Froggy, You are absolute correct on an important point. The global warming debate has become linked to ideological & political positions.

Froggy has highlighted one position. Some other idological positions have people be making the claim that climate change is a scheme for more tax funding.

“Looters quest for more Tax Funding” (ALL)

Others idological position have people rasing a narative about 'professional doomsters'.

“… the professional doomsters will be threaten us again with the deep freeze and shrinking oceans.” (anti-green).

Ideological associations are clear with involvement of ideological based think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Australia Institute, The Institute of Pubic Affairs, as well as their publishing arms such as the TSCdaily.

However the debate is also about science. Its would be incorrect to hold that this debate is either about science or ideology. It is about both.

Point well made about ‘if you repeat a lie long enough’. So, who are we to believe is repeating the lie? Which is the lie? I’ve an idea we might disagree on this these points.

Regarding the IPCC. The IPCC reports have their uses but also major limitations. The modus operandi of the IPCC is one of consensus reaching among experts and government representatives. This severely limits the statements able to be agreed on. For example the representatives of governments with strong fossil fuel interests (Saudi, US & China) are eager to water down wording and slow progress.

The outcome of this is the IPCC does not represent the best science. The IPCC represents the lowest common denominator science. So, The IPCC has access to a lot of the best science. But the statements it makes are watered down to reflect the accepted points that are beyond contention

Froggy, it’s a white wash to claim that greenhouse global warming is a lie. Mainstream science recognises the impact of greenhouse gas. The science used in an attempt to deny the dangers of greenhouse is fringe. Survey and compare this with the balance and findings of articles in serious journals such as Science, Nature, Journal of Oceanography, Journal of Climate.

Denial of the dangers of greenhouse gas is dominated by the vested interests and their ideologues. And more unfortunately by those who are influenced by their strong marketing.

THERMODYNAMICS is not fringe science.

Understanding BLACK BODY radiation at the poles as and escape route for global heating in the prescence of slight CO2 increases is not fringe science.

The fact that the IPCC consensus does not refer to these top down approaches is because their scientists are befuddled with what to do with massive amounts of data collected on Biospheric parameters. They simply haven't got around to a top down approach to solving climate irregularities yet. They will eventually. I promise every one reading this thread that will happen because it is the procedural norm in solving complex problems once you stop farting around with data collection and initial analyses. And don't think that even a century is an abnormal time to spend on this data analysis if people get tunnel vision about their particular part of the puzzle. The Biosphere is a BIG entity. I cannot stress just how much scientists seem to underestimate its true COMPLEXITY. A complexity that can only ever be understood by using Thermodynamics as a unifying tool for all other lines of research.

Additionally, I have been hauled over the coals with accusations of sophistry because certain scientists believe that upper reaches of rivers have fresh water and thus do not need EWBs at upper reach saddle points to purify that water. May I remind them that EWB networking to halt REGIONAL climate changes is about Thermodynamics. Upper reach EWBs may or may not be required to filter pollutants but they are integral in maintaining a particular entropy level in the overall EWB network to facilitate maximum work done by land based heat within land-sea dissipative structures. The current situation is expediting heat transfer from the land to the poles via a circuital route that causes climate irregularities all along its path. This is what we are currently stuck with and will be until the IPCC consensus turns around.

Once again I predict that greenhouse warming will soon be a dead topic and I am still interested in taking bets on how soon that will happen.

Will the real IPCC please step forward.

It can't? Oh dear!

The 'IPCC's passed on?

This Greenhouse warming nonsense is no more! It has ceased to be!

'IPCC's expired and gone to meet its maker! 'IPCC's a stiff! Bereft of life,it rests in peace!

If I hadn't nailed it to the perch the IPCC'd be still pushing up scientific confusions!

'Its metabolic processes are now history!

'IPCC's off the twig!

'IPCC's kicked the bucket, 'IPCC's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!

IPCC IS AN EX-GREENHOUSE WARMING FAKERY AND THERMODYNAMICS APPROACHES ARE JUST ABOUT TO PREVAIL AS AN ALMOST IMMEDIATE SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE!!

Pity about the US Gulf Coast with the hurricane season starting June 2006 and not an EWB in sight. Houston and New orleans are also about t0 become dead parrots. OOPS, too low, too slow!

“Ecosystems & Human Well-being: Wetlands & Water Synthesis” Ramsar COP9

Tuesday, November 08, 2005 | Kampala, UGANDA

“The degradation and loss of wetlands is more rapid than that of other ecosystems. Similarly, the status of both freshwater and coastal wetland species is deteriorating faster than those of other ecosystems.”

The conference stressed the need to balance the desire to add more sites to the Ramsar List of Wetlands with ensuring their effective management (EWBs?). It called for: synergies among biodiversity-related Conventions; better environmental governance frameworks; and capacity building.

It stressed that ecosystem services are vital to human well-being, lamenting that many of these services are overused, mismanaged or degraded, and highlighted policy choices available to reduce wetland degradation while maintaining benefits (again EWBs?).

Commenting on the accelerated wetland degradation, it highlighted a reduction of human well-being, especially in developing countries, coupled with an increased demand for wetland services. She said policy decisions must address trade-offs between current and future use, and emphasized cross sectoral and ecosystem approaches. Finally, she noted that the report would help set the future agenda for Ramsar, and could be used to raise awareness on wetlands.

And the latest Millenium report:

"A landmark study released today reveals that approximately 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth – such as fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water regulation, and the REGULATION of REGIONAL CLIMATE, natural hazards and pests – are being degraded or used unsustainably. Scientists warn that the harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years."

What have you been smoking KAEP?