"The alternative bears no contemplation" DOOM!

Basically what we expect from the alarmists, more alarm, nothing new there.

Yet, no one seems overly concerned, people who make advertisements for Carbon Tax buy beach-side properties in Vanuatu, or jump on planes, after making speeches at pro tax rallies, which produce CO2 AND use fossil fuels, so clearly not alarmed and life goes on.

Activists care less about CO2 than they do about "excess", fossil fuel use and stopping other people being enthusiastic about life, enjoying themselves, and redistributing wealth .. typical class war, and a very hypocritical one at that. I expect true believers, as many claim they are, to be off the grid by now, not using any fossil fuel generated power and have a zero carbon footprint. (no true believer surely would be using filthy computers?)

But of course, like our celebrities, that's just for other people (the stupid ones who listen to shock jocks .. right?).

I mean, typical Australians can't be making decisions to be against something the celebrities and a small noisy minority tell them they shouldn't do, so it must be something else, like .. shock jocks, yes that's it .. shock jocks are convincing over 70% of Australians that paying a great big new tax is not a good idea. (BS detectors no longer work you think? Wrong, they sure do and this carbon tax and it's pitch is pure ALP BS)

Anyway for the rest of us, there will soon be no problem, as soon as we pay a tax, that's it .. job done, Australians can rest easy, knowing the Gillard government is in full control of the world's thermometer.

No need to do anything else, no need to cut back, we can use high octane fuel if we want, get that sports car you always wanted .. and go on enjoying life.

Though I suspect the miserable alarmists will still whine, finding new ways to make their lives miserable and try to do the same to others.

so regardless of Andrew's numbers .. life goes on, happily.

Andrew,

Once again, you deliver your statements without any consideration that there might be other possibilities, and conclude by saying that the 'alternative bears no contemplation'. But surely we are entitled to assess all the evidence, not simply the papers and assertions that you wish us to take notice of.

How do you deal with the uncertainty over measuring whether or not there is any increase in sea-levels, or in the warming of the oceans? You assume that aerosols have been responsible for reducing the effect of GHG warming, but what evidence is there that aerosols have any effect at all?

The Hansen paper you refer to at the beginning is a piece of advocacy, not of good science. Have you thought about Hansen's 1988 paper, which predicted by now an increase in the global temperature anomaly of more than 1 degree? Actually, the measured increase is much much less than that, and is consistent with his Scenario C, in which the world had drastically reduced GHG warming so that it had ceased to exist after 2000.

How do you deal with the obvious flat-lining of global temperature in the last decade, though CO2 proportions in the atmosphere continue to rise?

I could go on and on. You do not seem interested in debate, only in speaking from the pulpit. People like me are most interested in the AGW question, have high respect for good science, and are used to weighing up evidence. I recognise your concern, but if you want to be taken seriously you have to be able to debate points, not just assert and assert.

Where do you get your fingers Andrew? I like the one about the arctic ice mate.

The US navy, who go there often, & for long periods in their subs, unlike academics who always seem to be at their office computer typing emails, have stated the 3 & 4 year old ice is increasing rapidly, as is new ice.

Oh silly me, you get this stuff from Hanson, Smith & co, renowned data modifiers, don't you?

How do the climate scientists communicate their BS with each other these days? I'm sure they won't trust emails again. Are they using snail mail, with self destructing paper, or have they enlisted Harry Potter, to use the cloak of invisibility for them?

Andrew.

Clearly you are convinced that doom is approaching. But could you explain the evidence and provide references to the proof that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing warming.

My impression is that all we see are assertions, perhaps flimsily supported by cherry picked model runs that include unproven assumptions of positive feedback.

I also notice that you seem to be pre-occupied with CO2 as the main problem facing mankind. Does that mean that you disagree with Dr Roger Pielke Sr who argues that man IS having an impact on local and regional climate, but that is mainly due to land-use factors such as deforestation, urbanisation, interference with natural hydrological cycles etc.

I acknowledge that I am a lay person in this area, so would appreciate your authorative response to these questions

"The increased level of energy in the atmosphere/ocean system is resulting in a series of extreme weather events around the globe (Figure 7)."

