So what i gather is that the point of enviromentalists and scientists is incorrect and there is more need for consultations.
The howard government has already said they will decrease emmisions by 30% and by 2030 at a cost of 75 billion dollars well

The Australian Peoples Party can do a hell of a lot better than that, with a minimum of 30% and at a less cost also without lossing workers and gaining at least an extra 2000 positions, to easy.

Now money keeps being spent as it seems on wasteful consultations we can see what is happening, so its time to become better at what we do.

This is up to the people
keep the corruption and as Mr Rudd has said he will not be tearing up those IR laws and now is talking to big business.

So email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

For info become a member and or candidate for the federal election.
It is only imposible if you think it is too hard and then you get what you get.

I have been Oh so suspicious of the claim that climate change is proven by the "consensus" never has such an unscientific argument been applied to a science issue.
As the author here suggests the IPCC process is very deeply flawed.
I recently discovered a piece by Luboš Motl that points out the almost fraudulent methodology of the current IPCC report. With his kind permission I republished his piece here.
http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2007/01/25/cart-before-the-horse-again/
Now so much decision making in government is being based on such dubious documents and every thinking person should be considering the veracity of the methodology and not just the alarmist claims that are endlessly made by the members of the climate change industry.

Good post, David. As any experienced auditor will confirm, the one set of accounts that must be examined in the closest detail is the set presented by people who fail to provide adequate answers before they are even asked. The IPCC's primary task is to inform the debate and that role has no room for loyalty to a particular projected outcome or protection of a particular position. They have refused to supply material in a way that, if it was a financial prospectus, would see the entire panel doing a stretch for breaches of just about every corporations law in the OECD.

Indeed, this analogy is most apt because the IPCC is essentially offering the world community a prospectus in respect of the future management of the planet. And instead of a rigorous accounting, reporting and audit framework, the IPCC gives us "peer review", the equivalent of passing the accounts around between the mates down at the club, as a proxy for certified statements in a statutory reporting regime.

The directors of listed corporations who accept this stuff and act upon it would do well to top up their professional indemnity policy because ultimately the community's standards will apply.

More Consultation and less Spin Please.

The issues facing us on Climate Change are highly murky and totally out of hand.

Policy Support 4 U Henderson;

In relation to climate change, there is an urgent and critical need to build a platform with a "sounder basis" than presently exists for reviewing and assessing the issues of Climate Change.

We need a new process for informing and advising governments and public civilians everywhere.

We need an objective, more informative representative line-up and one who discloses a rigorous and more balanced view both from inside and outside the IPCC... and its sponsoring departments and agencies.

We need a body that functions at all consultative levels of the community, world wide, as well as here locally, in Australia.

http://www.miacat.com

Hendersen loses immediate credibility by dragging out the Hockey Stick criticism often used by the sceptics. That issue was investigated and dismissed by a recent US house of reps enquiry. The consistent message of that enquiry is best expressed by this transcript:

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/7_27_06.cfm

Of course the peer review process can never be assured of perfect outcomes - but its generally accepted as the most robust available. The more extensive the peer review the lower the risk of getting it completely wrong. With the 4th IPCC report there has rarely been a more robust example of peer review in scientific history.

The silence over a better method by Hendersen is deafening.

In relation to his claims that the IPCC is biased towards alarmist views, the evidence is actually showing that the IPCC forecasts may be tending towards being too conservative. The rate of ice melt and permafrost thawing are 2 examples that may have been underestimated by the 3rd IPCC report. Further examples have been recently reported in "Science" by John Church of the CSIRO. His research showed actual sea level rises are in the worst case forecast scenario.

That is a true problem/benefit with peer review, in that outlying opinions are usually dragged back towards a more consensus view.

If I understand correctly the IPCC will put their cards on the table by issuing conditional climate 'forecasts' in terms of average temperature, rainfall, sea level and so on. Like a Melbourne Cup tipster we will soon see if they are on the money.

I agree that the Stern Review probably understates the contractionary effect of reducing fossil fuel use. This is the dilemma; what if (as is likely)we wait a decade before cutting back then Mother Nature creates problems from which there is no return? In my opinion the science and peer review process appears sufficiently rigorous to justify some sacrifice now. If the doubters win for now they risk huge condemnation if the IPCC turns out to be right.

