What a load of nonsense. "All scientific evidence indicates that climate change is real and happening." - Yes, lady and it's been happening for over 4 billion years. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that human activity has a significant influence on climate. The IPCC admits that climate models are based on low levels of knowledge of many forces (chap 2, 2007 report) and that models contain numerous flaws (chap 8) and yet, as it has always done, the IPCC bases its claims on the output of dodgy models. The precautionary principle only makes sense if you can accurately cost the consequences of inaction against the cost of action, which we can't. Finally, La Nina and El Nino events drive weather here and are natural events. Look at the data for yourself; don't accept the opinions of others who may have vested interests.

Snowman,
Just before you melt away could you please answer this question ? Are El Nina & El Nino a regular natural phenomenon or are they a result of modern man's activities ?

"The correlation between climate change and extreme weather events has been agreed upon by the scientific community..'

Er, no. No climate scientist of any standing attributes any 'extreme weather events' to global warming -- oops, sorry, climate change. (And it's officially 'climate disruption' now, BTW -- didn't you get the memo?)

On the contrary, the desperate eagerness of fanatical alarmists to seize on any phenomenon as evidence for their faith shows just how few real facts there are underpinning this edifice of lies.

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

Negligent "sceptics"

Swarm all over young person's

Plea for world's future

Jon J...I work with climate scientists and have been to 3 conferences in the last 6 months. They call it "global warming" and the signal is getting stronger. Please don't confuse media/political spin with real science...although I know this is hard to do in the combative environment surrounding Economics vs Environment.
Warming isn't the only change going on; there are decadal oscillations, 3-7 year oscillations such as ENSO and much more...but on top of this is a very clear CO2 induced warming. It is not only credible...it is the only reasonable explanation left for the data.
Any perception of backing down from the science comes directly from paid for faux sceptics and the fools that trust the Murdoch lame-stream media. It also comes from the extraordinary hubris of the ignorant Right...how dare youth demand responsibility from their elders. How dare the "smarty pants" scientists put limits on my profits? It's communism I tells ya!

[Deleted for abuse.]

Look here for a recent summary of the by-now rather direct evidence that our emissions of CO2 are warming the middle and lower atmosphere, as predicted.
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/still-warming/
So not only is the evidence for warming clear, there is evidence for the cause - us.

The claim by snowman and many others that there is no evidence is nonsense. The implication that the only argument is computer models is nonsense.

Thanks Shintaro for your eloquent comment, not that many here might know about haiku, they seem to be more into sarcasm.

When Sophie attempts to link the Brisbane flooding to climate warming/change/disruption the conclusion could very easily be drawn that climate change/warming/disruption was more serious in 1841, 1890, 1893, 1931 and 1974 and on other occassions before European settlement when flooding in Brisbane was or could have been much worse.

And I suppose records if kept in Pakistan would confirm my conclusion after all Pakistan is affected by the historic regional moonsoons also.

But what would I know ... I only use logic ... and am yet to be taken in by the arguments that started out as man-nade global warming and have morphed into change and now disruption ... as events, that don't support the arguments of man-made warming/change/disruption, seem to dictate.

I had a great giggle at this conclusion in your website Geoff.

'If, finally, you still think these assessments are exaggerated, then you could reflect that the very different world of the ice ages was only 5°C colder than at present, and the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is approaching what it was several million years ago when there was much less polar ice and sea level was 10-20 m higher than at present. The scientists’ warnings are all-too plausible in the larger context of geological history.'

Tell me, as it really begs a couple of logical questions ... all those 'several million years ago 'was man-made global warming the cause of the 'much less polar ice and (when)sea level was 10-20 m higher than at present' ? Or was it an entirely naturally occurring event? And how then, if not man-made, did it evolve subsequently into an ice age and other extreme climates?

Ah Keith, you have hit the nail on the head. The climate changers make too much of their models and diagnosis'. They way over egg the case that global warming is the cause of every natural disaster in the world. Much the same as the anti-populationists refuse to look at any other factors except population. They do incredible damage to their cause.

SCIENTISTS WHO OUGHT TO KNOW,
TELL US THAT IT MUST BE SO.
LET US NEVER EVER DOUBT
WHAT NO-ONE IS SURE ABOUT. (Belloc)

Hi Sophie

Alas, is anything more poignant than your unquestioning faith and idealism, and that of all the other well-meaning (arts/law, etc) eco-activists?

