Well Mr. Lawson if you are correct and it is a challenging article, climate scientists will have egg on their faces--to a degree.
Science is value free in theory subject to hypothesis overturning or correction. If it remained in the realm of intellectual endeavour time alone would make correction.
Two things happened Climate Change like Saddam in Kuwait, offered threat to vested interests and secondly funding for research in this accountants age depend on quick outcome.
Thus real cause to deny the , well not data as always attacking the person is better politically, being informed is not necessary. So whilst the honest attempted to refute data the others set too to destroy reputations, claiming that unlike industry of Politicians there is a vested interest. Money for research continuance and status, the latter of course being something the public has affinity with the more attackable.
One might of course argue that if the effect is going to be detrimental to humans one must act , prophesy and time is of the essence. The trouble with this thought is that media, commerce politicians and clergy have subscribed to this and ramp up the fear that might otherwise be just a niggling worry or of unconcern. (in their own interests? -shame!)
We saw it in Iraq, with whose invasion you agree 2004 on the grounds the UN failed to act. We see it in peak oil, and in the prophesies of biologists concerned with population dynamics and finite resources. We are indeed an age as credulous as of old or is that lazy? Effort can now generally yield the data necessary for conclusion even if such conclusion is to seek further data, not panic.
But no ramp it up to become the fodder of the media and would be powerful.

I hope indeed you are as uncommitted as you state these days one can never be sure just what lies behind apparent honesty. I even check the sun is shining when the forecaster says it is!

Is the Climate Denial Machine is already getting into gear ibn Australia on behalf of the fossil fuel lobby?

Still, they have to pay some lip service to global warming, otherwise Bush,Howard, BHPB & co won't be able to con us all into the nuclear industry - (as supposed cure for global warming)
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Sorry Mr Lawson, you're a finance journo. I'll take editing lessons from you any day. I'll get my science from scientists - not just any scientist, as you have done, but something peer-reviewed and published somewhere respectable.

It's been shown before that if a scientists says something, it ain't necessarily so. If an overwhelming majority of scientists say something, and say it everywhere, that's good enough for me.

Look at the articles on OLO questioning GW and note they're by economists, religionists and lone crusaders. I never saw this kind of anti-intellectualism, this preparedness to dump on scientists and science in general, before the Bush government made an artform out of misleading the public over climate change.

What we need is real science.

Free speech science not paid for science.

Global warming, climate change, el nino take a pick.

But we as a nation can do better for the future.

We can create better ideas and conservation decisions and big business well they will just have to make a change as they always have, as sooner or later we will be in the Sh#t.

So if we can breath better not just for ourselves think smarter and not like in some country's wear a mask due to polution then we really are the lucky country

It interests me that when the scientific community invents or discovers a new type of plastic, or a vaccine for polio, or any one of a number of items like transistors computer chips, we embrace the new whatever with complete trust and open arms. We can’t wait to get the new DVD, the new Ipod, the new truck with the antilock breaks. These are all based on science and then applied directly or by engineers. Suddenly when the scientists say we have a problem they are met with a barrage of criticism and sleazy journalists and low-end scientists like Singer rear their ugly heads to deny the accuracy of the science. These people cherry pick some results, misrepresent other results and in some cases just blatantly lie.
Makes me ashamed to say I am a member of the same species as they, because it may imply that
I am as big a dolt as the writer.
From stueysplace.ca :
"To me it is so obvious that 7 to 8 billion people on a tiny planet with only a 10 mile high atmosphere are going to have a major effect on the climate if they burn everything in sight. It boggles the mind that anyone could actually think otherwise."

It is interesting that none of the critics of the author of this piece addresses his argument – instead they resort to ad hominem abuse, false comparisons, appeals to authority and dark conspiracy theories about oil companies.

Personally I believe that humans are contributing to global warming. But I also believe we need to consider the evidence and our response to it in a reasoned and informed way.

Scepticism, questioning received wisdom and pushing the boundaries of knowledge have usually been the starting points of scientific discovery. The vitriol heaped on those who question the scientific consensus on this issue, and the failure of the mainstream consensus to acknowledge is errors, corrections and uncertainties, is moving beyond scientific method

At long last some common sense being injected into the debate. The very idea that one can create a series of equations that can accurately model something as complex as the climate is delusional nonsense of the first order. But projecting them out for 100 years and using these "projections" as the basis of some very expensive public policy is fraud, plain and simple.

This is even more so when one learns about all the elements of the climate that they cant model,or do so very poorly, for example:
1. The way clouds are formed and their effect upon the climate.
2. The role of aerosols in cooling.
3. The effect of well known such as the Freemantle doctor.
4. Economic growth factors as used to postulate the scenarios of Co2 growth.

But when various Ministers of the enviroment are induced to make public anouncements about the dire consequences facing us based upon a GCM with a horizontal resolution of 400kms, and they dont tell us, then the atmospheric science community is deserving of nothing but condemnation.

Rhian,

the author misrepresents the position of the IPCC and the state of knowledge about GW. "IPCC is apparently of the belief that they know all they need to know about climate change" Oh?

Mark,

When I built a Crdedit Scoring Systen for a Bank, what I did was, I took a large sample of HISTORICAL loan applications and accompanying demographiic data without -at first- knowing whether the loan became unproductive or were paid-off without any problem- Historically.
Afterwards, the algorithm developed was used to predict whether "past" loan did or did not go bad. [known outcone.] Achieved 90%+ correct prediction with only 20 variables.

Climate: What one should NOT be doing is extrapolating using current data points into the future, say, y=abx, for NOW. Rather, models based on data say 2000BCE to 1500 CE [4,000 years], can be used to forecast weather [known] patterns 1500-2000 CE. Then we compare the model's predictions against KNOWN outcomes. Measure the variance and then draw conclusions.

Mark Lawson you are a heretic to the Church of Greenism and Peter Garrett will have you burned at the stake as when
he defeats the Great Howard Devil.

Our whole planet's ecosystem is very complex.CO2 is just one of many ways we are affecting our environment.It seems to be a common human foilble in all our prejudices,to premote what we as individuals think is right,rather than considering all the possibilities.

Our focus on CO2 may be only part of the problem.All the fossil fuels we burn today,were taken from the atmosphere by plants millions of years ago.CO2 in the atmosphere then,was at much higher concentrations and life thrived.

If we release half of the CO2 that existed when life thrived millions of years ago,why would this change our planet beyond the point of redemption,when life in the past blossomed under much higher CO2 concentrations? We need to do more home work.

1. The way clouds are formed and their effect upon the climate.

The way clouds are formed is quite well known, and cloud is factored into models. High level clouds in general increase warming, low level cloud decreases warming (due to the albedo effect). Since higher temperatures increase evaporation from the seas, more low level cloud is formed- what is known as a negative feedback.

2. The role of aerosols in cooling.

Again, well known and factored into global models. From where do the aerosols originate? In general, aerosols decrease warming- for instance the global cooling for a couple of years after the Krakatoa eruption.

3. The effect of well known such as the Freemantle doctor.

The Fremantle Doctor has an effect on global weather and climate? Learn something new every day.