No surprise to see another article critical of AGW on OLO. But I have noted a change in the approach of critics. To debunk the hypothesis, all you need do is show an aspect of the science is false, note physical changes in the world which contradict it, or show a far better correlation of the changing climate with phenomena previously not considered.

The first attempts to debunk AGW were very much along these lines, but over the years the arguments were shown to be flawed. The remnants of this approach can be found on OLO threads, where minor details are discussed ad nauseum, and the main body of evidence for AGW is left unchallenged. While new challenges to AGW may arise, the major challenges seem to have failed, and further challenges are likely to be minor and infrequent. This has led to a change in approach to “Climate change is happening and isn't it great!?” and or “The climate change and associated economic scenarios of the IPCC cannot be trusted.”*. But these approaches mount no specific challenge to the science, and instead have the political aim of swaying public opinion. I see this as a sad degradation of argument and defeatism on the part of sceptics.

Anyone doubting the ability of basic science and observation to debunk popularly held myths might consider how simply it debunked the long held attribution of cholera infection to miasma. It was the simple observation of a cholera outbreak in London in the absence of miasma that debunked the myth, and lead to the general acceptance of Dr Snow's great work carried out several years earlier.

Surely the sceptics hold science in higher regard than a tool for justifying one's prejudice?

*Panaitan might note that David Henderson doesn't directly attack Michael Mann's “Hockey Stick” graph. Instead, he implies that it is tainted. Such valour!

Fester “To debunk the hypothesis, all you need do is show an aspect of the science is false, note physical changes in the world which contradict it, or show a far better correlation of the changing climate with phenomena previously not considered.”

Surely it is better to honestly recognize a “null hypothesis” than to be lead along a path to economic ruin by scientists whose lack of ethics persuade them to falsify or exaggerate results or suggest fraudulent conclusions for want of public acclaim ( which is often accompanied by public funds)?

As for “Surely the sceptics hold science in higher regard than a tool for justifying one's prejudice?”

And I think it reasonable for Skeptics to expect scientists to hold science in a similarly high regard.

- Rather than accepting the words of scientist who treat science pure as a vehicle of self aggrandizement and funding.

"A right-wing American thinktank is offering $US10,000 ($A12,940) to scientists and economists to dispute a climate change report set to be released in Paris later today by the UN's top scientific panel." From a media report.
Hope the author of this article, and most of the respondents, are not being short-changed here.

Col, if you can prove the null hypothesis for climate change, then do so. You might note that phlogiston, miasma, spontaneous generation, and ether were not debunked on the basis of defaming their adherents. They were debunked on the basis of careful observation and elegant experiment.

So Col, you and all the other sceptics can mutter all you like about unethical and fraudulent scientists making a buck from dodgy science, but it will advance your position about as much as a drunkard might advance his position by shouting abuse from the gutter. In fact, you could have ended all the argument and abuse long ago had you presented your scientific proof of a natural cause or causes for recent climate change. So why not end this silly bickering and present your evidence?

Henderson, a very highly respected economist, was one of the authoritative groups of economists and scientists who have just released a “Dual Critique” of the science and economics of the Stern Review (see my post yesterday on Jennifer Mahorasy’s article). Stern based his work on that of the IPCC and supportive groups, ignoring contrary views and evidence, so the assessment of Stern reflects on the pro-serious-AGW camp. Some major points include that -

Climate prediction is not a mature science - the last IPCC assessment found that the level of scientific understanding of nine out of twelve identified climate forcings is “low” or “very low”. Since then, findings of some major scientific papers include that - the climate forcing of methane has been underestimated by almost half; half the warming over the twentieth century might be explained by solar changes; cosmic rays could have a large effect on climate; and the role of aerosols is more important than that of greenhouse gases. That is, the role of the usual suspect greenhouse gases for which reductions are sought may have been seriously overstated

Global average temperature statistics since 1860 show the late twentieth-century warming is similar in both amount and rate to an earlier (natural) warming between 1905 and 1940. Comparisons over longer time spans “show recent warming occurred at a similar rate, but was of lesser magnitude, than the earlier, millennial warmings associated with the Mediaeval, Roman and Minoan warm periods”.

