"They include: appealing to authority rather than explaining or discussing the science; false claims of consensus among scientists; cherry picking research and opinions which support a desired world view; and guilt-by-association smearing and vilification of those who hold alternative views."

Sorry, but isn’t that exactly what this sorry excuse for a paper is?

doo gooders? mother earthers? to paraphrase maggs Thatcher (courtesy of col rouge), I smile when an attack is particularly wounding, because when they result to personal attacks it means they have run out of scientific arguments.

Actually this is quite interesting, it seems bob carter has stopped telling us that co2 emissions are not warming the atmosphere, and is instead telling us......it won’t be so bad. You just need to take that jumper off.

"The Earth's comfortable (for us) average temperature of about 15C is maintained by the atmosphere, without which the average would fall to a chilly -18C. The presence of small amounts of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - the "greenhouse gases" which absorb Earth's outgoing heat radiation and re-emit some of it downwards - causes the warming."

Now I know he is trying to tell us that we need all that greenhouse and that things would get chilly without it (a little bit of scare mongering?), but "atmosphere, without which the average would fall to a chilly -18C"? Well, I guess if you take the average of 107c (daytime) and -153c (nightime) from the surface of the moon (the nearest body external to our atmosphere) you might get -18c, but it would still be hostile to life.

So basically what we have if bob carters own cherry picking and bending of research and opinion (in a remarkably similar vein to Andrew Fraser), to support his own personal, Exxon mobile sponsored, opinion.

'Compare these tiny changes with the experience of an Australian citizen who moves from Hobart to Darwin to live.'

These are the kinds of strategies used to appeal to the general publics lack of knowledge on the subject as a way to change public opinion. It also shows a severe ignorance of the real dangers global warming poses.

The influence humans have had on global warming is of course subtle - but subtlety is all you need to drastically damage the environment, which has always existed on a very delicate balance. People claiming global warming is a myth back up their conclusion with 'because some studies say it's inconclusive.'

To that I say: even if there is only a tiny chance this is happening (and there is much more than a tiny chance), shouldn't we be as worried as hell? A small chance is still way too much.

What is conclusive is that the world is warmer, on average, than it used to be. That's a fact, and there's no other explanation for it but human influence. That should be enough to take the threat of global warming very, very seriously. To dismiss it as something like 'mother-earthism' is reckless at best.

There is a small chance that a bus will hit me tomorrow. However I am not as worried as all hell.

I could be killed by a bus or killed by global warming. Either way I will be dead

Lame comparison.

Try raising the stakes by 6 billion, because in the bus scenario it's only you that dies, not the whole world.

Also, you use the bus example as if both situations are that which we have no control over. This is very untrue for global warming.

Thanks Bob, totally agree. The earth is warming but the alarmists' theories are creating panic which may be unwarranted. I have studied and worked in the air science field and a common scientific theory amongst my colleageus (not sponsored by exxon) was that global temperatures are dynamic and a cyclic phenomenon, irrespective of human behaviour/intervention. CO2 from core samples of ice taken from deep down within the arctic and antarctic ice caps showed atmospheric CO2 levels have been fluctuating since aeons ago. However I still think policies aimed at reducing CO2 and other air pollutants are justified

Ironically, this current gem from Bob Carter only serves to comfort me further. It appears those who still believe either
a) anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not impacting global atmospheric temperatures, or
b) if it is, it doesn’t matter anyway
are really now getting desperate, clinging to such absurd polemics as this.

The ‘cool rationality’ that Bob mostly failed to deliver in his last post, seems to have completely failed him here. The fewer the sceptics, the more fanatical the rear guard action becomes. I wonder if Minister Campbell’s rumoured inoculation will also cure us of our misguided belief that the more we impact on the biosphere, the less it will affect us? Public money spent on killing-off dissension sounds remarkably more like an appeal to authority than challenging the assumption that we can carry-on business as usual. I hope Bob’s grandchildren are NOT administered this inoculation against critical thought.

Keep it up, as a work of fiction, this ranks next to State of Fear.

Jees, it is so hard to read about, or participate in any climate change debate without getting angry! This is bad for intelligent debate.
I don’t know much about Bob Carter, but can someone who really knows tell me why he is persisting as such a vocal skeptic - I know everyone uses the old "paid by Exxon-mobil" line, but in reality not all skeptics can be part of this lobby surely.

What we do know:

* global temperatures ARE rising, "The ten warmest years have all occurred since 1987, with nine of them since 1990." - http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s1075.htm
* CO2 and other gases DO cause warming
* human activities DO release large amounts of these gases
* levels of CO2 are almost double where they were before industrialisation
* records from ice cores and other samples show historical temperature rises correspond with high levels of CO2

What always annoys me is this argument that "spending on mitigation activities is drastically harming our economies". This is silly. Whatever money is not spent on say, petrol and coal by consumers will be spent somewhere else in the economy which will stimulate it just as much. Whatever money is spent on mitigation initiatives - Australian Greenhouse Office, campaigning etc.. Mostly will go to employing people, and through the supply chain for related activities, again, whoever receives this money will also spend - all productive activity for the economy.
The money spent on mitigation does not just get burnt or thrown down the drain - it is further distributed throughout the economy on all kinds of activities, just like any other type of spending.