4. Economic growth factors as used to postulate the scenarios of Co2 growth.

What's so hard about modelling the growth or otherwise of C02 (and other greenhouse gases) emissions?

The models are junk science because they are locked into unreality by the IPCC accounting standards. The best example is the modelling of carbon emissions from land clearing. According to IPCC 10% of all wood from clearing must be recorded as being burned as firewood in the year of clearing but most Australian firewood is aged ironbark that is 30 to 40 years old. And given the amount of clearing in the Amazon, Queensland and other tropical savanah who the hell do they think actually used this firewood?

The rest of the wood volume is deemed be emitted in year 1 (all burned on site) but I still have tree stumps on my place from the original clearing in 1927. Most clearing debris won't burn at all in year 1 and many paddocks still have a large volume of dead wood many decades after the clearing. The cost of raking it up and burning is only justified for cropping land (which is less than 2% of total).

The land use change portion of the global carbon emissions total is 19% but it is almost entirely bollocks. They are recording emissions now that will not take place for 40 or 50 years.

And when you start projecting out 50 to 100 years, with errors in basic inputs in the order of 20%, then the only possible results will be gross exaggerations.

The IPCC know absolute jack $%&@# about land clearing or forest management. They formed their accounting rules without any consultation with forestry experts as to what actually takes place or how fast wood breaks down. And they then fed complete garbage into the models and got complete garbage back out again.

And whenever our experts try to explain the nature and extent of their errors, they have this pack of green morons who accuse us of being on the oil company payroll.

Sir, I at last see a rational response to the mainly media based hysterical rubbish about climate change.

Firstly, this hysteria is generated by the money grovelling grubs of wall street who own the media!

This is their opportunity to charge every human being a tax on the air they breath! (Carbon Tax) And don't think they won't, unless there are people like you exposing those pathetic little creatures that live their entire lives inside a university faculty behind a computer monitor.

They are funded by governments and companies and when they are needed they are 'un-veiled' and they crawl out from under the rock where they exist and proceed to blather dribble to whatever their masters demand.

I salute you sir, you are absolutely correct, this is a cycle, nothing more nothing less!

Ian J Nelson

Ok Viking now answer this

1. Clouds. By what methods are they factored in both high and low, and what science and data are these factors based upon. Or did they just pull the parameters and the theory out of their bums ie made them up.

2. Aerosols.How are these factored in and what is the source data.

3. Freemantle doctor is an example of an extensive regional climatic system that materially alters the weather. It has a huge effect but the regional climate models dont reflect this. Still has not stopped the CSIRO shonks from advising the govt of the dire consequences revealed by their equally shonky climate models. But then if one is just generating consulting revenue to meet internal targets the any old twaddle will do.

4 Which scenarios and why. Is the C02 growth linear and at what rate. Bet they used the most extreme values and methods.

1. Clouds. By what methods are they factored in both high and low, and what science and data are these factors based upon. Or did they just pull the parameters and the theory out of their bums ie made them up.

High cloud (cirrus) absorbs radiation while low cloud reflects radiation to space. These factors are included in global circulation models. Try doing some research of your own instead of dismissing the work of scientists in a childish way.

2. Aerosols.How are these factored in and what is the source data.

Again, try some googling. Different aerosols work in various ways- sulphates assist in cloud formation and are connected to cooling trends, while particulates can work in various ways too, some absorb and reradiate infrared while others have a high albedo and reflect radiation to space.They are measured in various ways including by satellites.

3. Freemantle doctor is an example of an extensive regional climatic system that materially alters the weather. It has a huge effect but the regional climate models dont reflect this etc.

The Fremantle doctor is a seabreeze- a local effect common around the world where differential heating occurs on coasts. Why should that and any other seabreeze be factored into global climate models?

4 Which scenarios and why. Is the C02 growth linear and at what rate. Bet they used the most extreme values and methods.

Linear over what period? Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased and are still increasing. If CO2 level double (compared to present already high levels) the Earth's baseline temp will increase markedly. there are many other greenhouse gases including methane, oxides of nitrogen, and air-conditioning gases (many banned but still present in the atmosphere).

Why dont people read the article more carefully before they post their inane responses. The author is NOT denying global warming, is NOT denying human causes and IS in favour of making changes to reduce greenhouse emissions.
He is also raising a perfectly valid point about the usefulness of mathematical models of complex systems. Their results/predictions should be regarded with considerable scepticism. They MUST be challenged, criticised and tested. Unless there is a vigorous effort to disprove the model then its 'predictions' are all the more suspect. Climatologists SHOULD be welcoming every effort to disprove their work because that is how science works. Any scientist who is irrationally commited to their models to the point that they cannot hear criticism is failing their profession.

As a 'greenie' my first emotive reaction is of course to want to raise scorn on an article that questions the science to do with climate change. It seems stupid to think that 6 billion humans would not have a significant effect on this planet.

But Mark is not denying climate change or that humans affect the climate. He is doing what we should all be doing. Vigorously challenge any scientific conclusions and how they have been derived. Especially when it fits neatly with a hypothesis. That's good for science. Emotional attachment to a certain outcome is OK for us, not so for science.

This issue is too important for us to just relax and think we have this nut cracked. All it takes is get those cars of the road, put some solar panels on our roofs and change those incandescent light bulbs.

The only concern many of us have is that we also should not be sitting around waiting for the science to be beyond reproach before taking any action, because then it could be too late.

Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is an excellent start for a variety of reasons, not only climate change. Smog and cost being two.

Fair point Yvonne. I would point out that debate in the public sphere is rarely so nuanced, and that criticisms contained in this article can easily add to the general level of ignorance about climate change rather than lessen it.

The IPCC does not know all it needs to know about this, though I believe it knows enough. Not all IPCC's predictions would be accurate and they would know this. But countervailing views by some scientists, in articles not reviewed by their peers, nor published in a recognised journal, are typically given equal weight to those that are. It is a pity the IPCC has stuck its neck out in this fashion; cast doubt on one aspect of the report and the whole lot is fair game for the denial machine.

So for me it comes down to who to believe - The IPCC whose members have been doing this research for 20-odd years, or professional naysayers, hired guns from industry and commerce.

Does the author, or anyone else on this forum, have any comment on the increasing amount anecdotal evidence we are going through a period of rapid change like never before?

Bennie, you ask whether "the author, or anyone else on this forum, [has] any comment on the increasing amount anecdotal evidence we are going through a period of rapid change like never before?"

The answer to this has to be yes. There is a teeming mass of anecdotal evidence available, particularly on the Internet.

Unfortunately, that actually lessens its value, since there is available on the Internet an increasing amount of anecdotal evidence of absolutely anything you care to name, from UFOs to Princess Diana murder conspiracies.

The question should not be about volume - the weather has always been a default talking-point, probably since the first dinosaur hunt was delayed by a damp outfield. So the fact that every man + dog can air an opinion that is heard by gazillions of other people is not, in itself, particularly useful.

