stem from rampant consumerism.
If we just stop consuming so much and particularly wasting so much, most of our problems would evaporate.

GrahamY ‘tars and feathers’ all climate scientists by his flippant and fallacious remark:

“Perhaps being a climate scientist doesn't actually give you much insight into climate at all.”

It seems you are embedded in one particular camp - a 'travesty' for an editor.

AGW orthodoxy was not always as it is today, Graham. The establishment ‘persecuted’ Arrenhius’ ideas long before they became orthodox, a fact conveniently ignored by many ‘sceptics’, doubters, denialists, realists, whatever they are called now (I can't keep up).

Whether the dire consequences of AGW “will turn out to be correct as Galileo we’ll never know, because we’ll be dead by the time the answer is available”. Hopefully, some of us will have descendents.

Grim, good post.
For the record, neither BOM nor anyone else “predicts” climate (long-term average weather). On the other hand, they can “predict” short-term weather in advance (it has been getting better, btw).

Grim,

Your comment, that "I keep finding myself arguing on the side of the so called 'alarmists'; largely because no one has managed to convince me that:
a) pollution is a good thing;
b) squandering irreplaceable resources is a good thing;
c) that ignoring the needs of future generations is a good thing."

is something of a non sequitur: pollution and the squandering of resources is one thing, global warming another, and the two are very indirectly related, if at all.

In fact, one of my concerns about focussing the discussion on global warming is that issues relating to pollution, species diminution, abuse of resources, etc. get periperalised. The issues are separate, and they are equally significant: we can do something about both at the same time (in fact, we have to), but they are separate issues.

About terms of abuse, such as 'alarmist' and denialist': it is legitimate to be concerned about the effects of CO2, etc. on long-term climate. It is also quite proper to be concerned about being hoodwinked, and about the need to be, if you like, passionately sceptical, about all issues: it's part of the scientific method, after all. Morons at both fringes may have little argument, and so resort to name-calling, but let's take it for granted that most of us are sincerely, legitimately and passionately concerned about such issues, and engage in discussion in that spirit. To wit, that very few of us are in the pay of evil conspirators, we merely hold beliefs and opinions, often very passionately.

My concern, coming from the very different field of Indigenous affairs in general and Indigenous tertiary education in particular, is that the castigation of people who sincerely hold differing views from the 'mainstream', and the destruction of their careers and even of their lives, will not be repeated in this field of climate science. The references to Galileo are therefore quite relevant. At least one person on this thread knows exactly what I am talking about.

Joe Lane

Joe –Loudmouth

I found this today while reading up on something else. It fits in well with what you were saying about scepticism.

“Some problems are so complex that you have to highly intelligent and well-informed just to be undecided about them”
[Dr Laurence J. Peter –Former Professor of Education at University of Southern California and inventor of The Peter Principle “]

PS: Some great posts from you.

"...is something of a non sequitur: pollution and the squandering of resources is one thing, global warming another, and the two are very indirectly related, if at all."
Fossil fuels are resources, last I heard, Joe. Non renewable and largely irreplaceable, at that. Sending them up literally in smoke is both "squandering them", and pollution.
Burning fossil fuels is generally credited with being the greatest generator of AGW, so I'd say the two were very directly related, personally.

Well, there is a hell of a lot more, Grim, contributing to pollution than 'just' coal. By all means, reduce the consumption of coal, but there are so many other sources of pollution - and pollution is not by any means the only concern of environmentalists. As I keep trying to point out, it's not one or the other - we have to work simultaneously on all of those environmental problems.

AGW is just one of them, and probably the most remediable. Discuss.

"AGW is just one of them, and probably the most remediable. Discuss."

Would love to Joe (perhaps you can start a general discussion thread) but how about discussing Michael Rowan's piece first.

For example, would like your response to Michael's concluding remarks:

"... South Australia has experienced seventeen years in a row with warmer than average temperatures. And Australia as a whole has become warmer in each of the last six decades ...

