Isn't it great to see people still toadying to every major government now hell bent on 4% and 5% economic and population growth rates for the benefit of their own power and that of a few global corporations. Kyoto is a convenient never ending crutch to stall genuine concerns about climate changes caused by wastewater mismanagement. I mean do people really believe in greenhouse gas warming when governments save trillions of dollars in waste management by dumping in coastal seas.

Scientists are paid by governments and corporations to feed the public what is best for Greenspanian economic growth patterns.

Solving COMPLEX biospheric systems without due regard to TOTAL energy inventories is typical of specialist scientists who are not trained in Applied Mathematics as a first tier subject. People do what they are trained for and if that means solving one dynamic within an exceedingly complex system like the biosphere then that is what they will do. This is a mistake. Scientists make mistakes like anyone.

As time goes on from here, the sheer unpredictability of imminent climate changes will all but rule out global warming as a cause. Global warming theory is very specific about the global homogeneity of it's effects and the gradual increase in its effects with time. For example the 2006 US hurricane season will be worse than 2005 and will all but squash greenhouse warming theories because the change is occurring too quickly.

And remember, the Earth was deemed FLAT in the dark ages because the leading power of the time, the Catholic Church wanted it that way to control the populace and keep it in its place.

Nothing changes it seems.

The way we treat this planet is a lot scarier than any terrorist. But unlike terrorism, we can successfully combat global warming.

Mike M.

You mention Lomborgs book and queried whether I have read that. Well you are wrong, I not only have read it, I bought my own.I have also read the IPCC documents particularly the economic bits.You would do well to read the assessment of Castles and Henderson on how good that has been.

You refer to the Economists article concerning Lomborgs meeting with a group of leading scientist and thinkers who were to prioritize all the word potential calamities on the understanding that if one had $50bn to send what would be the priority order of things. A very practical and commonsensical approach to things.

But what really puzzles me is that all these references you have pointed to actually show the case that AGW is not the most important issue for the world. This is completely contrary to the point I believe you were trying to make and the point the author of this article was trying to make, all very unsuccessfully. It is highly unlikely that no money is being spent on these things, so your next argument is also fallacious. Ineffective it may be, but they are trying.

You then conclude with a ridiculous comment to the effect that Al Quaida won’t be drowning 9-m people. This completely overlooks the blindingly obvious fact that in the unlikely event that sea levels were to rise, it would hardly happen over night, decades more likely.

Further, you also over look the imminent danger that we are all exposed to with that raving lunatic in Iran Ahmadinejad, threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map with their own Atomic bomb, and the myriad of other dilemmas the west faces, created by the Islamofascists.

As the Lomborg book, and the Economist report shows, it is quite clear, that AGW does not even rate in the top 10.

Like I said back at the beginning, this article and your commentary are complete twaddle, and that’s being polite.

I reckon Bush and Howard are about right on Greenhouse. Give them lip service, but don’t invest too much of the tax payer’s monies on the will-o-the-wisp schemes, that are so much loved by the green lobby.

Who knows in a little while the professional doomsters will be threaten us again with the deep freeze and shrinking oceans. Alternatively they may renew their attention to atmospheric pollution, or even give an extra hard wack to their infamous anti-nuclear drum.

The paradigm of anthropogenic global will one day go out of fashion. None-the-less it is a certainty that there will always be an environmentalist on hand to moan about something or other.

I've just read estimates that atmospheric carbon dioxide contains about 730 Gigatonnes of carbon (70 GtC), that land to atmosphere transfers each year are around 120 GtC and atmosphere to ocean transfers are around 90 GtC. By comparison, human activity adds about 7 GtC a year. While I don't know the dynamics of the transfer/retention processes, the human contribution is relatively small scale. ("Nine lies about global warming," www.lavoisier.com.au. Lavoisier's president is ex-Senator Peter Walsh, one of the most intelligent politicians I've met.)

As I've posted before, and an earlier poster has alluded to, ALL of the IPCC global warming scenarios are based on economic modelling. The modelling has shown to be seriously flawed, e.g. by Ian Castles & Henderson; but several years after their critique, it has not been corrected. I estimated (as an economist who has directed a modelling team) that if the most likely IPCC scenario were revised to take account of the CH critique, it is likely that the most-likely scenario would show GW in the 21st C not significantly different from zero.

It is often claimed that "the debate is over, there is a scientific consensus that human induced global warming is real and serious." In fact, many eminent scientists in relevant fields do not agree, in some cases because the very complex mechanisms involved are not yet understood.

There may be grounds for being cautious - e.g. adopting cost-effective buildsing methods which reduce energy use - but there are not yet grounds for acting as if a catastrophe is imminent.

bigmal,

I am aware of the Castles and Henderson critique. But let's untangle the separate issues.

* Is the Earth's atmosphere getting warmer than it's been in the last 100,000 years?

* If so, is it partly or largely anthropogenic?

* If it is, is the Kyoto Protocol an effective step toward ameliorating it?

The short answers appear on the best evidence to be "yes", "yes" and "no".

In defence of Kyoto though it can be argued firstly that a long journey begins with the first step, and secondly, that if nations cannot agree on a first step, then there is no chance of arriving at the destination.

Furthermore, the $50 billion is simply not being spent. To argue about whether a strategy that nobody is ever going to implement is better than a half-hearted strategy that is unlikely to be effective but might be a starting point is rather a waste of time.

bigmal, perhaps you could explain to us what is "ridiculous" about observing that Al Qaeda won't drown 9 million people. I would have thought it was common sense.

Evidence that Ahmadinehad is a "raving lunatic"? Perhaps you could provide us with a link.