One does not need to be a climate sceptic to agree vigorously with Anthony Cox. I happen to be a professional scientist with a lifelong career in scientific research and its management. I do accept I am not qualified to debate with climate scientists the complex science of climate change as related to carbon dioxide emissions. That does not mean I am certain they are right in every respect. And I am always happy to refer to works from the likes of Roy Spencer and Ian Plimer to get other views. The notion that I should be prevented from reading of such works in the media by some kind of authority set up to protect me is anathema.

But there is much more to my objection. The key issue for Australia right now is not the science itself. It is: how certain of the rate of climate change does one need to be before introducing the kind of measures our government is taking? And that question is intimately tied up with another: what are the real prospects that such measures will achieve their objectives and at what cost? These are truly political questions on which views will necessarily differ, often along politically ideological lines.

I can only conclude that, if Finkelstein's position is as reported by Cox, then Finkelstein does not understand the matters at hand.

Cunningly written but generally nonsensical article, to be expected from the climate sceptics.

One of the statements is not nonsense: "Equality of exposure to ideas and transparency of information are the pillars of any free society.' This is irrefutable. But News Limited violates this principle time and again by censoring out information that differs from their world view. Climate change is the most glaring recent example. They censor out the 90% of peer reviewed science supporting climate change action and substitute it with the non-scientific views of maniacs like Monckton and sceptic organizations such as Lavoisier Inst. and the author's own group.

The only way to a balanced free news media is to legislate to make media companies a special case, to be free of corporate bias - independent boards and limits on the percentage of shares held by any entity or person. Under such legislation News Limited would be broken up and Rhinehart would not be allowed to have anywhere near 15% shareholding of Fairfax or a seat on the board.

Finkelstein's proposed single government funded independent media regulator is the other essential prerequisite to banish coruption and bias from the news media.

It would be nice if all we read in the press was produced by people acting with competence and honesty. Whether any sort of authority can ensure this is doubtful.

On the subject of competence and honesty, it's worth examining Cox's article. Cox writes:

"But if all your peers accept that AGW is real aren't they all going to reject any view which diverges from the consensus?

This seems to be the case with great acrimony attaching to any non-consensus view. Spencer and Braswell found this out when their 2011 paper showing climate sensitivity was much less than the computer models predicted provoked a resignation by the editor of the journal which published their paper."

Cox seems to have no interest in ascertaining whether this was a result of the journal having incompetently published a rotten paper, or whether this was an example of "reject[ing] any view which diverges from the consensus". He seems to be suggesting the latter, if so this makes his article rather a bad example of competence and honesty.

Cox also says: "The fact that Spencer and Braswell based their paper on observations was overlooked by most of the critics." You mean other papers, which reach different conclusions, don't? Anyway, the following criticism certainly doesn't overlook this fact - it deals with how the data is analysed:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/

Then he refers to one of Delingpole's writings which quoted a rather unclear email about possible future actions (tryihg to ensure two papers were left out of the IPCC process) without saying what eventually was done, how it was done, etc. In fact the emails did stimulate a number of investigations. A competent and honest author would tell us of the outcome of them. (In fact, so far as I have been able to ascertain, in regard to this accusation, there is nothing worth telling).

Roses1. Were you a regular contributor to Pravda a few decades ago? Your attitude terrifies me. What it comes to is that any media outlet that does not agree with you and your fellows 'thinkers' such as Manne or Brown should be broken up,emasculated and controlled by a governmental organ so that only ABC attitudes get a show. Above all else you and notably Finklestein claim supperiority over the great unwashed masses who are unable to think. You are totally undemocratic.
I presume that when the Finklesteinians have their way that organs such as OLO will have to shut down.

Oh dear Anthony, you trot out the good old ‘It does not matter to him that the peer review system has systemic corruption as shown by the Climate-gate emails’.

Never mind the entire Climate-gate email saga was shown, by three independent investigations, to be untrue.

As someone working in a marine science field, I can see the evidence of ‘Climate Change’ and yes human impacts are a major factor.

Please tell me what qualifications in climate science you have and your justification for such a fervent stance on scepticism against the real scientific evidence that is growing exponentially regarding this growing issue? Oh that’s right, you are a lawyer, makes sense, you obviously study climate science as part of your legal duties, or do you?

Tombee, I agree to some extent with what you state, for me the precautionary approach is gold. Whether or not the current federal policies are an effective approach is yet to be seen. As the Chinese proverb states 'a thousand mile journey starts with but one step'.

Roses1; if you don't like Murdoch, read Fairfax; if you don't like either start your own blog. The point is Finkelstein will make all those options harder.

Jeremy; way to go: "rotten paper". Could you elaborate? In regard to your link to Bickmore perhaps you would care to read Spencer's wiping the floor with him here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/#comment-24269

Spencer specifically examines the fact that Dessler and other pro-AGW views do not base their conclusions on observations but modelling.

As for the emails, how anyone could claim that the 2 batches released do not show an egregious lack of candour, transparency and honesty is astounding; a good analysis of the 1st batch is by Dr Costella:

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

A good preliminary analysis of the 2nd batch by another scientist, Pointman:

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/crash-post-climategate-mk-2/

The only illegality to so far come out of the email scandal is of course the FOI finding against the University of East Anglia.

"Never mind the entire Climate-gate email saga was shown, by three independent investigations, to be untrue."

Completely wrong as this shows:

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

"As someone working in a marine science field, I can see the evidence of ‘Climate Change’ and yes human impacts are a major factor."

Well, don't keep the evidence to yourself, let's see it.

Geoff of Perth

Again you have been caught out making completely untrue statements, notably this one.

"Never mind the entire Climate-gate email saga was shown, by three independent investigations, to be untrue."

No inquiry found any such thing. What the inquiries looked at was whether there was anything to prosecute or charge the various individuals involved with, or was there any breech of university guidelines and so on .. There obviously wasn't as none of it involved criminal or regulatory matters..

No one ever denied that the emails were authentic or that they showed some bad behaviour on the part of the scientists involved - a point you want to bear in mind.

Cohenite you have obviously made up your mind.

How about, increasing ocean acidification due to inputs from pollutants from fossil fuels, too many references to mention.

increasing ocean temperatures, i.e. energy, resulting in sea level rise.

unprecedented Arctic ice melt with direct correlation to increased snow and colder weather in northern hemisphere locations.