All I can say is "Ugh!"

Hmmm. Genuine question here- if global warming is caused by c02 emissions (?) then, why is mars also going through global warming (or so i've heard) ?

Yes, Bob Carter has a point. The global-warming hysterics appear to resent the Industrial Revolution but don't mind eating the fruits of progress.

In any case, if global warming is "bad" then all green politicans should ride their bikes to work, stop eating meat, share houses (10 adults per hemp tent) and stop flying on planes to conferences around the world. Put simply, they don't really believe their own fibs or they would be doing all of the above and more.

Well, I am no scientist, but if mars is warming, which I do not know about, then I am sure that is easily explained.

Sure, mars has no atmosphere, earth does. The sun is the main source of warming for both of us if I am not mistaken. While, on mars all the sun's heat is reflected back into space, on earth the atmosphere (greenhouse effect) trapps the warmth in. However, both earth and otherr planets experience fluctuations in temperature as a result of "solar flaring" and other causes - variations in the level of heat the sun is radiating. Obviously, if the sun outputs more energy for a period, then some of it will be soaked up by mars resulting in heating.

This solar flaring argument was one of the initial points of controversy in the global warming debate, but was dismissed early on as not being responsible for the heat we are experriencing on earth.

As I said before, I am no scientist, so forgive any errors I may have made.

Wrighta, not sure of composition of mars' atmosphere, but methane, N2O and CFCs also trap in heat.

Good point Benji.

wrighta, co2 (amoung other gasses) is the general cause of global warming on both earth and mars, the differnence is that c02 is the primary element of the martian atmosphere and so is a natural process. on earth co2 is a relatively minor (in terms of concentration) element behind nitrogen and oxygen, however due to the emission of co2 in industrial processes this percentage is increasing rappidly, thereby increasing the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere.

Well it's Bob Carter and a few others against thousands of mainstream scientists, and a big bunch of Nobel Prize winners, presumably all of whom are not infected by "mother earthism".

Meanwhile this was on last nights news:
A new Department of Environment report has found the water in more than half of Western Australia's southern rivers is too salty to drink. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1474946.htm and there are similar reports all the time. We would be stupid not to be very concerned.

Air quality in Perth often fails WHO safety levels for smog, so as lisamaree says there are other reasons for limiting emissions besides greenhouse.

I would expect a University professor to know what a "straw man" argument is - "a point of view created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous."

Tim Flannery's book, the Future Eaters, talks about tens of thousands of years of human caused ecosystem changes. Tim Flannery cannot therefore be so easily described as a "mother-earthist-Hansenist" who thinks things only changed after the industrial revolution.

To ridicule the ineffectiveness of Kyoto is not the same as ridiculing the science. The Kyoto agreement is an agreement reached between self -interested nations, and its flaws reflect this, not flaws in the underlying science.

It is interesting to reflect that the etymology of disaster (Latin: dis ‘‘lack’’ or "ill", astrum ‘‘heavenly body’’ or ‘‘star’’), suggests bad luck or ill-fortune beytond the control of mere mortals, much like Shakespeare's "star-crossed lovers". On this basis, I think it is makes no sense to suggest that an evolving, foreseeable process like anthropogenic climate change and our response to it should be the same as our approach to discrete natural disasters which are inherently unpredictable and beyond our ability to effectively ameliorate or mitigate.

No-one concerned about climate change is suggesting that we can fit a thermostat to our atmosphere and stop all climatic variation and extreme events. What is important is tackling the anthropogenic aspects of climate change.

I think it's foolish to believe that all the "mainstream" scientists agree that human intervention has caused global warming. Here's a quote from a very well respected atmospheric scientist. I think we all should keep an open mind and listen to both sides of this debate because there are intelligent, well qualified people on both sides:

“Now there’s a few modelers around who know something about storms, but they would like to have the possibility open that global warming will make for more and intense storms because there’s a lot of money to be made on this. When governments step in and are saying this – particularly when the Clinton administration was in – and our Vice President Gore was involved with things there, they were pushing this (global warming) a lot. You know, most of meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.”

--William M. "Bill" Gray, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity.

Funkster, your statements are correct but there's an awful lot you don't say!

- According to ice core data, temperatures were warmer than this on several occasions - your "warmest" should read "probably the warmest in the last 100 years". (I say probably because prior to 1950 coverage for temperature data slips quickly the further you go back.)

- Scientist can show you that a DOUBLING of carbon dioxide will cause an increase of about 0.7 degrees. (Maybe that's even in a closed container.) So much for dramatic warming.

- Ice core records show that temperatures typically rose BEFORE carbon dioxide increased. (If you don't accept that the maybe you can explain why 80ppm of CO2 caused a temperature increase of 10 degrees several thousand years ago but we've had 100ppm in about 200 years and warming is about 1 degree!)

Money spent on pointless mitigation is unlikely to provide any economic benefit for the country because nothing positive will come from it. Trapping carbon dioxide will have negligible impact on temperature but the costs of trapping will be passed to consumers.

All good points, Bob. In the late 90's I was invited to provide a private forest owners perspective to a CSIRO workshop on the impact of climate change on temperate forests. The group was advised that the impact of a 1 degree increase in temperature and a 10% reduction in average rainfall could be easily ascertained by inspecting a similar forest about 50km to the northwest of just about anywhere in eastern Australia.

