By Tom's descriptions I'd have to say I'm mostly communitarian. I'm not very concerned about climate change: I regard it as more as a diversion keeping journalists in work than a grave threat to civilization. And I think the best way to reduce CO2 emissions is nuclear power. I wonder what the Yale Law School would make of me?

Cheers,

Tony

Rhrosty

You said: “Why indeed? Perhaps we should wait until the facts are entirely irrefutable? Say when enough of the ice sheets have melted to increase sea levels by as much as 10 metres? 10 metres would inundate most of our coastal plains, which by the way contain most of our population, capital cities and around 70% of our economy.”

This sort of nonsense is what discredits the Alarmists.

Even if the atmosphere does warm as the IPCC modellers project, it would take thousands of years for sea levels to rise 10 m.

Even if sea level s did rise 10 m over night (it’s impossible), just 4% of world population and 3% of world output (figure 7-5, p145 http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf )

Your comment is loaded with scary adjectives. Your alarmism is unconvincing just as is James Hansen’s scaremongering that the oceans will evaporate if we don’t change our ways and become good people very soon, and the Will Steffen’s the “Critical Decade”.

I do agree with you that we will be able to implement cost competitive alternatives to fossil fuels if and when we need them. They should be rolled out first where it is economically rational to do so. In that case, because Australia has cheap coal, Australia will (and should) be one of the last countries in the world to transition from fossil fuels. That’s rational; i.e. unemotional logic.

Rhosty,

So who's waiting ? General Electric, with its wind farms ? Power stations switching from coal to gas ? Vast solar power arrays subsidised by governments around the world ? China with its policy of an extra 1 % p.a. in the proportion of renewable energy generated for its industries ?

No, I'm not saying that capitalism will save the world, out of the fundamental goodness of 'its' heart. But everywhere, 'it' will try to make a dollar out of switching to renewable energy if it is profitable enough. And hopefully, even our own government might have the wits to direct funding far more to research and development of appropriate technologies.

After all, if nobody does anything (which seems to be the preferred position of many environmentalists, or am I wrong ?), sea-levels will rise all around the world by as much as a foot in the next century (even in Fiji), and temperatures might rise by an average of two degrees Celsius. Could these changes have dreadful consequences: e.g., the annual average temperature of Kazakhstan will rise from one degree C to three degrees C ? More grapes will be grown in Tasmania ? Rainfall across the north of Australia will be much greater, falling on perhaps millions of square kilometres of currently un-used land and moving further south over time ?

A few years ago, I recall seeing a documentary about Global Dimming, that with the emission of far more industrial particulates around the world, water vapour in the atmosphere (increasing because of global warming) was able to condense around particles and produce more clouding, fogging and dimming of solar energy reaching the earth's surface, certainly increasing humidity - and perhaps temperature as well, but at a slower rate than would have been the case without the condensation and dimming.

Perhaps you're right, we should take the advice of the old Mad Magazine slogan: "Don't just do something, stand there !"

Cheers,

Joe

Unfortunately for you Tom, & your academic & NGO mates, the public have caught up with the facts. We are well aware that the whole thing is a fraud, with absolutely no hard evidence to back it up.

Yes it took a while, & you could probably have achieved your objective if there had not been so many of you enjoying the annual holidays, & all the grandstanding the rort provided.

By the time you got down to business a few too many had taken most of your computer generated "evidence" apart, & the collapse had started.

Yes keep pushing. The thing will probably still give those like you a living for a few more years. However you had better get that exit strategy lined up now, the need to escape from the tar & feather pit is not too far off.

Attempts by global warmists to explain away waning public support for their assertions in terms of psychological or sociological trends are absurd.

The global warming story first came to real prominance more than a decade ago, although it has been around for much longer (the first IPCC report was in 1990). Since then there have been any number of warnings about how their would be no more snow in the decade's time, only for the snow to be just as plentiful 10 years later. In Australia's case we were told the drought in the South East would be permanent and dams would never be full, just before nearly three years of rain. Until recently, the seasonal forecasts by the Met Office in England, a bastion of global warming theory, were notoriously always wrong.

People who have no idea of the science and are not abouit to try to get to the bottom of it, are now becoming deeply suspicious of global warming theory for the very good reason that they can see for themselves that the forecasts are turning out to be wrong.

There is no need for fancy theory.

Just wanted to make a couple of points. Tom Harris is a skeptic, but it is interesting to read comments which appear to come from the view that he believes in climate catastrophe.

The other point is that there is a real world experiment on the Harvard study happening. The Conservatives in the UK are just as committed to dealing with AGW as Labour was. On the basis of this Harvard theory I would expect there to be some change in the composition of those favouring government action. This would be moderated to some extent by the fact that both Labour and Conservative politicians dress and talk pretty much the same, but still there should be some effect. If not, I'd say that while the theory isn't nullified, it needs to be pretty heavily modified.