The biggest "act of negligence" is not inaction on climate change, but the lack of a formal public enquiry into the climate science orthodoxy.

Instead, we have a government (and its agencies) doing everything in its power to prevent us from knowing the truth, a government determined to avoid deeper scrutiny of the huge uncertainties here.

You write: "The correlation between climate change and extreme weather events has been agreed upon by the scientific community." Really?

Once upon a time, the climate orthodoxy was content to restrict itself to making alarmist "projections" about global warming decades into the future. Now, apparently desperate to reverse the public's apocalypse fatigue, it (like you) is switching to "weather" (aka "extreme weather events") and attempting more deception with a bogus "correlation between it and a new concept, "climate disruption".

Which climate scientists have agreed upon it? How did they define ‘extreme weather events’? How did they measure their frequency? Over what period were the measurements taken? By what magic/criteria do they determine whether EWEs are due to "natural variability" (all that happens in the "climate system" they cannot predict) or have an anthropogenic cause? Are the causes of the Queensland floods of 1893, 174 and 2011 identical, or different? Why?Etc.

Do you really believe there we could have a static Goldilocks climate - one "just right" for everyone from Archangel to Marble Bar - if only we allowed governments to twitch the planet's elusive thermostat by taxing us? (Hey, come and join me in Warmerland.)

The so-called Precautionary Principle you evoke (out of desperation?) is not science. How can one take legitimate - not emotional and irrational - precautions about future events known with less certainty than flipping a coin?


Alice (in Warmerland)

[Deleted for abuse.]

Perhaps if the climataria were a little more precise in their use of the language they and AGW might have some credibility.

It is clear from many of the respondees herein, that they have also been caught in the trap of just what is meant by Climate Change....it actually means all changes in the climate however ascribed.

But as they dont know with any degree of reliability which bit is caused by us, or is natural variability, it is just so easy to ascribe any change as being by man, and thereby ramping up the level of alarmism way beyond anything remotely reasonable

The author cannot be blamed for also using the terminolgy...but the main climate academics, and the Commonwealth Govt Departments can and should be called to account for the deliberate and blatant misrepresentation that it really is.

The deceit is quite shameful, and a poor reflection upon all those involved

'The last year has seen drought, fire and flood end lives and cripple communities.'

And that's never happened before? Read a history book, kid.

'All scientific evidence indicates that climate change is real and happening.'

Yeeeesssssss, and ..? Once again: that's never happened before?

'It also indicates that the impacts of climate change on every aspect of our lives, if it is not addressed, will be disastrous.'

Now, here is where you're going off the rails.

*ALL* scientific evidence? Sorry, but that claim is out-and-out bullsh!t. For one, evidence would be data, gathered from real-world observations, *not* computer models run from the safety of one's office. Computer models are not evidence.

For another, there is no evidence, even from computer models, that 'the impacts of climate change on every aspect of our lives, if it is not addressed, will be disastrous.' EVERY aspect of our lives? Whose lives? Every human being on the planet? Human beings in Australia? Or just South-East Queensland, or NSW, or Victoria?

Most models, for what they're worth (which, for various reasons, is not a hell of a lot) agree that there will be gains and losses from climate change.

Is there a net gain or a net loss? For whom?

If the people of South-East QLD, hypothetically, experience a loss from more frequent flooding, yet the people of Africa experience a net gain from increased rainfall, do the losses of the one trump the gains of the other?

Then there is the key phrase: 'if it is not addressed'. Are you seriously suggesting that the impacts of climate change - natural or otherwise - *won't* be addressed? Humans have been adapting to climate for several million years, and now suddenly the most technologically advanced and wealthiest humans in history going to sit back and perish en masse because of yet another climate perturbation?

While I personally that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that climate change is occurring, given that the flood of 1974 was far worse, I feel that Sophie Trevitt's claim that this is directly caused by climate change is unethically opportunistic. It has the same ring as the pastor that claimed that the Victoria bush fires were retribution for the abortions done in Australia.

Geoff Davies above, in an act of self promotion refers readers to his own web site Betternature for proof that AGW is real and the evidence is clear

However his web site also states that the Climategate emails and sundry reports found no evidence of malpractice etc.None and nothing he says.