This change would be much less than what would be observed by walking as little as 200 metres from the cooler south facing side of a hill to the hotter north side in the original forest.

When asked what management actions we could take in response to change, we advised that we would simply adjust the stocking rate of trees in the same way that nature does now. That is, instead of thinning a stand of regrowth back to 800 stems per hectare we would reduce this by 10% to 720 stems to ensure that each retained tree had the same water budget as before.

The break out groups were unable to identify any forest species that would be put at risk from being in a forest with trees that were an average 3.72 metres apart rather than the original 3.53 metres.

Indeed, the only forests that were likely to be put at risk were those (mostly public) forests that will not have any adjustments to stocking rates. Trees in these forests would be left to compete for the diminished water supply, placing them all under stress. This would reduce soil moisture, microbial activity and fertility. This in turn would reduce the nutritional value of leaf, sap and flowers with obvious implications for the health and resilience of dependent species, especially when associated with increased risk of wildfire.

And five years later the 2003 fires proved my point. Pity about the weakened wildlife that didn't have a chance. But that is what green ideology is all about. What better way to cover up their own mistakes than an exaggerated threat on a global scale.

I tend to agree with Benji (see above) and I think Carter makes a very valid point over C02 and the general hyperbole we are fed by the media and Greenpeace, the Greens, Conservation Foundation etc

The facts are well spelt out on this site:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/MainPage.jsp?Page=Index

I think after reading this, few would really believe the earth is warming, but is, as Carter et al said, a changing environment where climate fluctuates over thousands of years.

For those who firmly believe that CO2 is a real and present danger I would suggest a simple method of a personal reduction of CO2 by about 8% by reducing strenuous physical activity and/or by simply not breathing for one hour daily. You could also create a market for selling 'breathing rights'.

STEWARDSHIP should be our guiding principle, not profit.

In regard to the stewardship of the earth, there appear to be conflicting views,

1/ The denial of any science which suggests that unending exploitation and profit should be curtailed.

2/ The view that such exploitation is dangerous and will bring about the eventual (but not too distant) destruction of the planet.

The 2nd view seems more tenable, as it is not based on 'greed', though I observe that while it does have a lot of scientific backing, there appears to be a 'spiritual/religious' aspect to the position, which uses science to advance its cause. The religious view here seems to be more of the 'eastern/hindu/buddhist' type.

The first view attempts to use science also to back its position, but it also seems grounded in some kind of dogma or is it just plain greed ?

The Biblical view of the environment is clearly one of 'responsible stewardship' and would suggest a position in the middle of the 2 opposing views above. The old testament laws about land and crops and food, were all aimed at sustainability. Not that we would seek to impose them today, they do have some well grounded science behind them.

To me the idea of pumping continuously increasing amounts of toxic gas into our atmposhere does not need a lot of science to tell me its not a good thing. One only has to reduce onces living space to a 'room' size and put a smoker in it with you to 'get' that message.

If we generate huge amounts of CO2 or any other toxic agent, it would be in our interests to reduce it as much as possible, or perish while thinking about it.

I dont know what all the fuss is about.I thought Carter was putting the case concerning AGW in a more balanced perspective.
As for Funkster I thought the points he lists are also valid. The whole issue, then comes down to what extent does increases in Co2 cause increase in temperature and what is the prognosis for the future, and thats where it gets rather messy.
Temperature may be rising, but how much is provably caused by Co2.? In truth they dont know. There could be four or more other contributing causes that are convenienty discounted/dismissed.

The predictions for the future are based upon computer based models full of assumptions and manipulations. To suggest that they can model what it will be in fifty years when they cant even predict it for next month is laughable.We know more about economies than we do climate, and they sure as hell cant get econometrics even half right half the time, but for GW it is almost a certainty.What a joke

Ice cores and other geological records show considerable variation in temp and levels of C02, variations that go way beyond what we have experienced in the entire human history.

More particularly, I thought there was well accepted evidence that in most cases the temperature rises preceded raised levels of C02.
That sort of puts a big question mark over the whole game does it not.

As for Kyoto it was a poor solution to a poorly defined problem and deserved to be criticised for what it was, a badly run Eurocentric piece of nonesense.

The earth has been hotter and colder is the past then now and will be in the future no matter what we do. Species become extinct because of habit lost or competition in the past and will in the future. The atmosphere is full of both positive and negative feed back mechanisms. With out substantial greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere then life on earth would be quite different maybe impossible. That we are effecting the climate by our activities is past reasonable debate within the science community. Any dissenters now are motivated by personnel ideologies or funding sources. The real issues is how much are we effecting the climate, how much should we and are we in danger of tipping the balance and getting a run away green house effect like Venus. Those questions need to be answered and we should not let us be distracted by flat earthers like this author.

We should also remember that for the vegetable half of the planet biota, (greens excluded) CO2 is nectar of the gods. So when I burn an excessive amount of wood in my woefully inefficient open fireplace I can do so with a very clear conscience because the CO2 wafts through my trees where they lap it up with glee.