A little hard to prove, since the examination of historical records shows that the overall frequency of 'extreme weather events' has not increased over the last century. There has been a cluster over the past couple of years, yes, but all these have been adequately explained via normal processes -- nothing to do with AGW.

It's amusing that alarmists are prepared to seize on two years' worth of 'extreme events' as proof of AGW and ignore the rather embarrassing fact that the actual global temperature has not risen for fifteen years. Just how long is this 'pause' going to be, Andrew?

Sorry, I missed the graph. What a superb illustration! -- of cherry-picking, that is. I note that if I draw a line from 2000 to 2008 it shows a decline of about 10%. On that basis we should be disaster-free by 2072, no? But YOUR 'trend line' shows what Dr Johnson would have called 'the triumph of hope over experience'. Have you considered that more disasters might be reported over time because there are better communications, and more people around to report them?

Please leave the statistics to the experts.

Hasbeen, you just don't get it, do you?

http://tinyurl.com/4tqq2ch

Wait, we've been there before:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4319#109711

"The rise of atmospheric energy (heat) level due to emission of greenhouse gases and land clearing..."

Dear old Andy's gift for unsubstantiated assertion is alive and well.

Hey fellow posters - don't be so hard on Andrew. There is some indication in this article that he is acknowledging that reality is not quite following the IPCC script.

Thus in the first part of the post, "potentially leading to warming by 2.3 degrees Celsius, currently mitigated by the transient effect of sulphur aerosols and the cooling effect of the oceans".

So instead of insisting that temperatures are going up when there has obviously been no significant change for the past 13 years of so, he is now saying that the warming is temporarily masked. A small shift perhaps and only in the face of overwhelming evidence that nothing is happening, but he is a climate academic after all. We can't expect too much.

“potentially leading to”

I love terms like that

Most things have some “potential” but a lot of the time the “potential” does not occur –

usually because the assessment of potential was flawed or exaggerated in the first place

“The Earth energy balance is defined…..” and that is simply another theory honed by a political twist to be good bad of irrelevant

“According to the IPCC AR4 (2007) ….“ and that as an information source

is like drinking from a well contaminated with cholera

rpg “Basically what we expect from the alarmists, more alarm, nothing new there.”

Exactly!

I see most posters hold similar views….. skepticism must be contagious …. Or maybe it is common sense which has caught on

Thing is, most OLO posters are not sceptics - they are cynics.

Cynics may not like what the author says but at least he links to the sources for his arguments.
This way, anyone watching/commenting can go to them (like a real sceptic would) and try to counter the argument.
They don't.

This article's cynics are just asserting their own ideological guff - nothing new.

You deniers never come up with anything new, do you? Just the same old nastiness that contributes nothing to the debate. Just reliance on a few dubious references and ignoring the vast scientific literature that Andrew Glikson's article reflects. I hope the shock jocks like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt one day get charged with treason for acting so clearly against the interests of the country. I hope that they and all you deniers on this forum will reflect back on Andrew Glikson's words when the next major bushfire, cyclone, drought or flood hits this country.
He's right: the alternative - to deep emission cuts accompanied by atmospheric CO2 draw-down - does not bear contemplation.

bonmot/popnperish - you guy are complaining about us being cynical and repeating the same old stuff.. Bbwwwhhahahah! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If there is some repetition its because Andrew's stuff has all been said before, and refuted before. The "vast scientific literature" supposedly backing his article does not exist. There is plenty of evidence the present climate temperatures are warm, but evidence linking any of that warmth to industrial emissions is slight at best.

Bonmot “Thing is, most OLO posters are not sceptics - they are cynics.”

That is a cynical conclusion from someone who has been quick to "flame", instead of pursuing the course of civilised debate

Popnperish “Just the same old nastiness that contributes nothing to the debate.”

How nasty of you to comment, pooper

I find there is nothing quite like an intolerant, closed minded zealot to bring out the worst to a debate which is not worth having.

Personally, I agree with curmudgeon….

And I have just heard some nong on the radio spouting on about emissions trading… what a load of artificial cobblers

Inventing a non-existent market to make money from artificially trading in “hot air”

I do recall a year ago being invited to attend the some three-ring circus organized by the Brumby-crony government of incompetence to promote Melbourne as the ETS market center of Australia….

Of course, the parasites of the bureaucracy were there in hords… all supping coffee and munching cakes…. On my taxes…..

