SPQR

That link you provided - I agree with Dr Ziggy Switkowski.

Quote:
Of course, the 21st century will be different from the 20th. Forecast 2-5 degree temperature increases ahead will certainly drive natural hazard events to uncomfortable levels beyond those produced by the one degree increase so far.

Still, a focus upon domestic emissions reductions does nothing directly for our climate.

An Australian ETS will not lower bushfire risks, stabilise sea levels, reverse the bleaching of our corals, or alleviate our national water challenges.

Yet there are solid reasons to support the introduction of an ETS (I prefer a tax, but that is another issue) at this time:

We need to start on the 100-year journey of transitioning our economy away from dependence upon fossil fuels, whatever views exist about the gravity of climate change.

We have little choice but to join the growing community of nations and our trading partners deploying greenhouse gas reduction schemes. Taking a leadership position is a call that politicians are elected to make.
End Quote.

Now SPQR, you quote mine (spindoctor) my comments on another thread;

1) “ 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 “ and

2) “ As to 1940’s to 70’s – sulphate aerosols (by-product of fossil fuel burning) has a cooling effect”

raising them as an issue in this thread with Ken Fabos (with a 'b') and besides getting all defensive

"I (you) must insist you (me) stick to the issue at hand"

you refuse to address a response to points you raised here in the first place. A tad paranoid methinks, but there you are.

PS
Your post quip "It's AGW that done it!"

Scientists do not attribute 'it' all to AGW, although given your contributions, I understand why you would want people to think that.

Mr Bonmot,
I do think you are edged away from the issue --let me drag you back to THAT statement:

/// To quote the head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section “Certain events would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods”. He could probably add the long drought and the recent Qld floods that broke it as well ///

Note well this part, the events named “would have been EXTREMELY UNLIKEY without global warming”.

You tried to soften it with this bit of spin: “Scientists do not attribute 'it' all to AGW” .
But the “scientist” who made that statement is saying ALL of those events were EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to have happened without it .

The statements source is not the IPCC –but the IPCC scale gives a likely measure :
“Extremely likely > 95% probability”
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%203%20-%20IPCC%E2%80%99s%20Evaluation%20of%20Evidence%20and%20Treatment%20of%20Uncertainty.pdf

How could they have –scientifically-- arrived at such level of certainty, given:
A) The limited study that could have been undertaken into such recent events.
And given that:
B)Similar events have been occurring for ages, and
C) More pointedly, many of those events occurred at times when there were no symptoms of AGW?

Not only is the statement unscientific, it is also reckless.
Since , it misinforms your Bangladeshis squatting on a delta or flood plain (to steal another of your comments) that anytime they have a disaster they need only blame the developed world and line-up for a hand-out.

And you –with your religious like zeal to defend the statement seemingly because it stems from an “authoritative” scientific body – compound things.

Readers of OLO opposing emissions reductions and believing it's mostly inappropriate green ideology should feel comforted knowing that neither Labor nor Coalition have any real intention to limit emissions. The change to low emissions is vague mission statement but new supply from coal and other fossil fuels is real policy. Coal and gas mining and export has full support and efforts to impose limitations on the trade in fossil fuels will be resisted. Mainsteam politics will do the least it can get away with and avoid doing the most it's capable of. There is no plan to phase out coal power locally and to replace it with renewables - except from the Greens. Or replace it with nuclear either - from anyone.

Only the Greens are serious about emissions (but IMO wrongly resist nuclear as part of the solution) and the 'green religion' line is clearly being pushed hard by PR, lobby and political groups as well as partisan media in order to undermine their support. That push is probably part coordinated strategy by allied groups, and part bandwagon. I'd like to think most Australians will see it for dirty politics and distraction from the lack of sincere policy but it's clearly popular.

An online site where various opinions on topical issues are freely expressed and freely criticised is not something that, on the face of it, I could have objection to yet I find my conviction growing that people are not being well informed by OLO. The articles here are primarily those of advocates of one stripe or another and this adversarial, open to all approach does not accurately represent the true relative strengths and weaknesses of the scientific case for human induced global warming. Far from informing, the 'balanced' editorial approach of OLO helps popularise and give a false sense of legitimacy to misrepresentations and misunderstandings about climate science, policy and politics. I'm increasingly convinced the issue is too important to waste my energies here.

