An interesting and thought provoking article. Why, I ask myself, do so many non scientists, and some of them appearing calm and rational, feel so comfortable and confident in doubting a mass of scientific opinion on a scientific matter in which they have only an interested layman's knowledge?

According to Wikipedia "since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies: of Australia, of Belgium, of Brazil, of Cameroon, Royal Society of Canada, of the Caribbean, of China, Institut de France, of Ghana, Leopoldina of Germany, of Indonesia, of Ireland, Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy, of India, of Japan, of Kenya, of Madagascar, of Malaysia, of Mexico, of Nigeria, Royal Society of New Zealand, Russian Academy of Sciences, of Senegal, of South Africa, of Sudan, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, of Tanzania, of Turkey, of Uganda, The Royal Society of the United Kingdom, of the United States, of Zambia, and of Zimbabwe."

Is it really likely that an interested layman has spotted something overlooked (like water vapour as per this article) by all these bodies, or alternatively known by all these bodies but deliberately suppressed for some reason?

I'd say the chances are even lower than the percentages Alan Jones likes to quote.

If you love the planet, be happy for it and be relieved that the planet you love so much will not experience a life ending crisis of climate change. Climate change was a political and cultural industry, not science and not pollution, or energy or waste or population. It was a specific CO2 death threat to billions of children and it was a mistake and a criminal exaggeration that served as a comfortable lie. Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate control instead of the obviously needed population control. Nice job!

Oh pleeeeze. Not yet another denialist astroturfing article.
Goebbels has a lot to answer for.
This one even makes jokes about the quality of his wine being improved by global warming. I wonder if he will be so enamored by the climate in Sydney when it is regularly reaching 40C+ and water spouts and tornadoes are hitting weekly?
Also he will find himself surfing under the bridge, past the peaks of the good old opry house sticking up through the water.
Enough of this nonsense, get real of keep quiet.

Sarian - it is you who are spouting nonsense, as shown by your post. You can't have the high temperatures and tornadoes together. The tornadoes in the US were the result of lower temperatures - a la nina effect. Temperatures for all of this year have been quite low compared to last year. Best to pick one non-contradictory scare story and stick with it.

Rich2 - indeed, all those experts and scientific societies have come out in support of greenhouse theory, and yes the consensus is that industrial emissions are warming the earth. But as has been pointed out many times now, a consensus and the agreement of experts counts for precisely nothing. Instead you have to ask yourself what track record does the theory have? Answer: none.

I could say a lot more on that point, but a good illustration of just how far scientific debate can go off the rails is Freudian Psychiatry. This was practised for decades quite seriously, and had whole learned journals devoted to it - even spilling over into other disciplines - without a single scrap of scientific evidence to back the new bits of Freud's theory (importance of dreams, childhood sexuality ect).

Laymen and occasially doctors occasionally pointed out it was a load of nonsense, only to be howled down. Although the psychiatric profession has long abandonded Freud's theories, you will still find people sprouting Freud like ideas about repressed memory and the like.

yes that's what I thought.. Oh Dear yet another arm chair Google right wing anti-science scientist here to tell us all why all the know nothing climate scientist are wrong and why he is right.

Got a problem, thinking of using the Scientific method to study and solve it, junk that just find out what does Alan Jones think, job done.

I really don't understand why anybody would believe anything a scientist said about any subject. It's simple, if you have a question about physics ask a lawyer. If you have a question about chemistry ask a economist. If you want to know the age of the earth ask a preacher and if you've got any questions about climate then ask a opinion writer. Whatever you do don't ask a scientist, I mean what would they know

Chris, you are right to be skeptical. However, skeptics should be just as ardent about the need to deal with climate change as the ardent believers.

We need to err on the side of caution, and certainly NOT demand proof or highly convincing evidence before we see fit to act.

Only those who absolutely KNOW that anthropogenic climate change is not real should be denouncing it and refusing to do anything to mitigate it. And there is absolutely NO ONE who can genuinely put themself in that category.

But more importantly, we should be taking a holistic approach to sustainability, instead of largely concentrating on one aspect of it and leaving other huge aspects very poorly and inadequately addressed.

As a huge part of this, we need a global effort to quickly stabilise and then progressively reduce population. This is at least as important as the entire global warming effort.

Just about everything we could do to address AGW we would also need to do to address our terribly unsustainable lifestyles.

Perhaps if the powers that be saw fit to promote it all in a different way we might see lot more success.

For example, all efforts to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto renewable energy sources, along with all efforts to improve energe-use efficiency and stabilise or reduce the ever-increasing demand, would just fit right into the great sustainability picture.

We don't even need to be talking about climate change at all in order to have COMPELLING reasons for doing all of this stuff!

While Golis bases his argument on the truism that “Models are only as good as the information supplied and the assumptions made”, he does not investigate, question or describe the climate model he disagrees with in any form.

His enthymeme that:
1.Models are only as good as the information supplied and the assumptions made
2.(The information supplied to the climate model is flawed)
3.The results of the model are flawed
fails, because it does not support its major suppressed premise with any evidence.

Surely as someone who has used modelling within their own professional practice, indeed, basing his professional practice on a psychological profiling model (http://www.emotionalintelligencecourse.com/increase-your-eq), can see the benefits of professional climatologists using a framework to assess the state of the world’s climate?

If Golis’ issue is not with the idea of modelling per se, but with the quality of information that is used by the model he must provide evidence as to why and how this information is flawed.

Unless he does so, he contributes nothing to the debate.

Curmudgeon,

Quite an outrageous statement you make" "as has been pointed out many times now, a consensus and the agreement of experts counts for precisely nothing."

Are you serious? If that is your considered view even when it comes to experts with professional qualifications, belonging to professional bodies, dealing with mulitple lines of supporting evidence and the consensus is widespread across the globe, and you think that counts for precisely nothing then debating anything with you is clearly a waste of time.

Hi Sarnian,

"water spouts and tornadoes (will) hit weekly... Also he (the writer) will find himself surfing under the bridge, past the peaks of the good old opry house sticking up through the water."

That's marvellous stuff. I hadn't included water spouts and tornados. Do you mind if I nick that and use it as a quote?

Also, Mr Windy are you out there? Can I use your quote about introducing a bacterial agent in to the water or air that sterilises people? That's rolled gold.

Rich2
yes, quite serious. This is well known, and I'm shocked its the first time you've sighted this point. Those who study the use of experts, as experts, have range of studies to cite showing that experts are no better than layman when it comes to forecasting. I would modify that by saying that the forecasting is better if they are using a theory with an established track record. Note that I'm talking about FORECASTS on complex systems, not theories.