It was a complete waste… like the climate commission….. parasites frittering away money like no tomorrow, regardless of the effort real people had to go to work to pay the taxes for all this socialist profligacy.

Hooray for popnperish - he/she summed the situation up perfectly.

Meanwhile there was an essay published today by Elizabeth Farrelly titled Cane Toads Thrive of the Air on Stupidity.

An essay which describes how the right wing shock-jocks work.

Needless to say she will probably get lots of hate mail responses to her essay. And be lambasted on right wing blogs, and elsewhere too.

How far out of date do you want to go bonmot?

That's 14 months, & is based on studies done by many of the usual suspects, well before that. I'm surprised it didn't have a hokey stick in the margin.

Best get up to date mate, before the frost bite gets you

bonmot, slightly off topic, but recently you called my attention to the "death threats" aimed at climate scientists at ANU, now it turns out it's a mini-climate gate.

They are old, were not all aimed at climate scientists. indeed some were at Clive Hamilton.

Also, none of them actually threatened to kill anyone .. say "I hope you die" is not a death threat.

As usual, hysterical alarmists, wanting attention .. I suspected as much when they said they had not reported it to the AFP, I mentioned that to you too didn't I. I do understand though, it's much more fun to run around hysterically see conspiracies everywhere.

So how do you feel about repeating those claims and blaming skeptics?

You probably feel like a complete goose, so I won't pursue it.

Is this up to date enough?

http://tinyurl.com/Is-This-Up-To-Date-Enough

The data is gathered from these usual suspects - including the US submarine fleet:

Submarine ULS data: Over 120,000 km of tracks of ice draft have been processed for the Arctic Ocean since 1975 from both US and UK submarines.

North Pole Environmental Observatory (NPEO): An oceanographic mooring has been continuously deployed at the North Pole in more than 4000 m of water since the spring of 2001.

Institute of Ocean Sciences (IOS): IOS has deployed a series of ULS instruments in and around the Mackenzie Delta, in Nares Strait and in the eastern Beaufort Sea under the direction of Dr. Melling. Also, NOAA supported IOS in the deployment of a ULS-equipped mooring on the Chukchi Shelf in 2004—2005.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI): The Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project, under the leadership of Dr. Proshutinsky, has deployed 3 to 4 moored ULS instruments in the deep water of the Beaufort Sea since 2003.

Alfred Wegener Instititute (AWI): AWI has deployed moored ULS instruments in both the Arctic, primarily in Fram Strait, and in the Antarctic, primarily in or near the Weddell Sea (starting in 1990).

University of Alberta: Dr. Christian Haas has made a number of helicopter-borne surveys of the ice thickness with an electromagnetic induction (EM) instrument in both the Arctic and in the Antarctic.

ICESat Satellite data:(not yet included) ICESat laser-altimeter freeboard measurements and ice thickness estimates are available sporadically from 2003 to 2009.

Now Hasbeen, you didn't link to your source for others to verify.

Perhaps the usual denialist suspects ... Anthony Watts (WUWT), Goddard and company?

OT rpg
My family and I have received threats (hence the pseudo) - monitored by the appropriate authorities. I have no idea who they are. Their actions (let alone their sick threats) are despicable. You may disagree but please, don't persue it.

A good article, though "The alternative bears no contemplation" is a bit naive. I suspect the powers that be lovingly contemplate a decimated human population and a "naturally" precipitated geographical and geopolitical reshuffle.
The minimifidianists, even more naively, think the "debate" is all about them and their myopic conservatism. Ironically, in the long term they're forcing change!
It might have been that we could salvage the present system in some compromised form, but the essence of conservatism is no compromise, so we'll have to settle for knock it down and start again. And this is what the "contemplation" and the "new money" will increasingly be invested in.
Indeed, imo the minimifidianists are unwittingly and incongruously correct; there is no saving the system as it is, nor should it be saved. We're deluded if we think we can transition to sustainable futures without wholesale attrition. Maybe ignorance is the necessary via media of human transcendence..
I have to say, bonmot, calling the benighted brethren "cynics" (a very worthy philosophy) is praise indeed! They're just the latest motley representation of human folly.
You've got to love the ironies!

"Cynics may not like what the author says but at least he links to the sources for his arguments."