Unfortunately for him, that is also rubbish... being more an example of academe investigating iself ...with quite predictable outcomes, as this report demonstrates.

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

Its a pretty poor kettle of fish when they cant even answer the Terms of References, never mind properly interview, document and investigate all sources.

But then what else can one expect.. its all par for the course in this little caper

[Deleted for abuse.]

The only thing these comments seem to do is illustrate the psychology around the issue.

The argument in favour of climate change boils down to a couple of things - the view of the majority of the worlds scientists and, for some people, what they observe in terms of carbon emissions and changes in climate that are consistent with scientific predictions.

Arguments against seem to be some combination of:
1. The scientists are wrong - they have misinterpreted the data or are looking at the wrong things - check out my critique of the science (PS: I am not a scientist) or check out my favourite scientist who says .....blah blah blah.
2. The scientists are part of a big conspiracy - they are knowingly promoting climate change because they need research grants. They are being aided and abetted by all those greens who need climate change as an excuse to dismantle industrialised society.
3. The scientists are wrong because dealing with climate change implies going green, putting a tax on carbon emissions and that offends my core values and beliefs.

1 and 2 seem possible but extremely unlikely. 3 is not really an argument is it - it doesn't even get better if you abuse the climate change proponents or talk more LOUDLY.

Interesting ..... but disappointing ......

I've deleted a number of posts above. It is not valid to criticise this, or any other author, because of their age, gender, who they work for, or what they believe unless you are dealing with the arguments they put up.

I haven't suspended anyone yet, but if this continues the time when I do is not far away.

My favourite table
Natural and Anthropogenic (man-made) Contributions to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
% of Greenhouse Effect % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.00% 99.72 0.28%

in toher words water vapour is responsible for 95% of Greenhouse Gases CO2 less than 4%. For CO2 0.1% is caused by man and the rest naturally. So don't sweat.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Rich2 - your reasoning in favour of climate change (I take it you mean Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change - CAGW) is flawed.

'the view of the majority of the worlds scientists'

This is nowhere even close to being established. The catastrophist claims of the IPCC are in fact the opinions of a handful of lead authors, all of whom pretty much owe their entire careers to the IPCC. Many scientists dispute such claims, some publicly, many not.

'carbon emissions and changes in climate that are consistent with scientific predictions'

Again, not established. There is a prima facie correllation, but nothing *like* a well established causal relationship.

For a quite neutral, yet still devastating (to quote James Lovelock) perspective on both these claims, I'd refer you to Prof. Garth W. Paltridge's excellent 'The climate caper: facts and fallacies of global warming'.

'The science of global warming is far less settled than climate activists would have us believe. The high probability attached by the IPCC to its thesis of climatic disaster ... [basically] derives from a set of people sitting around a table making personal guesses about the quality of the models.'

I think Sophie needs to back up her assertions with some science and rational thinking.For a start in statistics you knock out the lowest and highest scores to eliminate distortions.All we hear from the AGW groups is examples of extreme weather patterns.

So please no more alarmist claims.The science in this complex area is never settled.Al Gore has no credibility.

Well said Sophie.

As Grist posted today: "If you’re under 25, you should be pissed about climate change". And Paul Gilding on Business Spectator today said: "There are some who argue that the middle of a crisis is not the time to draw the connection to climate change and the threat it poses. The opposite is in fact the case - it is just the right time, while emotions are raw and the impacts are in our face.".

If only more young people forced the issue before memories fade and apathy sets back in.

I know of course these floods won't be the last before we act. There's too many counter-forces, e.g. the negative carbon price the NSW government is employing via their private coal mine for powering their power stations at a heavily discounted price.

Hmh, I do recall reading in our school's religious lessons that when nation rises against Nation, brother against brother etc all hell will break lose as in natural upheaval. Any scientists have anything more definite on that apart plagiarizing from the Bible ? So, if it has been predicted 2000 years ago that it is going to happen then no climate conference or indeed any action whatsoever can provide a solution. if the bible is indeed correct than all we can do is to sit back & watch ourselves go down the tube.

Well, you can take some solace then, individual, in knowing that the Bible is not correct.

For goodness sakes this envirolunacy is out of control.

