Oh dear trashcanman. Still the rude trashcanman.

Didn't you read what I wrote?

All you've done is misintrepret what I've said, either through poor comprehension or sheer deceiptfulness and then argued poorly and pointlessly your strawman arguments.

Sigh ... such is so typical of you global warmers.

Firstly I never said the science of climate was debunked, nor did I say the science supporting Athropogenic Global Warming was debunked.

I did on more than one occassion claim the science wasn't settled. Now what you should have done is argue that point. But you can't, can you?

Secondly I never wrote of the newspaper reports. I happen to agree the reports did not accurately show Watson's conclusions and distorted his study.

I have no interest in Watson's research nor conclusions. They relate to the current climate science modelling. That modelling is not new and not factual, it's guesswork.
I do however have great interest in and agree with Watson's compilation of the historical emperical data, which shows the rate of rise of sea levels is decelerating.

That is fact.

That has not been denied by Watson nor his manager.

And I might remind you, that manager like the reporter never wrote anything peer-reviewed. He also never presented literature debunking Watson's empherical historical data. He wrote a letter to the editor.

Your arguments also show you are ignorant of the scientific method and the peer review process.

You made a fool of yourself by presenting absolutely trashy strawman arguments, best consigned to your trashcan.

Nutter,

Of course the science isn't settled. No-one's claiming it is. It is, however, overwhelmingly pointing in one direction, to the point where it is completely foolish to wait around 100 years to "settle" the science with such obvious risk to human populations. You may not be claiming the science is debunked (my apologies), but you are way too willing to ignore and look for reasons to disbelieve the masses of evidence that are impelling scientists to call for immediate action on this matter. You want to vote for Abbott and his "I'll sit on the fence until I know what I have to say "no" to" politics, go ahead.

The science isn't settled on smoking and cancer, but governments aren't sitting back and waiting for it to be 100% bullet-proof before they take action.

And I do have plenty of understanding of the peer review process, I don't see how in any way my arguments show that I'm so ignorant. I am in no way questioning Watson's research. Your interpretation of it is flawed, however. CSIRO explains thus:

"The confusion around the Watson study appears to have arisen from the particular statistical curve that he fitted to his data. This quadratic curve does not represent the behaviour of the observations in the latter part of the record when sea levels have been rising particularly quickly, and in fact this curve shows a decelerating trend whereas the data itself show an accelerating trend"

The data itself therefore proves the opposite of your claim that this questions climate change theory, as the data is doing the opposite of what the statistical curve predicts it should be if there were no interference from non-natural influences.

It is you who make a fool of yourself by trying to belittle me as a last ditch attempt to draw attention away from your weak arguments.

"The science isn't settled on smoking and cancer, but governments aren't sitting back and waiting for it to be 100% bullet-proof before they take action."

What rubbish .. what action are they taking, putting up taxes to increase revenue .. you call that action ?

If there was a proven link, then smoking would be BANNED!

That's action. The government does bugger all apart from whining about smoking, because it brings revenue.

A carbon big new tax will bring revenue, so regardless of the science being for or against, if they can bring in a great big new tax with any semblance of justification they will .. it has zero to do with the planet's climate.

See the government wants to embed the great big new tax in a way it cannot be undone, so it keeps on giving, and I expect, like the Victorian Desal plant .. some good old mates get to make a few $ out of it. Let's see if the trade unions invest superannuation funds into carbon ventures ..

I don’t want to disagree with Agnostic — solar thermal for power generation look like a good option (geothermal, no: not enough, and in the wrong places). Solar thermal tech isn’t ready yet, but we could change that. Question is: will that option thrive automatically if we adopt Gillard’s carbon tax? Ultimately, the ‘market’ will certainly prevail -- lord knows we don’t want the energy equivalent of Telecom or the NBN powering out homes and factories! But, if we’re to develop solar thermal to levels which can rival and eventually replace coal for power generation nationally, I think we need Direct Action as well.

Without getting too technical, we'll need High Temperature Solar Thermal, i.e., operating temperatures in the 800-1000 degree C range. That’s optimal for several reasons (higher efficiency is one, lower water consumption is another). Spain has done good work in the area, but the tech is not so well developed that it’s ready to power a whole nation.

We’ll need to manufacture several hundred square kilometres of sophisticated reflectors. Expertise in handling testy molten salts. The plumbing isn’t exactly straightforward. An efficient distribution system needs to be designed and built (some weeks ago, OLO gave us a useful article on HVDC -- it’ll be a consideration). How do we ensure competition and avoid a monopoly? Nobody’s ready to manufacture the hardware on scale we need -- shall we grow our own suppliers? Export? Lots of R&D needed.

The cost to convert to solar thermal from coal will make the NBN look cheap as chips. Investors will need to see stable ROI for half a century before they ante up. An international market for carbon permits might help, but only on the periphery. If we’re serious about this, we need Direct Action on multiple fronts. State and national governments needn’t provide funding, but they WILL need to create certainty: on tax, pricing, market access, regulation ... the lot.

Will a Carbon Tax make this happen? No. Only Direct Action by government can create and sustain an environment supportive of such a massive and long-term goal. Wouldn’t you say?

Trashcanman, you're making outrageous claims.

1. 'Of course the science isn't settled. No-one's claiming it is.'

The Australian Federal Government Green Labor Coalition, their advisers and acolytes position is the exact reverse of this.
Perhaps you might try advise them if you feel differently.



2. 'The science isn't settled on smoking and cancer.'


'Smoking statistics - Smoking and cancer

More than half a century ago, the causal link between lung cancer and tobacco smoking was established. ... Today, tobacco consumption is recognised as the UK’s single greatest cause of preventable illness and early death ...

... the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) states that tobacco smoking can also cause cancers of the following sites: upper aero-digestive tract (oral cavity, nasal cavity, nasal sinuses, pharynx, larynx and oesophagus), pancreas, stomach, liver, bladder, kidney, cervix, bowel, ovary (mucinous) and myeloid leukaemia.'

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten the WHO of your evidence.

3. 'Watsons data shows an accerlating trend.'

Really! Where? Where did you dig up your quote?

To help you show me where your claim can be proven, here's a complete copy of Watson's research.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1125_journal1.pdf

You might read the Conclusions section, where Watson says

'These recent post-1990s short-term accelerations (Which you reference) fit within the overall longer term trend of deceleration evident in these long Australasian ocean water level record'.

ie similar accelerations have occurred before in the 100 year analysis and they don't negate the overall decelerating trend... as you and your 'source' claim.

And hey there is apparently numerous other sources, quoted by Watson, that show the same deceleration. Read them!

'I don't see how in any way my arguments show that I'm so ignorant.' (of the peer-review process and the scientific method ... presumably?).

Well one or two simple statements should clarify this.

Neither the scientific method nor the peer-review process rely on popularity nor modelling for their legitimacy. Both rely on analysis of established data.

You grizzling about me belittling you is another of your strawman arguments. It's your inability to discuss reasonably the topics raised that cause belittling of yourself.