Canadian journalist Dan Gardner has a book out now Future Babble, which exhaustively discusses this point, with more references to refereed material than you will want.

djwadm
You make a good point about the models, the trouble is the original climate models were intended simply as aids for research. They are far too complex to have any useful forecasting ability. Among other difficulties, for example, modellers have to make heaps of different runs using different starting conditions to end up with some sort of forecast. The resulting curve is actually a compilation of different model runs. The results should never have been admitted into the policy debate.

Curmudgeon,

You are being deliberately obtuse and muddling up all kinds of different "experts" and types of forecasts.

I am aware of studies that show for example that "experts" are usually no better that the standard "it will be the same as last time" forecast when it comes to the economy or the share market. It is ridiculous though to extrapolate those findings to scientific experts that develop and prove theories to explain things that happen in the real world, for example the link between smoking and cancer, the link between aerosols and the hole in the ozone layer, the link between unscrubbed coal fired power emissions and acid rain.

Taking your line of thinking to a logical conclusion you would discount to zero any expert's opinion on anything. Presumably you and your family dont bother with medical practitioners since their researched views on what is causing a problem or how to cure an illness count for nothing. Bizarre.

Thanks for your contribution Chris. Don't call yourself a 'flat earther' though as you do acknowledge increasing temperatures, increasing C02 and the link between them.
Rather I'd say you're perhaps coming from the same place as many in the US - 'It would be nice have warmer summers'(true of some regions) and 'If it werent for CO2 we'd freeze" yes true.
I come from Perth and see the climate here approaching that of the Pilbara where I lived for 5 years and I don't appreciate the increased warmth.

A few more points
- minor one - infra red radiation travels at the same speed as all other EM radiation - that of light; it just has a longer wavelength than visible radiation.
- Yes water vapour is the main 'warmer'. But it is short lived - more heat means it cycles quicker from the sea to clouds to rain over periods of days. CO2 and other greenhouse gases stay there for centuries; that's why they are the problem.
- the scientists say GW will bring on more climate extremes, not only drought. More heat = more water vapour = floods and storms in some places and droughts in other - like mid latitudes e.g. WA , where all that hot moist air which has cooled at altitude descends and lands on us as dry high pressure systems which force the moist westerlies south and bring hot easterlies off the land. Not pleasant when your're in a city with water shortages and and summer-long heat waves. We've also seen mini tornadoes (had one over my place last summer which ripped out trees, took off rooves and cut off power and water) and hail like golf balls that dented 50,000 cars- over 1 $billion in damage - not pleasant. I've lived here 58 years and never seen anything like this.

Chris, that is well said.

I do not agree with Realists being referred to as Flat Earthers. I think that term should be applied to the warmeciles, who have no scientific basis to assert that human emissions have any effect on climate other than a negligible effect which is not scientifically demonstrable. Of course I understand the term is used ironically, by you.

Rich2 is naïve enough to quote Wikipedia, a most notorious supporter of the scientifically bereft AGW myth backers. He might as well quote Skeptical Science, run by the mendacious Michael Mann of Hockey Stick notoriety, and who features strongly in the Climategate emails.

The “science” backing the AGW fraud all emanates from the IPCC, and the Climategate group of miscreants. Their pathetic 95% certainty is clear evidence that they have no science to support their assertion. Their prediction that a “hot spot” in the troposphere would provide the “signature” for AGW never came to fruition, which merely led to more predictions.

The natural cycle of CO2 contains 3% human emissions . There is a 10% variation in the quantity of CO2 in the cycle, so it is not surprising that the human contribution of 3% is insignificant.

@Roses1:
You are absolutely right, Infra-red radiation travels at the same speed as other types of electromagnetic radiation. I should have infra-red radiation is lower energy.

My confusion with water vapour still stands. Yes water vapour falls as rain but then it is replenished by evaporation. Just as plants adsorb CO2 but it is replenished by mammals. There is a cycle.

With regard to drought in WA I can only offer my commiserations. I was in Perth in early February and the drought there is terrible. But Australia is a land of drought and flooding plain. Here in Sydney we broke the drought by building a salt-water recycling plant. Sydney's water supply had reached its lowest every recorded level of 33% in February 2007, the plant was announced and since then it has not stopped raining. The current level is supposedly 76% but given the rain we had recently no-one believes it. And the plant is going full bore providing 15% of Sydney's water supply.

Curmug;
Really you are showing your ignorance yet again.
Global warming results in extreme weather conditions, NOT local temperature rises.
Do keep up with the rest of the class, even if it is for slow learners.

Rich2, curmug is not deliberately muddling the experts, he is just muddled.

Cheryl. Feel free to “nick it”. Its not often I write anything that any one wants to nick. I fell flattered …… I think.

rich2
no, the finding most definitely extends to scientists with the important exception, as I noted, of where they are using a theory with a track record. So it does not apply to scientists using qantum dynamics or newtonian mechanics (on simple systems), or relativity and others. Those are theories with proven track records.

The idea is to use the theory to make forecasts, and when the forecasts don't work, look again at the theory. That is the way to establish a track record. Instead they are using climate theory to validate the forecasts. The computer models themselves are, in fact, about the only proof that part of the current climate warmth is due to industrial gases. That and scientists asking what else could it be due to?

There is even evidence that scientists have been trying to make the system (the climate) results fit the theory.

Some of this is excusable as this sort of large scale forecasting exercise is almost unknown in science before this, and the study of forecasting is a business subject - its in marketing - so scientists have no real idea that they are breaking all the rules. But they are.

The subject of forecasting is also unusual in that it has gods. They are related to Murphy of Murphy's Law (anything that can go wrong..). And they are cruel and vindictive, and they will wreak their vengence on scientists who have not paid them proper respect. Best to be on the moral high ground when it happens.

Just a point of clarification - tornadoes occur because of differences in temperature, not necessairly because of colder or warmer climate. There are cold air temperate tornadoes associated with cold fronts as well as the more severe tornadoes that occur when warm tropical air meets arctic air over the plains of the US.

This has been a severe tornado season in the US, but I don't think you can use this to either prove or disprove climate change.

Curmudgeon,

You are up against every reputable scientific institution in the world with your claim that AGW is a theory with no track record. In other words your hypothesis is that all these scientists have misled themselves and others through incompetence (or as part of a conspiracy).

The theory that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas has been on the table for 100 years and it can be proven in a lab that adding carbon dioxide promotes the greenhouse effect.

On top of that the climate is warming as CO2 levels are rising - more evidence of the linkage.