From my own viewpoint, I can categorically report that in my youth the days were substantially warmer, longer and more carefree than they are today. I would however resist the notion that anyone should use this anecdote as evidence of anything more than misty-eyed nostalgia.

"Looking at the science - a small error with the computer climate models now could make a nonsense of the results in 100 years."

Waterboy..The above is the subheading of the authors article which to anyone with an ounce of commonsense would say it absolutely correct.
To quote but one source

" Forecasts of climate change are inevitably uncertain. Even the degree of uncertainty is uncertain, a problem that stems from the fact that these climate models do not necessarily span the full range of known climate system behaviour."

Or

" At the very least the possibilty of human induced climate change is a known unknown but arguably it is close to making the transition to becoming a known known."

Top of the list of uncertainties are clouds and aerosols. If you want the evidence take up Vikings suggestion to me (assuming one hadnt done so already) and just google for it, and it just pours out.

The authers subheading is spot on. All it requires is the shonks at the CSIRO climate research group to also understand these simple truths and stop stirring up the natives with half baked opportunistic self serving nonsense, that some how their projections for next 70- 100 years have even a smidgin of credibility.

Pericles there's no doubt you can find whatever you're after on the net. I'm talking of the cancellation of Germany's skiing season, disappearing glaciers, the shrinking icecaps, all the signs among the natural world. All credible and documented. All this has occurred before but no-one claims it happens within a single generation.

This thread is about long-range forecasts, which won't mean much at all if nothing gets done today. Pure polemics. So, the IPCC didn't get its forecasts right? There are plenty of things it didn't predict, none good, that may well overshadow what it did. They say the tiger has claws; sceptics point out they grow very, very slowly and maybe even not at all, so it's safe to poke sticks at it. But that fails to acknowlege climate change shows all the signs of having teeth we aren't even aware of yet.

Bennie, you may be absolutely right.

All the doomsayers may be absolutely right.

The point is, how much are you prepared to sacrifice on the strength of their predictions?

The logical end-point, if the we-are-rooned contingent are correct, can only be reversion to a lifestyle that we left behind before the Industrial Revolution. Which, I'm afraid, the vast majority of us are manifestly incapable of reaching and sustaining.

Are there any other choices?

One is to accept the inevitability that we have exhausted this planet's ability to support us, but fight against the product of that depredation for as long as possible - i.e. wait until it happens, rather than anticipate it.

The all-consuming virtue of this approach is that if the pundits are wrong, or technology once again comes to our rescue, we have not turned ourselves needlessly into a bunch of subsistence farmers with no car, house in the suburbs, airconditioning and plasma TV.

Amidst all this hyperventilating about climate change one thing is missing: what exactly is needed to i) halt and ii) reverse the problem. All we have is vague "if we don't, then...", but this doesn't fill me with confidence.

If the science can paint such a gloomy picture of the consequences of ignoring global warming, surely they can paint us a picture of what life will be like if we take the needful action.

The fact they don't, worries me.

I can state with absolute certainty, to Bennie and all the other planet plodders who claim the IPCC is the fount of wisdom etc, that the IPCC conducted no consultation with the forest industry or the entire field of related experts when they devised their rules for accounting for carbon from wood sources. Absolutely zilch.

The IPCC had their collective heads so far up their own backsides that they were certain they knew it all but have since been forced to admit that uncertainty levels of 85% plus apply to the 19% of total anthropogenic emission that come from Land Use Change and Forestry.

That is another way of saying that there is only a one in six chance that they have got it right. But if they had bothered to consult with industry experts they would recognise that they are even more off the mark.

And when you run models that project out 100 years when basic inputs are out by between 25% and 35% it is absolutely certain that the projections are garbage out as a result of garbage in.

Sir, have you ever heard of the Precautionary Principle?

It has been estimated that between the '60s and '90s, major natural disaster rates had increased by a factor of 10. Uninsured disasters, by a factor of 7 and insured disasters by a factor of 15.

According to the Munich Reinsurance Corporation, one of the world's largest underwriters, the worldwide bill for severe weather damage from 1996 to 1998 was $180 billion.

The US and Canada have been cooperating in weather modification experiments since 1958.

Hundreds of experiments have been conducted including the Churchill Chemical Release Modules (CRMs) into the upper atmosphere. This involved the release of barium azide, barium chlorate, barium nitrate, barium perchlorate and barium peroxide. Some 2,000 kilograms of chemicals were dumped into the atmosphere including 1,000 kgs of barium and 100 kgs lithium which is a highly reactive toxic chemical that is very easily ionised by the sun's rays.

This increases the density of electrons in the lower ionosphere and creates free radicals that are highly reactive and capable of causing further chemical damage.

Changes in the ionosphere bring about corresponding changes in Earth's weather and climate.

The US military's intention to undertake environmental engineering especially to gain control of weather, is well documented.

Most scientists, when pressed, admit that the ionosphere must have been weakened at the time chemicals were dumped in the stratosphere (1990) from canisters simultaneously augmented by rockets launched from Puerto Rico, the Marshall Islands and in the Pacific Ocean, which produced luminous clouds that began as a pinpoint of intense red and blue light and spread to one-third the size of a full moon in about 30 seconds.

Environmentally destructive actions by the military, nuclear explosions, releases of radioactive substances from the mining of uranium, other industrial and chemical pollutants, land degradation, population explosions, ocean pollution, species extinction and other actions by covert governments etc etc are not evolutionary. They are man-made - in massive volumes.

Those who purposely make ignorant commentary about concerned scientists and environmentalists will remain in a simian state - truly unevolved.

Crikey- from "numerical climate prediction is a load of crap" to "it's a global plot by the Americans".

Sure it's not the Jews?

"Mark Lawson has been a journalist for nearly 25 years in trade publications, suburban and regional Victorian newspapers, and The Australian Financial Review. He has freelanced for various other publications over the years."
i.e. it's like asking the tea lady when it comes to science. There are lots of great websites out there written by people who know what they are talking about. The fact is being anti science is the new black for conservatives. Hell you even have senators in the US claiming the Earth is flat. http://www.fixedearth.com/ Maybe the author can jump on that band wagon to.

Christ, still the fossil fuel fools just keep coming.

Mr Lawson might have set out to make a reasonable point about uncertainty (a danger that doesn't stop his tribe encouraging us to bet superannuation on the stockmarket), but his shockjock tone is straight out of NewsCorp. Emotive/inflammatory words in just first few para's include: functionaries, screaming, blame, severely embarrassed, embarrassment, last minute scare stories.

If Lawson wanted to avoid polarised debate he would have stuck to the science - unfortunately he doesn't know any, he's just been passed a little of the open and accountable debate that is the best thing about science. For economics journo's admission of error is probably a terrifying idea, but its not new in science.

If sincerely concerned about uncertainty in modelling and impact on mitigation Lawson might have done an ounce of independant research and turned up http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/meeting/URW/product/URW_Report_v2.pdf
a 146pg report on a 3day IPCC workshop on exactly that theme. Theres even a very little ammunition for his view in there, but he'd rather rant than read (must be destined for Liberal leadership role).