Sorry for drawing attention to it Mr Moderator, but Sophie's lack of scientific knowledge is stupendous. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that floods are part of a regular weather pattern in this and other countries which existed BEFORE anthropogenic CO2 emissions from industrialisation commenced.

In fact, Green policies such as no dams, not allowing people to cut trees down near their homes and increasing vegetation near built environments have contributed considerable to the loss of life in floods and bushfires.

Hear, hear, Clownfish - you said everything I wanted to say, only better. You obviously possess an uncommon amount of common sense.

Won't it be terrific if a strange Geoffrey Rush look-a-like white flowing beard dressed in a flowing reddish gown suspended on spider webbs held by pensioner like Angels arrives on D day minus one declaring
Come hither anthropogenic's and be delivered from the AGW ,ANGELS see there are no interlopers , err Geoffrey dear how do we tell , too easy there the ones with dirty under pants and glazed over eyes ! step swiftly now this joints gunnah BLOW ...........Kar! Put! oh bugger it's rainen now the figgen sparklers won't go

"1. The scientists are wrong - they have misinterpreted the data or are looking at the wrong things - check out my critique of the science (PS: I am not a scientist) or check out my favourite scientist who says .....blah blah blah....

.....1 and 2 seem possible but extremely unlikely."
-Rich2

Yeah, I bet a few hundred of years ago that you'd have been one of the greybeards sitting about stroking your nice grey beard and saying 'Well, my Royal Fellows, this phlogiston theory seems water-tight. It's possible we're wrong, but extremely unlikely. Let's have a brandy to celebrate being right'.

Or maybe you subscribe to the ideas of the world-famous physicist William Thompson, aka Lord Kelvin, who didn't believe in X-rays, didn't believe radio waves could be utilised to make effective technology, who believed that we'd all be dead by now because coal combustion draws oxygen out of the atmosphere and Kelvin (mis)calculated that we'd have combusted our breathable supply of O2 some time ago, and who claimed circa 1900 that "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" (and that's not an exhasutive list of his massive cock-ups). He also made incredibly important contributions to the physics, especially in the field of thermodynamics, and has the distinctive honour of lending his title to one of the two SI base units named after people. And he is possibly my favourite scientist ever (I'm also very fond of Cavendish) - yeah, he got a lot of stuff very, very wrong. But he was a clever bloke who also got a lot of stuff right, and he wasn't afraid to stick his neck out and advance ballsy hypotheses.

continued from above...

Scientists get things wrong. All the time. They don't do it with malice aforethought; they certainly don't do it to generate research grants. But they're not the Delphic Oracle, and they certainly don't have Papal infallibility. Although if you believe they do then I guess it's not so great a stretch to revere the Titaness Gaia.

One of my favourite scientists is Sir Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest physicist the world has ever seen. But also an alchemist. And wrong about his physics, too. But everyone, and I mean everyone (not just a large majority), thought that Newton was bang on the money for a long time - until it became apparent that he wasn't.

Most scientists across most of the history of science have gotten most things mostly wrong. To suddenly assume that they're batting 100 flies in the face of the vast bulk of historical evidence, and strikes me as a somewhat denialist position.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should assume the scientists are wrong. That would be folly. But it is equally folly to assume they're right - history shows that they're usually wrong.

@ Shintaro

Shintaro rescues

much distressed damsel.

Believers in green houses

shouldn’t blow hot air.

Haiku samurai

holds master franchise.

Aliester

one would hope you mean't that the amount of unspecified uncommon common sense is more and not less than what is commonly known as a usual or common amount of commonsense.

I was surprised the moderator would allow such an unintended double entendre. But then he's much more charitable than I.

Read the authors credentials!

Why would anyone bother to read what a starry eyed and idealistic student has to say.

Believers in human induced global warming will hold their religous beliefs no matter what!

What the world needs is a few more people with practical experience.

Starry eyed she may be, but good on her.

It would be nice if the jury could be out on AGW. If we knew even approximately how much the activities of man contribute to climate change we could begin the policy process rather than a continual quibbling about the extent of man's impact and how much is naturally occurring influences.

That is clearly not going to happen soon, however there is much humans can do to reduce their impact on the environment quite apart from focussing environmental problems around climate change. Looking at sustainable populations, pollution and other resource management issues.

It is growing populations and pressures on resources that will contribute to climate change (should AGW be greatly attributed) but no-body wants to go there. It is as if the business councils and lobbyists interests override any long term factors in relation to the health of human societies.

