Interesting article Max. The other matter which you didn't mention amongst the Greens cherry-picking of what they will and won't support, is the use of forestry waste to produce renewable bioenergy.

This is waste from already occurring forest harvesting and timber processing that is otherwise just burnt to add to carbon emissions but which could be utilised to produce energy that would offset fossil fuel use.

Yet the Greens and GetUp! are refusing to even acknowledge it as a renewable energy source and are ramping up deceitful campaigns referring to 'forest furnaces' and massive increases in logging. This is yet another example of Green ideology worsening environmental outcomes.

The poor want you to stick your ruling class leftist CAGW culture war up your ridiculous Green hair shirt

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_22.html

And yet another article to mislead and confuse.
It has so many red herrings that the smell of fish is overpowering.
As usual it proclaims as “facts” statements that are unproven or hearsay.
The report on this one is: You will have to try harder.

["your"=Greens/Left/ABC Cathedral]

... you mean 'confidante'. Rudd is not confident of anything, except his right to lead; that was the problem which got him kicked out in the first place.

The current government wouldn't know good policy if they fell over it. Unfortunately, neither would Tony Abbott so where are we? Bring back Malcolm Turnbull.

Max Rheese

Whatever you may think of global warming, there is no doubt that the bulk of the solutions proposed for limiting emissions vary from marginally useful to a complete waste of time, if not counterproductive. Its nice that Max Rheese recognises this.

Only die-hards such as Sarian, and others who have simply never bothered to look at these issues, refuse to admit this basic point.

Emissions are simply not going to be reduced under existing policies - even the rate of increase is not going to be affected. The only option is to go in the other direction and start providing energy to all, and help allieviate poverty.

Of course Max isnt driven or motivated by ideology is he?

AGW is a monstrous, ideologically driven scam which has embraced all the usual spivs and opportunists; they and 'science for hire' have formed a pack scrum around the verminous UN and have pilfered the productive economies to the tune of $trillions and have convinced governments, coporate investors and particularly union dominated superannuation funds, to invest more $trillions in the ongoing fraud of sustainable energy projects.

Anyone who advocates AGW should live in a cave for the rest of their lives.

Time and again detailed studies/ analysis has indicated that Green 'renewable' energy solutions, not only being economically crippling, actually result in an overall increase in co2 emissions. The moment a politician labels co2 a 'pollutant' they lose my vote. If you want to alleviate poverty, I suggest you formulate policies as suggested by curmudgeon and act in the reverse of current policies. If you want to assist the planetary bio system, increase the atmospheric levels of that airbourne nutrient, co2.

Curmud:
I agree with you that current attempts to limit Climate Change are ineffective (how about that I agree with you).
The ONLY thing that will reduce Global Warming and reduce Climate Change is to reduce the world population. That will be done eventually but it will hurt as it happens. I do not think that it is possible to change world attitudes to reducing population, especially if the Republicans win the US election. They are already building up an attack on not just abortion but contraception as well. While W/bush was the honcho,he stopped aid to countries that practiced birth control.
As a result we are in even bigger trouble now than we should be.

Anything new to add, Anthony?

Some figures:

1 In Australia between now and 2015 $13.2 billion will be given to sustainable energy projects; at the same time the feed-in tarrif solar panel scheme in NSW will cost $1.75 billion; other ‘energy’ schemes like Flannery’s Geodynamics have cost $100's of millions. None will produce any energy; you might as well put the money in Al Gore's wine cellar.

2 Also in Australia government 'climate' bureacracies, at all levels of government, are costing ’100′s of millions to run.

3 World wide it is nose bleed time. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is an organisation which promotes AGW and controls over CO2 emissions. The CDP represents 655 institutional investors, with a combined $78 trillion under management.

4 Superannuation fund support of AGW is gigantic. The UNEP FI, a large Super fund with strong associations with the IPCC has funds worth $15 trillion under its control. Likewise the The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is strongly involved in promoting and investing in pro-AGW projects and has $7.5 trillion under its control.