Then theres the plain lies: '..that part of the known increase in global mean temperatures in the past century or so is due to human activities. Quite so, although we did not need elaborate computer models - or intense scientific debate - to work that out, as this article will show.'

Historical revisionism is a very necesary craft for all slaves of realpolitic - now that anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable (except to senile millionaire miners), it was never in dispute! Lawson and like have simply fallen back to the next defensive line, that there is so much uncertainty that no action can be taken. Which is another way of saying their paymasters haven't found a way to make it pay yet, but i'm sure Mr Lawson will let us know when they have. (i'm not claiming ExxonMobil or the Institute for Public Affairs are paying Mr Lawson directly but the news editors who buy his verbiage are acutely atuned to the v.similar orientation of their advertisers).

Perseus: "I can state with absolute certainty, to Bennie and all the other planet plodders who claim the IPCC is the fount of wisdom etc, that the IPCC conducted no consultation with the forest industry or the entire field of related experts when they devised their rules for accounting for carbon from wood sources. Absolutely zilch."

HOW are you CERTAIN, Perseus? Or has the rhetoric gone to your head, again? The IPCC references i found include many forest industry related journals
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/techrepI/forest.html
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/land_use/156.htm
but then i don't have your godlike view of the world and all its inhabitants lol

Liam,

From http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/meeting/URW/product/URW_Report_v2.pdf

"Two broad classes of uncertainty are “statistical” uncertainty associated with parameter or
observational values that are not known precisely, and “structural” uncertainty where important
relationships between variables or their functional form may not have been identifi ed correctly.
Assessing structural uncertainty is generally more difficult and can normally only be done to a
limited extent through comparison of models with observations or with one another. In general
there has been a demonstrable tendency for structural uncertainty to be overlooked by expert
groups."

Structural uncertainty covers the possibility (some woud say probablility) that the models are missing important variables or that relationships between variables in the model do not accurately reflect real world relationships. It is really impossible to put any meaningful figure on the 'structural' uncertainty because it reflects all that we dont yet know about the world. The 'spin' in this article is to 'suggest' that structural uncertainty is manageable when it is not.

I am not surprised to hear critics casting doubt on climate change science, even the weather forcast is often unreliable. However, looking at the "big picture", since estimates of anthropogenic carbon emissions have been calculated together with the measured effects on global climate, to this extent the message is clear.

Accuracy of forward estimates leading to global catastrophe are less certain as well as the time scale but scientists are naturally cautious and when asked the question, consensus may well have fallen on the the side of not frightening the horses. If this were the case then sea levels may still be set to rise well above their "official" ninety year estimate.

The little known part of the carbon cycle locked away for millenia in clathrates may now prove decisive in determining how quickly and how much are planet heats up. If the Siberian permafrost thaws to create vast new freshwater lakes an unstoppable feedback loop will have been created, releasing billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere which will effectively seal our fate.

Methane is a twenty time more powerful GHG than CO2.

It will be impossible to calculate the extent to which mankinds activities will have contributed to this catastrophe even after the event, so it would be prudent to take action now even though it be already too late. If decisive action were taken sooner rather than later we may have a chance to make good the damage we have already caused. Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights!

Don't be blindsided by silly notions of carbon sequestration or carbon credit schemes. These are just another political stunts so that we can continue to sit on our hands and fiddle while Rome burns.

tassied

The atmosphere is a) warming, b) cooling or c)static

Eliminate c) as highly improbable under any circumstances.
The gw models predict warming and the physical evidence is consistent with warming.
The gw predictions are in line with the evidence... encouraging...

So... are the models good or is it just coincidence

Liam, the reason I can state with certainty that the IPCC did not consult with industry groups is because I was the member of the Australian Forest Growers National Executive who had specific responsibility for greenhouse accounting issues. I was also on the NGGI's Consultative Panel on Landuse Change and Forestry but can confirm that this process was already fatally politicised back in 1997/8.

And by the time people began to look seriously at the implications of all this stuff, the rules had already been locked in. Your own links confirm that departmental people have simply rounded up the most obvious subjects while ignoring some of the most relevant considerations, like the postponing of natural emissions from decay.

It may not be obvious to a punter but an expert forester can see the dead hand of green ignorance all over the documents.

Two things come to mind regarding agenda.

1. Follow the money... carbon trading, taxes, etc. = LOTSA DOUGH.

2. Employ useful idiots... media, politicians, ideological pundits, talking heads, chattering classes, gossips and so on.

Oh yeah and dont forget to disguise one's own denial in accusations of denial.

Mark would have us laugh at the models. Lets see:

1. Mark derides the models uncertainty: “temperature forecasts range from 1.1C to 6.4C over 100 years. Right!” Is this dishonest or hasn’t he read the summary? The 1.1 figure is for the scenario where we’re all greenies, the 6.4 figure is when we all behave like Exxon, Mark. The fault isn’t with the models but with knowing how people like Mark will behave.

2. Mark laughs at IPCC stubbornness: “One can almost hear the panel scientists gritting teeth, “Oh alright! Part of the increase is natural (ie due to solar heating)”. Well, they concede 5% over 250 years. They start 110years into Mark’s little ice age. It took the sun 250 years to get to 5% contribution, but CO2 has really only taken 50 years or so(because its contribution escalates) to get 20 times bigger. As time goes on the sun’s percentage gets smaller compared to emissions. Which means the “laughable” models get, surprisingly, more and more accurate into the future.

3. Mark wants us to dismiss the models because “A small error at the beginning could make nonsense of the end result.” For instance the IPCC suggests “aerosols remain the least understood component”. But let’s look at this uncertainty? Firstly, the worrying aerosols, those due to dirty smokestacks, will reduce with time. Like me the scientists are technological optimists (why even discuss it if you aren’t?). Secondly, if you look at the error bars (did you do that Mark?), you find that if scientist understood aerosols better things would only look bleaker. Why? Because aerosols mask the effect of CO2, etc. If scientists are mistaken over aerosols the chances are very much weighted to their underestimating how much the aerosols are saving us from the full greenhouse effect.

I am not sure if this thread remains active so I will leave it there. The models may be laughable but if they are, for too many reasons to list here, it will be because they, like Mark, are underestimating the problem

Richard, as I am of a scientific bent, the least impressive feature of the evidence for global warming is the global average temperature. This average is a sophisticated amalgamation of local observations and working out what it actually was in the past is doubly difficult. It is always going to have a degree of uncertainty to it and be open to revision. I would liken it to assessing all the gold reserves, say, in the world. To be sure of getting it right you have to be determined to drill holes in less and less accessible places and to a finer and finer scale and once you have done it, what does it actually prove? It satisfies your critics, may be?

What gives me certainty is the bigger picture. Look at the temp of the moon; compare it to the Earth’s. Why is there a difference? Compare Earth to Venus? Why is there a difference? Here’s an interesting figure for you, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s up or down a little bit: current global annual consumption of oil: one cubic mile. Try to imagine that, a huge tank rising into the clouds and much of it being turned into CO2 which is measured in part per million! (and this figure does not include coal, etc)

The greenhouse gases with their absorption bands are the only game in town from my perspective. Don’t be distracted by the bulls*it on the internet! Isn’t that what you are saying is the modern problem?

