"Just what hard evidence can the brainwashed/warmists produce to support this AGW weather variability claim, when even the IPCC does not give credence to a linkage between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and extreme weather events?"

A statement from a person who obviously hasn't read or understood AR4.

Expect more of the same, if not more, when AR5 is released.

While China's role in the big picture complicates things, it doesn't preclude action on our behalf. We can only do what we can do at any point in time, and we should do it out of obligation to those who are to inherit our legacy.

After all, China's offical environmental policy is more progressive than Australia's in many respects. Being autocratic means less compromise when writing policy. It also makes it easier to make unpopular decisions (we know the Chinese are good at that!) which are in the national and global interest (something Australian governments have trouble doing).

The problem is in the implementation of the policy when you have greedy bureaucrats corrupting the system. They have systems in place, but unfortunately it's too easy for corporations to pay their way around them.

In reality China has the right intention, it just needs to get around it's own internal barriers (population size, corruption etc) which is going to take some time.

Chris,

These BTU/$GDP are really unenlightening. Unless related to source mix, hence to CO2, and adjusted for domestic, non-GDP production, they only indicate overall energy consumption. Interesting, yes, but not particularly relevant in this context - given the population disparities involved. Similarly, China's use of nitrogen fertilisers could be misleading - since nitrogen is only part of the nutrient requirements for plant growth, and may be accounted simply by nitrogen-poor soils. What about phosphorous or potash use, lime, molybdenum or sulphur? Still, I think we get the picture - of massive consumption and relative inefficiency.

Squeers is in fine form, but I'm afraid his wisdom is falling on deaf ears - there are none so blind, as those who will not see. Still, the truly open-minded amongst us get the message.

Solution? Candide made a good, logical suggestion, but how to enact? Is Oz trying to rush around with a fire bucket whilst others are rushing about lighting forest fires? Reduce consumerism? Where/how to start? Non-fossil energy? Same problem. An Oz carbon tax and ETS - there's that bucket, and it has a hole in it requiring the Oz public to take turns sticking their fingers in it to patch the ever-increasing leak.

My poor, overly-simplistic suggestion is to scale back energy-intensive production (including scaling-back of the NBN in Oz), develop the best available low-emission technology irrespective of cost, promote low-footprint agriculture in Africa and South America, cease exploitation of old-growth forests worldwide and embark on a massive re-forestation program, and develop carbon capture and conversion technologies.

Radio National had an item about extreme weather and climate science this morning. ABC>Radio National>Breakfast 01.07.11 - click on the relevant item to listen.

Pirot and Bonmot

Oh I can easily understand how my challenging opinions cause you to denigrate mr personally.

Like your opinions I find that really very amusing.

As I am unable to relocate the early-2011 reference about the IPCC not giving credence to a linkage between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and extreme weather events, I will retract mention of it.

AR4 is a political report of the political body, the IPCC. AR4 states that global warming is ‘unequivocal’ and ‘most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations’. This is assertion, not hard scientific evidence.

The IPCC has form when it comes to misrepresenting the facts. Ben Santer was involved in one such exercise in 1995, which is worth recounting.

S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery, in their book 'Unstoppable Global Warming' published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2007, give the following account (see pp 120-121):
(Start of quote)
"The IPCC's Climate Change 1995 was reviewed by its consulting scientists in late 1995. The 'Summary for Policy Makers' was approved in December, and the full report , including Chapter 8, was accepted. However, after the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers discovered that major changes had been made "in the back room" after they had signed off on the science chapter's contents. Santer, despite the shortcomings of the scientific evidence, had inserted strong endorsements of man-made warming in Chapter 8 (of which he was the IPCC-appointed lead author):

"There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols ... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change ... These results point toward a human influence on global climate. (IPCC, Climate Change 1995, Chapter 8, 412)
(cont.in next post)