Other plausible explanations of recent warming by professional analysts include local heating from urbanization/industrialization and longer-term geological analysis suggesting minimal impacts from greenhouse gas forcing. The science is far from settled.

Stern’s assumption that future increments of carbon dioxide will have substantially greater effects than those in the past is “contrary to all empirical and physical reasoning”. In any event, historical changes in CO2 emissions do not correspond with comparable changes in temperature and vice-versa eg the temperature increase between 1905 and 1940 occurred before greatly increased industrial emissions; and temperatures between 1940 and 1965 fell even though emissions increased rapidly.

Etc, etc. I remain in the unconvinced camp.

Fester “Col, if you can prove the null hypothesis for climate change, then do so. . . So why not end this silly bickering and present your evidence”

The point of a null hypothesis is it is just that, a “null”. A null is to test a hypothesis and declare it false, without actually proving the opposite true (something like a double negative). I suggest if you are prepared to use the term in debate you actually become familiar with its meaning.

The trail of theories which certain scientists have paraded like “trophy wives” before the public is endless and the problem, the trophies have turned out to be common whores, regardless of how they are dressed or presented. Errors and approximations abound, the hypothesis suddenly evaporating like the virtue of the village bike, when it is discovered she has been ridden around the park a few more times than any virtuous trophy would wish it to be known about.

So when someone presents a fraudulent case I am happy to declare a fraudulent case. (Just call me the boy in the crowd who saw the “Kings new clothes”).

Regardless of how “inconvenient a truth” it might be, our common future will always be better if we anticipate a future based on reasoned probabilities and doing nothing than rush ahead behind a certainty of fraud.

The most pathetic part of the climate fetishists routine is the continual claim that to doubt the validity of the extreme projections is to also doubt the very presence of any form of man induced warming. It is as if these plodders need a new religion where any departure from the IPCC orthodoxy is seen as heresy. But when all this religious ferver is combined with a modern, economic form of blood sacrifice or bleeding, to rid us of our supposed capitalist humours, they expose the poverty of their boorish conformity.

The latest version of that classic painting, "American Gothic" has a dour couple of climate salvationists, purged of mirth, purged of emissions, and able to leach the economic joy out of just about any gathering they attend. How ironic that one of their latest champions goes by the name of Stern.

The world was told in 1992 in a document signed by 1,600 scientists half of which were Nobel Prize winners in the respective fields, what would happen if no action was taken, we are beginning to witness it now.

In more recent times is was confirmed by the British Stein Report, and reconfirmed with this latest report, if action is not taken immediately we won't have an economy to protect.

Do we heed the warning of eminent scientists, or think we know best as the globe deteriorates it is a personal decision I know who I place my trust in.

I'm confused. On the one hand we have major reports released by the most authoritative international sources available, that indicate that global warming is real, is exacerbated by anthropogenic activities, and will have dire consequences on societies and the environment worldwide within decades. These reports include the Stern report and that of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released yesterday (see http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/world-wakes-to-climate-calamity/2007/02/02/1169919530831.html ).

On the other hand, we have a minority of mostly non-scientists who are promoted by some pretty obvious interest groups to present a countervailing view, which typically amounts to introducing some degree of doubt about the interpretation of semantic aspects of some report or article, and thus claiming that the overall theory is unproven.

Leaving aside for the moment the motivations of those who argue against the reality of anythropogenic global warming in the face of ever-mounting evidence of its existence, it's clear that this forum is generally biased in that direction - in the material that it publishes on the subject, in the quixotic battle by its chief editor to try and debunk evidence of global warming, and in the increasingly shrill comments posted here.

C.J. Morgan is on the money with his recent post. It is a mystery to me, the extent of support such misanathropic dogmatism gets, as it does on this forum - which seems to be striving to parallel the situation in the USA. There, the Bush administration is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to suppress or obfuscate information about climate change.

Interesting that this lengthy article was ready to go on the very day the IPCC report on global warming is released ! Also interesting that the front page of today's Sydney Morning Herald (3 . 2 . 07)contains a report of large bribes being offered to commentators and scientists to cast doubt on, and undermine, the UN climate change report. We can expect lots more of this then. A pity humanity is so cussed that we can't just get on with some helpful action instead of this kind of effort to shoot the messenger. We can go to war with each other at the drop of a hat, but when it comes to embarking on productive efforts for the sake of our kids, all we can do is whinge and mutter and drag our feet.