The carbon fertilisation effect, increased growth in vegetation with more efficient use of water, is well documented and easily observed on any roadside culvert where young trees thrive on exposed substrate, minimal topsoil and a steep slope with minimal moisture retentive capacity.

One man's problem is another man's opportunity. The greens and eurospivs see a problem because they lack the wit to recognise the fact that the stuff going out the chimney in a city would actually have a value if it were placed in a forest or farm where the CO2 could be distributed effectively. Ditto for newsprint in a landfill.

The problem is not CO2. The problem is the excessive concentration of people and resources in large cities in a manner that turns unused resources into problems needing disposal.

I would agree with Bob. More research and less alarmism. More accurate statistical analysts over longer time cycles is appropriate.

Suggesting the developed nations should subsidise the pollution to be created by the non-developed nations (Kyoto) is a complete crock of rubbish.

I guess the real point is this, It is always easier to get research funds for something which sounds dramatic and of world consequence, rather than something which might happen or might not happen because of cycles of meterology which no one understands.

To be honest, if you want to get real about global warming and everything which influences sustainability, get real about population control.
Put all the resources into resolving how to reverse global population growth, on that note, the developed world has made great inroads into the issue and has achieved stable population sizes. The problem is the underdeveloped nations continue to breed and breed themselves up to unsustainable populations.

Want to be really cynical, I guess HIV is helping but it has not fixed the problem.

Of the 24 posts currently in response to this article 11 agree with the author, 9 disagree and 4 are questions and answers regarding greenhouse gases & the Martian atmosphere. Disagreement tends to focus on questions of authority and motivation. Most amount to ad hominum attacks. Those who agree tend to be concerned with evidence not in accord with a disastrous anthropogenic global warming. Such pattern of response is typical with this issue.

Catastrophic GW appears to have a deep seated emotional appeal to many of its believers but few indicate any degree of appreciation of the voluminous body of peer reviewed scientific evidence that is inconsistent with, or directly refutes, various claims of the GW hypothesis. This includes large numbers of biologists who have signed up en mass for a hypothesis of which they have little real knowledge or understanding.

I know, because I was among them before Prof.Bob Carter pointed me toward the extensive body of conflicting scientific evidence. For any who may be more interested in understanding than in simply believing in GW an excellent entré to such information can be found at www.co2science.org . Full access requires a U.S. $12.95 subscription fee but for the relief from fear and ignorance it is a genuine bargain

Not only is there a lot of evidence against human induced global warming, wstarck, the actual document which much of this relies on, the IPCC report, is one of the most ambiguous pieces of science ever written.

I recommend everyone with an interest read the whole thing - not just the executive summary - the whole thing.

There are plenty of maybe, perhaps, contributing, possibly, plausible, but nothing really concrete.

But in the summaries and the media (because they are too lazy to read the entire document) it only mentions the catastrophe.

Use it as the starting point to research the scientists who helped create it. Trust me the science is not settled and the only way they come up with the wild figures of 6 degree temperature increases over 100 years are using models with specific parameters.

It is just sad that the scientific process has been hijacked with worst case scenarios given all the attention.

Enjoy reading the IPCC report everyone.

t.u.s.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

Why waste your time re- reading the IPCC reports when they are so flawed, and this is on top of the many qualifiers that are used.
The infamous hockey stick for eg, it seems, was an artifact of its lead creator, who just happened to also be the lead auther of the particular segment of the document.

One would hope that the quality of the science in the rest of the document,was of a higher standard than that which produced the hockey stick

Read the above web reference for the prize winning article that put the hockey stick to bed for good, and the credibilty of the IPCC with it.

...and thats without including the Castles Henderson assessment of the incompetent economic analysis, also in the IPCC document....and other debates.

So much for the strength or peer reveiw, that no one had bothered to check the research that was used as a major plank in the argument that we sucker tax payers should agree to spending of billions to achieve a trivial outcome, for a minor problem of no real consequence.

Respect what you have got and live by it.

Respect the air.
Respect the environment.
Respect animals.
Respect other human beings (if you can).

Take responsibility for your thoughts and actions.
Stop blaming others for your own greedy behaviours.

There's no need for air conditioners and dishwashers.
There's no need for big home entertainment units.
There is no need for mobile phones with all the extra crap.

Buy a rain tank.
Work with your kids in homework and play.

There's no need for a debate. Get back to some basics of human living and animal living.

Ah! Shut me up. Just gives me the sh's.

Just be responsible human beings for God's sake.

Cheers
Kay

Ok, so the IPCC is dead, and its concusions are moot huh?

Well, it was deliberately ambiguous language. This reflected the delicate balance of opinions and concerns of all those who sponsored it - the governments.

If it is so flawed, and there is plenty of evidence agaisnt climate change then why is almost every major government in the world backing the conclusions of the IPCC, including George himself?? Governments are terribly conservative, and there is no gain in supporting all this if it is not true, especially in coal rich nation like ours....

In any case, lets assume that the science is totally ambiguous, and we dont know.
Lets then look at what will happen if we take mitigation steps:

* We will learn to use energy and other resources far more efficiently,

and

* We will ween ourselves off fossil fuels, which are limited in any case.

So, big deal? Why are people so worried?

We are going to have to get off fossils sooner or later anyhow, so why not sooner?

