John Ryan says:

"I would rather believe the scientists.
Rather than some one with a vested interest in a coal mine."

That's right, those 'pure' scientists with just a vested interest in an ARC grant, gigantic egos and ideological conviction.

So Jeremy, you're not an alarmist?

And what graph did I post without any explanation? The log graph? I gave not only an explanation but fed a prize for that one!

Are you denying there is a log effect with CO2 increase?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

Since Bugs is here you brainiacs might want to put your mighty intellects towards whether this measured effect is best described as a logarithmic curve or a decaying exponential.

cohenite,

you not only didn't give an explanation of the first graph you linked too, but you linked to another one which demonstrates part of what needs to be explained about a graph.

That is, the second one included labels, unabbreviated, in English, of what the horizontal and vertical scales represent. Unfortunately, it leaves the reader guessing (a) whether it represents theoretical calculations or measurement (b) whose calculations or measurements,
and therefore a reader still has no idea whether to take any notice of it or not.

I'm not sure what your point is, though. Both graphs are very different from the one in the article, and the second one shows a continuing effect - in terms of forcing - of further increases in CO2

Of course there is a continuing effect from extra CO2, but the point I am making and what the graph in the article is also making is that effect diminishes with extra CO2.

I did not think that was controversial. Is it?

Depending on how you answer that we can progress to the logical conclusion that if extra CO2 does have a diminishing effect then predictions of the end of the world from extra CO2 would seem to be if not misplaced than exaggerated.

So, let's just concentrate on that issue: does extra CO2 have a diminishing effect on temperature?

Question: does extra CO2 have a diminishing effect on temperature?

Answer: yes. It's very well known, I think. So well known, in fact, that you can safely assume that the experts in the field are aware of it (!)

Question: has that been taken into account in the experts' predictions?

Answer: (1) Obviously it will have been, see above.
(2) Yes - they say that the present concentration of CO2 makes a difference of around 30 degrees (ie compared with no CO2 at all). And they say that the same amount of CO2 again would raise temperature (depending on which estimates you use) somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.

What makes you think, when you read something like this somewhere, that it's something that's escaped the notice of the scientists that study this stuff?

"... those 'pure' scientists with just a vested interest in an ARC grant, gigantic egos and ideological conviction".

Another case of shooting the messenger.

Care to offer any specific examples of scientists using AGW to obtain these grants or name just one credible whistleblower prepared to support that claim?

Are you seriously suggesting there has been a conspiracy organised and coordinated on a global scale that has not only been under way for decades but involves thousands of people and virtually every government in the world?

That goes way way beyond the alleged moon landing hoax and twin towers inside-job claims.

Given the history of similar industrialist techniques of creating doubt for purposes of financial self-interest, my money is on the fossil fuel industry as the true scammers.

Interesting to see that this article has attracted a swarm of neo-denialists - these are people who believe that CO2 is warming the earth but refuse to accept the IPCC predictions. You distinguish them from denialists, who are people who never accepted the IPCC predictions, despite believing that CO2 warms the earth.

The neo-denialists insist that the IPCC is right, but only when they agree with it. When they disagree with it, they ignore it. The denialists are consistent - they don't trust the IPCC period.

So, these comments are addressed to those like Clive Hamilton who think you have to accept what the IPCC says. And what the IPCC says is that weather has not got more severe, and probably won't. They also accept that CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature.

Viv disputes the modelled outputs - he is consistent in doing this, as he is a denialist. The neo-denialists don't dispute the modelled outputs, but do dispute the rest. They are being inconsistent, and denying the "settled science".

For my money Viv is more honest, and likely to be more correct, irrespective of what companies he is involved with.

(I note the critics never provide a real name, less a register of conflicts).