On top of that the impact has been modelled into the future, but only after testing the model by calculating parameters based on a portion of the actual real world data, and then running the model up to current times to see if the model results reflect the known reality. This sort of approach is well understood in other fields, for example by stock traders who wish to use a back tested system to trade markets into the future.

I can't do justice here to all the multiple streams of evidence that exist and which allow all those scientists in all those national science academies across the globe to be confident in the AGW theory.

It beggars belief that you seriously think you have a fresh insight or have discovered a false premise in their work.

Why do some people even bother arguing against what is deemed to be an established fact?
There will obviously be refinements yet to come but it would be extraordinary if some new evidence completely nullifies the notion of AGW.
I would have expected some prominent whistle-blower to have come forward by now and exposed it as some sort of scam and the IPCC has been around for over 20 years - it's not some new-age belief founded by Al Gore.

Those obsessed with looking for flaws in the mathematical analysis or keep requoting disproven theories simply ignore the physical reality that is becoming more and more evident - particularly in the northern hemisphere.

If I stand with one foot in a bucket of ice and the other foot on hot coals, on average I should be quite comfortable.

In addition to the precautions I take still I doubt that my house will burn down but that doesn't stop me from taking out fire insurance.

rich "It beggars belief that you seriously think you have a fresh insight or have discovered a false premise in their work."

It beggars belief that people believe to be skeptical you have to have an alternate solution or theory, you do not.

Climate science is relatively new and uses many tricks and tools to account for things they do not know, like how clouds form, where they form, and why .. that alone means their modelling has to use guesses.

It is immature, regardless of the egos involved.

CO2 is a trace gas and got its place in this by climate scientists determining they do not know what is causing warming and in the absence of anything else, it must be CO2, then came the pile on.

We know how the grants system, journal system and university tenure and promotion system works. If you move outside the accepted norm, you do not get funding, the uni does not get to publish and on it goes, it's a self licking ice cream. If you want to survive, you conform, see how they deal with anyone outside the system. See how they defend their own, ClimateGate.

We simply do not know enough about climate or climate science to say that a majority viewpoint is enough .. its like saying if enough people believe in a god, he must exist, surly the weight of their belief is enough.

That is exactly what you constantly appear to be saying, that weight of belief is in effect, proof - democracy causes physical effect.

So if enough people believe that stomach ulcers are caused by diet and environmental effects, it must be so .. oh wait, 2 guys disagreed and said it was bacterial. They got Noble prizes.

Belief is not enough Rich, sorry, and berating Curmudgeon because he does not believe, like you do, "beggars belief"

Do you think in 20 or 50 years time, they will look back and say, hey they really understood climate back then .. or are they likely to laugh and say, what primitive arrogant fools?

"Why do some people even bother arguing against what is deemed to be an established fact?

There will obviously be refinements yet to come but it would be extraordinary if some new evidence completely nullifies the notion of" the universe revolving around the earth?

Yes wobbles, that was established fact 600 years ago, questioning it made you a heretic, and Galileo was almost burned at the stake.

Thankfully those days are over, but I suspect you and many others would like to bring them back.

Yes the climate is changing, yes mankind is probably affecting it, mainly by land clearing and movement of people .. the attention on CO2 is out of perspective and unfortunately hijacks all the attention from real problems, like adapting.

Every dollar spent on "Climate Science" is a waste of resources we should be using to adapt .. this folly of trying to adjust the temperature, or stop the temperature is the greatest example of hubris ever.

King Canute, move over mate .. the alarmists are here!

Of course climate scientists love it, they get attention, they are important, they get money and resources .. they are human after all and of course, love being celebrities.

Did you see the ANU climate "scientists" doing a rap dance song thing, where they called non believers "bitches"?

Oh joy, how their egos soar, so smart, so clever yay!

Then got all sooky when they supposedly got "death threats" maybe calling people names was not such a good idea, scientists eh .. so clever eh.

Hello rpg.
Looks like another disciple of Dr Goebbels has made an appearance.
They all come out of the woodwork when there is dissention to sow.
Repeat the misinformation often enough and people might believe in this “Conspiracy theory” about global warming, with thousands of scientists all over the world organizing together to hoodwink everyone else.
My word if they are so clever and are able to put this together, you would think that they would get themselves elected and run the world…… instead of global corporations.

Rich2 - no, not every institution. There are exceptions (the Russian academy for example). There are also quite a few individual exceptions - Prof Richard Lindzen, a professor of meterology at MIT, or William Grey, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics at Colorado State University to name but two.

As for the other academies, they are mostly rubber stamping a view put out by the central body based in Italy and are, in fact, behaving more like trade unions in protecting the funding base of their members, than bodies giving independent scientific evidence.

Having communicated with a number of scientists over this issue, its apparent to me that the bulk of those who endorse the global warming position simply have no idea of what proof there is for the theory, or realise that they are dealing with forecasts not theories as such. In fact, they often have a completely mistaken view of what the debate is about.

Look, for example, at your earlier assertion about CO2.. sure the direct effect of CO2 warming have been known for a long time, but this has never been part of the debate. The argument has always been over the indirect effects or feedback effects of additional CO2 - notably whether the additional slight warming from CO2 will cause additional water vapour in the upper atmosphere. This is very well known, and there have been articles even on this forum dealing with exactly that point, yet you still find scientists who try to tell you that the direct warming from CO2 is well known so where's the argument?

The confusion in this area beggers belief. Best not to cite expert opinion but pretend you were really a sceptic all along.

Leave it with you.

Good posts RPG, but I'm afraid you are wasting your time.

These people are far too immature & too brainwashed as well to even understand what they are reading.

I suppose they have a vested interested, there can't be much else that would close the mind as much as these are closed.

Curmudgeon,

The Russian academy of sciences is not in the deny camp as far as I can tell. See G8+5 Academies’ joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future: http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

Your argument appears to be a scientific one but every reputable scientific institution disagrees with you. That begs some obvious questions ...... and obvious conclusions.

As a sideline it would be amazing if the year in year out pump of 30 billion tons of man made CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere didn't have an effect.

I have noticed on this forum that the contributions from some others have degenerated into little more than bad tempered rants. Others that have studied this phenomenon in similar human predicaments (for example just before the start of world war 2) have observed that arguments do become more shrill as there is more and more evidence to deny. Only once decisive action is underway do the arguments fall away to nothing. No one knows when this stage of decisive action will occur (some like Paul Gilding predict within the next 10 years) but it is only a question of time.