And, we are going to have to learn to be MUCH more efficient in the way we use our earth's resources soon too. The growing economies of China, India etc will make sure that the same amount of resources are going to have to be distributed between many more people.

As one of my economics lecturers said: "we talk about 'growth'. There is no 'growth'. All of our growth is just based upon consuming the earth's resources. Everything we have comes from the earth, and all we are doing by consuming it more and more is borrowing from the future."

Its true, and sooner or later its going to be crunch time and we as a people are going to have to learn to be FAR more efficient in the way we use resources.

Really, Funkster, an economics lecturer who believes there is no such thing as growth. Where did you find him? Under some compost tailings? Tell the North Koreans about him, I hear they could use a good laugh.

Yeah really,

His name is Dr Bill Worner and he lectures in Asian Economies among other things at the Uni Western Sydney.

He knows his stuff, and he is defintely no greeny, that comment was just one small aside he made, but its very true.

Infact all economists should think like this if they are TRUE economists. After all, economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources - We rarely recognise or act as though the earth's resources are scarce.

A true economist would take a genuine long term outlook and realise that the way we are using and allocating the earth's resources cant continue forever, but we like to conveniantly ignore this fact.

Just looking at Bob's other articles in a similar vein,he must own a lot of oil and coal shares.

The polar caps are melting and our weather and climate is changing.We are stripping the vegetation from this planet polluting the land,atmosphere, oceans and reducing bio-diversity through extinctions as never seen before.[except when the dinosaurs disappeared 120 milliom yrs ago]Can we wait another 120 million yrs for things to improve?

You cannot eat more than a portion of large ocean fish per week for fear of mercury poisoning.Pregnant mothers none at all.

Once China and India swing into full industrialisation,pollution and demand on resources will more than double.

There is nothing wrong with being cautious since we have but one good planet in this solar system and no one has seen or sensed another as good as this mother earth,let alone be able to travel through time to get there,if we do find one.

I'm not being alarmist,just concerned that the changes may be irreversible and may well be the death nell for our little spaceship called earth.If people like Bob like playing Russian Rulett with their children's future,then it doesn't say much for our humanity.We don't deserve to live on this planet.

Why do we hurry such ot our demise?
The universe of years billions aged,
Has secrets for our children's surprise!

Hey on a lighter note since there is a religious tilt in the what the article says. Why did God not have a 11th commandment?

Thou shall not burn Hydrocarbons, thou will make things very very hot.

I think some of the people posting here should do some more research before opening their mouths...or keyboards..LOL

If you believe in man having a siginficant influence on climate change then you also believe the IPCC policy document reports, MBH98 ( michael mann et al report on climate change)etc. that the media & government are always right and that scientists that disagree are all stupid. mad, deranged or otherwise mentally deficent. You believe that political/environmental retoric is always correct & that any data showing them to be wrong is manipulated or incorrect.

Go do a search of global warming & find a few serious sites that deal with the issues based in recorded scientific data, rather than ideas & retoric. Look at global trends over the last 100 years & you will see a warmer period in the middle ages...with no greenhouse gasses from man, look at the temperature & carbon record & see how the CO2 levels follow the temperature change, not cause it, look at upper & lower atmospheric temperatures & tell me they show an uncharacteristic increase, . There is more but if you realy wnat to know the truth go look,if you are happy being lied to.....suit yourself.

Live for today for tomorrow we may die philosophy mike os.What if this is the only planet in the universe that semi-intelligent beings such as humans happened to evolve?It shows no responsibility for future generations.

Personally I've noticed our climate and weather change rapidly in the last 10yrs.It is not that we want to believe that climate and pollution is taking it's toll because we all know life will be harder.Getting off burning fossil fuels over the next 50yrs will have a lot of positive outcomes.

Many nations will be independant of oil companies and they will loose their oligopoly power,no more fighting in the Middle East over security of oil supplies to the rest of the world.Cleaner air and healthier people in the cities.The down side is we will all live longer and be more of a burdon to our children,and petrol heads will have to forego their throbbing, pulsating extentions of their sexuality,the V8.

As nuclear power grows the real downside is the secure storage of waste and the greater chance of nuclear conflict.It only takes one lunatic.

We have no choice,fossil fuels will run out one day and it better to be forewarned and prepared.

mike os,

Sure, there are certain errors in the IPCC reports, as there are bound to be in any scientific investiagtion of this magnitude.
However, the IPCC third assesement report, as stated by Rob Gelbspan on Lateline is "the largest peer reviewed scietific undertaking in human history". For a start that gives it some weight I think.

As I mentioned before, something like the warmest 8 years on record have all occurred in the last decade. Sure, this could just be a natural trend - thats entirely possible.
But given it is a known fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere (does anyone dispute that??!) it just seems silly to keep pumping out millions upon millions of tonnes of it!

Even if we are wrong, it does not hurt to adpot the 'precautionary principle' does it? What is the worst that will happen if we are wrong? As Arjay says, we will have cut our dependence on fossil fuels, we will still enjoy all the comforts of life (Im sure they will come up with a gutsy hydrogen based V8 equivilant before too long) without the guilt of knowing what it may be costing.
Sounds great to me!