As they say, statistics lie: don’t trust them. Statistical types love playing with them. Fair enough, theories in areas like economics will (may be) never good enough, so you need statistics as a back up and to keep you honest. But it seems to me that the people at places like climateaudit live in their own little world. They’re trying to work out if someone’s cooking the books by looking at the shadow of the smoke. If you are in to conspiracy theories, that’s your bag. I don’t buy it. Sorry, out of time and word limit

The article does not mention the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and in fact there has been some cooling of the globe. The cooling has been small, being one twentieth of a degree.

Considering that the total warming since 1900 is one half of one degree, I believe it is significant, and it surprizes me that it has not been a major factor in the discussion.

SoS,

You said
1. Mark derides the models uncertainty: “temperature forecasts range from 1.1C to 6.4C over 100 years. Right!” Is this dishonest or hasn’t he read the summary? The 1.1 figure is for the scenario where we’re all greenies, the 6.4 figure is when we all behave like Exxon, Mark. The fault isn’t with the models but with knowing how people like Mark will behave.

I think you have entirely missed the point. You assume a reality which the models represent. The models might or might not be an accurate representation of that reality. The problem is this... mathematical models are often very good at simulations (producing plausible, realistic looking results) but that does not make them good at prediction/forecasting in the real world. ie they're great at driving games like sim-whatever but they arent worth a pinch of poop for deciding which shares to buy OR what el-nino is going to do next year.

wb, I have re-read what Mark wrote and I may have been a tad hard on him, but I still think he is slanting the argument.

I don’t think that the models represent reality. I think they only represent those aspects of the earth system which climate scientists feel they can validly model by mathematical equations (with error ranges). For instance, in the latest report sea level rises over the century have been reduced because the old equations based upon melting of icecaps seem no longer valid in the light of recent evidence of breakup in Greenland. The fact that many scientists suspect that sea rises will in fact be greater has not been included because hunches cannot be quantitatively projected.

To me the models are useful tools to be continually tested against reality. Having tried in my feeble way to sort through in my mind multiple factors like convection, evaporation, winds, relative humidity, etc I realise how quickly the human mind boggles. Even with quite simple systems it seems to me that a computer program can be instructive and better guide than intuition. It seems implicit in Mark's and your comments that human intuition is a better guide than the predictions of a computer. Unfortunately I think that the climate system is beyond our brains.
.
Mark apparently thinks it is bizarre that they are used, but I cannot see how in a climate of having to convince politicians, they could be ignored. Are you suggesting scientists should give just the pollies their hunches instead?

I don't think scientists seriously think that people will use their 100 year projections. 100 years is only given because that is the approximate residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore that time scale is forced on us if we are to see the scope of the problem.

SoS

I guess what the models do tell us is that global warming is a plausible scenario given things we know are happening like increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Burning fossils fuels IS certainly polluting the atmosphere. We dont need a PhD to work that out.
I, for one, am in favour of reducing the amount of fossil fuels we are burning for all sorts of reasons including global warming considerations. I am also in favour of stopping land clearing and even restoring forests because that seems just plain good common sense.
What I am not in favour of is setting our country on a course of economic self destruction unnecessarily. Anything Australia does is essentially symbolic anyway because our total contribution to the problem, though high on a per capita basis, is negligible in the overall scheme of things so the potential for messing up our economy without making one scrap of difference is pretty high

Mark Lawson provides no useful information demonstrates his bias in every sentence. He uses words like "screaming", "embarrasment", "bitterly", "gritted teeth", "absurd", "farce", "theatre" to attack scientists.

To give an example, Lawson says the IPCC adopted a graph as "dogma". Of course this is wrong.

Lawson says "IPCC is apparently of the belief that they know all they need to know about climate change". This is complelely wrong.

Without justification, Lawson paints a picture of scientists being dogmatic, stupid and self-serving. This is because a climate sceptic must fall upon misinformation and lies to make an argument. This has been the case in every article published in OLO.

David. Your comments are really not helpful if you wish to convey any useful information.

In the context used, the words to which you refer were appropriate.

Perhaps Mark Lawson should not imply that the scientists are misleading, or reticent with the truth, when it is obvious that it is the IPCC which is seeking to mislead, despite having good science to inform them.

With the scientific information available to the IPCC committee, it is in a position to disclose that

1 There has been no warming of the globe since 1998.

2 It is highly unlikely that greenhouse gases cause global warming.

3 CO2 has a negligible effect, if any, on global warming.

Yet it persists in prevarication, and misleading statements, in its summary, which is not prepared by scientists, but by spin merchants from 150 countries, most of which have the sole aim of advancing their own country’s interests to the detriment of the developed world, by attempting to advance the myth of global warming.

Do some research David.

Nick Lanelaw: You have used words very nicely and very polite way to defend a callous attack on the scientific community. Then you agree with me that Mark Lawson should not "not imply that the scientists are misleading, or reticent with the truth."

If my comments are so unhelpful, why are you agreeing with me? If you agree with me, why do you suggest that the IPCC is a conspiracy of titanic proportions? That’s called hypocrisy.

As for the rest of your comments please read this publication by the Australian Government:

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/qa/pubs/science-qa.pdf

It is designed for beginners like yourself. It refutes all your points and the claims made by Mark Lawson.

This article is by Tim Ball, a Doctor of Science and a climatology professor, and starts with the words “Global warming, as we think we know it, does not exist..”. An excellent starting point.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

The document to which you referred me is not a scientific document and is as misleading as the IPCC summary. No scientist relies on modelling for answers.

Good luck, David.

Follow the links and you'll find that Dr. Timothy F. Ball is the chair of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which attempts to counter the Kyoto Protocol and other sensible greenhouse gas reduction schemes via industry funded campaigns dressed up as a grassroots movement.

In other words, he gets paid a lot of money to write such articles. Part of that money is being used to sue a newspaper, a Canadian university and several honest people, who have questioned Tim Ball's qualifications. I found that out from wikipedia.

Tim Ball's article talks about "greatest deception in the history of science" and "there no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change". These words falsely imply that thousands of scientists are fabricating evidence. He says that in universities "academics remain silent" which is ridiculous and even more so when you consider the "screaming" that Mark Lawson claims goes on. It is just absurd.

Tim Ball says "The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law." I wonder how much he gets paid for putting out such nonsense.

Every climate sceptic has to lie, misinform, make personal attacks or general attacks against science or the scientific community. This is again proven by the Tim Ball article, as for every like article posted on OLO.

David, I hope that one day you will discover that bluster is a barrier to clear thinking.

You enjoy being led up the garden path, so I will leave you to it.

Forum have now given me back my original name, and I have lost Nick Lanelaw.

In my post above I criticised Mark Lawson because he provided no useful information and demonstrated bias in every sentence by using words like "screaming", "embarrassment", "bitterly", "gritted teeth", "absurd", "farce", "theatre" to attack scientists.