I am so looking forward to Andrew Bolt’s refutation.

The climate experts seem to be outdoing each other in their diaster predictions. Bit of a laugh really when they can't accurately predict one week in advance. When so many on this forum are quick to point out the gullability of those who believe in God it becomes very humorous to see people willing to embrace anything. I suppose when you reject God you need to hold on to some belief and dress it up as science. In 30 years time we will be laughing once again at this nonsense.

I actually had some hope for the IPCC. In that the forum would be diverse enough that the scientist concerned would bring their best work to the debate. Say man has an impact on his environment and most will not offer any argument. It's not that the average person is unaware of the human impact. But they have no way of quantifying the extent of their impact. That the IPCC and or scientist would use this particular platform to hype and promote fear for political and monetary gain destroys the average persons confidence in sciences ability to remain impartial and deliver the facts necessary to promote change. Why even try to curb your personal carbon footprint it it's just a get rich quick ploy for the eco-scientist.

There is Climate change, but it is ongoing through out time and will always be that way.

The big difference between now and a thousand years before is Modern Communications and a manifestly abundant commodity of absolute Useless Idiots who are more sworn to destroy man rather than provide Scientific Provable answers; Simply put, they can’t provide any answers so their Pseudo methodologies will suffice., that is because they are frauds and Phonies that depend whole heartily on the Proletariat lobotomization, dumb and Dumber effect.
And the U N; it would be easier just to kick the whole lot of the Looting Liars out of the place;

That’s what you get when Witch doctors are running the place, and science is held in contempt.
If you are frightened now, you should be, not by climate change and Man, but the Idiots that will feed you junk – Doom and destruction. They represent what they Promulgate; Death.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

I imagine that when there is a bushfire bearing down on your property, you don't really care how it started, you just want to minimise the damage.
Some of the above posters can't see the fire for the smoke.

As for a smoke analogy -

Using their logic, we can now acknowledge that smoking is bad for your health (despite the sometimes convincing arguments against that aspect not so long ago) but you don't need to quit because there is as much danger from second-hand smoke anyway.

Shonga: "The world was told in 1992 in a document signed by 1,600 scientists half of which were Nobel Prize winners in the respective fields"

Considering that only 768 individuals have been awared Nobel Prizes in its entire history (which includes Literature, Peace and Economics), your claim is evidently wrong.

Who should we place our trust in? Certainly not you.

As someone who participates in a number of weather based forums, I wish to add my skepticism of the effects of global warming. I am no weather expert, but I know when something just doesn't add up. The geographic evidence when the Earth was warmer was that Australia had greater rainfall. In fact vast area's of the Australian continent were covered in rain forest. Yet continually we are told that drought will be more common.
I believe that we should be more efficient with our energy resources, that there is nothing wrong with striving for less pollution and in fact using less energy should always be the goal of individuals and companies. Energy savings always flow directly to the bottom line.
I sleep easy at night, there are many things that affect our weather, global warming by man made CO2 is just a minor part of this complex area.
By the way did anyone notice when the world temperature cooled by 0.5c over two years by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991. ? Natural disasters can have far greater effects than anything man can conjure.

Shonga might have been referring to the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity".

http://dieoff.org/page8.htm

http://dieoff.org/page123.htm

The above sites claim over 1500 scientists, including 102 Nobel Laureates. I guess that if this were false, it would have been leaped on by the sceptics years ago as yet more evidence of the fraud and deceit associated with the AGW hypothesis. I certainly cannot recall Bellamy, Peiser, Lomborg or even Bolt beating this bin lid, but if anyone has it will give the sceptics a break from their ad hominem.

Col

In the case of AGW, the null hypothesis is that humans are not responsible for the temperature change. This might entail showing past episodes of similar or greater warming to that of today, when human impact was much smaller or absent. It might also entail showing that recent physical phenomena like solar activity of volcanism can fully explain the change. So why not have a go at knocking AGW down, Col?

And to clarify things for you, I'm assuming that you do have substantial evidence to present. So in this case the null hypothesis is that you will continue your hurl from the gutter.