If we are right though...Well, then what happens?
Well at the low level, probably more extreme weather, especially hailstorms like the 99 Sydney one (over $1B damage), hurricanes etc. Less rainfall for us, which we defintely dont need.

On a world scale, food shortages, probably wars over water, food etc as climates become unpredictable.

Worst case scenario Europe goes into another ice age, food shortages / environmental refugees all over the world, up to 1B dead...

Seems to me that it wouldnt hurt just to be safe and assume climate change is real...

Not a tomorrow we die philosophy mate, just a realistic view of the known data. We need alternatives, & the sooner the better IMO. The whole "environmental" issue is based in emotion not reason, manmade carbon reduction may result in a <1degree drop in temperature by 2100.....how do you measure a 1 degree global change? you can't unless you manipulate the data to suit your preconception.

Please bear in mind that the IPCC is a political, not scientific body, & that policy documents are drawn up by politicians & their representatives, not the scientists providing the supporting data.

Warmest on record? prehaps but the earth has been warmer without mans influence, & the middle ages may have been warmer. (greenland & antartica are actually colder than 25 years ago)

CO2 causes heat retention, the truth is that the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour/cloud, CO2 accounts for very little in real terms & manmade CO2 production is miniscule compared to natural output, real data suggests about a 0.04c rise due to mans influence.

Precautonary principle (PP)is great...as long as it is based in reality, not theory. PP generaly goes for the "anything potentialy bad should be totaly eliminated" approach....wheras a realistic approach is "anything that has a reasonable probability of being harmful should be controled in proportion to the real risk".

just a laugh.." worst case ...europe ....ice age" I thought the issue was warming not cooling LOL. Overall sat data suggests that the atmosphere is cooling ( slightly) at excatly the point where "environmentalists" tell us it should be rising.

Climate change is very real, its happening right now. The falacy is that we (mankind) have any real influence/effect on it. That does not mean we carry on as we are, we need alternatives & we need them now.

Go find the raw data...it's there is you realy want to know.

Actually mike os, ive seen plenty of data. This is what I do for a living - I research global warming.

Ive looked at plenty of data, and thats why I think it is very probable that significant human induced climate change is a reality.

Now ice age - that is a possibility. If warming gets to the point where the polar ice caps melt (as recent evidence has shown) then the fresh cool water could slow or stop the thermohaline circulation - the 'conveyor belt' bringing warm water to Europe. If that stopped then we would have an ice age in the northern hemisphere.

No one has answered my question that I keep asking:

"If global warming is made up, then why do all major governments accept it as a reality? Even ours. We have squat to gain from this position, goodbye all that gas and coal revenue!
Even the Arab nations accept global warming, and its going to cost them their major source of wealth - oil. Sooner or later the world will replace fossil fuels with renewables such as hydrogen cells.

Why on earth would these Arab nations accept the GW theory if it wasnt true??"

Ah ha, Funkster, so you make a living out of this Greenhouse business.
Doen't that make you a lackey with a vested interest in perpetuating the myth?

That's not very nice Perseus, you are only allowed to cast dispersions on people who do not believe in human-induced global warming. I'll forward you a copy of the Green Fanatics Guide to Linking Rationality with Oil Interests so you won't make the same mistake again.

Funkster,
I used the IPCC TAR as the basis for my argument because it cannot be linked to some great oil conspiracy. It is, on the whole, a political document - at least the summaries and executive summaries.
A reading of the scientific arguments is less than convincing -there are plentiful caveats and ambiguity.

As for why do the politicians come running to the global warming. I'd say it is linked to the tremendous amount of propaganda about the environment. After being told the sky is falling so many times, people will start to believe it and the government will try to look to be doing something. That's how politics works.

There is also the argument that I touched on about science being corrupted by lobbyists, the media and eventually politicians.
Such as the Ross Ice Shelf thinning while many other parts of Antartica are getting colder and thicker. Guess which gets picked by Greenpeace and ran in the media - not the colder Antartica studies.

Precautionary principle is nice and we will have to eventually be more efficient with energy - but scaring people by lying we are on the brink of catastrophe is not the way to do it. By that logic - a great way to rid the world of AIDS would be for everyone to stop breeding - no more sex because there is a risk you can catch HIV, even wearing a condom.

t.u.s

hah hah, I guess you are all right, I do have a vested interest!
Hoewever, much of what I am doing is researching BOTH sides of the argument, and keeping an open mind about what I see. I have to say, the balance of opinion definitely falls in favour of the global warming argument.

The usual suspect:

Yeah good comparison.

Having sex without a condom is dangerous because you might get HIV. Putting on a condom significantly reduces that risk, its now 'safe' enough to keep doing it, no one tells you to stop now.

However, we are having sex without condoms. That is why we need to change our behaviour - we havnt yet put the condom on, despite the fact that it's the sensible thing to do, many of us dont think that precaution is nessasary because there's a chance that we wont get HIV anyway....

:)

One day our sun is going to go supernova, the earth will be enveloped by its inferno and all life will end. Now that's what I call global warming.

There is no economics to global warming, so the market will fail to act. The state may try to use the mandate of the people to act, but it will fail as well, since the state is an inefficient allocator of resources and the perceived problem is global and therefore stateless.