I could go on and on, but why bother when you obviously don't want to see or hear the evidence that is available.

Anthony. It is a pleasure to read a thoughtfull piece devoid of the standard 'ad hominim' attacks that make this issue so tiresome.
Toynbee. Like you, I am a professional but without a professional science background and, like you, have experience in being required to research and read complex text and draw conclusions based on an array of data, experience and understandings presented in papers with disparate conclusions on particular matters.
I would propose that you are very much in a position to question/argue/debate climate scientists at a variety of technical levels.
It is frustrating when the likes of you and I, having read an array of material, often seemingly contradictory, are told to exclude ourselves from the conversation because we are not 'climate scientists'. (is there as yet such a thing as a 'climate scientist'?)
As you say, how certain is the science, at this stage, to make decisions of this magnitude? Where is the 'cost benefite analysis' that concludes that a carbon tax set at the current level, producing a virtually unmeasurable reduction in emissions in 100 years time (T. Flannery) is a 'good deal' for Australians.
For us to have alternative views censored by government is an appalling state for our democracy to descend to.

Geoff,

I have not closed my mind and would be happy to discuss any of the ostensible examples/proofs of AGW you list. In respect of the first, ocean acidification, perhaps you would care to read this overview by professor Brice Bosnich who does not think acidification is occurring:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/

Alternatively you may care to consider this line of argument which notes the term is NOT acidification but slightly LESS alkalinity and that even if this does occur, which it doesn't appear to be doing at the present, it may have more benefits than disadvantages:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/ocean-acidification-a-little-bit-less-alkalinity-could-be-a-good-thing/

I have deliberately linked to Jo Nova even though both threads are by other experts and feature extensive peer reviewed references. I have done this to see if all you come back with is some ad hom against Jo Nova instead of looking at the scientific literature and applying your scientific training to that literature.

Tombee is right, the article makes some very good points about Finkelstein’s attack on free speech that are valid irrespective of whether you agree with Cox or not on climate change (I don’t). The idea that committees of lawyers and academics should determine what we read in the stuff of totalitarianism, however good and wise we hope our dictators will be.

Yes, the press can be awful – biased, inaccurate, manipulative and sensational. The best corrective for this is for them to slog it out with other voices in the marketplace of ideas.

Geoff, you'd better get ready to drop those citations about 'unprecedented Arctic ice melt', as the ice coverage is rapidly climbing back towards the long-term average. Better bury them alongside the unfortunate (for you) results that show unprecedented long-term ice GROWTH in the Antarctic.

It's easy to conclude 'global warming' if you conveniently ignore the bits that are getting colder.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

And while on the subject, let us not forget the various warnings we heard some years back that the dams would never be full again and that rivers would not flow again.. the drought was here to stay..

Those warnings were taken so seriously that governments built desalination plants. Now those plants cnnot be switched off, for various reasons, while settlements across the Murray Darling river system are washed downstream.

Does anyone know what they do with the excess water from such plants?? Pump it out to sea?

How about you try some of these:

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371

One would expect that an ex-judge would be open-minded and look at all information in the marketplace. Therefore, it is surprising that Finkelstein departs from this openness by calling for a censorship approach in regulating the media.

With regard to the global warming debate, he would find it perfectly acceptable that the ABC rigidly adopts the pro-AGW line and rigorously censors any opposing views, i.e. the ABC steers altogether clear from a debate -- hardly a satisfactory or democratic approach for a supposed impartial national broadcaster, particularly when it is widely accepted that climate science is not settled.

As Cox points out, Finkelstein relies on information from the ACIJ and Robert Manne, both strong believers in AGW, but both seemingly science illiterate and both from the Left. This is perhaps not surprising given that Finkelstein is believed to be science-illiterate, left-leaning and activist.

Of the 10600 submissions received by Finkelstein's inquiry, no fewer than 9600 were boilerplate submissions from left-wing pressure groups, led by Avaaz, of which GetUp is a strong supporter. GetUp itself is known to be supported by George Soros, and by several trade unions. It is understood that previous GetUp! board directors include Labor Minister, Bill Shorten, Co-founder Lachlan Harris, who was Kevin Rudd’s former Prime Ministerial Press Secretary, and NSW Greens MLC, Cate Faehrmann.

The Government and the Greens could hardly be regarded as bastions of democracy and free speech, as they set up the inquiry after being unable to withstand criticism on various issues by the conservative press that was doing its duty. Now the Government appears to have had an indirect influence on the Inquiry, through its connection with GetUp.

if the Labor Government with Greens support, implements the Finkelstein proposal to create a new super-regulator called the News Media Council which will impose its idea of fairness and balance not only on newspapers but even on blogs with as few hits as 15,000 a year, Australia's democratic status would be threatened by what is effectively creeping totalitarianism.

Geoff; I am familiar with many of these papers which have failed and been rebutted; I am not going to re-read them; how about you pick ONE and explain how it supports your pro-AGW position.

I'll also pick one and explain how it doesn't: Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

And note it has been rebutted by Houston and Dean globally:

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1

And locally by Watson:

P. J. Watson (2011) Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?. Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 27, Issue 2: pp. 368 – 377.

Both Watson and Houston and Dean find no increase in the rate of sea level increase compared to what it has been over the last century. That period featured periods of varying increases in sea level rate of rise with occasional periods of decline, which we currently going through:

http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ScreenHunter_15-Nov.-15-18.28.gif

Let's make no bones about this; it completely contradicts AGW theory.

Elites like Finkelstein have argued for centuries that they only have the intellect to form the correct opionion.That is why 6 million Jews,23 million Russians, 60 million Chinese etc were exterminated since the elites know best.

Now Bob Brown supports Finkelstein and Bob believes in "Global Governance" under the UN who think drastic measures must be taken to curb the world's population to save the planet.

Continue to ignore your loss of rights like this and tyranny is just around the corner.

Once upon a time the Pope prevented free speech. Now it is the gw High priests trying to defend the indefensible. You can protect people who use union credit cards for prostitutes and PM's who make a habit of lying but don't call into questions those who manipulated data and has everyone laughing at them for their ridiculous predictions. Talk about the blind trying to dictate to those who can see through this religious farce.

I have never stated any support for AGW, what I have stated is in support of Climate Change, both mutually exclusive. Most of the rebuttal here relates to weather not climate, a big difference.