Posted by Ken Fabos, Saturday, 22 January 2011 3:30:20 PM

Ken I think you should withdraw what is your last post the reason you incorrectly describe as a religious diatribe is actually Democracy working because nobody agrees with your religion you have decided to opt out blaming OLO and their unwavering respect for freedom of speech .

What do you have in mind Ken ?

Perhaps a dizzied up version of the Russian example ?

ken fabos "OLO helps popularise and give a false sense of legitimacy to misrepresentations and misunderstandings about climate science, policy and politics."

I see you are offended that the world continues to ignore the constant chanting of AGW believers.

There was no public debate since most of the media sides with the AGW believers, but the new media playground, the internet, democratically continued to discuss and foment debate and actual science. All the efforts and massive funding of the AGW believers, could not suppress people's skepticism, as much as they tried to.

Mind you, things do change, on ABC Radio yesterday. I heard a report on the usual climate beat up, more this, more that, everything is caused by AGW. The report then went to a French scientist who harped as usual, world ending etc, then he said he wanted skepticism to be made illegal .. I was about to turn to another station, when they gave Prof Bob Carter some time, he countered then demolished the hysteric's complete lack of science and total reliance on authority.

The world is turning when a skeptic and a believer actually get equal time on the ABC!

I am impressed, that the ABC actually had a skeptic on at all.

Most Australians listen to the babble about everything being due to AGW and just shake their heads and turn off.

Polls support the change in attitude to AGW, less people believe it now .. predicting heat and getting cold, predicting more drought and getting flooding, then claiming you predicted everything is just mind numbing stupidity to normal people.

When you see believers trying to have it both ways, your BS alarm goes off bigtime.

people wake up, slowly, but they do.

you are not the first to leave OLO disgusted and frustrated that it allows debate and does not suppress it as you'd like. It's sad to realise your presence on OLO, was to convert heretics, not discuss opinions.

Some of you, scare me. I hope you never get the power to inflict your beliefs on other people.

Mrs Spqr (if you insist on being childish – otherwise, bonmot will do, thanks)

“THAT” statement was originally published here:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/calculating_the_true_cost_of_global_climate_change__/2357/

I have been unable to verify where Kevin Trenberth gave “THAT” statement – at least I tried
John Carey certainly didn’t provide any details, just inverted commas
No other journalist covered “THAT” statement, as far as I can tell
WUWT would NOT ignore “THAT” statement
No statement from the NCAR/CAS
Anyone else ‘fact-check’?
Nope

Yet you make a big deal of “THAT” statement.

I did find this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B1XF20110112?pageNumber=1

Extract:

“Prominent U.S. climate scientist Kevin Trenberth said the floods and the intense La Nina were a combination of factors (note THAT last bit).

He pointed to high ocean temperatures in the Indian Ocean near Indonesia early last year as well as the rapid onset of La Nina after the last El Nino ended in May.

"The rapid onset of La Nina meant the Asian monsoon was enhanced and the over 1 degree Celsius anomalies in sea surface temperatures led to the flooding in India and China in July and Pakistan in August," he told Reuters in an email.

He said a portion, about 0.5C, of the ocean temperatures around northern Australia, which are more than 1.5C above pre-1970 levels, could be attributed to global warming.

"The extra water vapor fuels the monsoon and thus alters the winds and the monsoon itself and so this likely increases the rainfall further," said Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado (I agree).

"So it is easy to argue that 1 degree Celsius sea surface temperature anomalies give 10 to 15 percent increase in rainfall," he added.

Am I defending “THAT” statement John Carey attributed to Trenberth Mrs Spqr? Absolutely not! It’s typical tactic of your ilk – spin, distort and misrepresent what other people say.

Now SPQR, what about this?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11513#196159

or are you going to ignore something that you in fact raised?

And please precious, don’t retort with the “trademark-put-down” crap ... you do it all the time.