Here's a source: wattsupwiththat.com, which has been steadily accumulating evidence against the AGW theory for at least four years now. Every scientific paper put forward there is fully referenced, and all the data put forward showing the absence of AGW is readily available to any member of the public, in conspicuous contrast to the secretive 'hands off!' attitude of the alarmists. Not only that, but you can make any critical comments you like as long as they don't stray into personal abuse -- another major distinction from the pro-AGW sites, where critical responses tend to vanish like the current frost in sunshine.

If you can read a week's postings on WUWT and respond intelligently with facts demonstrating why they are wrong about the lack of AGW then you will demonstrate your intellectual prowess and earn the everlasting respect of your peers in the alarmist community. If not, well you might learn something anyway.

Maurice Strong,the then secretary of the UN, instigated the IPCC.Strong is a eugenicist and radical Malthusian who is on record saying that the World's population must be dramatically reduced.

Prof Tim Ball has shown that the IPCC has cooked the figures.They are comparing figures of today increaed by the heat island affect to 50 yrs ago when there was less bitumen and buildings.Of course the figures will be distorted.They even have located instruments near ashphalt and air conditioning units.It is OK to fudge the figures since it is for a noble cause.

Climate Gate IPCC style."There is a fall in temps and it is a travesty that we cannot explain it.We have to hide the decline"

An ETS will give even more power to a few corporate elites.Only those who can afford to buy carbon credits will have the power of production.Less competition will mean higher prices for everything.

This is not about saving the planet but giving absolute power to a few elites.

Ok Arjay, putting aside you are OLO's resident conspiracy theorist - please show where "Prof Tim Ball has shown that the IPCC has cooked the figures."

And really, do you really think that experts who study the stuff don't know about the UHI effect, or that for some reason they have not included the calibration errors due to UHI in their findings?

Btw, you are still banging on about "hide the decline" where you (and others) were shown to be totally ignorant of what it means. Ear muffs and blindfolded Arjay sums it up.

Look Arjay, discuss carbon pricing, taxes, ETS for all you like ... but please don't try an pretend you know anything about the science - you clearly don't.

As to (world) population - we are 7 billion and expected to reach about 10 billion by 2050. This places enormous strains on our water, food and energy resources, not to mention national and international security. We have to find a way to adapt to these pressures, no rational being (even Strong) would suggest we employ genocide (as you seem to infer). Rather, education would be a good start - don't you think?

Unfortunately, the educated are deemed elitist these days so why should anyone like you listen?

Btw, do you really think that the cost of energy won't go up, AGW or not?

I see we had our own mini-climategate over the past few days.

The death threats the climate scientists of ANU were supposed to have been given was a hoax. There were some nasty letters, not death threats, that were up to 5 years old.

Why do the alarmists HAVE to exagerate everything?

"Why do the alarmists HAVE to exaggerate everything?"

When the facts are with you, pound the facts; when the facts are against you, pound the law; when the law is against you, pound the table. The alarmists lost their grip on the facts long ago, and are currently losing their grip on the law. We can expect to see a lot more table-pounding -- like the vicious and stupid article by Richard Glover in this Saturday's SMH -- before this is over.

Phew, I didn't think I was going to get to play my drinking game, with this thread ... until Arjay and Squeers stepped into the breech.

Cheers, lads!

Good on Dr Glikson, and good on popnperish for laying into the naysayers. The most informative article on GW I have seen on OLO yet, and if one took the trouble to delve into the links given (and I mean seriously study, and with an open mind) a much better informed opinion should be the result.

At last we have a studied reference to the paleoclimate record, and reliable empirical science relating that record to present conditions (including clarification of apparent temperature anomalies). Ice sheet reduction and sea-ice contraction are real, and are important signposts of the direction of global temperature change. Amelioration of projected temperature increases due to the effects of sulphurous aerosols is a new one to me, but is the missing component which should finally send the skeptics to the waste paper bin - and none too soon.

A succinct and telling article, with masses of wisdom. The final warning statement is fully justified by the science, and should not be confused with the idiocy of our Govt's ridiculously convoluted response to a direct and compelling problem. (The constant reference to our per capita footprint, with no reference to causation impacts of geography and population distribution is tantamount to purposeful deception, and deserving of the loudest condemnation and outright rejection.)