As in all rebuttal, one only has to look at the long-term history of scientific denial, first it was rebuttal and pseudo-science trying to debunk, the dangers of smoking, acid rain, ozone depletion, passive smoke dangers and now climate change. The people attempting to debunk climate science are from the same ilk.

I will stick to the peer reviewed facts, supplied by experts in their own field and organisations with excellent track records of honesty and integrity.

Geoff, I can see I have taken you too seriously; you claim not to support AGW but "climate change"; presumably by that you mean NATURAL climate change.

Yet you say this:

"The people attempting to debunk climate science are from the same ilk."

How can people be "deniers" of AGW when you agree it is not occurring?
How can these people be grouped together with the usual suspects, smoking, ozone, acid rain when AGW is not happening yet smoking is plainly harmful and acid rain did exist? You can't group people who argue against something which is a scam with people who argue against some things which are real and harmful. That is just dumb.

No one is debunking climate change.It has always been thus,climate has always changed.Nothing remains static in our universe.

The argument is about the influence of CO2 and there is nobody who can define the exact parameters of this gas.CO2 has never in the past been the over riding influence of temp.It has always followed temp increases by some 800 yrs.The ice core data supports this.

Arjay, yet another half-baked conspiracy guff:

" CO2 has never in the past been the over riding influence of temp.It has always followed temp increases by some 800 yrs. "

CO2 can both lead, and lag, temperature change.

I suggest you resist getting your science from your favourite conspiracy blog sites.

Here's a tip, read up more on glaciation/de-glaciation, and Milankovitch cycles.

"CO2 can both lead, and lag, temperature change."

When there is a discernible correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, and that is rare, CO2 is always the dependent variable which means it does not cause temperature movements but vice-versa.

But no need to worry, no doubt the redoubtable Finkelstein QC is on top of the CO2/AGW conundrum and will make decisions for the benefit of us all, as befits his superior station in life.

"As someone working in a marine science field, I can see the evidence of ‘Climate Change’ and yes human impacts are a major factor."

Are you a 'climate scientist'? If not, what gives you a greater right to an opinion, or that your opinion has greater validity than Cohenite, Arjay, Bonmot, Curmudgeon or I?

Let me repeat A previous question.... Can we see your imperical (personal) evidence to support your statment above?

Raycom, took the words right out of my mouth, very clear, concise comment....
Roses1......mmmmm, quite scary!

Let me argue in favor of bias. When seeking to broaden my understanding of current issues, I am guaranteed the Age, UK Guardian, generally Fairfax press will give me a host of 'left' opinion on social agendas and 'climate change' , on the other hand, the Australian and others will give me an alternative, although harder to discern a bias, I am sure it must be there, everyone tells me so. A clearly articulated bias is helpfull when acknowledged. 'hidden adgendas' are dishonest.

Bob Carr's free ranging tweets and opinion pieces since leaving office, whilst creating some uncomfortable times ahead for himself, gives us the window to see where his future decisions will be comming from.

bonmot ,there are many scientists who are not getting a hearing on the CO2 debate.The Globalists want it because they get the taxes for their NWO and another derivative called the ETS to screw us over even more.Those in the AGW industry are hardly going to voluntarily cut their govt funding by being totally honest.Theirs is the noble feel good cause of being really cautious,saving the planet and filling their pockets as well.

The facts are that temps have not inreased since 1998 even with expoential increases in CO2.The theory is not being supported by the facts.There may be many other factors like the Sun and changes in the electromagnetic fields of the earth that effect climate.It is the height of all arrogance and ignorance for any one group in such a complex system to say that CO2 is the salient factor in temp increases.

Arjay,

That "one group" happens to consist of climate scientists. Would you consider it an equivalent arrogance and ignorance for, say, physicists to offer conclusions on physics? Why do amateurs/skeptics/ denialists persist in spraying around a collection of assertions and allegations - and proceed to offer their own (untrained) opinions on such complex issues?...as if it wasn't the economic status quo they are protecting(or their obsession with conspiracy they are projecting).

Poirot, what you are relying on is nothing more than the consensus argument to support AGW. It is both wrong and non-existent:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/consensus-myth-97-of-nothing.html

But let's have some fun; you pick a couple of 'climate scientists' who you think are the best going around who support AGW and I'll pull down some names of 'climate scientists' who I think are the best going around who criticise AGW.

cohenite,

You obviously have a problem with scientific consensus.

I'm a little busy today for a drawn out game of "I'll show mine if you show me yours"...sorry 'bout that.

Carry on, it's fascinating : )

Invoking the spectre of censorship is always effective and in this case appeals to eager sensibilities in just the way Finkelstein suggests:
"are often persuaded to believe what is already dominant or what fits their irrational needs"
In this case irrational needs are met, i.e. denialism. I suspect conservatives/libertarians/climate skeptics generally favour censorship for pietistic reasons, but that doesn't stop them from abhoring it when it serves their purposes, in this case sabotaging public support for action.
There are times when censorship is justifiable, or at least rationalised, and that's when dire threats loom. I'm sure no one needs a history lesson on propaganda during war time, and governments tend to resent radicals running around undermining the war effort, talking treason or otherwise compromising the nation's resolve. At least Finkelstein isn't calling for a McCarthy-like roundup of minimifidianists.
AGW looms unambiguously as a dire global threat, as attested by those who ought to know; the vast majority of tens of thousands of climate experts. Minimifidianists are punching well above their weight against scientific concensus, not because what they say has any credibility at all, but because of a morbid fear of change that's a hallmark of human nature. People can't bear to think that the party's over and they might have to down-size, so they cling to the straws the minimidianists cast on the stream.
The current impasse on action on climate change amounts to a condemnation of democracy. Democracy has shown itself incapable of acting decisively against a dire threat that looms for succeeding generations--of course we've done the same economically, saddling the future with debt and resource impoverishment for our excesses.
I favour free speech but I deplore ignorant denialism. And just as we deny fascists and witch-hunters the oxygen of publicity, so we should put a muzzle on those barking-mad few who have such a disproportionate influence among the sheep of popular opinion.

Two years ago, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., released a study claiming that inconsistencies between satellite observations of Earth's heat and measurements of ocean heating were evidence there is "missing energy" in the planet's system.