Wobbles, what is an established scientific fact, is that climate follows the same cycles that it followed before human emissions became a factor. Human emissions have made no measureable difference to climate.

AGW, or the assertion that human emissions have any significance in climate is not an established fact.

When scientific backing for this non established “fact” is requested from any of the warmeciles they all talk about something else.

Sarniaan cannot be so obtuse that he does not realise that the Goebells method is the one being used by the backers of the AGW myth.

Produce the science which shows any significant effect by human emissions, and you will have a basis for what you are saying, otherwise it is just nonsense.

Rich2 may be a little less laughable than, say, Kenny or sarnian, but all of their statements have no scientific basis.

Read the Climategate emails if you wish to see how desperate the AGW backers are. These are the IPCC scientists who came up with the "95% certainty" gimmick, because they have no science to establish it.

The dishonesty alone should convince you. Compare Chris’ concise summing up of the situation with the lengthy articles we have had here seeking to justify the alarmist’s nonsense, by talking in circles, about anything but the science itself.

Come up with a scientific basis Rich2, until then, we know you are asserting baseless nonsense.

Just out of interest, all of you denialists heap abuse on all scientists who are doing scientific research into climate change/global warming even though they are using scientific methods and equipment that the layman has no comprehension of.
Now there are also scientists who are doing research into medicine, physics, nuclear energy and so on, do you believe that they are also charlatans and involved in a world wide conspiracy to defraud just about everybody?

Leo Lane,

Claiming that there is no science behind AGW is the exact opposite of the truth. Start here http://www.skepticalscience.com/ and just follow the links through to the scientific papers, or http://www.ipcc.ch/ and follow the links through to the reports they have produced.

In a bizarre way you have illustrated the point that AGW is all about science. It is not about opinion or personal preference or ideology it is about science - the laws of physics and what happens to the climate when you add CO2 into the atmosphere. No heartfelt statements of belief will impact the laws of physics. If you think the facts are anti right wing and pro Greenies hard luck - they are what they are - and while public opinion can be swayed by the likes of Alan Jones the laws of physics are unaltered.

By contrast how to best reduce CO2 emissions is not about science. That is an area climate scientists and national science academies avoid and leave to the politicians. Here everyone is entitled to their own opinion (whereas you are not entitled to your own version of the facts) and ideological backgrounds will normally drive a persons view of the best way of going about it, though bizarrely in Australia we have a labour government promoting a pro market method and a conservative right wing opposition promoting government intervention.

On the Climategate emails I have pointed out multiple times on this forum that a number of independent reviews took place and concluded the basic science is unimpacted. Here is a link again http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=climategate&x=0&y=0.

Rich2, there have been no independent reviews on the Climategate emails, which should have the proper process of a Royal Commission. There have been so called "enquiries" by parties committed to the alarmist cause pretending to “clear” the miscreants.

As I pointed out earlier, putting up a site run by one of the worst of the Climategate miscreants as a scientific reference just shows how bereft of science your threadbare AGW myth is. Skeptical Science is not a scientific site. It is run by the mendacious Michael Mann who tried to put over the notorious Hockey Stick nonsense.

Common sense, if you are prepared to relinquish your opposition to it, tells you that if there were any science to back the AGW assertion the IPCC would not be hiding behind the pathetic assertion that there is a “95% certainty” of AGW. There is either science or there is not. A guess assessed by the guesser to be 95% likely to be right is not science. It is a fact that predictions by the IPCC are 100% wrong when cught up with by passing of time and reality.

There is no measureable effect on climate from human emissions.

That is the science, Rich2, however you and weasel worders like Mann try to get around it.

You have no credibility. I gave a short description of the science upon which I rely. You are cornered, because there is no science to back your unsustainable statements, and you seek to send us on a wild goose chase through the miscreant’s sites who seek to inflict diversions on us, from the fact that they have no scientific base.

No matter how you seek to divert from the basic question, the fact is that you have no science to back what you say.

It is always amusing to hear warmists --who of course have been elected to represent science -- talk as if nothing improper ever happens in the halls of science.

Well, here’s a little excerpt from theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin [The Trouble With Physics] which gives a different picture.

“Science requires a delicate balance between conformity and variety….If science is to move forward, the scientific community must support a variety of approaches to any one problem. There is ample evidence that these basic principles are no longer being followed in the case of fundamental physics. While few would disagree with the rhetoric of diverse views, it is being practiced less and less. Some young string theorists have told me that they feel constrained to work on string theory whether or not they believe in it, because it is perceived as the ticket to a professorship at university. And they are right: In the United States, theorists who pursue approaches to fundamental physics other than string theory have almost no career opportunities . In the last fifteen years, there have a total of three assistant professors appointed to American research universities who work on approaches to quantum gravity other than string theory, and these appointments were all to a single research group. Even as string theory struggles on the scientific side, it has triumphed within the academy…I am extremely concerned about a trend in which only one direction of research is well supported while other promising approaches are starved”

Now ask yourself, if this can happen in physics, might it not also happen elsewhere?

Leo Lane,

It is a classic response from conspiracy theorists that when an independent review doesn't support their preferred outcome that they have to add the reviewers into the conspiracy mix.

Anyway try this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/08/muir-russell-climategate-climate-science

It seems to me scientists are a conservative bunch. They are cautious and assign a 95% confidence rating, even when the evidence is screaming at them that it is virtually certain. Politicians and shock jocks have learnt that many simple members of the public like certainty so it is best to say they are 100% sure, even if they are only 5% "sure". Even you Leo, presumably not a climate scientist and without any reference or links to any science article from a national scientific institution have no problem being 100% definitive as in "There is no measureable effect on climate from human emissions". Unfortunately saying it does not make it so.

SPQR - it is of course possible that the whole scientific community is wrong and has been corrupted - its just extremely unlikely when there is so much evidence and the evidence is accumulating each day.

Rich2, this may be of interest:

http://theconversation.edu.au/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550

sarnian "Repeat the misinformation often enough and people might believe in this “Conspiracy theory” about global warming, with thousands of scientists all over the world organizing together to hoodwink everyone else."

It's always interesting to see people attribute to others what they themselves do. I don't believe in conspiracies, but do think there is some "groupthink" going on, as it has before and as I alluded to in previous posts. No conspiracy existed for example, on stomach ulcer causes, just 99.9% of scientists all going along with the accepted "consensus", as today with AGW.

That doesn't make it correct, just fashionable.

Similarly you probably believe there is a conspiracy of skeptics, someone paying all of us, 50% of Australians, organized to "disbelieve", led by the notorious shock-jocks. Good luck with that, I'm sure it helps bolster the cause.

