Oh a bitch slapping contest, what fun. Next time maybe we could do mud wrestling.

Bolt is a cool operator. He has a reasoned following and represents the counter view of the rabid left, thus he is a target for every control freak and wannabe despot in Australia.

I did comment sometime ago on this board about no articles of an Andrew Bolt origin being posted and one of GY's colleagues emailed me advising publishing same would be at a price, compared to plenty of articles which were free to use. That’s a good practical reason, sad though, I think if it were ever possible some “Bolt” would enhance the presence of this forum.

Doubtless Bolt could also conduct his own defense to Lamberts poorly presented argument but why should he bother? It’s a bit like being a male journalist equivalent of Linda Evangelista, sadly not in looks but in “I don’t get out of bed for less than $10,000”.

It would certainly stir the pot a little, not that I think "pot stirring" is a laudable thing for its own purpose, it is just a fun thing.

Lambert has clearly not done the very calculation that he suggested I do because, if he had, and divided it by the volume of current melting from Greenland, he would get the a simililar result to mine. The raw number suggests that it will actually take 14,000 years for the Greenland Ice Sheet to melt but when we apply the decadal increase in melting as a trend, we get 11,000 years instead.

And it would only produce a sea level rise of 6m. And that means that Greenalnd melting would only increase sea level by 5cm by year 2100. (assuming we are not doing some serious desalination for cropping by then)

His year 7 level science on floating ice also hardly informs. True, melting ice in water produces no increase in volume but this does not apply to ice shelves where most of the volume is above the equilibrium level. The reason for the dramatic footage of parts of the Ross Shelf in Antarctica is that much of the ice is above water level and when it breaks off it will contribute to a sea level rise. But of course, in other parts of Antarctica the shelves are actually getting bigger.

The most boorish part of both Gore and Lambert's ravings, is their implication that anyone who has any reservations about the extreme nature of the projections, is in denial of any anthropogenic influence on climate. Clearly, man does change his environment so man can change his climate. The issue in dispute is BY HOW MUCH.

It certainly does not mean that I will give a blank cheque to people who exhibit the full range of sleazy techniques of the shonks and spivs.

On sea level rise:

Based on some simple calculations, if the Greenland ice were to melt completely, the rise in sea level would be approximatly 7.2m (IPCC 2001). Based on current estimates, this would take up to 1000 years to complete, once a so called "tipping point" in temperature was reached. However, this is current quite contentious, as some measurements made by the GRACE satellites indicate that the loss is accelerating. In 1996, Greenland lost about 96 km3/year, while in 2006 239 km3/year (note, that since GRACE has only been operating since 2002, previous estimates may not be very good).

Also, remember that Greenland is not the only land ice mass in the world. However, currently observed sea level rise is not attributatble to glacial melt along. Most of it occurs due to the thermal expansion of water as the oceasn heats up (IPCC 2001).

On computer moodelling:

People outside science and engineering seem to have a poor knowledge of computer models and how they work. For one thing, a model is not just built and run. They first need to be verified by reproducing observations. As CSIRO scientist A. Barrie Pittock says:

"Climate models have been tested and improved systematically over time. There are many ways to do this. Modellers often judge models by how well they reproduce observed conditions... A popular test is to use a climate model with observed boundary layer conditions, like sea surface temperature... similarly test are made of how well a model reproduces natural variation, for example El Nino Southern Oscillation ENSO".

Climate models need to get good results before they are used to predict the future. The models are not flawless. But they are getting much better, and now simulate everything from ocean mixing to plant growth. Check out these sites for a good explantion:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/72_1.html

and my favourite:

http://climateprediction.net/science/model-intro.php

On sea level rise:

Based on some simple calculations, if the Greenland ice were to melt completely, the rise in sea level would be approximatly 7.2m (IPCC 2001). Based on current estimates, this would take up to 1000 years to complete, once a so called "tipping point" in temperature was reached. However, this is current quite contentious, as some measurements made by the GRACE satellites indicate that the loss is accelerating. In 1996, Greenland lost about 96 km3/year, while in 2006 239 km3/year (note, that since GRACE has only been operating since 2002, previous estimates may not be very good).