Click to enlarge
Scientist Graeme Stephens at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is also an artist. This work is entitled "Cumuls Congestus." See more at cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu. Credit: Graeme Stephens
Where was it going? Or, they wondered, was something wrong with the way researchers tracked energy as it was absorbed from the sun and emitted back into space?

An international team of atmospheric scientists and oceanographers, led by Norman Loeb of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., and including Graeme Stephens of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., set out to investigate the mystery.

They used 10 years of data -- 2001 to 2010 -- from NASA Langley's orbiting Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System Experiment (CERES) instruments to measure changes in the net radiation balance at the top of Earth's atmosphere. The CERES data were then combined with estimates of the heat content of Earth's ocean from three independent ocean-sensor sources.

Their analysis, summarized in a NASA-led study published Jan. 22 in the journal Nature Geosciences, found that the satellite and ocean measurements are, in fact, in broad agreement once observational uncertainties are factored in.

"One of the things we wanted to do was a more rigorous analysis of the uncertainties," Loeb said. "When we did that, we found the conclusion of missing energy in the system isn't really supported by the data."

"Missing energy" is in the oceans

"Missing energy" is in the oceans

Click to enlarge
Normal Loeb. Credit: NASA
"Our data show that Earth has been accumulating heat in the ocean at a rate of half a watt per square meter (10.8 square feet), with no sign of a decline. This extra energy will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere and increase temperatures on Earth," Loeb said.

Scientists generally agree that 90 percent of the excess heat associated with increases in greenhouse gas concentrations gets stored in Earth's ocean. If released back into the atmosphere, a half-watt per square meter accumulation of heat could increase global temperatures by 0.3 or more degrees centigrade (0.54 degree Fahrenheit).

Loeb said the findings demonstrate the importance of using multiple measuring systems over time, and illustrate the need for continuous improvement in the way Earth's energy flows are measured.

The science team at the National Center for Atmospheric Research measured inconsistencies from 2004 and 2009 between satellite observations of Earth's heat balance and measurements of the rate of upper ocean heating from temperatures in the upper 700 meters of the ocean. They said the inconsistencies were evidence of "missing energy."

Other authors of the paper are from the University of Hawaii, the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, the University of Reading United Kingdom and the University of Miami.

US Republican Senator James Inhofe, in reliance on the Bible (Genesis 8:22) for his most recent pseudo-scientific views on global warming, thinks that scientists (in the main) and people (in general) are so wrong and arrogant if they think that human activity could change what God’s plans are for the Earth's climate.

In his new book ‘The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future’ – he (small ‘h’) explains all.

I am sure Raymond Finkelstein QC would have no problem with the ‘free speech’ as espoused by the illustrious Senator Inhofe.

And yes, it would be wrong to “censor” the good Senator, or his book.

Interestingly, it is Inhofe and his fellow travellers that wish to “censor” real science; so much so as to promulgate the withdrawing of funds that would reduce some of the uncertainty surrounding AGW - particularly in areas of ‘attribution’ and ‘climate sensitivity’.

There seems to be an inordinate amount of public opinion (here and in the US) that shares Inhofe’s view of the science and will do all in their religious and ideological arsenal to smear, curtail and deny it.

"CO2 is always the dependent variable". No, it is not.

Multi-year sea ice hit its record minimum extent in the winter of 2008. That is when it was reduced to about 55 percent of its average extent since the late 1970s, when satellite measurements of the ice cap began. Multi-year sea ice then recovered slightly in the three following years, ultimately reaching an extent 34 percent larger than in 2008, but it dipped again in winter of 2012, to its second lowest extent ever.

The other problem is that the science has been so corrupted that no one believes anything even if it may have some truth to it.

We have to look at longer terms.The world has been both much hotter and cooler than now even in the last 1000 yrs.An ice age will be our worst nightmare.Note how the poles are shifting alarmingly and this is affecting our magnetic shield that deflects some of the Sun's energy.The poles are now shifting at 55 km per year.I suppose we can blame that too on CO2 production.

Arjay

We do look at longer terms - you seem to be struggling with Milankovitch cycles. ‘Coolings’ are caused initially and primarily by an increase in the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Just as can happen in the warmings, CO2 can also lag in the coolings, by a thousand years or so, or more.

However, like Anthony Cox/cohenite, you appear to make the mistake of assuming that these coolings/warmings must have a single cause. Not so. It is well known, at least in the scientific community, that multiple factors are involved in climate change; including the change in planetary albedo, GHG concentrations, clouds, aerosols, etc.

If you are really interested, I strongly recommend you read Principles of Planetary Climate – it is a university text for the real aspiring professionals. CO2 can both lead, and lag, a temperature change. It can be both a dependent and independent variable.

Arjay, the contribution of CO2 to the glacial/interglacial coolings/warmings is about 1/3 of the full amplitude, so it would be wrong to assert that CO2 is the major cause of the ice ages – or a shift in the poles as you sarcastically infer. The fundamental driver for longer term climate changes (glacial/inter-glacial cooling and warmings) is the Milankovitch cycles.

However, as [CO2] has significantly contributed to our most recent climate change, it is best understood in terms of a biogeochemical feedback – feeding back to amplify the warming already underway.

Arjay, the only thing “corrupting” science are those people that, for ideological or religious reasons, don’t want to accept the science – they only believe in what they want to believe, regardless of the truth. You do that quite well.

Scientists understand that Earth's magnetic field has flipped its polarity many times over the millennia. In other words, if you were alive about 800,000 years ago, and facing what we call north with a magnetic compass in your hand, the needle would point to 'south.' This is because a magnetic compass is calibrated based on Earth's poles. The N-S markings of a compass would be 180 degrees wrong if the polarity of today's magnetic field were reversed. Many doomsday theorists have tried to take this natural geological occurrence and suggest it could lead to Earth's destruction. But would there be any dramatic effects? The answer, from the geologic and fossil records we have from hundreds of past magnetic polarity reversals, seems to be 'no.'

Reversals are the rule, not the exception. Earth has settled in the last 20 million years into a pattern of a pole reversal about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal. A reversal happens over hundreds or thousands of years, and it is not exactly a clean back flip. Magnetic fields morph and push and pull at one another, with multiple poles emerging at odd latitudes throughout the process. Scientists estimate reversals have happened at least hundreds of times over the past three billion years. And while reversals have happened more frequently in "recent" years, when dinosaurs walked Earth a reversal was more likely to happen only about every one million years.