It might also interest you that I think politics has had a role in the IPCC report. I suspect that the sea level rise projections have been toned down so as not to be too alarming.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=757334847F188C6304B84EC6B018A965

I have become even more sceptical of Global Wonking just recently when I discovered that the southern hemisphere is half a degree cooler than the northern hemisphere. Nothing unusual about that, you say? Well yes, there is.

You see this global warming is supposed to be caused by atmospheric CO2 but this CO2 is at essentially the same concentrations in both hemispheres. The current level in Alaska is 371ppm while the level in Antarctica is 369ppm. So if CO2 is driving temperature change then why isn't the temperature the same in both hemispheres?

The problem is actually northern hemisphere warming but they have managed to convince drop kicks like Rudd that it is our problem too. But our 12 million square Km of territorial ocean, our exclusive economic zone (EEZ) absorbs more than 5.5tonnes of carbon/Km2 each year that the IPCC refuses to give us credit for. But when this is included in proper national accounts, we have the lowest net emissions in the OECD.

And these gonzos want to take $75 billion out of our education, health and roads budget to make life easier for the same people who have been corrupting world markets for more than half a century?

Perseus sees the IPCC as the Enron of the climate change conspiracy (CCC).

Panaitan highlights the main flaw in the scientific rationalist approach to information gathering. Paradigm shifts occur in spite of of the peer review process. Peer review tends to shore up the conservative view. Either way, it's a GIGO cycle.

Taswegian prudently proposes hedging the bets. This has been happening for some time as established power brokers (think BP Solar) prepare to manage the moments after the moment of truth. Now let the media stir up some panic, and create some right-stripping opportunities.

Faustino plaintively observes that "climate prediction is not a mature science" and that there may be several "plausible" explanantions for global warming.

The bad news is that your problem is complexity. Scientific rationalism is about as well suited to dealing with planetary levels of complexity as a toothbrush is to painting the Coathanger. You might finish in under a decade if you throw enough people at it.

I do not consider economists well equipped to comprehend planetary complexities. Economists try to reduce complexity to small numbers, the meanings of which are only truly understood within the cabal. They constantly predict what will happen to growth, inflation, interest rates, employment, etc. They are frequently wrong, but never asked to explain their errors.

These are trivial concerns. Where their lies and statistics become damaging is in their continual exhortation to growth and repudiation of any form of regulation. The corresponding organic process is cancer: uncontrolled proliferation of cells, usually deranged in some way. Unchecked, the process continues until all or some critical resources are exhausted. Some cancers are not found until it is too late to affect them.

On Melbourne Water website, in the Weekly Water Update, you will see that Melbourne's water storages were at 36.5% full on 01 February 2007. This is 19.5% lower that this time last year. At this rate, assuming no significant rainfall, Melbourne will run out of water in less than 2 years.

Can the economists work out who will pay in that time?

We can quite adequately and confidentially say; that even using the Pseudo Science they have presented over the last 40 odd years is testimonial to their ability to indicate anything other than fraud;

They even flaunt the basic principles of Chemistry then perpetuate mythical events; only based on the principled existence of peoples Ignorance amplified by apparatchiks and fellow looters/witch doctors. And not the Science of knowledge.
On every single occasion- bar none.
And still nothing has changed in their approach.

Flying pigs will probably be their next prediction; Genetically- Evolutionary Mutated an all.

Hi David,

Your opening line gave my memory a nudge. Back to Ronnie Barker and the Two Ronnies. One of their skits involved Ronnie B askin the Chairman if he could pass a motion through the chair. Thanks for that memory.

Fester, Col is not good at presenting evidence. You may have noticed. If not, disengage mate.

Has anyone here heard of the book "death by Black Hole"? Suggest a read may enlighten some of you as to other potential causes of climate change.

After all the Earth has had all this before has it not? Why would that have been when there was no carbon emission from humans or our ancestors? Nature, the universe. Think about it.

CJ. No need to be confused mate. You're right. The only issue I have with these shrill people is that they don't think, research or otherwise consider the possibilities. In that regard I have to say I don't call it "global warming". It's climate change. Cause? Thousands of scientists can sign whatever they want can't they? Doesn't mean they are right, or wrong. Just another bunch of people with an opinion.