Nick/Leo thought I needed to read anr article from Tim Ball, who does what? Write articles attacking scientists.

It is right and proper to be appalled by these attacks, so how does Nick/Leo respond? say that I am being "led up the garden path"?

When informed about certain chemicals being toxic, am I being led up the garden path? And when looking at a falling star, when informed it is meteor at high speed contacting with the atmosphere, am I being led up the garden path? And perhaps when science informs about germs and viruses, invisible to the human eye, surely I am being led up the garden path.

If we discount science as a way of informing ourselves about the world, and make no mistake that this is what Mark, Tim and Leo are offering, just imagine the head-in-sand quackery they propose we follow.

Ah yes! The denialists are a desperate lot. Why don't they cease blathering on about climate change and look at the factual destruction of this planet from the anthropogenic chemical releases from pollutant industries?

Employ some real scientists to test Australia's waterways which are contaminated with lethal chemicals including dioxins. Have a read of the advice issued years ago, from the Scandanavian countries advising pregnant women and children under 8 not to eat the fish, heavily laced with mercury and other heavy metals.

Invite them to spend a "holiday" in the uncontrolled, unregulated, heavy industry communities of this nation and witness the pollution ingested by members and the devastation of their environment.

Consider the 4,000 beautiful birds (well that's what we know about) falling out of the skies in WA, dead from lead poisoning as a result of industry aligned regulators, all consumed with self-interest and greed under the guise of economic "stability".

Read about the contamination in these people's water tanks and soil and await the blood results of these residents. No doubt, the sceptics will say these results are tested through "modelling" manipulation.

Do these denialists dispute test results on cholesterol, blood pressure, cancers etc? If not, why not? They're denying the hard evidence from accredited laboratories on the toxic emissions responsible for the glaringly obvious destruction of our environment.

Most hydrocarbons are deemed carcinogenic or are suspected carcinogens. They are released to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. All burnt hydrocarbons convert to CO2.

These sceptics are yesterday's men with yesterday's mentality, desperate to deceive readers with their inane sophistry on matters of climate change, as an excuse to maintain the disgraceful status quo.

So whether climate change is anthropogenic or natural, it matters not. Privatising and polluting OUR fresh air is a crime against humanity and should be viewed as such by the members of all nations on this planet.

Model of David Latimer's thinking:

People are out to trick me --> Locate 'trick' through miscomprehension -->
Miss point --> Feel mislead --> People are out to trick me --> ... ... ...

This thinking has led to the following mistakes:

- Failure to comprehend that at no point have I suggested that Canberra was 'hotter before', the article itself stating that temperatures began to rise in the 70s;

- Failure to see that at no point have I disputed the BOM figures; he even displays the grandiosity to believe I thought he had compiled them;

- Failure to admit mistake in attributing personal motivation in the construction of what was, in fact, an unedited list of witnesses to the House of Lords committee.

That is where such thinking gets you. David loves to point out his 'golden rule', which is where his problems start. Here's a trend I've noticed: When David has gotten himself sufficiently lost up the garden path, he adopts the pronoun 'we' to gather an imaginary consensus, and then endeavours to summarise for all, but only by going back to his initial point of departure, not realising he has already strayed well off the track, and is no longer contributing anything of substance to the debate.

Apologies: the above was posted to the wrong thread but, then again, does it matter?

Let's go over that Golden Rule about climate change once again.

The Golden Rule is that for a climate sceptic to make their argument, they need to revert to lies, misinformation or personal attacks against science or the scientific community.

As a climate sceptic, Richard Castles must know that this rule means he cant say anything he wants and have it believed on trust alone. It would remind people to check the facts. It explains to climate sceptics that there is a penalty for throwing mud around.

As Richard has posted to the wrong thread, readers will be interested in his article talking about the Canberra heatwave of 1968, which gave the capital its hottest recorded temperatures. This was used to suggest that global warming is not taking place. "Forward to 2068 ... a quaint exhibition in a back room about the global warming hysteria that swept the world in the early century." (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5543)

Richard Castles blames public interest in global warming on the Internet. He says it is like a virus, spreading "bad news ... faster and wider than ever before."

But what the Internet delivered was Bureau of Meterology reports stating the hottest Canberra year was 2006 and debunking the whole premise of Castle's article. (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/act/summary.shtml)

That's bad news for Castle's argument, but for the rest of us, it's the truth we need to know.

Had Richard Castles provided a valid or honest assessment of Canberra's climate it would be unncessary to criticise. He would not be able to dismiss global warming as mere "hysteria". And his article would not be added to the lost list of evidence for the golden rule.

Thankfully, Castles has not attacked science as Mark Lawson does with his description of sciencists as screaming, embarrassed, bitter, with gritted teeth, absurd and farcical. In particular, he has not tried to attack the BOM. I am happy to give credit to Richard Castles for that.

A small oversight in your post, David. You overlooked giving the reference to the scientific basis for the Golden Rule.

No oversight. All the articles posted on OLO and which have been read elsewhere follow the golden rule. In other words, they all have either misinformation, lies or attacks on science as part of their central argument.

An effective climate sceptic argument is one which misinforms in a way that cannot be easily-back checked. This was Castle's big mistake. I found the BOM view, which completely contradicted the story within a few minutes after reading it.

Mark Lawson's provided a shopping list of opinionated nonsense in his article, I could have written dozens of posts tearing down his house of cards, but quite boring for everyone. But essentially Lawson is making an attack on the scientific community, and this is most visible through the words used.

But just to demonstrate the nonsense, Lawson says it is "now known than climate changes naturally". At what point was this unknown?

Lawson says the Wegman Report settled a dispute about Mann's "hockey stick" graph, even though it was organised by an outspoken climate denial politican; and even though the US National Research Council found that Mann's basic conclusions were sound and backed by evidence.
(http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=3)

I could continue, but essentially the point is well made. To argue against climate change must involve lies, misleading information and/or an attack against science or the scientific community.

David, you accuse me of "lies" but have not yet once successfully pointed one out. On the other hand, here is a lie from you:

"This [1968 Canberra heatwave] was used to suggest that global warming is not taking place." Please show me where.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck on your merry-go-round until you admit either your false accusations or your own lying. Or, then again, I could just leave you to get dizzy, while I go and enjoy the roller-coaster. See ya later. (Nice that 'Latimer' is an anagram of "met liar")

Hi there Nick Lanelaw

I perused Tim Ball's article as you recommended.

Unfortunately, he gave zilch scientific data to support his claims, but simply blathered on about his own credentials and attacked his opponents. So what's scientific about this article?

I'll stick to authors such as Dr Rosalie Bertell, thank you. This woman has worked in the field of environmental health since 1969. She has a doctorate in biometrics and has produced two interesting books - "No Immediate Danger" (1985) and "Planet Earth, the Latest Weapon of War" (2000).

She was well-received by environmental scientists, many years ago, during her visit to Australia and long before the masses engaged in these sorts of debates.

This remarkable humanitarian has undertaken collaborative research with numerous organisations and has five honorary doctorates. In addition, she is the recipient of several international awards including one presented to her by the UNEP.

