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.