A quick surf on the internet you'll find anti-evolutionist, flat earthers, Aids deniers, people who think the sun is powered by combustion. You can find people who think metal illness is caused by possession and you can even find nutters that think gems don't cause illness. Anti-global warming people fall into two groups those that don't want it to be true and those that think it's bad for business. The later is the most dangerous, and funnily enough they are using the same methods that the smoking lobby used. Tobacco lawyers never found it to hard to scientist that would support them in court. As for the contention that science is not done by consensus only a person deliberately lying would say that. Whole fields of science cannot run full scale experiments to test their theories fully. When was the last time an astronomer built a star, or a cosmologist created a universe. Not to many biologist’s get to create life in the lab. All these fields and many others are driven by consensus. Human induced global warming is a reality according to the vast majority of climatologist. The fact that this debate is going on in the public sphere rather then the scientific one is telling, If you can’t beat the science supply some misinformation. The next consensus we need is how we are going to fix/deal with the problem.

There is more to global warming than yes or no. The degree of global warming and the effects on population and the environment have to be considered. The measurable fact that the last decade was the warmest ever measured will not be disputed. The follow up question is does it matter? Is the drought affecting Southern Australia directly attributable to global warming. Considering Australia has had droughts a lot worse than this, I would say no. The cool sea surface temperatures around the southern part of Australia have more to do with the drought than slightly elevated overall Earth temps.

Kenny, To whom are you directing your remarks please? At least have the guts to direct your comments where you mean rather than speaking to the sky, pontificating if you like.

Have you read the "Death by Black Hole" book? Written by a real lunatic. Check it out mate.

just a quick comment...global warming as the 'average temperatures rising by a few degrees' does not quite explain the reality of effect.

Temperature is directly related to stored energy level (potential energy)... eg at -273 degrees centigrade, which is 0 kelvin, all atoms stop moving ie all things frozen solid, meaning the energy level is so low that all things we see around us now, like air moving, water as liquid, fire all ceases...

as temperature rises, the stored energy rises with it, in individual and as a whole eg earth. Think of it as the energy taken to heat the earth's air by 1 degree centigrade,... enormous, and which can be released eg water vapour in the air back as water in a storm (kinetic energy)...so if the temperature rises by 1 degree, the amount of stored energy has dramatically risen, I'm sure a good csiro scientist can give a good estimate

The second issue is the rate of release of that energy.. the temperature figure is the 'average'...so the known extremes to give that average will expand, ie more colder and hotter, so wind speeds higher, more release of water in rainfall to drought for longer period etc so increasingly vicious storms, drier prolonged droughts etc...making earth more dangerous for all living beings...

Sam
Ps~corporate media is now saying 'we humans' caused this...I think unbalanced greed of a few caused this and to affect all of us...

Sam said, If your alive today you are like us, all part of the problem.
It isn't a corporate issue. Or a rich mans issue. The answer lies in your personal carbon footprint. Corporate greed is not an entity that stands on it's own consumerism. It's the millions of got to haves.
For example; I followed the advent of the iPod. People had to have it as soon as it became a conversation on Cnet and like web tech-news sites. Strange of all is that the ipod is actually an inferior mp3 player not counting that with out third party apps. your left with an itunes only product. Which just goes to show you how Apple has to continue to produce an inferior product so the must haves can be hip and cool. Factor in designed obsolescence and media created demand and fashion trends and the waste machine rolls on.
This is not an issue where one gets to point fingers.

Perseus “that to doubt the validity of the extreme projections is to also doubt the very presence of any form of man induced warming.”

Exactly, Perseus. Skepticism is often, the last bastion of reason.

I personally believe the issue of Warming is inexorably interlinked to population growth.

Whilst some fashionable dullards look to reducing the life quality of individuals by seeking draconian actions to curb energy use through curbing personal discretion, all such actions are fraudulent if they ignore the burgeoning population growth, particularly of third world countries, who are the least able to support their existing populations, let alone their un-sustainable population growth.

It seems the reasoning capabilities of some are being discarded to a bunch of charlatans in pursuit of a mythical belief that by donning the sack cloth and ashes of the penitent all will become well. In the meant time the gullible proclaim the new high priests of global warming and condemn skeptical heretics for daring to question the false prophets (well what else would you call their dodgy predictions of calamity?) of the “new faith”.