... So to those who don’t think that the science of climate change is well supported by the evidence, what do you make of that? The Bureau of Meteorology is lying? We are heating up but not the rest of the world? And what is your scientific theory to explain why the world is not warming?"

It is his article, after all - and you both share the same state :)

Bonmot,

Indeed we do .....

Okay, I'll try to check out whether what he claims is valid. I do recall picking apricots in 46 degrees in the early eighties, but never having experienced that sort of temperature since, but I could be mistaken. Over the past thirty years, we have had summers of no days over the old century, and years of twenty-day stetches over the old century, but I'll try to find some more systematic way of making judgments than merely personal experience.

Meanwhile, I'll stick to my point that there are many, many issues AS WELL AS AGW - not instead of it - which genuine environmentalists must be concerned about. That's why I'll - conditionally - keep supporting the Greens.

"Well, there is a hell of a lot more, Grim, contributing to pollution than 'just' coal"
I was thinking more specifically about petroleum, Joe. I think you should check out this list;
http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm
I agree there are other concerns about our environment that desperately need addressing, but I reject utterly your claim that they are not intimately linked to the whole AGW debate; starting with another oft used argument of the 'denialist' camp, that CO2 is beneficial to plants.
While that's undeniably true, does it make sense to increase CO2 levels at the very same time as we destroy forests at an unprecedented rate?
Peak oil is inescapable and inevitable, whether believe (as I do) that it is already here, or whether it is still coming.
How much more are our grandchildren going to have to pay for all the items on that list, above and beyond the inflation that we have created?

bonmot,

the urban heat island effect explains the increase in temps measured by local weather stations.It distorts the temperature readings when compared against a baseline in the less urbanised past.

Sattelites give a more accurate reflection of the earths changing temperature. But why aren't the temperatures in the upper atmosphere increasing as would be expected when warming is due to the greenhouse effect?

In any case. the fact of warming doesn't prove the AGW theory. There are other explanations for warming which don't rely on CO2. Solar activity is an explanation that covers both the warming, and the lack of upper atmospheric warming.

Grim,

using fossil fuels is not squandering them. We are not short of coal and gas, and we have uranium after that if we need it.

With no reason to believe that humans won't be around for hundreds of thousands more years, there is NO WAY to ration fossil fuels. It just won't go that far. Unless you give each person a thimbleful to last a generation. We WILL develop an alternative as soon as fossil fuel prices start to rise significantly. That WILL happen as soon as the resource starts to become less available. I'm betting nuclear will be the way forward.

There is only one reason to use less fossil fuels and that is IF it is creating a significant warming of our planet. the AGW orthodoxy has yet to convince people that is the case. And the more the anti-consumption, anti-devellopment, anti-population, anti-people green extremists get involved in the AGW debate, the less likely ordinary people are going to listen.

That is exactly why there has to be a carbon tax, to force change.
All the talking in the world is not going to solve anything.
50% for and 50% against global warming, pollution. Who has got the deciding vote.

"We WILL develop an alternative as soon as fossil fuel prices start to rise significantly. That WILL happen as soon as the resource starts to become less available. I'm betting nuclear will be the way forward."
When I was 18, I wasn't worried about going bald; I knew we WOULD have a cure by the time I became a victim... I wasn't worried about smoking; I knew we WOULD have a cure for cancer...
If you lived on an outback station and had a month's supply of food, and knew supplies WOULDN'T get through for at least a month, when would you start rationing?
I strongly recommend this series of videos by Albert Bartlett, on exponential growth:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4364780292633368976&ei=dP2LSorwAoKgwgPuruWpDg&hl=en#
He points out that in any doubling period more exists than has ever existed before; on the legendary chessboard the grains of wheat added up -1,2,4,8,16... The third square contains 4 grains of rice, the preceding 2 squares only contain 3, etc.
What this simple arithmetic ensures, is that by pursuing growth despite having finite resources, the end will come very quickly.

Not either/or, Grim, but all: we have to combat all forms of pollution, as well as AGW, species diminution, etc. All at once. Big job.