As Prof Tim Ball also said,why did they exclude the Sun when looking at the affects of CO2? He also notes that very few scientists are actually on the IPCC.Most of them are bureaucrats.

Over 30,000 scientists did sign a petition saying that the affirmative science of AGW is not sound. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

You don't hear about this in the pop media.Prof Ball did not sign the petition because he said that this was consensus science similar to that practised by the IPCC.

Over the last 3 yrs we have much cooler winters and more moderate summers.Temps have been falling since 2001.CO2 levels have increased dramatically,so it should be warming.We went from global warming,then climate change and now they are clutching at extreme weather conditions to justify their theories.These things also happened in the 1930's.

Even if their theories were right the taxing of CO2 and an ETS will do nothing to stop the expodential growth of CO2.The aim is to stop production and usher in a World Govt controlled by the UN.Gillard has already signed an agreement that 10% of Carbon taxes will go to the UN.Did you vote for that? Did you vote to have your sovereignty to be dissolved by an foreign power.Before the election both Gillard and Swan swore there would be nop carbon tax.They have no mandate to Govern.All we hear is a litany of lies and deception.

Arjay
'Over 30,000 scientists did sign a petition'
Yes even my grandson is on the list and he is only 15 shows how much you can rely on that petition just a load of rubbish as many others have shown.

Peter A What was his name?Can you identify him on the list and his credentials.

That's all very well, Arjay.

>>Over 30,000 scientists did sign a petition saying that the affirmative science of AGW is not sound.<<

But where are the 1,511 architects, and 12,241 "other supporters"?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Or are they already included in your numbers?

Don Aitkin is one of the few commentators to ask questions which can be vaguely related to the article, so I thought I would try and provide some answers.

• He is critical of the references used in the article and says “surely we are entitled to assess all the evidence”. Indeed you are. No one is preventing you from reading as widely as you like. Dr Glickson’s references do what they are intended to do – provide additional relevant material from reputable sources.

• Mr Aitkin then goes on to ask … what about the uncertainty on whether or not there is an increase in sea level? There is no uncertainty about sea level rise. Over the last 16 years Sea Level Rise has been measured by satellite and shown to be rising at an average rate of 3.2mm per annum. There are lots of articles confirming this. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-sea-levels-rising.html might interest you.

• What about the uncertainty on warming of the oceans? Again, what uncertainty? It has been evident for decades that ocean temperatures have been warming and we know this because millions of measurements have been made world wide which record ocean warming in the top 700 metres. If you google ocean warming, you have a choice of 46 million articles on the subject less than 1 year old. Alternatively, try http://www.csiro.au/news/OceansWarming.html

• What evidence is there that aerosols have a cooling effect? Lots of evidence, particularly from volcanoes. When ever there is a major eruption, ash in the atmosphere reduces the level of sunlight reaching the earths surface and average global temperature falls.

• Mr Aitkin then assert that Hansen et al 1988 predicted a temperature increase of more than 1 degree by now while “measured increase is much much less than that”. Well no, it isn’t. Average global warming is now 0.8°C which is less than he predicted but not “much much less than that”. You might be interested in the explanation at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.ht

Continued

• You say that global warming ceased in 2000. Saying it does not make it so and you offer no evidence to support your claim. That is understandable since the first decade of this century has been shown to be the warmest on record and there is simply no evidence to show otherwise. A number of articles refuting the claim that there has been no warming since 2000 are provided at http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=global+warming+stopped+in+2000&x=15&y=17

• You seek an explanation: how obvious flat lining of global temperatures in the last decade can be explained when atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued to rise? The explanation is simple. It is true that CO2 concentration has continued rising is true but your assertion that global temperatures have “flat-lined” over the last decade is, as shown above, wrong. In response to increasing CO2 and feedbacks, average global temperature has not “flat-lined”, it has risen and continues rising.

for Agnostic:

I'm sorry to have to say that because I am about to go away for the next few days I won't be able to respond to each of your remarks in detail, as they deserve. But, quickly, skepticalscience is only one of many sites that claim to provide answers to everything, and it is (in my opinion) biased towards AGW. You can find alternative sites with ease. Try science of doom, lubos motl, wattsupwiththat, ClimateAudit, either of the Pielkes, and so on. They all use data, often the same data, and draw different conclusions from them. Is the ocean cooling or warming? You can find data to support either answer. Is the sea-level rise accelerating? Again, what answer do you want? There are data that support different answers. Which data should we prefer? In my opinion, most people prefer the data that support their own view. I have trouble when the data point in different directions.