Those who believe blindly that unfettered growth is the answer to all woes do much damage to their cause by failing to recognise the impact of human interaction with the environment. Technological advancement can only go so far and in fact some technological advancements have created more problems than they solve.

To believe humans have no impact on their environment and that we will always find solutions to environmental problems is an 'after the event' mindset. I believe human beings are capable of being better than they have thus far demonstrated. We have in our own abilities the power to identify problems before they occur other than approaching them from the 'bandaid' approach.

The assertions & conclusions in Sophie's article are absurd, because they come from RAW IDEOLOGY.

They are also offensive in the face of the real suffering of the victims of these natural disasters.

Philosophy & politics are dangerous subjects in the hands of those who haven't yet mastered Geology, Chemistry, Biology, Botany, Physics etc. Once these subjects have been learned & understood then comes Economics, Business, Social Studies. If you do all these and do them well then get some experience in the real world economy you can start to form some resonable opions on the worlds climate & appriopriate energy policies.

There are no short cuts to understanding.

Starry eyed she may be, but good on her.
Cheryl,
careful, she might go into politics !

I think there should be a type of Godwin's Law for how long it takes someone to shoehorn the subject of population control into any and every discussion on OLO.

Sophie is appealing to our GUILT subconscious.. our desire to be approved and included.

Inherent in her question is "You are WRONGGGG, non included and evil if you don't believe in it"

Excellent Bernays propoganda strategy !

But for thinking and independant minded people who know the game.. *water off a ducks back*

I think Sophie has achieved her desired result.Lots of noteriety with little substance in her article to back up her assertions.She wanted to offend the "deniars" or in reality skeptics.

OLO needs to show more due diligence when allowing articles like this to be published.There needs to be a least a modicum of science and facts to back up claims.

One activity in which Sophie could usefully indulge, is to review the scientific literature to find a paper that provides scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused a measurable increase in global warming. If she finds one, she could be in the running for a Nobel Prize.

Such arrogance to think that humans can dictate the weather. Maybe if we can discover how to keep a marriage vow we might just improve the world a little. This Green faith is destructive and yet still gets funded. There are very few 'true believers' in man made climate change as seen by the lifestyle of those preaching their ever changing faith.

As opposed to you preaching yours, eh runner? ;)

Nature is doing the climate changing. Man is just supplying the pollution.

Ozandy & others,
Perhaps you are in a position to find out.
The IPCC climate model has been run against data varying from business
as usual linear increase and two lower levels of fossil fuel burning.

However the Uppsala University's Global Energy Research Group has
produced figures with more realistic values of oil, gas and coal
availability significantly lower than the IPCC's figures.

I suggest you all take a Bex and have a nice lie down and wait to see
what the IPCC produces in the way of temperature rise using the new data.

They have been so long giving any indication that they have used these
new data that I am becoming suspicious that they have used the data
and really do not want to admit the results.

Imagine the uproar and loss of jobs if the new data shows that it all
is a big panic over nothing.

Just to look at a microcosm of such a result in the Australian
parliament !
They would have to deliberatly ignore the result, just as they ignore
the fact of peak oil in 2006.

Keith,

There's no apostrophe in 'meant'.

I'm pretty damn sure you knew exactly what was intended by comment about common sense, and you're just playing silly buggers.

And if you're going to split hairs, I'm going to piss off.

I may have read this wrong but I believe that 'individual' was writing tongue in cheek.

I do not doubt what so ever we have climate change issues as much as there existed millions of years ago, just that one volcano in one year may spew out more gasses then the entire world population does and so why don’t you go sit on the volcano and give it a lesson of history and well if it fails to accept your rhetoric then you have your answer. As an INDEPENDENT candidate in the Victorian Broadmeadows District by-election (and in the Olympic Ward –Banyule election) I am acute aware how as this climate change is causing people to be hot under the collar because of the darn increases in utilities, food, etc. They need a life now and not so to say have peace of mind in the grave as they will never know. Their kids need to live now! So why not preach your climate change to the volcano’s and see what a lot of hot air comes from it. And, in case you didn’t know we live because trees provide this from the CO2 we provide. In case you may not be aware off we generally accept that world is round not flat, just in case you haven’t caught up to this yet.