Joe,
That's the way. Drop into our BOM site and check the reports, look at the data, or even access it and do some time series analysis yourself - provided you can, of course :)

Paul
1. We are quite aware of the UHIE, thanks - are you really suggesting we're not?
Adjustments are made accordingly - are you really suggesting we shouldn't?

Your logic doesn't explain the warming in the burbs of Antarctica, does it?

2. You really should be more precise Paul. The upper troposphere is warming while the lower stratosphere is cooling - as expected.
Check out 'lapse rate'.

Tell me Paul, how do you think satellite 'temperatures' are measured, and should we make adjustments to a change in satellite orbit?

3. Paul, we understand the Earth's radiative energy balance very well. Take out the 'warming' due to GHG's and nothing else explains the resulting imbalance in energy in/out. You appear to have real difficulty in understanding this concept.

However, just because you don't understand the physics does not make the physics wrong. To be sure, scientists at the coal-face have not explained the science very well (imo) - at least to the general public. This has to change - can you suggest how it might be done?

Regardless, can I suggest you get your info from institutions that actually do the science, rather than popular anti-globing warming blogsites or media shock-jocks?

bonmot says” Your logic doesn't explain the warming in the burbs of Antarctica, does it?”

the NIPCC says
“The average temperature history of Antarctica provides no evidence of twentieth century warming. While the Antarctic peninsula shows recent warming, several research teams have documented a cooling trend for the interior of the continent since the 1970s” NIPCC report

Bonmot says “Tell me Paul, how do you think satellite 'temperatures' are measured, and should we make adjustments to a change in satellite orbit?”

The NIPCC says “Highly accurate satellite data, adjusted for orbit drift and other factors, show a much more modest warming trend in the last two decades of the twentieth century and a dramatic decline in the warming trend in the first decade of the twentyfirst century.” NIPCC report

Bomot says “we understand the Earth's radiative energy balance very well.”

The NIPCC says “Scientific research suggests the model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth accepted by the IPCC is too large. Corrected feedbacks in the climate system could reduce climate sensitivity to values that are an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE SMALLER

My understanding of the physics is not the point. I doubt the IPCC held up their report to wait for your contribution either. I have a engineering degree which required enough physics for me to follow the AGW argument.

On what basis do you claim expert status?

Now, go ahead an attack the NIPCC, instead of the arguments they've made. Thats the way its done isn't it?

Hi Bonmot,

I'm glad you're enjoying yourself. Not being a scientist, I'm not really sure what to look for, but I did check out one site here in South Australia - just to verify Michael's claim about the last 17 years or so being the hottest in SA, etc., and I found the highest monthly maximums, month by month, at this particular site, Mt Crawford Forests, away from the city of Adelaide itself, occurred as follows:

23 Jan 1982
15 Feb 1981
06 Mar 1986
03 Apr 1986
03 May 1990
03 Jun 1994
29 Jul 1975
25 Aug 1977
26 Sep 1987
31 Oct 1987
30 Nov 1993
30 Dec 1981

[Yeah, I think I remember that December day in 1981, it might have coincided with the 46 degree day up in the Riverland, when all of us were trying to pick apricots from deep inside the trees, nobody wanted to get up on the ladders, a real b@stard of a day.]

I would be happy to be instructed in what these data mean, but to my untrained mind, they do seem to indicate that the highest maxima, month by month, for this particular site, according to the BoM, have not occurred in the last decade: many in fact occurred around thirty years ago. I was amazed at this, and not a little disconcerted since I half-believe in AGW, but I would be relieved to be put right by an expert such as yourself. Thank you, in advance :)

Joe Lane
Adelaide

Hi Joe, sorry for not getting back promptly, been busy as it were.

Yes, I do enjoy and have a passion for my work – I assume you do as well. Ok, you checked out BOM, the site is a tad more complex than before (more data and tools) and is supposed to be easily navigated, as were the tools, by scientists and non-scientists alike – perhaps they should revisit if people are not sure what to look for.