Sediment cores taken from deep ocean floors can tell scientists about magnetic polarity shifts, providing a direct link between magnetic field activity and the fossil record. The Earth’s magnetic field determines the magnetization of lava as it is laid down on the ocean floor on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Rift where the North American and European continental plates are spreading apart. As the lava solidifies, it creates a record of the orientation of past magnetic fields much like a tape recorder records sound. The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal. The fossil record shows no drastic changes in plant or animal life. Deep ocean sediment cores from this period also indicate no changes in glacial activity, based on the amount of oxygen isotopes in the cores. This is also proof that a polarity reversal would not affect the rotation axis of Earth, as the planet's rotation axis tilt has a significant effect on climate and glaciation and any change would be evident in the glacial record.

I'm outa here.

Hi Squeers,

I was interested in your juxtaposition of Finkelstein's recommendations and " .... the sheep of popular opinion."

Would you care to elaborate ?

No rush :)

Joe

Joe,
I think I made my point very clearly above, but lest anyone's inclined to label me elitist--looking down from lofty heights at popular opinion--my point was that a great many people allow themselves to be persuaded by a noisy but small cohort of minimifidianists. This fits with the argument of the article--that people "are often persuaded to believe what is already dominant or what fits their irrational needs". Or, we could add, what serves their ideological bent, or even more, what validates their lifestyle and vested interests. The "sheep of popular opinion" are those who are incapable of critical or self-reflexive thought, yet are often authoritarian and passionate, and take their lead from whatever source, however dubious, seems most supportive of them.
But really, I'm satisfied with my opinion as I put it above. Is there anything in it you differ with?

Hi Squeers,

I guess that's a consequence of living in a democracy, where people are free to speak rubbish as well as brilliant truth, and where there is NOBODY who dictates which is which.

And if freedom of speech exists in a democracy, then so does its written expression. Yes, it might be rubbish, what newspapers publish. Yes, dumb-@rses may be persuaded by what they hear and read but again, who decides what they should or shouldn't hear and read ? Judges ? Public intellectuals ? God help us.

I don't know how you get around calling that controlling approach 'elitist'. As Salman Rushdie has said often, and been penalised for it, the right of free speech is worth nothing if it does not include the right to offend. Of course, the laws on free speech come up against the laws against slander. In case of freedom of the press, any extension of the right to spout offensive rubbish (and the right to listen to it and be persuaded by it) into print confronts the laws on libel.

And where would some of us be if we were not allowed to spout rubbish on OLO ? What would we do all day ?

Yes, the shock-jocks and the gutter press often promote distorted versions of the truth, to put it mildly. But to paraphrase the old WW I joke, if you know of better arguments, then put them forward. The worst thing we can do in these sorts of situations is to rely on some puffed-up, self-promoting 'public intellectual' to do our thinking for us.

If you have an alternative point of view of your own, then put it. Try to get it published somewhere. That's the value of an institution like OLO: we can take the mickey out of each other, and out of anybody who purports to be a 'public intellectual'.

Thank god for that good old-fashioned Australian disrespect for anybody who gets too far up themselves. May it long continue.

And we're not as sheep-like as you may think :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,
your sanctimonious speech about democracy and free speech conveniently avoids the real import of what I was saying; that democrcay was a failure.
If 95% of our generals and experts on all things military showed evidence we were about to be invaded, do you think the sheep would be so easily dissuaded of purpose? But supposing a majority was dissuaded, do you think you'd be defending the democratic freedom of speech of those few whose prevarications undermined the resolve of the country?
You be as self-righteous as you like; my point stands.

Hi Squeers,

Being sanctimonious, or unctuous, self-righteous, or pompous can be great fun. Just ask any Green.

So, if it were true that democracy had failed, what do you recommend to replace it ? Rule by our betters, public intellectuals, people who know what is best for us ? And that independent opinion just complicates their good work ?

Your hypothetical juxtaposes the right to rule of knowledgeable elites, versus the failed democracy of letting sheep have any influence over policy. Thanks for that, it's good to know how soi-disant knowledgeable elites see the issues.

Apart from that, I don't really understand the thrust of your questions: are you saying that, even given the considered opinion of military experts, the press and other agents of opinion-shaping would be able to persuade the 'sheople' to the contrary ? That people are so manipulable that they would go along solely with a newspaper's take on what was happening ? Has this actually ever happened anywhere ?

As the electorate becomes more educated, and more able to follow events overseas, is this scenario becoming more, or less, likely ? After Iraq and Afghanistan ? And can you attribute that hypothetical gullibility to the extremes of freedoms of speech and of the press ?

Have you read Huxley's 'Brave New World' by the way ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

"As the electorate becomes more educated, and more able to follow events overseas..."

It depends what you consider is 'education", which in contemporary Western society isn't geared towards producing citizens who, as Squeers points out, are capable of "critical and self-relexive thought". More likely that the final product of the education system is overwhelmingly people who wait for someone else to tell them what to think - all the better if they can grab a sound bite from a shock-jock or commercial news.

What were the educated class able to do about Australia's deployment in Iraq, despite the protests? No, it all just went ahead as the Howard government kept in step with the U.S. and Britain. People who doubted the veracity and the motives of the U.S. still read the news,(funnily enough, sheople still think if something is "in print", that it's eminently believable) absorbed the hype and sat glued to the screen with "embedded reporters as the curtain rose on the Iraqi invasion.