Why am I skeptical, when you all quote "the laws of physics" at us? You all allude to how simple it is and how could anyone "disbelieve".

Well if it is so simple, why are the models constantly wrong, why did they not identify the plateauing occurring right now. It's not simple, that's the point, CS is in its infancy (regardless of the big egos)

Why so much skulldugery at CRU? Internal reviews cleared them, of course they did, money and prestige were involved .. does anyone believe it?

No they do not, the FOI case was admitted, that they plotted to avoid it, deny all you like, skepticism remains.

Are other areas of science involved in groupthink, no not that I know of and I think that comes from other areas not lending themselves to eco activism in disguise. This to me is where climate science has gone off the rails, it is polluted with "wishful thinking", rather than scrupulous scientific method.

"The world temperature average has gone up one degree in the last 150 years, surely a cause for celebration, that we live in such a stable climatic time.

What am I missing?"

(I saw that posted on a website to rebuke skepticism, it remains unanswered, by alarmists)

Now, let me get this right:

It is NOT OK to posit, that:
“the whole scientific community is wrong and has been corrupted”, or even, those in the scientific community who believe in AGW (the second ..ssshhh! don’t tell Bonmot & co …is a much small sub-set of the first)
But it IS OK to posit :
à la Naomi Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt, that all sceptical authorities are in the pay of big industry

And,
It IS OK to think that prior to industrialization inputs magically balanced outputs & climate was Eden-like and stable -- à la Stephen Schneider and his bathtub analogy.Despite evidence before our eyes that natural inputs fluctuate widely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21SfeE-ltY

And it IS OK to think that all climate change is anthropogenically induced despite the fact that “ total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or [only] 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor)”

Look, see here, we have photographic evidence:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/they_take_us_for_fools/
Whoops! sorry, wrong picture.

No wonder many of the voters are ...skeptical.

Excellent link, Bonmot.

Unfortunately, I am enough of a pessimist to realise that such clear and rational reporting will not change the minds of the AGW deniers. They will continue to confuse opinion with fact.

" Facts are a certainty. They do not change from person to person or from one location to the next. They can be proven with evidence.

Opinions can vary from one person to the next without either of them being wrong. They express an attitude, a belief, a judgment or a conclusion.

When you are in a conversation or facing a decision, try to perpetually evaluate whether you are dealing in a world of fact and fiction, or just differing opinions.

Watch out for the trap of confusing fact with opinion. If the conversation is really about opinion, point this out.

Remember that most decisions are based on the opinion of the decision-maker, and this does not make the decision invalid."

http://www.ascentadvising.com/?p=102

ammonite - peer review is not about facts, it is about acceptability by ones peers, the whole process is now known to be corrupt in climate science, since the CRU climate gate affair exposed the tactics by influential figures.

When you posit "Facts are a certainty. They do not change from person to person or from one location to the next. They can be proven with evidence" What are the facts, in relation to peer review, when the paper authors withhold the data the paper is based on?

Do you believe that peer review, reinforces or creates underlying proof, that it creates facts (?).. oh dear, talk about misinformation. So when the CRU team conspired to delete emails and data .. how does peer review of their work occur?

If it's done by mates, everything is fine .. yes? How did Briffa's tree ring work get peer reviewed when he refused to release data? It still got peer reviewed .. based on what?

Seriously, I don't think most of you who chant peer review actually know what the process is for doing it. It's just become an alarmist mantra, and is quite meaningless.

"They will continue to confuse opinion with fact.", no, that's what you are doing by swallowing, peer review equals proven data.

I love this, "Watch out for the trap of confusing fact with opinion" and would this be valid when we get told, lots of people believe something, therefore, we all believe it and it "beggars belief" that you do not?

Consensus in science is opinion, not fact ...thanks for the tip!

I don't know why you lot keep going back to try to underline factual peer review process when the evidence from your side is seriously polluted, but clearly you are all still in denial about that.

Yet you wonder why climate science and the whole AGW belief process is in trouble, has lost credibility and the tax is driving the current coalition ALP/Green government into such distress.

it "beggars belief" .. and btw, Googling links is fun, but is hardly an argument.

Rich2, still no science from you and another irrelevant link about a pretenced clearing of the disgraceful Climategate miscreants.

What is your problem Rich2, do you not understand what is science and what is diversion from science?

Michael Mann and Wikipedia are diversions from science, as are the efforts of the Climategate miscreants who review each others “science”.

The political experts who gain control of announcements from scientific bodies, to make unscientific announcements regarding AGW are not proof of the announcement’s content.

It is more relevant to read the letters of the members of reputable scientific bodies complaining about this hijacking, and in some cases resigning. The media never publishes these, but they can be found on the web.

Come up with science, or clarify your position Rich2.

Are you obtuse or are you dishonest? It is not possible to know from your laughable posts which one you are, so help us out, or alternatively, say something sensible.

Leo Lane,

I gave you a link to the "leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts."

However you still say "still no science from you". Sorry can't help you any more.

By the way you are getting a bit personal and shrill. Unnecessary and just makes you look unprofessional and desperate.

Malcolm Roberts has a look at bonmot’s little mate Ove Hough-Guldberg, another proven alarmist who bases his nonsensical statements on the perennial “threats” to the Great Barrier Reef which he fabricates.

The reef has an adaptation and survival mechanism called “bleaching”. Ove disingenuously points to incidents of bleaching as indications that the reef has suffered environmental damage. A strange choice of a technique to mislead, because examination of the site a few months later will show the reef in good health.

It might fool people like bonmot, or bonmot may wish to cooperate in the deception.

There is little doubt that Ove is disingenuous, and Malcolm Roberts does a rundown on him here:

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/ABC%20transcripta.pdf

Ove was asked for a reference to science which justified his assertion of AGW, and of course, like bonmot and Rich2, failed to supply it.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measureable effect on climate.

As Rich2 points out, my saying it does not make it so, it is the absence of any science to the contrary, despite the outlay of $billions in a futile effort to find any such science.

Saying that human emissions have any significance to climate does not make it so, no matter who says it, without some scientific proof.

We have to ignore people like Rich2, bonmot, Ammonite, sarnian, Kenny, Wobbles, or any one else who makes unsubstantiated claims of AGW on this list.

No more diversions to disingenuous websites Rich2, just state the science. I know that you cannot and all you have is attempts to worm out of it and make misleading generalisations.

This is the first time I have heard "clear definite truthful and unequivocal", as my posts are, described as "shrill", but I suppose such inaccuracy is the least of Rich2's peculiarities.