5 Back in Australia the head of CSIRO is Megan Clarke, formerly of Rothschilds Bank, who runs, in a private capacity, sustainability projects. Between them the pro-AGW CSIRO and BOM cost $1 billion to run. Then there is Purves, Wootton and Woods dishing out millions to the cause. And what about government grants to the pro-AGW scientists; nearly $400 million.

What the poor should get is some of the money currently being wasted on 'solving' the non-existent problem of AGW.

"non-existent problem of AGW"

On the other hand:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/response-to-wall-street-journal-16/

That's amusing bonny; the same link was put up at Jennifer Marohasy's as though it meant something; I replied there:

Comment from: coheniteFebruary 25th, 2012 at 11:59 am

luke links to Bickmore at Real Climate who claims to “take apart” the arguments of the recent anti-AGW letters. Geez, it’s crap, even by RC’s usual head up the kyber and whistle dixie standards.

I especially like Bickmore’s centrepiece graph which he uses to prove the models do well next to observations; it’s got an ensemble range greater than the whole temperature increase which means some models at the beginning of the temperature period are showing a higher temperature level than what other models are showing at the end of the period.

No doubt luke will say it is the ensemble mean which counts and the 95% certainty attached to that mean; but again, that is nonsense; a model may have multiple runs and be observationally consistent with just one; that is why weighting occurs; but we don’t know how the graph was compiled and what weightings were used, whether it was the best run of each model or the mean of each model which was then used to compile the ensemble mean.

The point of this is that models can fluke the right correlation with the data but that mostly they don’t as the spread shows and that applies to individual models as well as ensembles.

"Geez it's crap" Anthony?

You sound like Tony Abbott who gets his "science" from media shock-jocks or anti-global warming blogs sites.

Lets not say non existent climate change.
Get your information from one site NASA. They are real scientist's, with the gear to measure and see.
Get on solar and save a fortune.

Having read Charlton’s essay, I believe Max’s summary here covers the issues well. I can only hope that Bob Brown has also read the essay – but I seriously doubt it. I suspect if he had he would have dismissed it out of hand as right wing nonsense. As to getting the current government with it’s outright ban on anything nuclear (even very safe submarines) to adopt Charlton’s new paradigm – I wouldn’t hold my breath.

"Lets not say non existent climate change."

Lets not say non existent NATURAL climate change.

"Get your information from one site NASA. They are real scientist's, with the gear to measure and see.
Get on solar and save a fortune."

I didn't think it was possible to pack so much egregious nonsense in a few short sentences; but well done, you have.

>> Lets not say non existent NATURAL climate change <<

Umm, er, pardon?

Cohenite ... nobody is.

It's obvious why you want to make out that they are, though.

As a 'wannabe' lawyer and pretend climatologist, your use of double negatives is, shall we say, "well done".

And who the frig is "Luke"? What has he got to do with the price of apples here?

Oh, I get it ... you not only want to change the goal posts - you want to change the playing field too.

Typical stuck-in-the-mud ideologue "denialist".

That would be your 4th post bonny; so tough titties. Luke is like you only better educated and more fun; but his default position is the same as yours; Real Climate or Cook or Demesmog, although his insults are wittier and less petulant.

I think you really believe the world is going to end through AGW, don't you? If it wasn't so damaging and destructive it would be sad really; it's like a mass hysteria based on a virulent personal pathology; the world is going to end if we keep burning coal.

But that's enough; you're not worth any more attention; unless you can muster some analysis and interesting commentary you can crawl back into your little paranoiac world.

I understand that the hypothesis propounded by the pro AGW adherents to be along the lines that 'co2 (both 'natural' and man made) is a sygnificant driver of the globes climate system'
Ergo; increased levels of atmospheric co2, from whatever source, results in increased global average temperatures (fingerprinted in the upper troposphere over the equator)

Where it found, however, based on ice core (oxygen isotope measurements) and numerous alternative proxy data sets, excluding bristlecone pine rings, that the relationship between temperature and atmospheric co2 volumes were roughly synchronous, then the hypothesis above would be supported.