She is certainly not one of the many "johnny come lately" climate experts (many employed by those with vested interests) who are now emerging from their burrows for their day in the sun.

Bertell's scientifically based accounts warns of the damage already done to the ionosphere by man's activity and the resultant impact we have had on climate change.

Sceptics continually deny that climate change has anything to do with anthropogenic carbon emissions. Could these sceptics please produce just one scientist who dares deny the toxicity of these man-made emissions to all eco systems on this planet?

Hi Dickie.

Now that I realise that you are a scientist and an enthusiast for the UN, I am able to direct you to something scientific.

There is a graph in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers released in February this year which is scientific. The global mean temperature chart (Fig SPM-3), is said in the summary document, to support the proposition of anthropogenic global warming, which is put forward in the summary.

The writers of the summary are not scientists, but political representatives, whose concern is to promote views which are detrimental to the developed world. Although they doctored the graph with a nice swathe of colour, they did not alter it, and left the key intact.

If you carefully use the key to read the graph, it reveals that the last 106 years had 3 periods of cooling (1900-1910, 1944-1976, 1998-2006) and 2 periods of warming (1910-1944, 1976-1998) and that temperatures rose only 0.5°C from 1900 to 2006. The largest temperature change in the 20th century was a 0.75°C rise between 1976 and 1998, and global temperature has actually fallen 0.05°C over the period of 8 years from 1998 to 2006.

This is a nice package for someone seeking the truth about global warming.

Firstly, proof that the UN is deliberately misleading as to the contents of the scientific report, yet to be released, by unsubstantiated statements in its purported summary.

Secondly, a scientific basis for neutralising the scaremongers who assert anthropogenic global warming, on a factual base of one half of one degree warming in a period of 106 years, and a strong likelihood that a cooling period has already commenced.

No wonder the global warming enthusiasts are pushing for a switch to the meaningless mantra of “climate change”.

Leo Lane. Your assertions are incorrect. I am not a scientist nor do I support the UN. Your assertions give me little reason to view your other claims with any credibility.

Firstly, please explain why IPCC "political representatives" would wish to "promote views which are detrimental to the developed world."

The "political representatives" I have dealt with over many years, have at all times promoted views in favour of pollutant industries and the subsequent, imprudent developments without regard to human health or the environment.

Climate change or global warming is actually secondary to my prime concerns that even if we were already in an ice age, the toxicity of anthropogenic pollutant emissions would continue to destroy our health, oceans, rivers, soil and wild-life. Polluting and privatising the little clean air remaining is no longer regarded as trivial by fair-minded citizens.

However, the climate sceptics may wish to muse on the announcement in 1994 by the US Air Force Defence where they declared that "studies on weather modification had done so well they were now a permanent part of air force operations. The US Air Force stated that details of weather control were classified and would not be made public." (Rosalie Bertell - Planet Earth 2000).

Pollutant industries and their political lap dogs have failed to act responsibly by refusing to implement already available pollution prevention control in pursuit of maximum profits.

IPCC's papers or the other "expert" opinions on climate change are a small part of my research, however, I have spent several years extensively researching the scientifically proven toxicity of fossil fuels and the subsequent atmospheric, hydrocarbon and other pollutant emissions released by industry and the glaringly obvious impact these emissions have wrought on our eco systems.

Digging up our resources in pursuit of "economic growth", by depleting other precious resources and polluting the planet, makes litte sense in this enlightened era.

Perhaps you would like to address my last question in my last post? I've yet to receive a response from a sceptic with regard to my concerns over the anthropogenic pollution of this fragile planet.

Richard Castles is not informing people about Canberra's climate with any accuracy. (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5543) This is not a lie, but misinformation.

Castles said that global temperatures have not risen since the second year of the Howard Govt i.e. starting March 1997. This is misinformation (at least!) because no study calculates global temperatures in terms of the years of the Howard Government. It is misinformation because it implies that global annual temperatures have dropped over each successive year.

If Castles were honest you would say that some studies show the highest recorded average global temperatures were from 1998 and others show 2005 eg http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html.

There is no downward trend concluded in any study.

Anyone who digs up the anomalies in a data series, such as the 1968 Canberra heatwave, and makes these anomalies the central element in an argument can be legitimately accused of providing misinformation.

Providing misinformation is the main ingredient to any article which denies global warming. Lies abound and when confronted with either, the usual response is to attack the science or the scientists. This is the case not with Castles, but with the Mark Lawson article (attached to this thread.)

The vast majority of people, and the responsible governments of the world rely upon science to provide reliable information about the world and identify problems and resolutions in an unbiased manner -- based upon sober evidence. The idea of a scientific conspiracy against the world, or that scientists are stubborn, stupid or embarrassing, as suggested by Lawson's article is a fantasy.

And now look at the post just above. Don't pay attention to Leo Lane's words which are copied from a tribunal report which allowed an Xstrata coal mine to proceed. http://www.lrt.qld.gov.au/lrt/PDF/Xstrata2_33.pdf

Read the actual IPCC report by clicking here http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf, with the graph on page 6.

David Latimer’s assertions do not appear to me to have any basis.

I have indeed, paraphrased the words of the Chief Judge of the Land and Resources Tribunal of Queensland, in the Xstrata case, who considered the IPCC summary, and pointed out where its own graph showed it to be making statements which were not borne out by the scientific evidence.

David considers this to be good grounds for ignoring what I said. Does he consider that basing a statement on what has been said in a judgement by a Judge in a Court case, disallows the statement?

The UN employed 2500 scientists to prepare a report, which it has not released. Contrary to accepted scientific practice, it has released a summary, prior to the release of the science.

It is now demonstrated that the summary is not backed up by the science, as has long been asserted by some of the scientists who prepared scientific reports for previous IPCC reports, and were denied input to the summary.

In any event, all the alarmist nonsense has nothing to back it up other than a warming in 106 years, of six tenths of one degree at the most.

The alarmists rely on predictions, generally from modelling, which has no scientific credibility, for their attacks on civilization, and should be ignored.

Dickie, in the third paragraph of the post to which I replied, asserted that Tim Ball‘s statement of his credentials was “blather” and he saw nothing “scientific” in what he said. This, to me, was a representation that he had some scientific expertise. He now says he has none, so I would commend him to a proper consideration of Tim Ball’s credentials, which are impressive, and then to a careful reading of what he says, in the light of his qualifications as a scientist.

DL: "Richard Castles is not informing people about Canberra's climate with any accuracy."

How so?

DL: "Castles said that global temperatures have not risen since the second year of the Howard Govt i.e. starting March 1997. This is misinformation (at least!) because no study calculates global temperatures in terms of the years of the Howard Government."

I'll let others make of this what they will.

DL: "It is misinformation because it implies that global annual temperatures have dropped over each successive year."

No, it doesn't. How?

DL: "If Castles were honest you would say that some studies show the highest recorded average global temperatures were from 1998 and others show 2005"

Pardon me for using the IPCC data (TAR), although I now undertand they are back-adjusting some of the data.

