Posters are generally disparaging of academics because of the appalling naivety that gets displayed. Not all,just some.

Given the previous references by the doom and gloom merchants to the current state of the Arctic, then this document puts a more balanced interpretation on it.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=021706G

As one would have expected it is all part of the cycles and oscillations of nature, of which there are many, and only a few of which we fully understand.In our region we seem to understand the El Nino cycle and its effect on Australian climate fairly well. Why then would there not be a Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation as depicted.

Even if one doesnt agree with this analysis it still has to be explained why the Artcic is changing in this way, but the Antarctic isnt.

Comparing the improbability of AGW being as bad as the doomers say it is,with the problems and deaths already caused, and likely in the future caused by the Islamofascists, terrorism is infinitely more important. And that is with or without the odd atomic bomb.

The insiduous effects of the radical Islamists has already reshaped western society in very negative ways. Restrictions on our liberties just to pander to their feelings has already changed us in ways more serious than we seem to care about. But toss in more extremist major events such as a A bomb, then we are in real trouble.

Who will then care if the temperature is a smidgin higher,when the attibution of the cause of that increase is almost impossible to prove.

A lot hangs on this debate. A lot of money, and lot power, not to mention the systems of life support provided by nature.

I’ve surveyed many of the sources referred to during this posting. I’ve found thousands of reputable sources explaining the reality and dangers of climate change. I’ve also learned that Prime Minister Howard and Bush have agreed that human induced climate change is a real problem.

On the other side of the debate is what appears to a selective pseudo-science. The climate change deniers tackle the debate by focusing on selective minor points & try to portray the to and frow of scientific process as poor science. It shows a clearly biased agenda. Much of it brings to mind the type research funded by the pro-tobacco lobby.

Some of you may be aware that right wing think tanks are running underhanded campaigns to hijack community debates with their agenda. For more information see http://www.tai.org.au/Newsletter_Files/Newsletters/NL44final.pdf

Bigmal, I invite you to use your real name, as you will surely want to be acknowledged by future generations. Also, why is it important to you to portray the views of Mike as thoughts of an academic? Would it challenge you if his these views were held by people from all walks of life, like myself.

Unlike the selective bias relied on by some climate change deniers, the reports of Inter-government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are authoritative and have credibility. Thousands of the most competent climate scientist have consensus on the answers to three clear questions asked of them by the UN:

1. Is global warming is occurring. Yes (IPCC 2001 report).
2. Is human activity significantly contributing to global warming? Yes. The overwhelmingly strongest contribution to global warming is human pollution with greenhouse gases.(IPCC 2001 report).
3. Will global warming continue if we continue business as usual. Yes, business as usual is likely to produce global average temperature to increase by between 2 to 5.8 degrees C. (IPCC 2001 report).

Even our Greenhous Mafia hijacked federal government accepts these findings.

bigmal wrote, "Even if one doesnt agree with this analysis it still has to be explained why the Artcic is changing in this way, but the Antarctic isnt."

This is completely untrue on two counts. Firstly the Antarctic is changing, although more slowly that the Arctic, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6962

Secondly, the climate change models predict that the effect will be more pronounced in the Arctic than the Antarctic. This is for two reasons. The southern hemisphere oceans act as a heat sink, moderating atmospheric temperature rise. Secondly, retreat of snow and ice over arctic land and water reduces reflectance, causing more of the sun's heat to be absorbed than before.

It seems that bigmal has made no effort to review the science on the matter, otherwise he'd know that.

He has linked to a report appearing on TCSDaily. That site numbers ExxonMobil and General Motors Corporation amongst its 8 sponsors. The site's publisher, Tech Central Station, is a division of DCI Group, a major Republican lobby group, http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/profile.aspx?act=firms&year=2003&lo=L001520

Only the naive or the credulous would attach scientific credibility to material appearing there.

Mikem,

PHYSICAL LAWS like Newton's and Thermodynamic laws ARE TIMELESS

Newton's physics was different from Aristotle's because Aristotle hadn't discovered laws 1 to 3. No matter if another person had discovered Newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics, they always have and always will be the same. They get modified with refined measurement and data but they NEVER change in their most fundamental form. Further, I have spent 4 years dumbing down the basic interpretation of the 2Lof T for forums where you CANNOT introduce concepts like Prigogine's especially in 350 words or less. There are few physical laws associated with quantum mechanics because our measurement strategies do not extend well beyond the femto second range at this time. Our understandinng of Quantum laws is yet to mature. It does you little credit to accuse me of arrogance when you display such a PARANOID, sajoesque attitude to the thermodynamic approach to climate change which not only provides an immediate solution but also confronts the political interests that wish to prolong climate change for reasons of economy and global control.

Again full marks on your googling.
Although out of place here, the Priogine link shows an important stepping stone to understanding stability in climate systems from the macroscopic to the microscopic. Along with many other contributions since 1977 and particularly Morse Theory on harmonic solutions on complex topologies, the qualitative physical basis for EWB networks emerged.
I only expect people on this forum to understand the 2LoT meaning that heat/energy/order/information all have some sort of equivalence and that systems containing them all migrate to cold/low energy/ disorder/loss of information over time as a universal law. I trust even you can understand that much.
This is enough for a basic understanding of how and why EWBs will control climate change.
If people want to bring up deeper thermodynamic issues such as equilibrium, reversibility or stability I will be pleased to engage. Otherwise this is not the proper place.

Continued ..

Continuing ...

As for Jones's turning Northern rivers inland? That would be far too expensive to create and then to PUMP water uphill. It would also encourage current wastewater modalities of ocean dumping which would accelerate climate changes in our REGION. The EWB network concept applies a harmonic topological function at saddle points across landforms based on multiple hydrological loops. In simple terms network EWBs promote interior continental rainfalls that encourage coastal rain band participation where sunlight PUMPS the water uphill for free. The resulting loss of this energy to coastal and polar systems subsequently halts violent climate changes.

And another thing. Anyone who relies on IPCC or government reports to bolster Greenhouse warming claims does not understand that unproven extrapolations abound and that they are hotly debated in the scientific community. These reports are worthless till more data comes in over the next 10 years. One thing is certain, IPCC does not take Thermodynamics into account. IPCC thus fails the most basic of procedural norms when extracting dynamic predictions from systems inbvolving time dependent energy inputs.
As for governments, they simply jump on any bandwagon that cements their global economic agenda. And they aren't too fussy about telling Morris Minor lies in the process.

The IPCC is the most definitive source we have at the moment for looking at the whole AGW picture. Imagine trying to get thousands of the most competent climate scientist to agree on every single point about our developing understanding of climate change. Impossible. What we have gained through the IPCC reports is compelling consensus on three key points.

1. Global warming is happening.
2. We are causing most of it with GH gas pollution.
3. If we don't stop we will produce very rapid warming of between 2 and 6 degrees C in the next 100 years.