Ultimately, this issue is going to be resolved along population and national development lines. For the survival of mankind, I only hope it is the developed nations, with sustainable and self-controlled populations and the history of inventive creativity who prevail because, if they do not, humanity will be left sitting in the middle of a refuse tip, ducking away from the anarchy of small warlords each intent on being proclaimed the last despot on earth.

Fester “So in this case the null hypothesis is that you will continue your hurl from the gutter.”

Oh fester, that you do not know what a hypothesis is and that I have not made a claim merely shows the shallowness of your pretentious posturing.

When you grasp the error of your reasoning is when you will heal up. Until then, Fester, you will simply continue to “fester”. Dettol will help fix you up.

As for the gutter, that is where I would hurl toward if I ever needed to catch your attention.

aqvarivs, perhaps a little further elaboration of my comment...

Economy as people, us, whom make and consume products cycle which old as civilization itself that is we have always traded with each other, and now with that green stuff called money which has been made as an accepted world wide 'legal tender' to have a practical worth to trade... and how it goes together, and a balance to some extent existed in things...

Problem was created by invention of entity called 'corporation' whose sole purpose is to make money without conscience, yep...legally accepted practice...so any act to make money is acceptable at law which I think in the future will be seen as the most vulgar corruption of law to effect (in)justice... and it is this factor that has been the cause of most unbalanced destruction over last 200 years, to make more of that artificially created middle entity in the above said...

Do you see, and if you want to see further, just investigate on who has the patent on that known as 'money' ie paper and coin legal tender whose real worth is not related to its 'created' worth, and the actual 'people' ownership of these corporations, though treated as individual unconnected entities by corporate media, and how much of that flow of money is sucked out without benefit to us common people...

Sam

Exxon are sponsers of the Think Tank who are offering $10,000 to scientists and economists to dispute climate change. Between '98 and '05, Exxon gave $16 million to a network of 43 advocacy organisations in attempts to confuse the public on global warming.

I am pleased that the author reassured us that he is an economist - not a climate scientist.

Again we have an author with vested interests clouding the issue on anthropogenic climate change. Is he claiming that 2,000 scientists have again, got it wrong? Is this another ploy to slow down government action on GHG limitations?

I've been looking at official pollutant reports (www.npi.gov.au)in this country for some years. The amounts of uncontrolled carbon based chemical emissions from pollutant industries are massive and, more alarming, on the increase.

Environmental government agencies are not encouraging large companies to invest in pollution prevention control which would result in an immediate reduction of emissions at much less cost than those we can expect in the future.

It is reported that the US had its hottest year on record last year. More than 120 scientists across US federal agencies have been pressured to remove the phrases "global warming" and "climate change" from agency documents. Why?

Should governments continue with their spin and deception on anthropogenic GHG, then we will pay the price. The longer the delay, the greater the impact on the economy.

Putting politics and self-interests before the already glaring evidence of human induced environmental degradation is indeed, foolhardy. But then perhaps the only information sceptics have on pollutant industries is through their share portfolios.

At a public seminar on climate change I attended a couple of years ago, IPCC chair Rajendra Pauchari made the offhand statement that terrorism was caused by poverty, so we must fight poverty. Of course, the crowd applauded rapturously. No evidence or reference, however, was offered to support this statement, and given that terrorists from baader-meinhof to Osama bin Laden have come from wealthy backgrounds, I was somewhat surprised. I looked into it and found that there is no evidence for such a link, terrorism being generally a pursuit of bourgeois ideologues, while the the poor have more pressing concerns. Aside from thinking this comment was outside his role as IPCC chair, anyway, I couldn't help wondering if the same level of attention to 'sound good' assumptions over evidence characterises the Panel's approach to climate assessment.

My notes from the Beesley Lecture
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Henderson
Accidently involved.
He is being ignored. Both Stern Rpt & IPCC
5 criticisms What are they? Basic Errors
Peer-review -> Dubious assumptns
Scientists -> disturbing intolerant
Highly infuential hockey stick
Bias: Everyone is one-sided and sensationalist
1,100 papers -> Peers of the Realm ignored.
Select Cmmte: Sir.. Sir Peacock. Expert: David Pearce
URGENT need to..
More objective, +represntve, +rigorous. More balanced
A process established ...