Joe,
your smart-arse leading questions and answers are no doubt very satisfying to you and your smug fraternity, but you're just blowing smoke rings.
"Just ask any Green", for instance, is a good instance of the depth of minimifidianist critique and their unwholesome influence; anybody who gives a rats about the environment is laughingly dismissed. Thanks to populist minimifidianism, to be green is to be an object of ridicule!
I've been all over your other questions on OLO, much to the sheep's amusement I'm sure.
Democracy and capitalism are non sequitur.
Representative democracy is a sham--like a test match in India.
I'd support an inclusive democracy based on civil duty, but egotists don't believe in civil society.
I do not support the rights of "elites to rule", but the sheep can't be expected to act responsibly--leave their pasture--on matters about which they're ignorant.
Are you implying that the sheople (the hegemonic centre) are refusing to back action on AGW for empirical reasons?
Ironically, you're probably correct; after all the sheople haven't noticed any appreciable change, so it must all be part of nature's cycles eh? Oh yes, and the communists!
I haven't said the sheople are manipulated purely by newspapers. They're disposed to be persuaded. It's confirmation bias, not wanting to give-up their rich pastures, and has nothing to do with science. Who needs science? Anyone with eyes and half a brain can see what we're doing to the planet, and ultimately to ourselves. Minimifidianists don't only ignore the experts (would they ignore 98 doctors in 100 who opined they had liver disease and ought to adobt a healthier lifestyle?), they ignore the evidence of their own (modest) faculties!
I, btw, have also criticised "action" on climate change--that is the sick joke that we can fix it passively, by taxing consumption--you'd think any moron could see through that; but no, turns out I'm a savant! But then, I actually thought it through. Nor do my conclusions validate my plump position in the scheme of things; they insist in fact that I must change my ways.
Unfortunately, I'm the black sheep!

bonny says about CO2:

"CO2 can both lead, and lag, a temperature change. It can be both a dependent and independent variable."

Bonny doesn't know what he/she is talking about. The alarmists try to prove CO2 causes temperature to increase by establishing a correlation between them. Not only that but they claim to be able to predict temperature movement from CO2; the statistical method of doing this is the coefficient of determination, r2; unfortunately CO2 cannot give the proportion of the variance (fluctuation) of temperature that is predictable from variance in CO2 over any period. Which is to say over any period the relationship can be +ve, high or low, or -ve, high or low, or neutral.

Bonny is saying the absence of a consistent r2 relationship between CO2/and temperature means CO2 is both an independent and dependent variable.

The only thing absent from this statement is reality

Poirot & Squeers,

With respect, your perceptions of ordinary people and their ability to make their own choices are somewhat determinist.

And elitist: Squeers, you can't write

"I do not support the rights of "elites to rule","

and then contradict yourself by adding:

" ... but the sheep can't be expected to act responsibly--leave their pasture--on matters about which they're ignorant."

The problem with our forms of democracy, defective as they almost certainly may be, is that that's what you have to run with - the will of the people, no matter how manipulated you might think they have been. Messy, but far superior to whatever comes second.

After all, what's your alternative to messy democracy other than some form of elitism, sliding into authoritarianism, if not something worse ?

We may not have completed the long struggle for democracy, but it's the best we've got so far. As a a one-time socialist, a former communist, I wish there were better forms of government, but I don't believe that any workable forms have yet been proposed, not socialism or any other bullsh!t Utopia - those all have degenerated into tarted-up forms of fascism and I wouldn't lift a finger to ever promote such phony systems again.

Your Platonic solution, rule by the Men of Gold, the keepers, the elders, the wise men, over the dumb masses too easily duped for their own good, has a long and dishonourable history. I suggest you go back to your books and keep looking.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe:
And elitist: Squeers, you can't write

"I do not support the rights of "elites to rule","

and then contradict yourself by adding:

" ... but the sheep can't be expected to act responsibly--leave their pasture--on matters about which they're ignorant."

I've been all over that too. Apart from the fact I'm using figurative language, I've repeatedly used the term hegemony, and I've talked about the popular centre as being that vague centre ground that all political parties exploit, which represents everyone and no one. Representative democracy has been well and truly unravelled and decrypted--like the human genome en masse--and we're all explicable by computer modelling--people are much easier than climate to predict--easily manipulated by the markets and PR releases.

But call me elitist if you like, Joe. I couldn't give a toss. You keep skating on surfaces and I'll keep going deep.

BTW, I hope the minimifidianists here read the press release from the CSIRO this morning. Just more "alarmism" you can all laugh to scorn.

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

579; will you stop verbatim quoting, especially when it is rubbish!

The Lacis paper has been comprehensively rebutted. It's assumptions are quite incorrect; the primary assumption is that because water/clouds/ water vapor reacts quickly to temperature changes it is only a feedback; Spencer's work shows conclusively that water is a forcing in itself particularly in its form of cloud.

When Lacis and his team programmed their models with the assumption that water cannot force temperature then it was a fait accompli that only CO2 was left to produce the forcing! This is circular reasoning!

In any event Lacis has also been contradicted by A. M. Makarieva1 et al:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/24015/2010/acpd-10-24015-2010.html

This paper shows that the energy created and used by PHASE changes in water is by far the dominant climatic factor.

In short Lacis is a joke and typical of the faults and defects of modelling.

cohenite, perhaps you would like to comment on the CSIRO's recently released 'State of the Environment' which states:

"the long-term warming trend has not changed, with each decade having been warmer than the previous decade since the 1950s. The warming trends observed around Australia are consistent with global-scale warming that has been measured during recent decades, despite 2010 and 2011 being the coolest years recorded in Australia since 2001. Global-average surface temperatures were the warmest on record in 2010 (slightly higher than 2005 and 1998). 2011 was the world’s 11th warmest year and the warmest year on record during a La Niña event. The world’s 13th warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 15 years.
There has been a general trend towards increased spring and summer monsoonal rainfall across Australia’s north during recent decades, and decreased late autumn and winter rainfall across southern Australia"

Looking forward to your critique of this summation!

Hi Squeers,

"Hegemony" ? Gosh, what a big word. Perhaps I should bend the knee to your facility with post-modern terms. Except that that would deflect proper credit from my idol Gramsci: so not only did he have a dreadful childhood and a lousy adulthood, but now his grave gets robbed into the bargain.

Forgive me but I'm presuming that you are a well-established academic when you write:

"Representative democracy has been well and truly unravelled and decrypted ..... people are much easier than climate to predict--easily manipulated by the markets and PR releases."

After all, it does have that elitist, dismissive ring about it. But the gist of what you are asserting is that you don't think that democracy has much of a future, is that right ? That some more, shall we say, stabilising form of governance should be considered ? For the benefit of the people, of course ?

I hesitate to use the term "authoritarian", but I'm struggling not to bring myself around to suspect that your preferred option might be something like "people's, democratic, revolutionary, proletarian dictatorship" to replace the bourgeois, out-moded and bankrupt term "democracy" ? Not necessarily a straight-out socialism, just some form of national socialism ? Some form of social control that fits in with your comment that

" .... call me elitist if you like, Joe. I couldn't give a toss."