Mount Crawford Forests is obviously not ‘South Australia’, so the data from this single weather station cannot be used to verify Michael’s claim. It’s a common misconception; some people think global warming is not happening because in their neck of the woods, it appears to them as anything but GW. Besides, you may not have noticed, highest temperatures were collected only up until 1995 – well over a decade ago.

To verify Michael’s claims properly you would have to do the re-analyses yourself. Why not look at the following first, then have a good tour of the site.

http://tinyurl.com/SAtrendmap

http://tinyurl.com/SAlineartrend

http://tinyurl.com/veryhotdays

This is a joint statement put out by CSIRO/BOM in March 2010

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20100315a.pdf

You may find this interesting also (read the fine print too)

http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/satemp6.php

Paul

1. While I did not refer to the Antarctic interior, I’m sure even engineers (civil, mechanical, traffic, etc) understand some basic Laws of Physics, as you say – so, where do you think the snow is coming from, why? At least your think-tank acknowledges that Antarctica’s peninsular is warming, without the UHIE, why not you? Ah, never mind.

2. So, your think-tank uses the same satellite data – that’s novel – and comes up with the same conclusion? Spiffin!

3. Umm, Paul – I was talking of the “Earth's radiative energy balance”, NOT “model-derived temperature sensitivity” – you clearly don’t know the difference. Hint for engineers: one is measured in W/m^2. It’s amusing the musings of your think-tank though.

4. Your understanding of the physics is the point, Paul. You assert stuff you don’t understand, change goal posts when you clearly don't understand the science, and then change the playing field altogether by trotting out your right-wing think-tank’s response to something not even close to the topic ... then you go and top it off by wanting me to respond to their arguments! I don't think so.

5. “On what basis do you claim expert status?” Umm, hate to tell you Paul ... you guys aren’t supposed to be into ‘appeals to authority’, so they keep saying.

6. Now, one unanswered question (I think):

“Just because you don't understand the physics does not make the physics wrong. To be sure, scientists at the coal-face have not explained the science very well (imo) - at least to the general public. This has to change - can you suggest how it might be done?”

And please, don’t answer with your think-tank.

Sorry, Bonmot, Mt Crawford Forests was the first monitoring site which I picked which was outside the Adelaide heat-island area. No, I didn't know about the 1995 cut-off date, nor is any build-up in monthly maximum temperatures towards the 1995 cut-off date all that obvious in this case. The 1980s looked pretty warm, on these data. But I guess you're the expert :)

Joe

Bonmot,

Just checking those URLs you kindly provided: http://tinyurl.com/SAtrendmap, for example, shows a possible six-degree temperature rise over the next century, east of Port Augusta. I suppose this is due to the massive industrial pollution in the region ? Probably that guy in Yunta, with his pesky air-conditioner.

Hi again Bonmot,

Just checking your http://tinyurl.com/SAlineartrend

- I can see where Michael got his assertion about the last seventeen years or whatever. Pity about the last year.

As the graph notes, it shows a linear trend of 0.1 degree per decade, one degree in a century. And presumably growing exponentially, so perhaps many degrees per century, provided no government has the gumption/wits to do anything about anything. Is that actually likely to happen ?

Isn't it amazing that, according to this graph, all that pollution of the rampant industrial activity from the 1940s to the 1970s seemed to be so often accompanied by negative temperature anomalies ?

But I'm no scientist, that's just the observation of an idiot.

Joe

Bonmot,

1. You just finished saying to loudmouth the localised warming or cooling is irrelevant. Now you want to claim that localised warming in Antarctic peninsular proves AGW. Sorry. Won’t wash.

2. I wasn’t aware that the IPCC also agreed that the warming had significantly slowed this decade. What is their explanation for this?

3. You are going backwards, using the temperature changes you believe you see, to infer a change in the earth radiative energy balance. Radiative forcing is also measured in W/m2. Sensitivity in K/W/m2. To say that the contribution by CO2 to warming is well understood, is simply not correct. At least according to the NIPCC. To pretend that radiative energy balance and the radiative forcing and sensitivity of CO2 are not the issue is ridiculous.