It's not easy, this stuff! My response to Andrew Glikson, with whom I have debated these issues both in public and in private, was to ask him to consider the alternatives, not simply to prefer his own sources and sites.

Agnostic:

Don is right, to a certain extent – most people do prefer data that support their own view.

This is misleading though. The inference (albeit unintended as it may be) is that the data is a hotch-potch and nothing is really clear when in fact, the opposite is true. The weight of evidence in support of the IPCC’s assessment is unequivocal.

I acknowledge Don Aitkin (and others) go to; Science of Doom, Lubos Motl, WUWT, Climate Audit, either of the Pielkes, and so on. So yes, there are many blogs that Don (or you) can find to support his/your view.

But that is all they are, BLOGS.

Perhaps there are those that really do think that the vast amount of scientists who do the research, who write the papers, who get published in the journals – base their conclusions on the Watts, McIntyres and Pielkes of the world. I would like to think not, but going by comments of some previous posters, they see their blogs as the ants-pants.

No Agnostic, what really counts is the weight of evidence – not how popular your blog, or Don’s blog is, or how loud they cry.

To find the weight of evidence, you really do have to go to the Journals. It’s no easy task. However, it is made easier by scientific institutions, academies and organisations (that represent the particular sciences) adopting a stance on the overall findings.

These scientific institutions and academies don’t take their responsibilities lightly – after all, there is much at stake.

Their views are summarised here:

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

You can also see dissenting voices by scrolling down the page.

I don't begrudge Don Aitkin or anyone else going to their preferred blogs to support their own point of view. However, I would have thought most reasonable and rational people would seek out the views of the institutions, academies and organisations that represent the overwhelming work done in the scientific fields.

It would appear dissenters prefer blogs because the scientific academies, institutions and organisations don't represent the disenters' personal views.

Pericles,you seem to know a lot of detail about the http://ae911truth.org/ site.Getting a bit alarmed are you? Perhaps you should also make ref to http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ There you will see 400 professors,400 Medical Drs 250 Govt Officals including Ex CIA + 220 in the entertainment industry who do not believe the official 911 story.

Back to the lunatic Maurice Strong who instigated the IPCC.Maurice Strong 1997 National Review magazine "If we don't change our species will not survive,Frankly we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civisation to collapse."This is the very same nutter that wants a carbon tax on all life.It dovetails very well into the elite bankster philosophy.With the growth of robotics many humans will become obsolete and they will get in the way of their grand plan of Global Dominance.So the best way is to tax carbon the source of energy and life on the planet.

They will drive us into unbelievable grinding poverty if we let them.

Everyone would hope that global warming/climate change is not taking place, not least climate scientists who are looking at original data sets and processes consistent with the basic laws of physics and chemistry and the behaviour of the atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere system, including the role of greenhouse gases and aerosols.

The observations made in the article are based on datasets documented by the world's premier climate research organizations (NASA/GISS, Colorado NSIDC, Hadley-Met, Potsdam, CSIRO, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and so on) as well as on the peer-reviewed literature, summarized in statements by the world's Academies of science.

The scientific method depends critically on the peer review literature, where data and claims are tested by specialists with many years experience in the respective field. Not every single peer reviewed paper is correct, but those who question the science need to try and formulate their claims in scientific format submitted to scientific journals.

Unless, of course, the critics do not trust scientists, editors, reviewers and the world's scientific bodies, possibly the scientific method itself.

In this case perhaps the critics ought to travel to the many parts of the world, including Australia, already affected by climate change, extensive draughts, heat waves, hurricanes and extensive ice melt.

The essential analogy with the orchestrated campaign directed against medical scientists in connection with tobacco smoking needs to be borne in mind.

andy1 "those who question the science need to try and formulate their claims in scientific format submitted to scientific journals."

No they do not - you can be skeptical without having to come up with your own answers, it's a cop out by scientists who dislike being questioned.

Scientists, like politicians, priests and coffee baristas, are good and bad.