Seriously though, Squeers, in my view democracy, with all its faults and defects and drawbacks and letdowns, is an extremely precious form of popular expression. I wish there were something better. But history over the past two hundred years, let's say since March 1883, has not thrown up any better alternative.

On the other hand, it has thrown up dreadful perversions, abandonments, of democracy precisely along the lines that you, with respect, advocate - some even in the name of the people :)

Best wishes,

Joe

NASA Finds Sea Ice Decline Driving Rise in Arctic Air Pollutants


WASHINGTON -- Drastic reductions in Arctic sea ice in the last decade may be intensifying the chemical release of bromine into the atmosphere, resulting in ground-level ozone depletion and the deposit of toxic mercury in the Arctic, according to a new NASA-led study.

The connection between changes in the Arctic Ocean's ice cover and bromine chemical processes is determined by the interaction between the salt in sea ice, frigid temperatures and sunlight. When these mix, the salty ice releases bromine into the air and starts a cascade of chemical reactions called a "bromine explosion." These reactions rapidly create more molecules of bromine monoxide in the atmosphere. Bromine then reacts with a gaseous form of mercury, turning it into a pollutant that falls to Earth's surface.

Bromine also can remove ozone from the lowest layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere. Despite ozone's beneficial role blocking harmful radiation in the stratosphere, ozone is a pollutant in the ground-level troposphere.

A team from the United States, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom, led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., produced the study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research- Atmospheres. The team combined data from six NASA, European Space Agency and Canadian Space Agency satellites, field observations and a model of how air moves in the atmosphere to link Arctic sea ice changes to bromine explosions over the Beaufort Sea, extending to the Amundsen Gulf in the Canadian Arctic.

"Shrinking summer sea ice has drawn much attention to exploiting Arctic resources and improving maritime trading routes," Nghiem said. "But the change in sea ice composition also has impacts on the environment. Changing conditions in the Arctic might increase bromine explosions in the future.

Geoff, it's been done:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/csiro-and-bom-state-of-climate-report.html

Is 579 a bot?

Joe,

I'm wondering if you would read this article by Wolfgang Streeck titled "The Crises of Democratic Capitalism"....I'm being sincere here, it's an interesting read.

http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2914

Thank you, Poirot,

I have to read this a couple of times, but it does seem that Streeck is focussing pretty much on Europe, and by implication, on economies/polities which get themselves into a similar predicament, of the corruption of democratic insritutions through a dependence on financial institutions.

In relation to that, I am worried that the Australian government, by allowing unrestrained growth in the mining sector and effectively disadvantaging (i.e. crippling) the manufacturing and other sectors, may be heading down the same path of relying on a sort of rentier economy, one which enables it to distribute largesse to the electorate mainly be expanding public employment - and to pass all the problems of expanding public debt onto the next government. Expanding public debt at the same time as raking in windfall revenue from the mining boom ? Idiotic and dangerous at the same time.

But for all that, for all the weakening of national democratic institutions and activity, these are still the hard-fought achievements that have to be battled over, again and again. We can't give in to elitist forces on the pretext that democracy is too good for the 'herd'.

Or to the temptation to hand it all over to 'competent' oligarchs: this article details the disasters that await us if we abandon whatever genuine democratic potential we still have:

http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2907

Cheers,

Joe

Sorry Joe, I thought the big word hegemony (8 letters) was part of all thinking people's working vocabularies.
No I am not an established academic. I'm just a humble doctoral candidate, in my small way a private intellectual.
Nor am I an elitist. I believe in "participatory" democracy, and in line with the article Poirot gave the link to, not the sham democracy we have that's perpetually at war with itself over "the booty", rather than dedicated to a just and sustainable human society.
As Poirot's article also suggests, the gist of my argument is that democracy (such as it is) is threatened by the big end of town. I've also made the case that if modern science is correct about AGW, then democracy is failing its mandate. If you consider ignoring our experts--and you could hardly call a disparate and international group of tens or hundreds of thousands an elite--in a potentially desperate situation the prudent exercise of a democracy, well good for you.
The truth is that representative democracies are compromised, both internally and without, by selfish and vested interests. But even if our sham democracy was capable of ignoring self-interest to unite against a threat, it's not qualified to appreciate the complexities of the present threat, and its too easy for vested interests and their minions to sew denialism.
But I'm sick of you twisting what I say. In future if you can't discuss a topic without resorting to deliberate distortions, I'll ignore you.

Squeers

There is no way I would lump Joe into the same category as Anthony Cox/cohenite.

However, I am also sick of cohenite twisting what I say - hardly conducive to reasoned and rational discourse. Indeed, more the method of deliberate distortion and misrepresentation to sow the seeds of doubt. In another thread, I alluded to the "smart idiot" - much the same syndrome as cohenite's.

Should we ignore cohenite? Probably = he is supposed to be a lawyer in Newcastle and should seemingly have more important things to do than spruicking his not so well esteemed blog-site, or perpetually commenting on Jo Nova's or Jennifer Marahassy's, or arranging tour and speaking engagements for the pre-dispositions of the 'Lord' Christopher Monckton and his fellow travellers.

Ah well, more likely that cohenite has a very minor role as a "lawyer" given his 'unknown-ness', in Law that is. Perhaps the reason for a mid-life crisis career change :)

Hi Squeers,

My point is that if democracy is, in your view, failing, or defective, or not living up to its mandate, then it should be strengthened, enlivened, 'improved', developed, expanded - not replaced by some more stable, predictable, rule by authorities, such as a public intellectual elite.

Yes, democracy should be as participatory as possible, which, given Australia's 22 million people, may not be as total as you or I would like, and people after all do have other preoccupations in their daily lives, so we have to be realistic about the potentials of their participation.

I have to confess that I don't 'participate' much more than by casting a vote at local, state and federal elections, and chatting with my local members over the years at booths.

So what is the right balance between a Rousseauan participatory democracy, and the bare bones of the compulsory casting of ballots ? Given the freedom to participate or not in a democracy (another one of its potential flaws ?), that's up to each of us to decide.

But the exercise of a vibrant - even scurrilous - media and moderately inflammatory speechifying, even of morons like the shock-jocks, probably adds to the interest in public affairs that might be generated amongst busy Australians rather than the reverse.