However, where a disparity of approx 800 years found, wherein temperature preceded co2 levels, then the hypothesis could be falsified.

Invoking the 'precautinary principal' in the face of data spanning 10s of thousands of years of temperatures proceeding co2 levels, claiming that 'it could be different this time', would seem to be a misuse of the principle.

The 1 degree C the ocean temp; has risen is undercutting arctic and antarctic ice.
CO2 at an all time high.
Oceans giving up co2.
Weather patterns in disarray.
NASA says long term climate change is in process.
How can anyone say, it's not true or doesn't exist.

You know, cohenite...I'm staring to think you might be on to something. Anyone who uses the term "tough titties" in serious debate is someone to sit up and take notice of.

Am I right in surmising that it's your opinion that the vast majority of climate scientist are a rather shabby lot - all suffering from "mass hysteria based on virulent personal pathology"

...sounds reasonable.

My understanding then is that I should look to amateurs (i.e. non-scientists) to glean accuracy on climate issues. It's a novel approach, but I'll take your word on it.

A 1 degree variability in ocean temperature range has happened many times before, Norwegian and Danish seafarers have navigated an ice free NW passage hundreds of years ago. Nothing new here.

Paleoclimatologist studies indicate that co2 levels at up to 10 times current values have occurred numerous times in the past record. Nothing new here.

Weather patterns are in continuous cycles driven by a variety of effects including sun, solar rays, PDO and ENSO cycles, Indian ocean dipole, volcanic activity, planetary wobbles and shifts etc etc. Nothing new here.

NASA observes long term climate change is I progress, yes, it certainly is. Maunder minimum, little ice age, Roman warm period, middle ages warming.....etc etc. Nothing new here.

Poirot, you don’t have to look to amateurs, look to the best; Richard Lindzen:

"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest."

And:

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

A whole lot of climate jargon reiterated parrot fashion about slighly massaged “facts”.
Nothing new here.
Head firmly in the sand, hoping all the nasties will go away.
Nothing new here.

Poirot

I’m reminded of http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4567&page=0#118331

And sadly … of CJ : (

Of course cohenite doesn’t have a clue – he seems to think I believe in catastrophic global warming caused by human activity.

What I do think is that cohenite is paranoid over my comments – depicted in his churlish and childish retorts.

Anthony Cox/cohenite criticises Professor Bickmore’s response to an op=ed in the WSJ - republished here:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/response-to-wall-street-journal-16/

I’m sure you understand the content well enough so no need for me to elaborate. Nevertheless, in answer to cohenite’s “best” in Richard Lindzen (whom you can do your own research on), let me put it this way:

In the short term, of course models are less certain in their projections (climate is not weather). Therefore, it is not surprising that they are sometimes significantly skewed – the ‘selection’ of the start (and/or end points) can significantly distort the long-term trend. So too can incorrectly attributing short term affects (ENSO, aerosols, etc.).

However, the models are getting better all the time with the advent of more data and improved analytical power.

What pretenders like cohenite don’t seem to grasp is that the long-term climate trend is up, even given the uncertainties (that are becoming less uncertain with each passing year).

It is worth noting that the “16 scientists and engineers” in the WSJ didn’t include their uncertainties in their ‘diagnosis’ – something that all genuine sceptics do. They have something to hide, like the Heartland Institute, imho.

People like Lindzen and 'the WSJ 16' accuse others of the very thing they engage in themselves - distortion and deliberate misrepresentation.

bonny, I've told you what I think you are and got banned for it; you're not worth a time out again.

Your precious models are cactus because their inherent assumptions about feedbacks are gibberish; that's not me saying that; Professor Demetrius Koutsoyiannis and his team show those models can’t even model the past. Koutsoyiannis is worth a lengthy description so I'll make this a 2-parter.

Koutsoyiannis is one of the world’s leading hydrologists and an expert on Hurst and stochastic effects. Hurst or Long Term Persistence refers to the uncertainty and random qualities present in all complex natural systems. Koutsoyiannis argues that global warming modeling does not take into account this uncertainty.