Can someone show me some graphs that show climate change or non climate change.

I dont want to read what they said I want to see some graphs of figures, If someone could put up a link.

MickC. This may help:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Good luck.

MickC

This would be a good place to start in my view. http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

The site is put together by an Australian, John Cook, and references what you would call the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change. One of the ideas of the site is to link back to peer reviewed scientific literature.

What you will see here is essentially what all the national science academies around the globe believe.

John Cook is also co author of a recent book (you can find it on the site) which was launched in Australia in the last month or so by John Hewson and Bob Carr. He was also going to send copies to every Australian Federal politician - I assume he has now done so.

Its good to see what Leo Lane is pinning all his hopes on, not to mention his reputation - namely the link to Roy Spencer's site. Roy Spencer's view is an extreme minority one amongst scientists and there would not be a single reputable scientific institution anywhere in the world that supports it. If you key in "Roy Spencer" to the search box on the www.skepticalscience.com site I linked earlier, you will be able to see the broader scientific communities views on Roy Spencer's contribution to the debate, again linked back to peer reviewed scientific literature.

Enjoy

RPG

Thank you for demonstrating that debate on Climate Science has nothing to do with facts.

I guess you believe in a flat earth as well?

MickC

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5t12.jpg

There are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to. Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). The other two are estimates of lower-troposphere temperature, from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville)

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/

rpg
Summarising: 1000's of scientists involved in corruption and deceit and no amount of enquiries will exonerate any one of them.

Leo
Who actually is Malcolm Roberts?

For goodness sake, give up on it.
All the predictions of temperature rise are from computer models.
The Uppsala University Global Energy Group has shown that the models
are using the wrong values for available fossil fuel burning.

They have published the real values, but it seems that the IPCC does
not want to know.

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/validity-of-the-fossil-fuel-production-outlooks-in-the-ipcc-emission-scenarios/

Link to the paper is down the introduction in blue.

Now go read it and when the IPCC puts it into their computer models
that will be the time to discuss the matter.
I don't know what difference it will make to the computer output.

Bazz

Uppsala University Global Energy Group merely disagree with the extent of climate change as posited by the IPCC, they still believe action needs to take place:

"Presentation by Kjell Aleklett, Global Energy Systems Group, Uppsala University.

With dwindling fossil fuel resources and climate changes looming, researchers argue that the world as we know is about to change. The fossil fuels that have predicated the matchless expansion of the 20th century show difficulties in keeping up with increasing demand. At the same time, continued use of remaining fossil fuel deposits risks pushing the world towards catastrophic climate changes.

On 9 june 2010 SEI executive director Johan Rockström and researcher Karl Hallding teamed up with Professor Kjell Aleklett from Global Energy Systems Group, Uppsala University to discuss future energy and climate security challenges.

- IPCC predictions are exaggerated
One of Europe’s leading experts on fossil fuel, Haleklett argues that the gloomy IPCC predictions of climate change are exaggerated simply because the world’s oil resources will reach its peak within the next 20 years or so.

- However, this doesn’t mean we can continue with business as usual. We are faced with challenges far beyond the climate ones once our fossil fuel deposits have run out, he says."

http://sei-international.org/video-archive/1821

ammonite, demonizing skeptics is fashionable, and of course alarmists are nothing if not fashionable. what debate?

This is my opinion, why do you think I should post "facts" that you approve of? I guess you join the other alarmists in trying to silence dissent of your beliefs, what's up, can't stand to see or hear any disagreement? get over it.

At least you didn't call me Herr Goebels as sarnian does when flaming me .. I love it when he does that, as it just shows what hysterics you are and have no tolerance whatever.

bonmot, of course always attempts his demonizing with out of context "summaries" "rpg - Summarising: 1000's of scientists involved in corruption and deceit and no amount of enquiries will exonerate any one of them."

bonmot, were there thousand of scientists at CRU? .. no of course not, you exaggerate again and again, like most alarmists, you want to amplify ridicule your opponent. Yet, AGW belief and support is on the decline, regardless of the demonising, or maybe, because of it .. whatever .. carry on.

I repeat, I don't believe there is conspiracy outside of CRU, where it was obvious if you care to read the emails .. they were published, if you don't see corruption there, well nothing will help you be objective.

The rest, well it's convenient group think, if you spend any time with researchers and scientists as I do, and with the academic community, it is easy to see how people go along with things. No one wants an adversarial existence in research if there is an easier way to get grants. Why would you.

Climate science is not all CO2 related .. so the actual research on that is actually quite small, but of course in alarmist's minds it exaggerates automatically.

I see the current group think with alarmists is to demonize skeptics, and you all show your true adherence to the cause .. thanks for underlining the current trend.

Ammonite;
The point I was making is that the whole subject should be put on hold
until the models are rerun.
How long does it take the model to run, a day ?
If they didn't like the result probably a month.
Either way we would at least know we were closer to the reallity.

Rich what would it take to get you to understand this flogging of the dead horse of "peer review" is anti productive.

Since climate gate we all know of the incestuous relationship, where half a dozen "in" people all reviewed each others work. We now know peer review is just a another con, & your mentioning it defaults your argument for most people today.

Hell we even have a new instance of a Greenpeace activists being employed by the IPCC to review his own propaganda as a lead author of a report. Now you can't get much more incestuous than that. I can't even think of a word to describe what he & they are doing there, at least not one that can be used in public.

Then today we hear a bunch of academics complaining that all science is now mistrusted, because of our distrust of climate science.

Well mate, the 50% of them who are too dumb to know they have been conned are obviously not worth employing, other than as street sweepers.

The other lot, who know it's a con, but are prepared to let it pass, because it favours the elites, where they see them selves, are just disgusting. That their institutions now depend on the flow of AGW grant money simply highlights how badly these places are managed.

I wonder where you might fit in the above?

Chris, all good stuff except that after 40 years of ice core studies, Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski concluded that "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false." Jaworowski notes that shallow ice cores such as those at Shiple, Antarctica, typically show 1890 AD CO2 concentrations of about 330 ppmv - which was the level at Mauna Loa in 1973, 83 years later - while the AGW hypothesis requires them to have been about 290 ppmv. To get over this hypothesis-destroying problem, AGW scientists arbitrarily determined that the air trapped in ice was 83 years younger than the ice in which it was found!

Not out of context, rpg. There are 1000’s of scientists that study any number of the ‘climate sciences’ (not all CO2 related but certainly influenced by CO2) and the overwhelming vast majority of the findings support AGW.