As for Finkelstein, News Limited and bias, I notice that Tony Jones got stuck into Campbell Newman last night, using articles and information published in The Australian to put him on the spot. I don't think Mr Jones resorted to using anything from the Green Left Weekly, or New Matilda, or Larvatus Prodeo in the spirit of providing equal time. Perhaps the best explanation is

(i) that News Limited, in their usual biased way, has information that Newman is secretly a Leftie and/or

(ii) that Rupert Murdoch, in a devilishly cunning plot, is actually a Leftie himself; and/or

(iii) that Tony Jones covertly is an extreme Right-winger, seeking to undermine Newman and bring in a One Nation government in Queensland.

Arjay, where are you when we need your wise advice ?

Joe

How can I twist what you say bonny; you don't say anything. Most times I have to guess what you mean as with this:

"Bonny is saying the absence of a consistent r2 relationship between CO2/and temperature means CO2 is both an independent and dependent variable.

The only thing absent from this statement is reality"

So, stop whinging and make your point if you think I have misrepresented you; and if you have a point.

>> Bonny (sic) is saying the absence of a consistent r2 relationship between CO2/and temperature means CO2 is both an independent and dependent variable. <<

No I am not - you have distorted and misrepresented what I have said - to suit your own belief.

Your statement also infers (wrongly) that CO2 is both an independent and dependent variable at the same time. Duh ... it isn't.

Have you read Principles of Planetary Climate? If so, what part don't you understand?

You continually display a tendency to hear and see only what you want to hear and see, Cox. As I understand, exemplified in most of your blog posts, on most of your favourite blog sites, and on most of the days you visit.

I believe they call this cognitive disonance (a.k.a. 'denialism') coupled with motivational reasoning (to support only what you want to support, regardless of the truth).

Look cohenitey (sic) ... if you want to pretend your some 'kinda climatologist' or 'some kinda trolling idiot' (like 579) well, that is your choice. Just don't expect me to rebutt your guff every time you want to impress people, especially on 'some kinda opinion' site, like OLO.

Why? Because I have a life outside of blogs, I also have more important things to do.

Besides, your guff has been rebutted by real 'climate scientists' (not fake ones like yourself) many times before, following the scientific process and in the scientific fora.

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Hi 579, (Can I say Hi 5, for short ?)

You write:

" .... carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect."

So the other greenhouse gases are responsible for 20 % 'of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth's greenhouse effect' ? I dropped Chemistry in Year 11, a long time ago, but I understood that carbon dioxide was a sort of inert gas, while the ' .... non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons ....' are pretty active, with a lot of free electrons or whatever. Is that right ? So, while carbon dioxide is like the water in a hydroponics system, is it possible that the greenhouse effect is 'forced' mainly by the other more volatile gases, using CO2 as a sort of inert aeroponic substrate ?

Anyway, this is probably getting a little way away from the gist of this thread, which deals with the dangers of putting too much power in the hands of unelected elites, on the pretext that democracy has 'unravelled', has been corrupted, is effete, a fraud, etc. While I'm confident that Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler would be gratified that their denigrations of democracy were experiencing a revival, can I respectfully put forward an hypothesis:

- that the search for a system which can promise political closure, for an end to development and uncertainty, perfection and Utopia, the final arrival at a telos, is futile ? It may have been the goal of almost every philosopher, including Marx, until perhaps Schopenhauer and Popper, but it was a fool's goal.

[TBC]

[contd.]

5,

There is no end. There is no completion, closing of the circle, or becoming at one with God. There is only muddling, confusion, wrong-headness, idiocy, uncertainty, change (cf. Heraclitus), unfinishedness, loose ends, misuse and pure evil, and general chaos in life in general, and in government in particular, of which the present Gillard government is but one, rather negative, example.

That's democracy, imperfect, even defective, at times seeming to unravel then ravel again, the clash of classes which are always undergoing differential changes in their fortunes due largely to what Marx would have called 'the development of productive forces', and therefore experiencing a shifting balance of power, and hence changes in government. A pretty lousy system, but as somebody is supposed to have said, it sure beats whatever comes second.

That has to be the system that we live with, try to improve, and support, along with its accompanying - and definitional - freedoms, of speech, of assembly and of expression. This includes the media. Every ratbag and idiot should be allowed the right to express herself - just as much as you or I can as representatives of our superior class of people. Our inferiors should have the rights that we take for granted - that's the essence of democracy, a precious but fragile flower, easily trampled, and we all have to cope with the consequences of its workings.

Greg Melleuish has a great article on this subject in today's Australian, in which he concludes:

"Free politics requires freedom of expression. It requires vigorous debate. Without that debate there are many, especially in sections of the government and of the universities, who would love nothing more than to have a monopoly over ideas in this country."

The article is just under one by a Labor Party member, Graham Richardson, and alongside another article by another Labour Party member, Barry Cohen. Just what you would expect from a Murdoch rag.

Cheers,

Joe

NASA Finds Sea Ice Decline Driving Rise in Arctic Air Pollutants


WASHINGTON -- Drastic reductions in Arctic sea ice in the last decade may be intensifying the chemical release of bromine into the atmosphere, resulting in ground-level ozone depletion and the deposit of toxic mercury in the Arctic, according to a new NASA-led study.

The connection between changes in the Arctic Ocean's ice cover and bromine chemical processes is determined by the interaction between the salt in sea ice, frigid temperatures and sunlight. When these mix, the salty ice releases bromine into the air and starts a cascade of chemical reactions called a "bromine explosion." These reactions rapidly create more molecules of bromine monoxide in the atmosphere. Bromine then reacts with a gaseous form of mercury, turning it into a pollutant that falls to Earth's surface.

Bromine also can remove ozone from the lowest layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere. Despite ozone's beneficial role blocking harmful radiation in the stratosphere, ozone is a pollutant in the ground-level troposphere.

A team from the United States, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom, led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., produced the study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research- Atmospheres. The team combined data from six NASA, European Space Agency and Canadian Space Agency satellites, field observations and a model of how air moves in the atmosphere to link Arctic sea ice changes to bromine explosions over the Beaufort Sea, extending to the Amundsen Gulf in the Canadian Arctic.

"Shrinking summer sea ice has drawn much attention to exploiting Arctic resources and improving maritime trading routes," Nghiem said. "But the change in sea ice composition also has impacts on the environment. Changing conditions in the Arctic might increase bromine explosions in the future."