Posturing that all scientists are good, therefore anything a scientists says, must be true is laughable, they might believe it but that doesn't make it correct.

I can be skeptical of people divining water using a forked stick, without having to produce my own method of finding water underground .. correct?

Andy1 .. are you skeptical of water diviners? Or do you prescribe to your own standards here and believe they can find water with a forked stick because you can't work out any other way to do it? (Dick Smith once funded trials of water diviners, it was hilarious, for the skeptics, as AGW is now)

"Everyone would hope that global warming/climate change is not taking place, not least climate scientists .. etc"

Are you serious? You don't want the climate to change .. well that explains a lot about you and climate scientists, you do realize it is natural don't you? (possibly beneficial)

So in this day and age, here we have someone claiming to be a scientist who does not like the climate changing, you need to get over that. I don't like tectonic plate movement, but have learned to live with it .. therapy helped.

The question is whether man is adding to it, of course we are with land clearing, the big issue that the government and everyone go on about is whether man made CO2 is "dangerously" adding to it.

The government solution is, Australia MUST be taxed, some people here, demand it!

Like a fish riding a bicycle, this Labor Government will take control of climate.

But I guess if you don't want the climate to change at all .. everything is a problem.

I am almost speechless at this admission.

The greatest threats to global climate are women and THEIR children plus SimCity Governments addicted to Immigration & Low Interest rates as CHEATS to eternally GROW ECONOMIES & win SimCity games without any thought or effort.

The fact that climate scientists and their models Never mention these issues & in fact pander to the players involved renders them complicit in this INSANITY and renders their statistical models WORTHLESS.

The fact is that people cause Climate change and economic growth multiplies the effect ( eg 4WD vehicles politically favoured over green cars). Governments espousing larger populations for economic GROWTH AND imposing Carbon Taxes are rank amateurs at best and most likely totally insane at worst.

Everytime I see Wayne Swan on TV espousing these contradictory views i cringe and think: "Who the F let him out".

All the others like Gillard and Albanese are just flat out proponents of Class war - of making the poor pay for the elite lifestyles (eg free solar panels) of the rich, beaten on by the false premises of climate modelling.

In this RPG is totally correct. And I cannot understand how otherwise intelligent citizens continue to put up with Labor and its adolescent SimCity obsessiveness. These Bastards are ruining our lives. They are not growing a Nation but a climatic disaster while pretending to take affirmative actions and laughing all the way to the World bank..

KAEP,
I'm blowed if I know why you just beat up on Labor when the major parties, and even the Greens, are more or less the same in their populist agendas.
But I agree with the thrust of what you say, I think; indeed I've been hammering away at this theme for ages.
Scientists are fobbing the evidence and what's really needed in backing fix-it approaches to AGW and environmental problems generally.
We are where we are because of consumerism and the endless growth paradigm. Scientists are backing a plan to fix the problem with new markets and more consumption, and production and development spell resource depletion and carbon emissions no matter how green the new technologies.
The scientific community must know that the only way to effectively address the problems of (energy) consumption, depletion and emissions is to "cut" consumption (that is, "shrink") and ultimately to husband it. Science is not going to come up with a green pill that will allow us to go on expanding and drawing a profit indefinitely.
It's the system that has to change; it can't be fixed because it has to grow.
Humans are the problem because they are too many and consume too much. It's as simple as that. We have to change from a high-on the-hog growth paradigm to husbandry. That and capitalism are non sequitur and it's about time the scientists cane clean and distanced themselves from politics.

Squeers

>>> and it's about time the scientists cane (sic) clean and distanced themselves from politics. <<<

Compared to the involvement of big business in politics, scientific influence remains paltry.

Climatologists, geologists, paleontologists, marine biologists and many, many more continue to be ignored or told their science is "crap".

Ammonite,
I should have said the "scientific spokespersons" (like bloody Flannery!) should "come clean" and distance themselves from populist politics. Scientists are also dependent upon the growth paradigm for funding, nevertheless their spokespeople ought to acknowledge their responsibility to say it how it is; neither population growth nor western living standards are sustainable, and green technologies will not change that.

Squeers

The paradigm shift required to a sustainable human society is so great as to be a threat to the ideologies of many - from capitalists through to communists.