Dieter Helm ->
Climate Change taken seriously. Govt action more +ve
Post WWII demand for power. Oil Shocks
Air Travel incr. V damaging
UK leading -> Koyoto -> No turnaround
All wind = 0.5 coal power station
Emissions trading -> little effect
Market failure. Externality.
Carbon price is $0. Need price.
US, China, India -> +50% C dmd by 2030
C02 270ppm -> Now:380ppm -> 2100:780ppm
Threshold is 480ppm
UK leads -> US no action. India China ignores.
R&D longterm helps. Cost-benefit.
Long-term (aspirational only) vs Short-term (impractical)
Medium-term best 2020 or 2025. Glidepath.
Mix of EU ETS, UK CCL. Weitzman model, Koyto?
Hybrid of price + quantities.
Floor <-- Trading --> Cap

Poor Richard Castles ! what a bleak and pusillanimous world he inhabits ! so some of the terrorists were from "rich backgrounds" and not actually mired in poverty. Aside from the stupidity/cruelty of terrorism, Castles seems unable to grasp the possibility that people are capable of philanthropy, i.e. they may be impelled to act, whether unwisely or not, in an attempt to ameliorate the suffering of other human beings. And/or to avenge the injustices meted out to other human beings, including, of course, the Palestinian people. And this is not necessarily a case of some hard-line ideology affecting a few sympathetic bourgeoisie. It is a trait which the best human beings are capable of,it may occasionally lead them into violent actions but most typically into productive organisation, e.g. Gandhi and Mandela.

Good one David. Can you please do some follow-up articles on the holocaust and the shape of the earth please.

kang, are you saying that you regard terrorism as "philanthropy"? If so, I'm quite happy with my grasp on philanthropy and, I suspect, reality. Anyway, in order to vaguely stick to the subject, my point was about the trustworthiness of the IPCC process that Henderson talks about in the relevant article. Pauchari made a hugely generalised statement, without a shred of evidence to back it up, on a subject outside his jurisdiction anyway, and which was clearly agenda-driven. The IPCC is not supposed to be an advocatory body, but an independent panel reporting to governments.

dickie: "Exxon are sponsers (sic) of the Think Tank who are offering $10,000 to scientists and economists to dispute climate change. Between '98 and '05, Exxon gave $16 million to a network of 43 advocacy organisations in attempts to confuse the public on global warming."

And according to its communications manager, Greenpeace receives $12 million every year from people in the Australia Pacific.

dickie: "I am pleased that the author reassured us that he is an economist - not a climate scientist."

I don't understand your point, given that the climate projections of the IPCC and the Stern Report draw on economic assumptions. On what basis do you make your claim that "The longer the delay, the greater the impact on the economy."

dickie: "Again we have an author with vested interests clouding the issue on anthropogenic climate change."

David Henderson, along with the other contributors to the Dual Critique of the Stern Report, explicitly states that "We represent no interests, and we have neither sought nor received any financial or institutional support for our work. We write as independent commentators." Yet, AGAIN, we get the vested interests line.

I like the "clouding the issue" part, though, as clouds are, in fact, still clouding the issues of climate science.

CJ Morgan and Kang persist with this moronic ploy of suggestingg that anyone who does not buy the ross extrapolations to doomsday scenarios is somehow denying the existence of any anthropogenic climate change. This is pure bollocks and evidence of the presence of ideology rather than science.

And to then carry it on to the surveys of scientists in a way that implies that every one of them supported the worst case scenario (the way Al gore did) is downright dishonest.

It sugggests that there is a serious misnomer here. It should be called "Gullible Warming".

Hi Richard,

Greenpeace receives its donations from the public. Hardly a vested interest in the manner of a large and very, very rich polluter. The public tends to like its rivers to contain water, not toxins.

Your assertion that “the climate projections of the IPCC and the Stern Report draw on economic assumptions” has got to be arse-end about. The IPCC report has at it foundation a great deal of scientific research. So does the Stern report, though that is not a scientific report. (and haven’t we had this conversation already?)