Fellers, go have a read of Frederic Junemon's piece in today's "On Line Opinion" and absorb what he is saying about "hidden variables", and "precursor events". I wish to make it clear that I understand that climate change is a reality, some coal industry $$...I wish. I am skeptical about the motives and "facts" sprayed about by politicians and others. Christopher Monckton freely admits to taking the UK Govt's shilling, that does not mean his research can be dismissed out of hand, his views on the role of the Sun, in the attachment to his articles is worth following up. He also makes a convincing case on rising Co2 levels as being a "precursor event"

Richard42

“So Sir Vivor would have us believe that once thawed, peat suddenly starts degrading and emitting methane and CO2. So how come we have peat bogs in the rest of the world that are stable?”

Here’s Perseus, speculating on motives and intentions. I guess that Al Gore would have others acting against the worst case scenarios of climate change. Yes, Al Gore has financial stake in his position, as do we all.

Peat-bearing permafrost is one of a chorus of “miners canaries” that deserve our attention. I named a website which publicises a watching brief on permafrost, for those whose interest goes beyond glib dismissals.

What would Perseus have us believe? He/she values scepticism, but implicit in his/her remarks is the assumption that they are somehow an expression of higher truth, a set of questions not to be questioned, despite the skywide absence of Perseus’ declaration of vested interests.

There is every good reason to apply the precautionary principle to the threat of climate change. There are multiple nonlinear feedbacks in our global climate system which are beyond our control, but which we are perturbing.

Anyone who is familiar with the story of the Manhattan Project can appreciate the genius, courage and total self-assurance of Enrico Fermi, who worked on the growing pile of graphite blocks under the squash court of the University of Chicago, back in December of 1942. As blocks were added and moved, as measurements were made, he recalculated on his slide rule toward the geometry which would lead to the first controlled nuclear chain reaction.

The nonlinear variables there, then, were within the grasp and control of one towering intellect. The consequences, the fallout (no pun intended) were another matter.

Anyone who believes we are in control of our global climate ought to head over to a nearby bookstore and skim through Lovelock’s “Revenge of Gaia”. It is simplistic and gives his predecessors (HT Odum and others) no credit whatever, but it is a useful “Dummy’s Guide to Runaway Feedback Cycles”.

I’d keep an eye on those thawing peat bogs.

Sir Vivor, my post dealt with detailed attributes of a specific refutation of a claim that melting permafrost would increase global warming. I detailed other events associated with the same process that would counteract the claimed adverse effects.

And all you can come up with in reply is semicoherent ramblings about Fermi that have no bearing on the topic. This is absolute par for the course for the climate wonkers. You are nothing but a propagandist.