IPCC whiners,

Let's be perfectly clear about who is abusing what and whom .

Mike(academic):Since bigmal pays so little attention to provenance of his sources it's not surprising that he clings to ideas from cranks, weirdos and vested interests connected with Big Energy.

Disingenuinesque:To me (no engineer I admit), collecting methane over millions of miles of inhospitable terrain it doesn't sound any more crazy than sequestration of CO2

Tdo( do as I say)t: the tone and language you have chosen can be a turn off to people who would otherwise listen ... and is not helpful.

Mark Byrne (substance abuse): The IPCC is the most definitive source we have

The above arrogance and abuse of persons, and reason itself, by IPCC stooges and shills is an open invitation to retaliation. Do not expect any less than you dish out.
It does little good to hide ignorance behind crumby IPCC reporting and avoid doing necessary APPLIED MATHEMATICS yourself. You have been shown how to analyse climate change from a top down thermodynamic perspective. You must know by now that making dynamic predictions from too few data points and making extrapolations on an ultra complex biospheric system is how predominately IPCC biological scientists cope with the sheer frustration of having reams of data and no synergic methodology to analyse it. Well that methodology is now here in the form of Thermodynamics and advanced mathematical analyses. Despite any Keatingesque retorts to IPCC rubber-stamp rudeness that I may indulge in, real Scientists (even biologists) WILL listen because they know the score.

The following piece in the SMH this morning highlights the shift away from IPCC methodology:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/a-debate-begging-for-more-light/2006/03/01/1141191731122.html

The most important thing in climate change now is to wait 10 years and collect data under more stringent conditions. We should all be looking forward to scientists lifting their game here, commencing in 3 months time with the US-Hurricane-season.
As Americans desperately try to forget Katrina, worse is in store. In the long run this will be a benefit to all mankind because new thermodynamics analysis contains a robust, practical EWB-networking-soultion within it.

1.ALL parties engaged in the AGW debate are doing so from the point of vested interest. It doesnt matter whether it is Big Business, Big Energy or WWF, Australian Insitute, Lavoisier Group, or any of a myriad of groups, they all have a vested interest. Of course academics and publically funded researches are as pure as the driven snow.Pigs

I thought that to any thinking person following this subject, this is a blindingly obvious statement of fact.

I couldn't give a toss if TCS is being funded by Mickey Mouse.I will have a look at what is being written first.

2. When ideological frauds dismiss material out of hand because it also happened to appear where it shouldnt have, they are by implication dimissing the source material as well. In this case MikeM is dismissing the journals "Science", "Journal of Geophysical Research","Physical Research Letters" and all the material emanating from governemnt agencies such as the NCDC/NOAA. (All of which underpins what was being said). That is the implication of not looking at what was being said.

3.What they are also doing is denying that things that are the subject of discussion and which are reasonably well understood, like the AMO, actually doesnt exist, and doesnt affect Atlantic weather patterns at all. Further that there is NO correlation at all between SST and the AMO.All of which goes some way to explain what is going on in the Artic.

I think "Leigh" quite early in the piece had the right comment,and is closer to the truth, vis a vis Terrorism and AGW.

KAEP, I'm noticing you have particular style of communicating your ideas. However, I don’t feel enlightened or persuaded by the approach. I'm happy to read your reasoning and evidence behind your claims. But all I read is dismissive abuse. That won’t cut it for me. Neither will delaying action for ten years.

The evidence already exists. No regrets policy means acting now.

It’s a good thing we’ve got the IPCC and a foundational base line. Imagine the propaganda we’d have to wade through without it as a point from which to work.

I checked the author of the article you posted. Perhaps you’d be interested in following this link. Unless you already knew of Miranda Devine’s pretences.

http://timlambert.org/2005/02/devine/

KAEP, If you are interested in talking, I'd be interested in where you work and what got you interested in climate change? Did the work of the IPCC inform any of your ideas?

KAEP - just for you from the disingenuinesque one (love your vocabulary)

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/MethaneHydrate/Williams_Abstract.pdf

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97ng/ng97_pdf/NGP13.PDF

Some advice from someone not as stupid as you seem to think: Assuming you are anticipating a career in a scientific field you may want to brush up on your communication skills. Remember your future employer/funding body may well be reading or contributing to OLO and will readily recognise your unique style. Believe me it is not at all impressive.

Mark Byrne has highlighted the critical point that, "The real scientific questions and debates are about how these fundamental changes will ultimately impact the earths systems. And how we can abate as much dangerous climate change as possible."

Current response of the Australian and US governments is big on rhetoric and missing in action.

There is a subsidiary question though: the psychology of greenhouse warming denial. How do presumably intelligent people such as KAEP and bigmal lock themselves into rejection of convincing evidence?

KAEL may think that it is all an Alan Greenspan plot, although now that Greenspan has retired, we will need to see where that leads him. But how come bigmal believes that "ALL parties engaged in the AGW debate are doing so from the point of vested interest?"

Certainly, some are. ExxonMobil, for one (although Royal Dutch/Shell and BP see it differently). What is IPCC's secret agenda? Jewish conspiracy? Islamic conspiracy? Technocrat conspiracy? Judy Cannon conspiracy? What?

Separate discussion has started at http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1455&PN=1&TPN=1 on the ethics of global warming denial.

Thanks for the tip Mike,

As I leave this forum, the thing I’ve gained is a greater appreciation for the increasing volume of profit motivated material which is seeking to deny AGW. I don’t want to be too ungenerous, but I think that some see waging this campaign as just another part of profit maximising business.

This creates an interesting convergence at this time as not-for-profits are threatened with funding cuts or tax exemption removal for advocacy on issues sensitive to the government of the day. More and more of life’s opportunities are influenced by dollar wealth (health, education, legal, political). This has become a societal structural positive feedback loop.

The uncreditable sources referred to in this forum are a real problem. In a forum like this there is little accountability. (I sometimes wonder if there are more names being used than individuals who are contributing). To have a serious debate it is far preferable to be open and accountable for what you say. This increases my appreciation of creating systems like peer reviewed journals, though I know these systems are not perfect.

I understand that the fundamentalist free market lobbyists are campaigning to discredit academics, because some of these academics keep raising ideas which get in the way of the acceleration of free market domination.

I’ve heard the claims before. ‘Without troublesome academics or troublesome human rights activists or greens we would be able to sort out the worlds problems with free market principles. Trust us. Just trust us and the market will solve everything. We will have a brave new world. The problems of today are not caused too much, rather by not enough free market.’

As for the UN, the UNEP, UNFCCC, UNCHR, WMO, IPCC, well they also keep creating obstacles to perfect free (to exploit) markets.

On a closing point, the fundamental problem with relying on the free market for too much, is the way the market fails to value vitally important contributions, while perversely rewarding some harmful exploitation.

Bigmal, we are all motivated by something. I’m working for intergenerational equity, social, global and environmental justice.