In his 2008 paper Koutsoyiannis33 compared the model predictions from 1990 to 2008 and whether those models could retrospectively match the actual temperature over the past 100 years. This test of retrospectivity is called hindcasting. If a model has valid assumptions about the climatic effect of variables such as greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, then the model should be able to match past known data.

Koutsoyiannis’s 2008 paper has not had a peer reviewed rebuttal but was subject to a critique at Real Climate by Gavin Schmidt.34 Schmidt’s criticism was 4-fold; that Koutsoyiannis uses a regional comparison, few models, real temperatures not anomalies and too short a time period.

Part 2. Each of Schmidt’s criticisms were either wrong or anticipated by Koutsoyiannis. The period from 1990-2008 was the period in which IPCC modeling had occurred; the IPCC had argued that regional effects from global warming would occur; model ensembles were used by Koutsoyiannis; and since the full 100 year temperature and rainfall data was used in intra-annual and 30 year periods by Koutsoyiannis anomalies were irrelevant.

In 2008 Koutsoyiannis found that while the models had some success with the monthly data all the models were “irrelevant with reality” at the 30 year climate scale.

Koutsoyiannis’s 2010 paper “is a continuation and expansion of Koutsoyiannis 2008”. The differences are that (a) Koutsoyiannis 2008 had tested only eight points, whereas 2010 tests 55 points for each variable; (b) 2010 examines more variables in addition to mean temperature and precipitation; and (c) 2010 compares at a large scale in addition to point scale. The large, continental scale in this case is the contiguous US.

Again Koutsoyiannis 2010 found that the models did not hindcast successfully with real data from all the 55 world regions not matching what the models produced. The models were even worse in hindcasting against the real data for the US continent.

And what does this nonsense mean:

"the long-term climate trend is up"? Is it climbing a hill?

Here's a tip, anthony cox/cohenite - this is not about you, no matter how much you want it to be.

You really don't have to waste your 4-post and 350-word limits to re-invent your 'preferred wheel' here.

Just because you frequent anti-global warming blog sites (and swear/ad-hom all you like) does not mean your rants are right.

Personally, I go with the vast majority of experts in the fields of 'climate science' (including mine) - not the motly crew that make up the small contrarian residual - albeit we all wish they were right, they are not.

Historic evidence of seafarers crossing an ice free NW passage hundreds of years ago - denied.

Paleoclimatologist ice core evidence of co2 levels following temperature fluctuations by 6 - 8 hundred years - denied

Weather patterns in seeming 'disarray' due to myriad natural cyclic fluctuations - denied

I agree with NASA observation that climate change is occurring.

Gee Sarnian, now this really is confusing, I thought that I was supposed to be the denialist here!

Denied?

Where, by whom, and in what context?

Bonmot, you might clarify the incoherent post to which your referred us “I go with the vast majority of experts in the fields of 'climate science' (including mine)”

What do the words “including mine” mean? Do you hold yourself out to be an expert?

Cohenite is a lawyer, so is qualified to speak on the topic of litigation.

Another clarification you might provide is to your statement: “he seems to think I believe in catastrophic global warming caused by human activity.”

Does that mean that you do not believe in CAGW?

Break your record, for obfuscation, here bonmot, and give a straight answer, for the very first time.

Yes, in one particular area - but there are many others that make up 'climate science'. No, you are not going to get my name.

Of course Anthony Cox/cohenite can speak on (some) aspects of law - that is not in dispute.

Which part of this don't you understand:

>> Catastrophic Anthropogenic Gplobal Warming.

What you (and he) continue to fail to understand - it won't be catastrophic - that's just spindoctoring.

Sure, a globally averaged increase of 2 degrees C by 2100 will have an impact (not all bad) - but it won't be as catastrophic as the 'alarmists' on BOTH sides make out. It will be bad enough. <<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4567#118331

That has always been my view.

You on the other hand, only see and hear what you want to see and hear - your problem, not mine.

