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.