Johnj

1.The first link was to show that there is another hypothesis that has been developing, namely the effect of CRF on the formation and the effect of clouds, which the current GCMs do not handle. This alone negates any credibility one could possibly attach to 100-year forward projections. Add in aerosols and it becomes farcical.

2.The second link was to show that there is considerable doubt raised on a whole number of fronts by very credible people.

3.Perhaps you might like to ponder the quote on p170, namely: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system, and therefore the long term prediction of future climate states in not possible.”

Funny about that, because it was actually the IPCC TAR document that said it. But it still doesn’t stop all the gullible warmers and their neophytes engaging in exaggeration and beat ups.

4.The Fraser Institute, which obviously is of some fascination to you, presents yet another critique of the IPCC claims, and which again casts doubt on the folly of making horrendously expensive public policy decisions based upon the projections derived from flawed computer models.

5.Your own quotes from the Fraser document are only for measurements of known historical temperature values. I note that you avoid venturing into the domain of the projections.

6.Of course I don’t object to publicly funded research, I was only pointing out the double standards of those like yourself, who point to vested interests being involved when in fact it is all vested interest. The CSIRO and Exxon are two sides of the same coin.

7. The difference is that those on the public purse have had access to vastly larger amounts of funds than the paltry amounts talked about as coming from the Exxons. Hence the public pursers need to keep the gravy train rolling. All those sites referenced by you are on that gravy train.

Finally dont you google the paper by Garth Paltridge to Quadrant in October 2004. You might learn something.

Bigmal, my original question was whether global warming was real (ie is the world getting warmer). I didn't ask about AGW, models, aerosols, cosmic rays etc etc. It was a simple question, to which the answer would seem to be a cautious "yes".

I find your notion that the "CSIRO and Exxon are two sides of the same coin" is completely preposterous. Exxon is a corporation, dedicated to maximising returns to shareholders by exploiting resources. CSIRO is a research organisation, which works closely with business and government. Exxon is a profit-driven oganisation, CSIRO is a science-driven organisation. You might not regard the CSIRO, Australian Academy of Science or Bureau of Meteorology as credible, but I think you'll find yourself in the minority. And what's all this bitterness about public funding of research?

As for the Fraser Institute, I don't see why I should accept a libertarian think-tank as an unbiased source of information. Likewise the Lavoisier Group/Institute for Public Affairs/HR Nicholls Society/Bennelong Society. I don't take Green/Left Weekly or FoE seriously, so why should I take any more notice of ideology-driven organisations like these? Or don't you consider libertarianism an ideology?

Regarding the "gravy train" of research grants, both my brother and brother-in-law have been research scientists, existing on grants. Both got sick of living hand-to-mouth and one now works in a pathology lab, while the other is a maths teacher. The only scientist I know who's still on the "gravy train" is the geophysicist who works for a mining company....

Johnj

Well if your family members are scientists, and now maths teacher, you shoudnt have any difficulty comprehending the absurdity of projecting an inadequate model 100 years into the future, and then lobbying all and sundry with their innumerable press releases spraying their alarmist nonesense that we are all in some sort of trouble.

The CSIRO is of this moment selling its idiot forward projections in Reports to State governments, based upon GCMs that have a spatial resolution of 400kms. Tell me that they are not being both political and self serving... as well as incompetent.

And spare me any crap about scientists and scientific organisations being altruistic who only want to do their job. If only that was even remotely true.

David Hendersons comment on this forum about "unwarranted trust" with the IPCC is also indicative, and pertinent. Follow that up with a read of Garth Paltridges paper referred to previously and you might lose that rose coloured tint from your eyes

I dont have a problem with good information coming from anywhere, and right wing think tanks provide a foil to the other side of the vested interest coin. I certainly do have a problem with people who only point to the vested interests of the EXXONs etc, and are not aware of the same vested interest in the publicly funded sphere.

Not to recognise this is just naive.

Why has Graham Y editted my post of the 9th of January removing the part where I said that CSIRO predicts that inland NSW will see a doubling in the number of days where temperatures are greater than 35 degrees by 2030?

bennie,

I repeated Lindzen's jelly bean analogy in response to your assertion that we must accept the IPCC until something better comes along. If the current explanation is unsatisfactory, you don't accept because you don't have a satisfactory one. It's better to say we don't know. You're assertion that there is 90% likelihood the IPCC report is correct is nonsense. You've confused their self-appraisal for actual probability.

My skepticism about anthropogenic global warming arises from the sketpics making far mor convincing arguments than the believers. Although in the minority, many skeptics provide compelling arguments that CO2 ommissions couldn't be the cause of the warming and solar irradiation or solar spots and cosmic rays provide a better explanation. Conversely, I haven't read anything written by a climate change believer that adaquately explains away solar irradition or solar spots whilst making a strong case for anthropogenic warming. I don't just count the scientists and make a decision based on that; I read what they have to say and think about it critically.

PART 1:

This diatribe is so full of scientific inaccuracies it would be funny if it were not so serious!

"The IPCC continue to assess the rate of warming ... greater than at any period in the past 10,000yrs ... rate between 1995 to 2005 faster than any period in previous 200yrs."

WRONG! The rate was greater between 1910 and 1930! But must be serious stuff: forget the last 3 BILLION years! But of course you have to deal with the Mediaeval warm period don't we! Bugger when the facts get in the way of a good FUD isn't it!!

"One of the major advances of 4AR from the previous Third Assessment Report (TAR) (published in 2001) is the certainty of future climate projections."

This is utter rubbish! For a start nobody except a few politicians have seen the 4AR! What has been seen is the SUMMARY politicians report. Even the biased summary report has slashed every prediction by 1/3 from previous report.

"Sea level rise and anthropogenic warming is projected to continue for centuries.</i>

The predicted sea level rises is less than 3 mm/year. The last time the seas rose about 120m in 10,000 years or about 12 mm per year all by natural causes! People like Stephanie Long who want to cause fear and panic in the population are far more of a menace to society than any sea level rise so far predicted by the IPCC.

"Current ... emissions estimated to be 90 per cent likely to result in greater climatic change this century ..... rise in sea level ...tropical drought ... potential increased intensity of extreme weather events is dangerous."

This statement is the reason why the senior scientist related to weather prediction refused to sign his name to the IPCC report and resigned in protest: "I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.”

cont'd