You (and other so called “sceptics”) cherry-pick CRU while at the same time glibly and hypocritically use CRU to bolster “sceptic” claims that the globe is not warming. CRU’s data-set shows less warming (it doesn’t include the Arctic) knowing full well the Arctic is one region that is warming most. Ok, you don't like web links but the argument is shown in the graphs in my response to MickC.

“Sceptics” cherry-pick 1000 or so emails out of over a 100,000 to infer the CRU is involved in some kind of internal conspiracy.
You (and other “sceptics”) cherry-pick Briffa’s ‘hide the decline’ research on ‘divergence’ and deliberately and hypocritically take it out of context yourself. It was never ‘hidden’ but in fact published well before your cherry-picked ‘climate-gate’ kerfuffle. See Nature, 391, 678-682

“Sceptics” cherry-pick Mann’s original ‘hockey stick’ knowing (at least they should) there are far more hockey sticks showing the same temperature trends. “Sceptics” conveniently forget these numerous hockey sticks shown by corals, ocean sediments, stalagmites, ice cores, etc.

It seems to me rpg, you are just engaging in ‘transference’ – a typical defence mechanism. You accuse those who challenge your beliefs of exactly the things you indulge in yourself.

You say “Climate science is not all CO2 related .. so the actual research on that is actually quite small, but of course in alarmist's minds it exaggerates automatically.”

Yet the “sceptics” say there is a great big gravy train out there. I wish you “sceptics” will make up your minds on who is being alarmist.

By the by, what type of engineering did you study? Hope you’re not a “railroad” engineer :)

Faustino
Jaworowski is a retired professor of atomic radiation. No expert’s conclusions have been overturned.

Bonmot, if you are right the answer is as simple as ABC. All they have to do is release all their emails, & all the research, including the raw data, & it will become obvious.

Note I said the research, not their research. It was payed for by the public purse, so it is the public's research, it belongs to the public, & no one has any right to with hold it from the public. With holding that which the public have payed for should be a criminal offence.

If their analysis of the data holds up, there is no further question is there?

The only reason to withhold this public property is that it, & the analysis of it is very dodgy, as are all the "corrections".

Your climate "scientists" would be torn to shreds if any quality minds got hold of that data, & they know it. Every time a little of it has come to light that has been the result, & you know it.

The politicians will not be able to hold the fort much longer, then it all tumbles, & the polies with it. Those of you standing under it, trying to support it had better run, before you get crushed.

Rpg
The only hysterics you get from me are my hysterical laughter at the denialist antics and the sure knowledge that the pigeons will come home to roost one day.

I’ll content myself with correcting two scientific inaccuracies here.

--Depending on weather conditions water vapour accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect. The 95% figure is a myth.

--The real issue is the interaction between increasing CO2 levels and the amount of atmospheric water vapour. I covered this link in a previous post. Increasing CO2 levels increase the water vapour content of the atmosphere.

See:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11244&page=0

My previous post also deals with the Earth’s actual radiation budget.

However I’m not really going to argue the point anymore. I think it obvious humanity will learn the hard way whether fears of a climate catastrophe are justified. Thankfully at my age the worst effects are unlikely to be felt until some years after I have shucked this mortal coil.

Well, we see that the minority government and the supporters for global warming are still hiding behind a ladies skirt, by not having a vote on the issue of the carbon tax.
If they are so sure that there are lots of people agreeing with them, why not put it on show for all to see.

I dont believe the parlimentarians are capable of voting as representatives for all their constituents on this issue.

Lets all have a say! The real democratic way?

Thanks everyone for all the info it was interesting.

Right on queue, we get an alarmist with predictions of DOOM, on those who fail to believe.

"The only hysterics you get from me are my hysterical laughter at the denialist antics and the sure knowledge that the pigeons will come home to roost one day."

Arrrgh! "the pigeons will come home to roost one day"! doom! hysterical laughter, rubbing hands together, doom!, more hysterical laughter .. you failed to believe and now the .. chickens .. will .. come .. home .. to .. ROOST! ahahahahahaha

Oh .. wait, "one day" .. what's this, a feeble threat if ever there was one, come on mate, surely after comparing me to Herr Dr Goebbels you can come up with a better threat to a disbeliever than that?

Of course, alarmists are known for crap predictions anyway, so a feeble one is probably on song. "one day", sheesh you'd think if we deprived you of paying a carbon tax immediately the least you'd call is the world ending next year.

dear me sarnian, you really do clarify the skeptics perception of alarmism as a semi-religious belief .. and you have the temerity to call others names, there's no need to call you names, you define yourself so well.

Rpg.
Well you have really spat the dummy in fact you have gone off just like an……rpg.
For someone who flings accusations of hysterics around, I would have to classify that as a hysterical outburst.
Yes I have had the temerity to not see the “facts” that you dredge out of thin air like a magician. For that I am a “doomer”. Well so be it. I am organizing my life around the premise that there will continue to be an increase in the number of extreme weather events. Also I am preparing for the inevitable rise in price for fuels to the stage where they will be unaffordable for everyday use by mere mortals.
Here is a bit about the Exceptional events for 2010, Of course that is a load of old codswallop dreamed up by someone, just to upset you.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iL1VhIWN2XDKI3APilTxnv8oNU9Q?docId=CNG.c8806b0465005156c3ed4b83c649cb5d.3d1

keep on taking the pills.

Looks as if the denialist are losing the argument.
A national survey reveals most Australians believe in, and are concerned about, climate change. The study by Queensland's Griffith University surveyed more than 3,000 Australians across the country and found 74 per cent believe the world's climate is changing and 90 per cent believe human activities are playing a role. The research found less than 6 per cent of Australians are true climate change sceptics.
http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/ertiki/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=30623

"The Australian national survey was undertaken between 6 June and 6 July of 2010"

So the survey was before the last federal election, so is somewhat out of date.

If the skeptics number less than 6%, then what on earth are the government spending so much money addressing skepticism, setting up climate councils, the new CSIRO climate site and all the other propaganda if skeptics are such a trivial number?

Why would they spend, and getup and all the other climate organizations and groups, if this was true? Seems like a huge waste of time, or a total over reaction.

You know, something doesn't add up .. or the government hasn't seen that survey, or they have and don't believe it.

Now all you need to do is find a site on the internet that says skeptics don't exist at all, and then they will all disappear.

You all know, if you read it on the internet, it must be true.

It would be a little more honest when quoting surveys, to put up the date, otherwise, you might appear to be cherry picking, or just trying to troll.

sarnian, clearly didn't read or didn't understand the survey ..

