Leo Lane,

Probably won't. It may indeed be organised guess work as far as predictions are concerned.

Nevertheless, as voters we have to make our decisions to the best of our rationality.

I don't think it gets any better than democratic outcomes, decided by which party wins the most seats, although one could argue that this is distorted by the influence of minor parties in imperfect systems.

France ditches carbon tax as social protests mount:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7507015/France-ditches-carbon-tax-as-social-protests-mount.html

So much for other countries also being involved.

Leo it is nonsense to say that there is no science to support the proposition that man is having an effect on climate. The issue is to what degree, and no-one has an accurate answer to that, and what, if anything, to do about it. And it is ridiculous to dismiss the whole IPCC report out of hand.

The problem with the IPCC reports from where I stand is that the summaries are written as works of persuasion, and in some cases, such as the supposed increase in hurricane intensity, contradict the material on which they are supposed to be based. And some, but I'd suggest not most, of their source material is rubbish too.

I'm not sure that I'd encourage Chris to read the whole report because I think the salient issues on the science come down to a few basic propositions, the most fundamental of which is how sensitive to a change in temperature the rest of the climate system is, and whether that leads to positive feedbacks and some sort of runaway greenhouse effect. This in turn comes back to the question of what water does when it is in the atmosphere and whether it traps more heat radiated from the earth than it reflects light radiated by the sun. Because water vapour is the major positive feedback.

Without a positive feedback, doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels results in around a 2 degree increase in temperature, all other things being equal, which in the scheme of things is quite manageable and probably beneficial, particularly as the increased heat should happen closer to the polls so increasing the percentage of the earth that is habitable

OK, Graham, I should have said CAGW. Human emissions have not been shown to have any significant effect. I would not put it as strongly as “nonsense”, because there is strong support for the statement that human emissions have a negligible effect on climate.

It was not my intention to dismiss the whole IPCC report. I simply suggested it would not help Chris in assessing the AGW situation. I think his reading time would be better invested in Robert Carter’s excellent summary “Climate: the Counter Consensus”

It is settled science that natural cycles govern climate, and it is yet to be shown that human emissions have any measurable effect.

The best estimate seems to be that 95% of the CO2 in the carbon cycle comes from natural sources, leaving 5% from human activities. As there is a 10% variation in the volume of CO2, it is difficult to see how 5% matters. The natural cycle is big enough to process it without any noticeable effect.

The summaries have been shown to be political documents, and it is to the summaries that most people refer. The 95% “very likely” estimate put forward by the IPCC has not changed, despite the science predicted by the IPCC, to support it, turning out to be non existent.

Leo Lane, you say:

>> Petty irrelevant nit-picking <<

Calling someone a “Professor” knowing full well he is not a Professor is a deliberate attempt to distort and misrepresent the truth. Spindoc (m.i.a.) is appealing to an “absent authority” (in more ways than one) yet falsely accuses others of doing the thing he himself engages in.

No Leo, this is not petty, it is not irrelevant, nor is it a nit-pick – it’s a big one.

So is this, Leo: you continually blow your trumpet about AGW this, AGW that – ad nauseam. Now you tell us (well, Graham actually) you meant CATASTROPHIC–AGW.

You expect scientists to dot ‘i’s and cross ‘t’s and then have the audacity to complain when they nit-pick?

Yet you, dearest Leo, can’t be bothered to add CATASTROPHIC when you meant CATASTROPHIC all along?

Here’s the buzz Leo, listen up – the vast majority of scientists don’t believe in CAGW. They do believe AGW is significant enough for the policy makers to take some serious action. How the policy makers do that is up to them - Hint: that's what we should be debating, Leo.
.

GrahamY (Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:37:21 PM)

Your comments make perfect sense, thanks.

If I do have a nit-pick :) The technical summary provides a much better synopsis than the Summaries for Policy Makers - about which there is so much angst.

This thread has been toxic. Only your intervention softened the blows and exorcised the bile, I think.

Was it worth it? Probably – thanks Chris.
Will I be back? Probably not - no thanks to the you-know-whos'
.

Rpg
You missed it? Open your eyes and look again, please.

bonmot,

I hope you do not quit the site. There will be future articles on OLO about the environment where your feedback would be appreciated.

You do not need to respond to comments you do not want to.