'morning Aidan,

You're new to this topic are you not? I suppose you think ignorance is some sort of mitigation for not knowing anything and have to resort to Wikipedia?

You are welcome to consensus on the wing lift properties of a modern airliner, I've no idea where consensus comes into it, other than the choice of passenger cabin decore, get real.

The issue of the chairman of the IPCC as a railway engineer or writer of novels or soft porn is not material, what is relevant is that he is definitely not a scientist of any description. As for the SPM, if you don't know that they are all politicians you have no right to talk on this subject.

So the next time you bag out a commentator for not being a "scientist" you might wish to consider doing some research on the topic to avoid being noted as an idiot.

Don't ask me for links you lazy git, do your own homework then get back with an apology.

As for the loss of global CAGW infrastructure, the people who destroyed it are alarmists like you and not politicians.

Well done and thank you.

What timezone are you in, spindoc?

The topic of climate change I'm not at all new to. The finer details of the IPCC itself I'm far less familiar with. Observation has shown Wikipedia to be far more reliable than its reputation suggests, and definitely suitable for this type of discussion. But neither it nor the things I've previously read say the SPM panel doesn't have any scientists on it, so it is reasonable to ask for a source.

I'd expect any professional engineer with a PhD and an interest in the subject to be as capable at that sort of work as a scientist. Scientists and engineers do have a lot of skills in common.

BTW I'm not the one bagging commentators for not being scientists.

As for aircraft, I don't know where you got the absurd idea that I was referring to the wing lift properties. I was referring to safety considerations, such as the recent debacle with the batteries on the Boeing 787.

"As for the loss of global CAGW infrastructure, the people who destroyed it are alarmists like you and not politicians."
How so?

'morning Aidan,

Now that we have established that I have "gaps in my understanding" and that I'm on " different time zones", all you have to do is show that I'm wrong.

What are the climate science, or any scientific qualifications of the chairman of the IPCC, who are the members of the SPM panel that are not politicians and that ignorance and alarmism have enhanced the cause of CAGW and you can walk away with at least some shreds of credibility?

As for observation showing that "Wikipedia is more reliable than its reputation suggests". What observations? What reputation? And where does it support your assertions?

Keep digging Aidan, rock bottom is hard yakka but your cred is at stake!

As I work for a living and have domestic chores after work, I cannot easily keep up. However, I will respond to Poirot's two comments from yesterday. I may have to disengage soon, from this thread.

There is such a thing as 'alarmism' and some scientists engage in it. They're the ones with a political/philosophical position - which is their right. But once they move into that realm, one does not have to be a scientist to challenge them. DavidK at least acknowledges that Flannery is alarmist.

I come from a 'red left' tradition and while I now look back on a 'mixed bag', I still adhere to the notion that progress occurs through human beings' mastering nature. Marxism 101. I still like Mao's revolutionary slogan: "Man must conquer Nature!". This horrifies the green alarmists of the world, who are essentially reactionary and conservative.

Anyone who disagrees with Poirot among the scientists who are qualified is, of course, part of the global conspiracy by the fossil fuels industry. A glaring problem with this, apart from the fact that it avoids the need to engage with such scientists, is that one could also argue that "In the West, we now have a massive propaganda exercise funded by multi-billion dollar Big Green backers to give scientific kudos to people who have no scientific training (Al Gore anyone?)...tell me when that has happened before?" One might add "backed by individuals whose big salaries and comforts depend on toeing the line". But what a pathetic way of arguing. It leads nowhere. Poirot doesn't seem to know better.

I have probably exceeded the word limit so will continue in a separate comment.

India is a good case in point against 'sustainability'. The Indian people are lifting themselves out of poverty through development, not keeping things as they are, and thus far are not falling for alarmism. Of course, there will always be this or that piece of fine rhetoric, or a village or even city that goes 'green', but they can only do that on a small scale, reliant on the rest of the energy supply which will remain based on fossil fuels for many years yet.

The more the alarmists intensify their scenarios, the more compelling becomes the case for nuclear power. Again, India is a model in that regard, and leading the world in expansion of nuclear energy. Australia should assist India by selling them uranium.

As a socialist, I have always opposed private ownership of seeds and fertilisers, etc. These are wonderful things that should be - and one day will be - socially owned and then used on a much grander scale, and developed much further, than under the capitalist system of ownership.

The environmental problems that will continue to emerge as a result of India's economic and social progress can be solved through scientific and other intervention on the ground because they are evidence-based and not computer-modelled.

The IPCC's recent summary acknowledges that nearly all of its computer models have been proven wrong - that they overstated the warming. Or... am I not permitted to make that point because I do not have a degree in a climate science

Dear Barry,

I just want to check whether you indeed mean what you wrote, because it sounds sinister:

"As a socialist, I have always opposed private ownership of seeds and fertilisers, etc."

So if the farmer is not allowed to keep the seeds from the previous year, then they have to beg the state when it's time to sow - or starve! - which means that the farmer is forced to comply with the government and whatever its idea of what progress consists of, for example that "Man must conquer Nature!".

Monsanto does the same, but at least in theory one is allowed to have nothing to do with them (... not so in practice).

Socialism (and Monsanto) is thus denying people the freedom to be left alone - I see no greater evil than that!