Until there is an economic problem to solve, there is little point in trying. This is not fatalism, it is reality. If global warming is real, the best thing we can do is build our wealth such that we are in a position to mitigate the consequences. Burning of fossil fuels will be greatly curtailed once it is no longer economic. If the doomsayers are correct, we will run out of oil and gas in the same sort of timeframe as global warming starts to bite. A new energy source will be utilised, perhaps nuclear, perhaps hydrogen fuel cell, perhaps something we can't yet imagine. If global warming has made life on earth harder for us, then people will have found a way to profit from it and we will overcome. The mother of invention is necessity, and we just don't have the need for a solution yet, we really haven't identified the problem.

On an aside, population growth will only be curtailed through economic growth. Rich people have less children. So the faster India and China grow, the less children they will have, the faster we will get to the point of demand for resources outstripping supply, and the increased likelihood of someone finding a way to make money through inventing an alternative to burning hydrocarbons. In addition, the richer the people, the more they will demand clean air and clean water.

So rather than worrying about the future of the planet, we should concentrate on getting rich so that we'll have less children, demand cleaner air and water, and be better prepared for any consequences of our actions.

hehehe

If you work in the field then you know the data is equivocal, and shows that man's influence is at best small...possibly significant, but not overridingly so as put out by most these days. Its not so much the theory..(although I would rate it as hypothesis, not the fact it is generally proported to be).. that gets my goat, it's the lying & manipulation that does it.

why do govermnents buy into it? the same reason they buy into DDT bans.( & other ideals of the same ilk)..there is no scientific basis for any of the counterclaims raised against it yet it is still banned. It is one of the most effective combatants of malarial mosquitoes...yet those who would benifit most are penalised by the developed world for even concidering using it for malarial control. I.e it is "politically astute", collects no flack from the idiot fringe or media.

as to a mini ice age or larger..possible...but the realistic time scale? ...I recall a theory along those lines in the 70's..........when the preoccupation was global cooling.....

Funskter, the analogy might not have been the best but obviously not everyone is wearing condoms all the time otherwise the growth rate would be zero (there will be some IVF babies though).

Still maybe things like Kyoto are a global warming condom - limiting growth when the chance of catching HIV (catastrophic GW) are minimal.

Could you imagine the cost of reproducing if the natural way was banned and everyone had to use a test tube just to limit the tiny chance of catching HIV on the basis of the precautionary principle.

Mike os, There is far too much hysteria and unless people believe the sky is falling they are branded smoking guns hired by "Big Oil".

Very few people actually believe there has been no warming. The aguments are there has been some warming, humans probably caused some of it and that things will be better in some parts of the world, worse in others and pretty much the same in the rest.

Henny-penny predictions do nothing and as Bob Carter points out, are too often based on some acts of faith rather than the evidence.

t.u.s

Hi to all from Aussie1. Most interesting to view some lively discussion. Can't say I've seen anybody yet to consider one or two of the factual and real uncensored reasons for global warming. Besides the "intelligents" who "burn off" hundreds of acres of forests (of course they don't contain Co or CO2 or pollute?) (rather than cut grasses and underbrush as we serfs who are not even allowed to use an open fire to burn some rubbish)we've had our very best "brains trust" boofheads who blew massive holes in the ionosphere with above ground Atomic tests! How many millions of degrees from the explosion? Heat rises or were these heat ranges extinguished 10-50 miles up by a dose of bulldust? blind eye maybe?
You don't really believe they didn't do it or didn't know do you? They didn't stop because they were "good guys"!

Strange isn't that the only badly depleted areas of ozone layer seem to be over Russia, Australia and the South Pacific areas ~
Strange part is I haven't got a piece of paper that says I'm a genius. I just look out the window and spoke to some people that know what really happened in the Atoomic tests. More in the next post
Until then Take care keep safe

I'm responding only to the article, as I haven't read the comments. I found it a breath of fresh air, blowing away the polluting clouds of waffle. I was first briefed on the global warming debate by IPCC leaders such as Sir Frederick Houghton in 1989-90. At that time, I proposed a study on the economic impact of accelerated global warming by the Office of EPAC (not accepted). Also at that time I attended a number of scientific fora at which I was viciously attacked by that rabid greenie Ian Lowe for daring to suggest that there might be a role for economists in the greenhouse debate.

The joke is, that ALL of the IPCC projections for global warming over this century are based on economic modelling. That modelling was based on absurdly flawed methodology - among other things, it led to the result that the income of South Africa in 2100 would be greater than the total world income in 2000. The modelling has been totally discredited by leaders in the field such as Ian Castles, the former Australian Statistician. I estimated that if the methodological flawa in the models were corrected, the results for warming in the most likely scenario would not be significantly different from zero.

Ian Lowe, you are right to fear economists, they can see through your fallacious nonsense.

in a similar vein, the US scientist who advises the IPCC on huracane data/prediction etc. has recently removed himself from the panel and removed his name from the advisory board following unsupported media announcements by senior IPCC representatives that recent huricane activity was caused by global warming, when the recorded data emphaticaly denies such a claim.....but the IPCC is still seen as an organisation of authority in these matters?