4. No its not. You have not once, NOT ONCE, brought the physics into this. There are no equations on this page, whatsoever. So where is the physics? Your point is ABSURD. To claim that i’m changing the goalpost is pure snivelling. I responded to your “arguments” (and i use that term loosely) using the NIPCC claims. It’s clear you have simply avoided responding to legitimate argument. Very scientific of you.

5. You haven’t been able to make your case on the facts, instead attacking the NIPCC. And by claiming the full understanding of the physics (yes the physics you haven’t presented) i figured you were claiming expert status.

6. Again, you haven’t argued the physics. I haven’t ever claimed that the physics you haven’t argued, wasn’t true. A TOTAL red herring. It’s the variables in the physics that are at mostly at issue. Not the physics itself, as you well know. I personally would like to see a response from the IPCC to the NIPCC’s report. They seem to have most of the sceptics points covered. That’s what I would like. A discourse.

By continually attacking the motivation of those who question the science, you are effectively saying you aren't comfortable arguing the science. Until you can break that pattern, you won't convince anyone.

1. You have to learn to differentiate between ‘local’ and ‘regional’.

2. I did not mention IPCC, I was referring to numerous scientific papers published since AR4. Am sure AR5 will have something to say.

3. Close your ears, there is a difference between energy balance and climate sensitivity.

4. I read my point again ... and you want equations?

5. If you say so.

6. I'm from Barcelona, I'm tired and I've more important things to do.

Joe
Please accept a rain-cheque (pun not intended).

[Re : bonmot’s “answer” to PaulL’s six points--Wednesday, 12 January 2011 10:39:25 PM]

Well done, Bonmot : you answered just like a true IPCC committeeman!

So, let's get this straight:

* years of drought - AGW

* most of eastern Australia under water - AGW

* warmest decade on record - AGW

* worst winter on record in Europe and North America - AGW

* icebergs calving - AGW

* water running off Greenland - AGW.

Okay, glaciers are retreating, presumably glaciated areas of mountains are moving up-slope (at a measurable adiabatic rate), growing seasons are starting earlier and finishing later, plant and animal species are moving south in our hemisphere and north in the other hemisphere, so yes, there is AGW: sea-levels have risen two inches in sixty years, and average temperatures have risen by one degree in the same time.

Meanwhile, are governments getting into funding renewable energy ? Are car companies getting into electric cars ? Good or bad, are some governments turning to nuclear energy ? Are there any governments anywhere which are funding massive and long-term tree-planting projects, to suck up the CO2 ?

Or are governments sitting back, clueless ? Is there still hope for the doom-sayers ?

Joe

Hello Joe, owed you one.
Hope you’ve had a chance to look around the BOM site, use some of the tools, change some of the parameters, etc - should put your 6-degrees into perspective. The Indian Ocean Dipole will impact SA evermore, imo. This should not be confused with the problems we’re now experiencing; our wet season, extremely +’ve SOI (strong La Nina), series of low pressure cells off entire east coast, intense activity of Pacific Walker and Hadley cells, and to top it off, extraordinarily high ocean temperatures to depth of 200 m, also off the east coast. This current confluence of ocean/air/land activity is playing out as one of an increasing number of extreme weather events the world will experience. The more energy into a system, the more heat- the more heat- the more water vapour- the more water vapour- the more snow and rain. Obeying the simple Laws of physics in a dynamic and chaotic Earth System (equations are quite complex). Caveat? GW does not mean warming every year, in every region, as some are wont to think. Scientists would like to ‘limit’ the increase to 2-degrees – is that likely to happen? Not imo. As to 1940’s to 70’s – sulphate aerosols (by-product of fossil fuel burning) has a cooling effect – modern plants ‘scrub’ it out of the discharges. Joe, given you’re work with indigenous issues, you are no idiot. A pity, but not surprising, that idiots are trying to blame BOM for some of the problems OZ has been experiencing.

ps: Government's aren't clueless, politicians are. Do you know what China has been doing?

Thanks, Bonmot, points taken.