"When an operationalised criterion for attributing strong scepticism or disbelief is applied across these four survey items (8, 9, 12, 14), requiring a consistent disbeliever or sceptical response for each of these items, the total proportion of respondents falls to 1.2%, or 38 individuals. When a less stringent criterion is adopted, requiring a no response to question 8, and a disbeliever or sceptic response to at least two of the three questions 9, 12, and 14, the proportion of survey respondents who could be characterised as disbelievers or strong sceptics becomes 5.8%, or 180 individuals."

So you can see the figures are being strongly influenced by the technique used .. as you would expect when the survey is commissioned by the Dept of Climate Change, and why would the surveyor not get the result the customer is asking for?

So the 5.8% are in fact those who are skeptical or disbelieve that climate changes .. nothing to do with land clearing, or CO2 influences or AGW .. but whether the climate changes at all. Well, I certainly believe the climate changes, always has always will .. now is CO2 assisting? I doubt it and remain skeptical.

look at questions 8,9 12 and 14 ..

Q8. As far as you know, do you personally think the world's climate is changing?

Q9. Thinking about the causes of climate change, which, if any, of the following best describes your opinion? (this is the only Q that addresses cause. Natural and manmade is 45.8% .. which is reasonable

Q12a. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about climate change? *I am certain that climate change is really happening, agree, strongly agree etc.

Q14. When, if at all, do you think Australia/Britain will start feeling the effects of climate change? (How is this relevant? Except to skew the weighting)

I believe that is an own goal sarnian?

Amicus, the framing is out of context with today's debate - unless you're an alarmist looking for hysterical reinforcement.

http://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/Interim%20report%20-%20final%20document%20-18-04-2011-2_30pm%281%29.pdf

NEWSFLASH

A cold loving species begins to *colonize* the NORTH Island of NZ.
http://tinyurl.com/3d2pgx6

Add in the series of unusually cold day’s we've experienced this winter.

Conclusion: Holy Moses! it can only mean,we’re headed for a new ice age!

Rich2 has confirmed that he has no science to back the AGW assertion. Human emissions have no significant effect on climate.

We know that , because there is no science to say otherwise, despite the outlay of billions of dollars on research.

The astounding aspect of this is that a lot of research has been done which has an implied assumption of CAGW, and the warmists point to this as proof. The only attempt at a scientific basis is the discredited IPCC’s unscientific assertion that it is “very likely”. A guess, is no substitute for science.

I will set down some samples of what I mean by a short statement of the settled science:

The natural CO2 cycle contains 3% human emissions. With a natural variation of volume in the cycle of 10%, the human emissions have no significance.

If the assertion of AGW were correct the scientists would have found a hotspot in the troposphere. Despite their efforts this has not been found to exist, because the effect of human emissions is negligible.

The increasing proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is said to come from human emissions which cause global warming. Over the past 12 years, temperature has plateaued and started to drop, despite the increasing CO2.

Bonmot has already stated that he will not support his assertions with science. His reasons are that he does not want to, and he does not have to. Yet he continues to post baseless assertions.

Sarnian has yet to post anything but pointless rants.

When will the alarmists accept that the polls show that we are aware of the truth, and the politicians will in the end have to acknowledge that they are poll driven, and abandon the AGW scam?

Sarnian, did you see the Lowy Institute Study released today on Climate Change?

Wow, and I know how influenced your thinking is by polls, particularly on Climate Change.

"only 41 per cent think the issue is a serious and pressing problem, down five points from last year.", so even last year, the alarmists were in a minority, with all the government's weight, funded committees, all the left wing, Fairfax and the ABC, media being onside, all the millions spent on CSIRO and BOM to be on the bandwagon .. yet, still the majority of Australians, your countrymen and women, thinks it's not an issue

So 59% do not think it is a serious or pressing problem, so what's your thoughts on that then?

It's clearly a consensus of Australians who do not think Climate Change is a serious or pressing problem ..

To think otherwise, would surely be "denial" ..?

Now that the numbers have flipped over, and all your arguments to date have been about majority thought as the guide, then surely you're now a skeptic. (Actually, you should have been a skeptic last year .. you'll probably suggest that scientists know better, but let's face it, they haven't convinced everyone have they?)

I would say that's a complete reinterpretion of the actual poll there Amicus.

From the release:
"Support for the most aggressive form of action slipped five
points from last year, with 41% saying ‘global warming is
a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking
steps now even if this involves significant costs.’ This option
now shares the same level of support as the intermediate
proposition that ‘the problem of global warming should be
addressed, but its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with
the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost’
(40%). Support for this option is steady with last year, but is
almost double from 2006 when just 24% held this view and
68% supported taking the most aggressive form of action."

I don't know about you, but that seems to be over 80% support for action to me. Just that 40% don't think it's that pressing yet.Using 'or' instead of 'and' changes the interpretation somewhat doesn't it?

Although the sceptical position is increasing:
"Support for the most sceptical position that ‘until we are sure
that global warming is really a problem, we should not take
any steps that would have economic costs’ is up six points
to 19% and has nearly tripled since 2006 when just 7% of Australians held this view. Support for this option increases
with age with just 11% of 18 to 29 year olds holding this
view compared with 28% of Australians 60 years of age
and older."

..but mainly with the oldies. Still it's a bit different to believing they are in the majority eh? (even with the oldies)

Bugsy, I heard a representative on the radio when that was released, I must admit it was as good an attempt at spin as I have ever heard. The guy was clearly trying to "reframe" the message.

He twisted and turned .. so I thought, who are these guys ..

I went and looked at who is on the board of the Lowy Institute, OMG Prof Ross Garnault, right so this is going to be objective is it? Of course it isn't.

I haven't read the whole report, but expect to find the techniques leaning towards the response they wanted. People rarely do surveys objectively, there is always a customer with a desired outcome, why would you not deliver what they want?

The questions are framed professionally to get the correct response.

Better polls are those that truly are independent, not like that garbage sarnian turned up commissioned by the Dept of Climate Change.

So the Lowy Institute I believe, were not expecting the result they got and tried to turn the message.

"A LEADING climate change advocate maintains public sentiment for climate change action is improving despite a poll showing support has dropped to a record low."

A record low, but support is improving .. huh?

It's down but it's up ..?

Do you wonder why Australian BS detectors are all going off about now, alarmists treat them as idiots, and wonder why their message is being roundly rejected by the community.

The way things are going, the science no longer matters, people are angry at being lied to and BS'd constantly, eventually they tire of fools and reject everything they say.

maybe I'm wrong, happens sometimes