Leo Lane,

Given the inherent and extraordinary complexity of climate science, it is not surprising that those involved would become frustrated at the failure of their models and investigation to confirm the hypothesis that a superabundance of atmospheric greenhouse gases, plus increased planetary heat absorption capacity due to land clearing, deforestation, civil construction, etc, should logically cause increased heat retention, and therefore general climatic warming. Hence, it is also not surprising that emminent scientists would not wish to reveal their failure. However, the failure of the science, of the measurements and models does Not automatically disprove the hypothesis, but rather that more research, and improved models taking more accurate and comprehensive account of all the significant variables needs to be perfected. Not bludged, but improved.

No-one wants 'drastic' action, but responsible caution. Macro weather patterns have changed - but whether part of a natural cycle or possibly stimulated or exacerbated by human activity, remains in question. Ignoring changing phenomena is not a particularly wise or sober course, particularly when the stakes are arguably rather high, and potentially life-altering.

Saltpetre: If you're arguing for more research into the relative importance of anthropogenic and 'natural' factors in effecting climate, then I'm with you.

But isn't the problem that governments, responding to what 'some scientists' say, have decided that they already know what the problem is, and are now dealing with it? It seems to me that the carbon tax is almost certainly going to be ineffective at any level in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, will reduce productivity, and serve only to deliver the Government's promise to Bob Brown. And we don't even know whether any increase in temperature will be good or bad for us.

How is the public good advanced?

I love carbon.It is the basic building block of all life on the planet and the source of energy which has enabled our present freedoms.Carbon also makes beautiful diamonds to wear and for industry.Carbon fibre has revolutionised our entire lives.

CO2 is a plant food and historically raises in concentartions 800 yrs after temp increases.It is temp increases which makes the earth and oceans release CO2,not the reverse.

CO2 is a minor warming gas.H2O has a far larger influence.We have been sold an enormous lie.It is time to expose it and shut down the lying bureaucracy/cleptocracy which succors breath from it.

I would just like to be clear about what is being suggested in these recent posts.
Am I to understand that what is being asserted is that, NASA, the Academies of science of the world's leading nations, most of the world's meterological bureaus, most of the leading universities, the meteorological researchers of most of the industrialised nation's, the world;s largest militaries, including the US Joint Chiefs of Staff who are actively preparing for global warming consequences, that all these organisations are either
a. part of a global conspiracy designed to deceive us; or
b. Incompetent
Is that what is being suggested? It does rather sound like it.
And that, moreover, this grand nefarious scheme, (or the biggest stuff up in human history, it has to be one of the other), has however, failed to deceive the brilliant minds contributing to this thread.
Don't you think, I'm just suggesting and with the greatest of respect to all, but don't you think that to swallow either of these hypothesese is rather a big ask?
Just sayin'
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve

Strange as it may seem, there is an UN political organisation that has influenced the ones you mention, to believe in anthropogenic global warming. It has a scientific working group that has been known to draft its advisory report conclusions to comply with the political message that the political lead group delivered to the Conference of Parties.

The climate computer models that this UN organisation uses to project alarmist climate outcomes, are invalid, as they fail to represent the complexity of natural climate behaviour.

It is surprising that after 20 years of supposed research, the strongest endorsement that the organisation can give, is the assertion: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Given the above clues, you should be able to deduce the name of the organisation at your first attempt.

Don Aitkin,

"Saltpetre: If you're arguing for more research into the relative importance of anthropogenic and 'natural' factors in effecting climate, then I'm with you."

Yes I am. It would be in no-one's interest to leave these questions unanswered, especially considering the resources already expended in this quest, the knowledge already acquired, and the potential impacts of inappropriate action. Of course, the science is obviously extremely complex, and it is possible that a global practical experiment may ultimately be required to provide the necessary proof - and by that I mean a concerted effort over a limited period to reduce or capture greenhouse emissions, whilst using every recording device imaginable to record the results. An international compact for a limited period, in the ultimate interest of all of humanity. Possible? We won't know unless we try. The polar bears, ice caps and coral reefs will be waiting.

Of course there will be many naysayers, but they too can only benefit from puting this one to bed once and for all.

As for the carbon tax, I agree with you, Don, but I consider it primarily a socialist agenda wealth re-distribution mechanism, in guise of action to invest in alternatives development, whilst also appeasing the Greens as part of the strategy to retain power.

Arjay,

You have it wrong - although an increase in mean ocean temperature will decrease the concentration of dissolved CO2 at surface level, the higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere due to emissions means that more CO2 is dissolved in the first place, much of which will remain captured at lower ocean depths, in solution and as carbonic acid. This increased CO2 concentration increases ocean acidity due to the carbonic acid produced, thereby having impact on all calcium carbonate employing life in the ocean, such as crustaceans (including krill), corals, shellfish, even cuttle-fish cephalopods, and who knows what else. A Wikipedia article on Ocean Acidification reports a 28.8% increase in ocean acidification since pre-industrial times.

Anthonyve,

You put forward a helluva good argument, and I'm with you.