Re the last post, the scientist's name was Chris Landsea and you can find an account of the matter here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000325follow_up_on_landsea.html

Hi again,

you are all right, I think we all agree that global warming is occuring, its a question of magnititude. Yeah, there is even a fairly high chance that warming will be benign, but;

We do not know where the 'tipping point is' - once warming hits this point there is a chance that either the thermohaline circulation may be drastically slowed or even stopped, or very large sources of methane may be released from thoring permafrosts or the ocean floor, once that happens, warming is likely to spiral out of control. No one knows if this will happen or when, but its not really something to mess around with in my opinion.

Also, even if not much happens, there could be redistribution in rainfall and other patterns which are likely to cause crop shortages and drought. This is one aspect particularly relevant for us - we can hardly afford to lose any more rainfall.

Regarding the economic modells. Well, regardless of the economic assumptions underlying the IPCC scenarios, we have still seen a rise from 280 odd PPM to 380 PPM or so over the past century and given that economic/industrial/CO2 output will not be linear due to at least some growth (probably alot) im sure we will hit 500 PPM before too long.
Clearly sooner or later there will start to be some very significant warming...

Some of the responses are excellent, LisaMaree, I am impressed, really, I am the Dingbat et Al, and it is good to see some Academics working towards a better future with the environment and some long hard truths surfacing after many years of Academic fraud and Phonies.
For some of the other Challenged Pseudo scientists, and Academic Phonies here is a web link.
http://www.junkscience.com/

Hahah All,

Junk Science eh? That is one sight I had a look at a little while ago and I was not very impressed.
It cuts down anything that is not based completely on science. Let me tell you, there is alot in this world that cannot / has not yet been explained by science but nonetheless exists. That site is designed to eraddicate any trace of openmindedness amongst people it seems to me.

We worship science in our society, and I concede that there is a great deal that it has given us. But all the same, just as we look back with scorn at what was scientific fact 1000 years ago and how primitive people were, so they will to us in 1000 years. By this I mean there is alot as yet undiscovered/unproven by our science, and thus we cannot rely on it as the only authority.

Of course many of you will disagree with me, and these things are all a matter of opinion, so its interesting to have these discussions..

Yes, science can not explain many things, but as mankind and with consciousness will strive further with science and advancement.
It is good to have an open mind, more so these days with so much propaganda and self serving interests about.
Perhaps Astro physics would be a phenomena , etc, with Global warming as it would appear to be a thousand odd year occurrence, the planet was at the similar temperature in 10th century, with a mini Ice age in the 13th or 14th century, this is documented in my family chronicles from the UK, translated from Latin of course. They called the phenomena,” The Freeze over”. Many chronicles of the time are in the British Museum. Documented evidence exists if science did not at that time.
There are natural forces greater than man, so science is great to try and prevent disasters if that is possible or at the very least, try and understand.

Even more interesting, Funkster. You claim to be an impartial scientist and then admit that you make a living from the Global warming business. And now you advise us that your brand of science is all just a matter of opinion.

The scientific method may produce the odd ambiguous result but that is nothing more than a signal to more finely tune the line of inquiry or assessment methodology. It is still far superior to the alternatives, prejudice, superstition and voodoo.

But still, your faults are only a shade on those of the disgraceful British Science Advisor to Tony Blair, who, on ABC TV last night (13/10/05) had the unmitigated gall to claim that he only knew of two people who were sceptical of Global Warming that were actual scientists. The rest, he claimed, were either lobbyists, whom he compared to tobacco company representatives who still claim there is no link to ill health from tobacco, or just plain ideologues.

The man is nothing more than a propagandist of the first order.

Persues,

Actually no, I never claimed to be a scientist, I am not one. I have repeated this on many occasions, saying 'I am no scientist, but.."

And I have never claimed to be impartial either, no one is, we all have our various personal beliefs and stances that we bring to the debate.

I am a researcher, not a scientist, and I do try to keep an open mind, but I would never claim to be impartial.

According to Spendocrat:

"A small chance is still way too much."

There is a small chance that a large meteorite may crash into the earth, putting an end to all life here.
There is a small chance that someone may use the DNA from the blood inside a mosquito to clone dinosaurs that may terrorize the earth.
There is a very good chance that if Spendocrat had twice as many brains, he/she would be a half wit.

daveinfloripa

Hear, hear, daveinfloripa! To paraphrase a comment by humourist PJ O'Rourke in the context of a different issue, it shows a high degree of generosity that when brain's like Spendocrat spout their confused and erroneous fears about global warming, scientists will investigate the global warming.

This is a poorly argued piece. The professor's case seems to be built upon the assumption that the precautionary principle is "intellectually vapid". There is, of course, nothing intellectually vapid about the precautionary principle. It is intellectually sound and the very basis of one of the world's largest industries, the insurance industry.

In case the professor is not aware of it, a principle cannot be dismissed by attaching a derogatory adjective to it. The greenhouse proponents are right to argue that we should be taking out insurance, i.e. that just IN CASE the warming of the climate is human-induced, we should do everything we can to modify our activities to avoid potentially catastrophic outcomes.

I would have thought that was perfectly obvious.

What if it is NOT human induced, but just natural variability? There should also be a contingency plan for that, too.

I hope this advances the debate just a little. At the very least, I would expect some supporting evidence for the very big call of "intellectually vapid", rather than empty rhetoric. Please justify your claims, or we cannot take you seriously.