Who asked for your name, bonmot? What I asked was did you claim to be an expert. If you do, then in what field?

I have never said global warming would be catastrophic, nor has any Realist, to my knowledge. The IPCC and other fraud backers allege that it will be catastrophic.

They also allege, without scientific proof, that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate.

On what basis do you assert a 2 degree increase by 2100. There is no scientific basis for this. If you believe that there is, let us have it. Do you assert it to be AGW?

Your posts are not comprehensible. Alarmists assert AGW without scientific justification. Explain how there can be alarmists on both sides. The other side consists of realists, who assert that human emissions have a trivial effect on climate.

If the Minister for Lies about Sea Levels, Greg Combet, were seen to urinate in the ocean in front of his waterfront home, an observer could correctly say that the sea was polluted. The pollution would not be scientifically demonstrable, any more than the effect of human emissions on climate can be scientifically demonstrated. The effect is trivial.

You have 100% record, bonmot, in never having given a straight answer.

1. Give my field will give my name (if your a sleuth) – nope, having too much fun

2. I am a realist, like the vast majority of real scientists

3. Only catastrophic if certain parameters are met, not anytime soon, imho … the planet is squealing

4. Leo, science is not conducted as in a court of Law, weight of evidence does matter … you/I don’t

5. You really should try and get a handle on the science Leo, it’s out there if you really want it

6. Best leave your ideological guff out of it … it helps to have an open mind

7. The enhanced greenhouse effect is a significant component, but not the only component

8. I can’t improve your comprehension skills, you will believe what you want to believe

9. Scientists report on their research, it’s up to others to act on it, or not

10. There are extreme points of view – some say the sky is falling, some say there is no sky

11. That trace amount of GHG keeps the planet from being a snowball

12. That trace amount of GHG has been stable for 20,000 years

13. That trace amount of GHG has increased 30% in just 200 years

14. You have a 100% record of shutting your eyes, blocking your ears, and shouting your lungs out

A long winded effort, bonmot, to confirm that you will not give a straight or comprehensible answer.

Why would I, or any one else, care what your name is? You misrepresented yourself, and you have been caught out.

Nigel Calder is a respected scientist who has taken an interest in the AGW nonsense for many years. The politically correct reporting of the results of the CERN experiment does not disguise the fact that the final nail has been driven into the coffin of the AGW scam. He says:

“There’s no mention of the successful experiments in ion chemistry and molecular cluster formation by the Danish team in Copenhagen…..

Svensmark’s candour about cosmic rays casting doubt on catastrophic man-made global warming frightened the national funding agencies.”

At least a genuine scientist can be clear in his statement. Can you imagine a real scientist saying “the planet is squealing”?

I understand the difficulty of the AGW fraud backers. They cannot make a scientific statement which backs up their myth.

They point to pretend science like the IPCC’s "90% certainty", backed by 5 unconflicted scientists and questioned by over 31,000 impartial scientists who signed a petition to Congress to delay any action until their was some scientific basis for AGW established.

Of course, no such basis can be established so AGW is a dead issue in the US, as it will be here when we regain decent government

Your comprehension skills are truly disturbing, Leo.

Others might find this about "squealing" disturbing too:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115512&org=NSF&from=news

Leo, your very last few words dispel any notion of you being open-minded, or a real sceptic - you're not.

Proof? Google "Leo Lane" + "climate change".

You even get an unsurprising 'hit' on Cohenite's so called Climate Sceptics Party blog site ... ROFL

Leo, there are more things to life than trolling the internet and droning on about your anti-science guff. Seek help.

To someone like you bonmot, no doubt my comprehension skills are disturbing.

I find it disturbing that government funds make nonsense articles, like the one to which you refer us, available to directionless people like you. I saw the joke line: “what scientists call ‘squealing,’”. What “scientists” would they be? Confused people, like you, but with a degree from some university.

In all your dredging through the internet, researching me, you will not find any instance where I have referred to myself as a sceptic. I have always called myself a Realist, and objected to the term “denier” or “sceptic’. I have on occasion referred to fraud backers as deniers, but never apply that term to Realists.