Also, remember that Greenland is not the only land ice mass in the world. However, currently observed sea level rise is not attributatble to glacial melt along. Most of it occurs due to the thermal expansion of water as the oceasn heats up (IPCC 2001).

On computer modelling:

People outside science and engineering seem to have a poor knowledge of computer models and how they work. For one thing, a model is not just built and run. They first need to be verified by reproducing observations. As CSIRO scientist A. Barrie Pittock says:

"Climate models have been tested and improved systematically over time. There are many ways to do this. Modellers often judge models by how well they reproduce observed conditions... A popular test is to use a climate model with observed boundary layer conditions, like sea surface temperature... similarly test are made of how well a model reproduces natural variation, for example El Nino Southern Oscillation ENSO".

Climate models need to get good results before they are used to predict the future. The models are not flawless. But they are getting much better, and now simulate everything from ocean mixing to plant growth. Check out these sites for a good explantion:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/72_1.html

and my favourite:

http://climateprediction.net/science/model-intro.php

Had the editors look closely at Lambert’s post they would have corrected this error in the original at his blog:

"The historical record from 1978 through 199 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year."

The quote above as it appears at Bolt’s blog:

“The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year.”

This uncorrected error indicates that the editors did not bother to do even a cursory check of Lambert’s post, much less verify Bolt’s claim, which is, by the way, correct: the record for the period 1978 – 1999 does show a sea level rise of .07 mm per year. Whether or not this .07 figure is meaningful is another matter.

See: http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/tuvalu.pdf

In his transparently diversionary response to my criticism of his reliance on anecdotal evidence Lambert responds:

“I found you examples of Tuvaluans who said that was why they left and all you did was call them liars. Obviously there isn't any way to convince you of anything you don't want to believe since you dismiss all contrary evidence as lies.”

First, this is a pathetic attempt to elicit an emotional response in readers, drawing their attention away from the real issues. I did not call the Tuvaluans liars.

Second, at his blog Lambert demands that global warming skeptics (or whatever you want to call them) provide supporting data from peer reviewed journal articles. Yet here he relies on anecdotal evidence from Tuvaluans who see themselves as climate refugees. The next thing you know he’ll claim aliens are visiting Earth, offering as proof statements from those who claim to have been abducted by aliens (and are so convinced of their experience that they actually suffer PTSD).

Lambert’s original blog post and his response to my criticisms are both misleading. This is just Lambert doing what Lambert does.

Only two points to make … from a non-expert taxpayer without any further financial interest in the global warming debate.
(Nup, full disclosure doesn't hurt at all.)

1.
In December 2005 I reported a major water leak on public land to my local water authority.

After a series of follow-up calls (three from myself, plus Christ knows how many others), the leak was repaired in *August 2006*, coincidentally after I bypassed the seat-warmers.

In response to my demand for an explanation from the 'authority' for this deplorable delay, it advised me that two entities (from memory, a quango and a shire) had been busy disputing responsibility.

I suggested that they need to adopt the practice of FIXING the problem first and sorting the BLAME in due course, not indulging in displacement activities.

It remains to be seen if this advice transmutes into policy. (I remain skeptical.)
Meanwhile the 'water police' are out in Victoria, protecting our dwindling supplies by making sure I don't water my struggling lemon tree on the wrong day.

[Hopefully this analogy isn't too obtuse.]

2.
When it comes my personal search for credibility regarding the 'facts' about global warming, I just follow the money trail.
Lobbyists get paid to push an agenda and will simply swap their 'beliefs' (and their preferred sources) for money. (Hey, nice one.)
Shareholders in, say, fossil fuels, don't want to see their investment deteriorate.
Governments which embrace over-consumption are simply addicted to bloated tax and excise revenues.
And so on.
Stuff the grandkids - there's a dollar in this.

Having said all that, I usually take the skeptics' side. But isn't it pretty obvious there's a problem - and that we need to fix it? Or are those _without a vested interest_ still in denial over global warming?