I find the Andrew Bolts more dishonest than the Flannerys - but each to their own interpretation of these public figures. The problem is that erudite scientists are rare and require well-informed and educated journalists and government advisors - not holding my breath for that eventuality given the vested interests of the status quo.

We stand at the crossroads.

Old native American proverb (paraphrased):

"We do not inherit our world from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children".

bonmot

Somehow I don’t think it would be much use me referring Mr Aitkin to peer-reviewed papers or to the findings of reputable institutions. Its all very well quoting Hansen et al 2011 and Shakhova et al 2010 to refute the “skeptics” view that there is no danger from rising sea level or slow feedbacks, but you know as well as I do that such papers can be difficult to understand and are unlikely to be read anyway. Why would a “skeptic read a paper, no matter how lucid (and Hansen is lucid) unless it reinforces his/her beliefs.

And I accept that the material published by Skeptical Science is not going to persuade AGW deniers like Aitkin to go to that source either – even though their material is accurate and usually easy to read – or do you question that?

Well put Squeers. Definitely on the right track. Now all we have to do is find the right way to introduce the new husbandry paradigm, without throwing the first world into chaos, and the third world back to hunter-gathering.

Saw Dick Smith talking on TV about trying to set up a $Billion "Fund", I gather to foster sustainability (including education of third world womenfolk, with a view to smaller families). Sorry I don't remember his whole thrust, but it certainly included moving away from continuous growth and expansion. I think he puts forward a lot of good ideas for moving to sustainability - though some viewers can't look past his capitalist background. He apparently approached Rupert Murdoch, but got a no (on a $1B investment in the "Fund"), and is now going to approach Gina Reinhardt. I wish him luck. Ok, it's only a spit in the bucket, but if anyone can get the best out of such a fund, I think he's the man, and the longest journey has to start with a single step - just the right step.

My start-point for sustainable husbandry remains for governments to support "friendlier" technologies, in eco-cars and public transport, home solar (HWS & PV), home veggie gardens, cycle-ways, forests and better farming - and then moving on to bigger things. If some technologies can get over the initial start-up costs they can move on to full viability, but they just need a hand to get started. We should also be looking for water-sustainability, and not going ahead with desalination plants - which would be enormously non-green.

For population, I believe we need to remain relatively "snug" in Oz, and maybe the baby bonus should only be paid for the first and second children, and then only after the mum has past the "hot flush" stage of life.

We desperately need to develop third world education and "green" industry, partly so they will move to smaller families, and partly to utilise the third world advantage in producing good quality food sustainably, and with a minimal "footprint".

Notice that Andrew Glikson, having posted his biased, inadequate arguments, never bothers to respond to genuine questions.

At least he is consistent. So far as I know, he has NEVER responded to any questions posed of him when he has posted on OLO.

Herbert

How naïve can you be? Do you seriously expect Dr Glikson to respond to people who have no credentials in the field of climate change science and are incapable of even framing a specific criticism or putting forward a reasoned argument of their criticism?

His article is sound, well reasoned and science-based. If subject to peer review it would not be successfully challenge. Yet you expect him to respond to criticisms that: its not right, I don’t like what it says, there is no global warming, it’s a load of warmist scaremongering and similar meaningless vituperation.

Put forward a well reasoned critique supported by empirical evidence or other accurate scientific data and that will certainly produce the response you seek.

agnostic I put it to you that making statements like this "those who question the science need to try and formulate their claims in scientific format submitted to scientific journals.", is not science but arrogance.

In other words, anyone who questions me must be able to show higher qualifications, not jump on the bandwagon I'm on, come up with something better, get grants from it and publish .. against the HUGE AGW road train of funding (sorry, that should be gravy train)

oh, so end of all skepticism, that would be nice .. for dodgy climate scientists who cherry pick data and use models as their basis of belief.

This is exactly why climate scientists, and this is spreading to other areas, are losing credibility.

Lack of communication skills is only one part, and this is clearly a lack of those skills to make such arrogant and sneering statements.

Do you think everyone out in the community is going to swallow this argument .. believe me, I know more than you .. let's compare degrees and published papers shall we? Hence you should believe anything I say because I'm better than you.

That's it .. that's your stance?

You have got to be kidding. It will be seen as the pompous hysterical pap that it is.