Almost forgot, spindoc to Chris Lewis (author):

>> By way of context as you begin to read these contrary opinions, it must be noted that there is only one entity in the world that has the authority for policy formulation, recommendation and governance, the UN IPCC. It has a “single” orthodoxy which is AGW and only the science which supports that single orthodoxy is used. <<

You have left out the UNFCCC.

>> There has never been a single contrary scientific paper included in any of the IPCC’s AR reports, see for yourself. <<

Wrong, you obviously haven't read the references, let alone the papers cited in the reports.

Leo
I have explained, many times. You always ignore it and repeat the same old meme, on OLO and elsewhere.

bonmot, "Leo
I have explained, many times. You always ignore it and repeat the same old meme, on OLO and elsewhere."

I must have missed it as well, could you point to where you have previously explained, please?

bonmot has given an explanation rpg. He says he does not want to, and he does not see why he should.

I was not looking for an explanation, I was looking for the answer to a perfectly reasonable question I asked him.

He has evaded and ignored it, but feels entitled to show up and make peripheral remarks.

He does not put forward anything substantive, so feels he is justified.

I know the answer: there is no science to back the assertion of AGW despite the outlay of an estimated $90 billion in a desperate attempt to produce what does not exist. The only result has been the corruption of science as evidenced in the Climategate emails.

I just want bonmot to say it without further evasion and nonsense.

I suppose that is the equivalent to saying that I want him to stop acting like an AGW fraud supporter.

While I will read the IPCC report and responses (in time), I feel obliged to further explain why i do support cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, at least thus far. This is despite my own disdain for those who portray absolute certainty of their orthodoxy without challenge.

My view has been shaped by my own thoughts and observation of secondary source (including statements by experts on both sides).

I look at cities in China where oil seeps from the leaves of trees and think that can hardly be a good thing. While I have no idea about how many parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere becomes catastrophic to life, I feel now is as good a time for societies should be addressing the problem with new ways of production and efficiency.

As I am a gambler (small scale), I am not prepared to take a risk, just in case the fears about global warming prove correct. This is despite recognition of my own hypocrisy, although I do my best to conserve energy (also to reduce bills).

why can't we make a difference? It was only a few decades ago that we did something about our air pollution on the basis that science proved that air pollution was not conducive to good health. And remember, how much has been gained by our cars becoming smaller and more efficient in energy use. small changes make a difference.

I do have an open mind on the question of global warming, but I do fear the future from what I observe about the destruction of the world's forest and oceans.

Spindoc,

Algae when natural is as you say but now increased algae can be observed, such as invasive blooms smothering and killing coral on the Great Barrier Reef. Algae is also killing estuary and bay seagrass on which food-web baitfish such as pilchards, herring and anchovy depend. Penguins and seabirds and most ocean animals including whales and depend on those baitfish, so do many island people. However unprecedented (low population) mass starvation of seabirds is coinciding with a 67 percent increase in maternal mortality amongs seafood dependent island people. So much for MDG's.

Producing an underwater film led to developing my understanding of the real state of the ocean environment. Now I observe emissions and CO2 being claimed as the cause of GBR damage, and I understand incorrect diagnosis is often fatal. There is dire urgent need to see the real cause in order to understand and implement solutions, especially solutions to various impact and consequences involved. Damage is causing damage so think what might be occurring, such as collapse of world food sustainability and peace in the SW Pacific. There are also opportunities from solutions, such as increased business and employment and government revenue infrastructure development involving repair of damage to the water environment.

Research involves asking intellectuals on this site if increased sewage nutrient pollution proliferated (increased) ocean algae has been taken into account in AGW and IPCC science. Even someone not doing science can understand dead algae sediment can harbour anaerobic bacteria that produces methane that on contact with oxygen forms CO2. There is now so much algae it is causing dead zones in oceans and waterways. So has this source of methane and CO2 been taken into account with AGW science or is CO2 being attributed to emissions as convenient reason for an ETS/carbon tax/carbon price?

Establishing beyond reasonable doubt there is a cause other than emissions warming and killing the ocean food web, would expose grounds to dismiss CO2. If Tony Abbott was to be the judge of the case in question then people would see he is no idiot.

Chris, I do not see how reading the IPCC Reports will help you.

There is no science which supports the AGW hypothesis, and after spending an estimated $90 billion dollars in efforts to come up with such science and failing, you would expect there would be quite a bit to wade through.

It would be more productive to look at how the AGW assertion has been given so much traction with no science to support it. False demonisation of carbon dioxide as pollution would be one factor.

The IPCC was formed to look at the effect of human emissions on climate. It is clear that there is no significant effect on climate and there is no reason for the IPCC to exist.

The nonsense of making predictions on climate using computer modelling was introduced by the IPCC. It is dishonest to pretend that this is viable, and the failure has been borne out by observation in the real world. Ban Kimoon at the Bali lie fest where 12,000 journalist were wined, dined and lied to, and given prepackaged press releases, based his address on 2003 predictions, already proven wrong, when he made the address in 2007, by real world observations.

In reality there has been a little over one half of a degree of warming over the last 110 years, not surprising when we were coming out of the Little Ice Age, and not in any way significant.

It does not make sense to be talking about reducing emissions when there is no scientific basis to justify such reduction.

We are just as likely to be facing cooling as warming, and it would have ill effects, while there is no basis for the assertion that warming will have any ill effects. In the past it seems to have had only beneficial effects.

So do you gamble, with a 50% chance of being wrong, and with no science to justify the gamble, or do you do the sensible thing and wait.