Michael G

All of whose theories about modelling are way off?. In what way are they way off? Please enlighten us.

It is the IPCC that is making the claims as to what the future temperatures will be based soley upon the way they make their models dance at the parametric level. That means they can make them do anything to fit with current data, but dont have a clue as to their accuracy/relevance 100 years hence.

All we do know is that the error limits would be so wide to render them completely useless as "knowledge" upon which one should make expensive policy.

The IPCC only considered insolation, and not the other sources of possible sun influence.

"You Guys", whoever they may be, dont have to come up with anything.It is the proponents of gullible warming who have to establish their case, and not try and pass off rubbish, such as climate models projected out 100 years, when we know they cant represent the complexity of the systems involved.

I know people are being paid $10000 for each article that's critical of the IPCC report and global warming, but surely there must be a line drawn somewhere between mendacity and pure stupidity !

The consequences of Climate Change are uncertain and will take at least a century to be proven one way or another. The IPCC is bought lock stock and smoking barrel by corporate donations, grants and salaries. Oil giants being the major contributors.

The consequences of a 2025 global overpopulation Armageddon are almost certain. Certain to include a return to pre industrial revolution population levels commensurate with the loss of OIL as an energy source. It was oil ENERGY that will have allowed populations to grow to 8 billion by 2025 and it is the loss of that oil energy input that will cause populations to crash back to around 2 billion in 2025.

That implies the consequences of climate change are a red herring foisted on normal hard working people by global corporations and their in-pocket government boot lickers. They know Armageddon is nearing and are trying to corner every valued commodity, sports stars and moviestars at the top of the list, in a vain attempt to not only survive the CRASH but to help it along with germ warfare, sponsored terrorism or whatever else they can muster to create a favourable outcome for the richest 1% on the planet.

Will global magnates thrive and survive climate change after they have engineered the perfect Armageddon? Are the 99% majority of world citizens so stupid, so besotted by their media monopoly propaganda, sports stars, movie stars, mobile phones, plasma screens and SUVs, that they will allow this to happen?

Have a guess? The worm is turning. Just watch the March and November elections When Iemma and Howard are ousted we should all be very curious to finally see who they go to work for. Because that is WHO they have been working for all along.

A silly boy who would not know a VOC from a sock.

Forget the climate and look at CO2 which is the end product of hundreds of carcinogenic hydrocarbons too numerous to list. All carbon based chemicals when burnt, convert to carbon dioxide.

CO2 raises surface temperature and evaporates water vapor which in turn produces more heat.

Realise that the oceans are now two and a half times more acidic than before the industrial revolution. Acidity reduces PH, destroying corals and marine life where destructive algaes and bacteria thrive.

Playing tit for tat with Mother Earth's natural CO2 emissions is foolish indeed.

First of all, thanks to Online Opinion for giving us a non-PC article for a change. A well-written piece. It is crystal cllear on its points. All reasonable & important questions it raises too.

If GW generally, & the g/house effect specifically, really are the HUGE problem that they are made out to be, then the leading proponents need to present this to us in a manner in which the layman can understand, & give us the smoking gun (sorry). I mean with Sadddam, we are constantly reminded that there was no smoking gun. Where is it here? The 0.7C temp rise in 150 years? That's more feeble than a Saddam stockpile of AK-47s. So this is what we have been getting all worked up over?

One would think that you could find a simple & objective summation on Wikiped. Not so. For such a crisis topic, they may as well be presenting the nightly weather report - it's that mundane. No urgency in it whatsoever, very dry (sorry again) and completely lacking in an analysis of what the world scientific community agree on & disagree on in relation to this subject. Completely unhelpful.

So rather than blame the doubters, maybe the proponents have a responsibility to EXPLAIN & JUSTIFY their stance better.

Please don't tell me all I have to do is read the ICCP or whatever-it-is-report. If this alleged crisis is real, proponents need to bring the report to us, so to speak, by making its findings fool-proof persuasive before they ask taxpayers to spend trillions. And if they want to write us off as fools who will never get it, then they really do have a problem in getting people on bored (sorry once again).

dickie,
"Realise that the oceans are now two and a half times more acidic than before the industrial revolution."

Sorry to contradict the dramatics, but acidity has changed by 0.1 units or a 30% acidity rise since the beginning of the Industrial rev.