You will find that I only put forward scientifically backed truth, or point out where assertions by fraud backers lack a scientific basis.

You have sustained a perfect record, bonmot, of never being right about anything.

The possible exception was when asked to give a scientific basis for your assertion that human emissions had any relevance to climate, you said: “I do not want to, and I do not see why I should.”.

In other words, you put forward nonsense, and will continue to do so, although you cannot supply any justification for it when asked.

Don't waste your time Leo, the fool wouldn't know what day it is.

What an arrogant peanut he is Leo, "if I gave you my field, would give you my name".

Bony, I don't follow stand up comedians, & I believe Graham Kennedy is dead isn't he, so I give up.

Leo, if he had a clue he'd be beating you about the head with it, & claiming that was justified behaviour, as most warmest do with their lack of ethics, so leave him alone to stew on the impending loss of a lovely little earner.

Hasbeen. Hear hear! Good effort Leo... But there comes a point....

Thanks, Hasbeen and Prompete. You are both right, and I have better things to do.

Every so often I allow his arrogance and wrongheadedness to bring out a response. It is a reaction rather than a managed decision.

Why am I reminded of Prince George and Baldrick slapping each other on the back in honour of their diabolical cleverness - and Blackadder standing to one side shaking his head?

Must be a connection somewhere.

Love Blackadder, was given the remastered series and always a hoot.

You know you're on a winner when the 'team' picks up their ball, slaps each other on the back and goes home a-singing their praises.

No more ad-homs I guess :(

Clown, idiot, fool, liar, elitist, beanbag, mendacious, comedian, evader, fraudster, dishonest, alarmist, morally bankrupt, miscreant, grotesque, nasty, stupid, hysterical, scammer, hoaxer, hopeless, wrong, pubescent, arrogant, wrongheaded, warmist, peanut, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry Poirot, I have no idea of that which you speak.

I have never been short enough of something interesting to do to have ever watched Blackadder. The few times I caught a promo for the rubbish was enough to make sure I never watched any of it.

The "connection" mon amie?

Baldrick's comprehension as the series progresses is inversely proportional to Blackadder's.

For example, see Hasbeen's latest.

Yes, Hasbeen, there are lots of self-satisfied "bright sparks" gracing the stage in Blackadder.
Seeing as you often mention your sailing exploits, I'll liken you to Captain Rum, who didn't know the way to the Cape of Good Hope. What he usually did was sail round and round the Isle of Wight until everyone got dizzy then head for home...not unlike the style you lot adopt in your arguments.

Thinking within a fixed circle of ideas or ideological imperatives, limits the questions; and the answers; and the available choices!
We need carbon neutral or carbon negative energy, which can and ought to be supplied for significantly less than current coal-fired power.
People on fixed incomes, most of us, simply cannot absorb higher energy costs and the flow on price rises, on the very staples of life; the direct consequence of ever increasing energy costs.
Every western style economy rests on just 2 pillars, energy and capital!
Our economy is dependant on around 70% domestic discretionary spending; and, increasing utility/service charges eats into that; creating a downward spiralling contraction, with shrinking tax receipts, rising unemployment, bankruptcies, and foreclosures the consequence; followed just as predictably; by more of the same.
We must invest public money in very low cost energy provision.
First, we need to establish algae farms that use vastly less water and absorb all the carbon we create; providing in return, all the very low cost bio fuel, we could ever possibly need, indefinitely.
That course will ensure we can safely expand our coal market, without also expanding carbon production.
We can collect all our biological waste from high rise buildings, villages etc and turn it, via solid state technology, into energy that will power all those villages etc, for around a third of the cost of coal-fired power.
Endlessly reliable wave power, will use the energy of the sun, in the most economical way possible and provide peak demand power; for significantly less the the current cost of coal-fired power.
Yes our world is over populated!
However, the only humane option, is to educate the great uneducated masses, understanding that this is the only viable strategy; that actually has been shown to actually work; as effective population control. Rhrosty