Cont …

Translated into simple terms, the implication is that climate modelers have been heavily influenced by the early (1979) estimate that doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would raise global temperatures 3±1.5°C. Modelers have chosen to compensate their widely varying estimates of climate sensitivity by adopting cloud feedback values countering the effect of climate sensitivity, thus keeping the final estimate of temperature rise due to doubling within limits preset in their minds. Had they not done this, the spread in estimates of temperature rise would be much greater. Thus, they have imposed their preconceived notions of the expected temperature rise on the models to make them come out “right”. As we stated previously, this is like the Three Bears children’s story where the porridge was not too hot or too cold; the canonical 3°C temperature rise is large enough to be alarming, but small enough to be credible.

The whole precautionary principle argument is so inappropriate as regards AGw...indeed its probably inapplicable in any field. Basically it just invites pissing contests over who can come up with the most disastrous scenario followed by claims that we should do all possible to avoid the postulated disaster. So if we let A happen then maybe B will happen then maybe C will happen and then x-billion people will die. Therefore we should do as we are told by the catastrophists.

So lets play the silly game from a different angle. If we spend mega-bucks to reduce CO2 levels then the economy will tank. If the economy tanks then we'll get a depression. Last time we had a depression we had the rise of various fascist regimes. That led to aggressive war and untold deaths. With modern warfare x-billions will die. So if we spend money to reduce CO2 output, x-billions will die. So the precautionary principle dictates that we shouldn't spend such monies.

Just as logical as the 'thought' processes of those who use the precautionary principle to push for change that they can't otherwise justify.

mhaze,

Excellent point, clearly put.

Global GDP increased 89.0% from 1990 to 2010.

Isn’t this a wonderful result, nearly 100% increase in wealth in 2 decades. A real cause for celebration in terms of what it can translate to in terms of food & shelter, education, medical care, justice delivery, entertainment, and quality of life generally, especially since population has only increased by 30% in the same time.

And isn’t it wonderful what 18 climate summits have achieved – a 44.5% increase in emissions. That is just -0.8% change in carbon intensity of energy over that 20 year period (this is not 0.8% per year, its just 0.8% change in 20 years). What do they call it when you keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result?.

Imaging how much better off we could be if the ‘Progressives’ and doomsayers had not been blocking progress for the past 50 years (e.g. blocking development of nuclear power).

“In climate research and modelling, we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible". Statement by one of the IPCC Third Assessment Report’s Working Group.
I guess the IPCC has it wrong then.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere during the twentieth century are estimated to have risen from 280ppmv to about 390ppmv today, an increase of forty per cent.

Current total CO2 concentration represents less than one-twenty-fifth of one per cent.
Approximately five per cent of present atmospheric carbon dioxide is derived from burning fossil-fuels; that is, just 19 parts of CO2 per million parts of atmosphere.

It is my current opinion that only a religious zealot would see this as a situation for panic. Relax guys, enjoy the summer, it will be winter again soon.

A good article Don.

Quote Don
They suggest warming and cooling and stasis over the past century or so. These shifts don't suggest any strong connection with human activity, though the likely increase in temperature over that time is consistent with the increase in carbon dioxide additions to the atmosphere.
End Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Warmair says
The choice you have made here is to disbelieve the scientists who clearly state that there is a link between rising CO2 levels and temperature since about the mid 1970s. The evidence is about as clear as it is possible to get. Co2 absorbs some of the outgoing radiation that would otherwise cool the planet, as do other greenhouse gases such as methane CH4. This has been measured by the American IRIS satellite and the Japanese IMG satellite. This is analyzed here
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
So do we simply ignore this information and try and blame the problem on something else or are we open to evidence ?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Quote Don

It is also consistent with a recovery from the Little Ice Age, the causes of which we still do not know, any more than we know the causes of the Mediaeval Warm Period, or the earlier warm period when Rome was at its most powerful.
End Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________
There is no evidence for the above statement as you yourself admit in the text.

The problem I see here is a failure to accept the evidence. This is by no means unusual as most people start with preconceived ideas, and are very reluctant to change their view regardless of the evidence.