DL: "Anyone who digs up the anomalies in a data series, such as the 1968 Canberra heatwave, and makes these anomalies the central element in an argument can be legitimately accused of providing misinformation."

Oh, for crying out loud! I have responded to this accusation about five times. That you can't read or comprehend simple material does not mean I am misinforming.

I am reflecting on what a nasty thing it is to accuse someone of lying without evidence, and what sort of a deluded and grandiose person would have such a golden rule. You have still been unable to admit any of your errors, David. You are in a glass house, and your golden rule is blinding you to your own self-delusion and deception, but I don't expect you to comprehend any of this.

Richard Castles says that he is not misinforming people. But one person posted to the thread showing that they thought he'd satisfactorily showed that Canberra's climate was unaltered.

Richard Castles worries that he is being called a liar. He does not need to be concerned. I have made it clear he is providing misinformation. For example, the heatwave actually happened in Canberra, but someone genuinely looking after the interests of their readers would not explain Canberra's overall climate by such a reference.

I don't feel the need to respond to the bulk of Richard's post because people can judge it on its own merits.

Response to Leo Lane:
Passing off someone's work as your own is known as plagerism. It appears my golden rule is being validated in a new way.

DL: "Richard Castles says that he is not misinforming people. But one person posted to the thread showing that they thought he'd satisfactorily showed that Canberra's climate was unaltered."

I am not responsible for others' misinterpretations, just as I am not responsible for yours.

DL: "Richard Castles worries that he is being called a liar."

No he doesn't. He worries about our standards of debate that such nasty behaviour is tolerated.

DL: "I have made it clear he is providing misinformation. For example, the heatwave actually happened in Canberra, but someone genuinely looking after the interests of their readers would not explain Canberra's overall climate by such a reference."

DL: 6th time. I did not explain Canberra's overall climate by such a reference.

You have still, not once, been able to demonstrate any information in the article which is incorrect. I would gracefully welcome and acknowledge any obvious error. You, on the other hand, are unable to admit when you are wrong. And yet you throw the lies and misinformation line about like you're Judge Judy.

...and writing the word 'plagerism' is known as misspelling.

If I did not put quotes around any words which were identical to those used by the Judge in the Xstrata case, and attribute them, then I would be guilty of plagiarism. The information itself is on the public record.

It would not, in any event, as David seems to infer, invalidate the information, so the IPCC remains guilty of misrepresenting the situation on global warming in its summary.

The summary is a political document which misrepresents the science, which will not be published for some months, although its purported summary was published back in February.

There is no evidence that any appreciable warming is caused by human activity. The contribution is negligible.

David Latimer obtained the reference to the Xstrata case from a post of mine in another thread of OLO, so do not be misled into believing that he has a clue about anything.

Leo Lane - Nick Lanelaw - whoever you are - why don't you address the questions I raised? They are relevant to your assertions in previous posts!

Thanks Allison. I should be mindful of spelling errors.
Indeed the word is plagiarism.

Speaking of words, my original contribution to this thread was to note how Mark Lawson described scientists using the following correctly spelt words and phrases, "screaming", " embarrassment", "bitterly", "gritted teeth", "absurd", "farce" and "theatre", to attack scientists. If Richard Castles is worried about "nasty behaviour", perhaps he can make a comment about attacks on the scientific community.

But in this thread, there is plenty more misinformation to address. How are we going to get through it all? Thank goodness we have the Internet, eh Richard?

Nick Lanelaw invites me do "Do some research" (19-Mar-2007 3:02PM), so I researched his claim that "The writers of the [IPCC Summary for Policymakers] are not scientists, but political representatives..." Not scientists?

Surprise! surprise! This is not true.

On the front page of http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf, there is a list of drafting authors. I did some quick research on each name:
- Richard Alley, Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University.
- Terje Berntsen Research Fellow, Uni of Oslo and CICERO.
- Nathaniel Bindoff, BSc, PhD ANU.
- Zhenlin Chen, China Meteorological Administration, China
- Amnat Chidthaisong, scientist from King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand.
- Pierre Friedlingstein at "Laboratorie des Sciences du Climate et de l’Environment".
- Jonathan Gregory at NCAS and Hadley Centre, University of Reading.
- Gabriele Hegerl, Assoc Prof, Earth and Ocean Sciences Division, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich
- Martin Heimann, Max-Planck-Institut für Biogeochemie
- Bruce C. Hewitson, Climatologist, University of Cape Town
- Professor Brian Hoskins, British dynamical meteorologist and climatologist, University of Reading
- Fortunat Joos, Professor at Uni of Bern
- Jean Jouzel, Geochemist, Director of the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, France
- Vladimir M. Kattsov, Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory, Russia
- Prof. Ulrike Lohmann, Full Professor for Experimental Atmospheric Physics in the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science
- Dr Martin Manning, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), NZ
- Dr Taroh Matsuno, Japanese meteorologist Carl-Gustaf Rossby Medal.

(Note: This list was compiled very quickly. Please double-check before relying on it)

continued...

David, as I said, I should leave you to it, but one last effort.

The working group who have the final say are not named. There is one scientist in it, the lead author, Dr. Trenberth, who is not named in the list you have. Some of the scientists who are authors, on finding they have no say in the final form of the summary, have endeavoured to have their names removed and a few have succeeded.

Following is the last paragraph of a letter by one of them:
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4. Sincerely, Chris Landsea”

Read the whole letter at:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

You are determined to swallow nonsense from a disingenuous organization like the UN, so I will leave you to it. No further response from me, whatever you come up with. You are able to read and write words, but you lack comprehension.

Hi Dickie, I responded to you once, but I realise now, that you inhabit an alternate universe to me, on which it is not possible for me to comment. Nothing you describe happens in the world in which I live.

Yes indeed Leo Lane. You are correct. I do not live in a burrow, like you and our universes are indeed far apart.

Sadly, subterranean rodents rarely see the light.

Dickie, I am sure there are many aspects to you, vastly superior to the one you display here.

I am unable to relate to your posts, or the thought or sentiment which they express, so I cannot enter into any positive interaction. You have my best wishes for the future.

I was not able to finish my list within the 350 work limit. Here are the remaining authors that Nick Lanelaw says are not scientists:

- Mario Molina shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
- Neville Nicholls: expert on the El Niño-Southern Oscillation
- Jonathan Overpeck: Head of Geosciences, University of Arizona.
- Dr Dahe Qin, researched glaciology, cryosphere. Director China Meteorological Administration
- Graciela Raga, University of Mexico
- Prof. Venkatachalam Ramaswamy. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA, Princeton
- Jiawen Ren, Lanzhou Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academic of Sciences
- Dr. Matilde Rusticucci, Departamento de Ciencias de la Atmósfera y los Océanos, FCEN, Universidad de Buenos Aires
- Dr Susan Solomon Senior Scientist, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
- Richard C. J. Somerville is Professor of Meteorolgy at Scripps Institution of Oceanography
- Thomas F. Stocker, Climate and Environmental Physics, University of Bern
- Peter Stott, a climate scientist at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter
- Ronald J Stouffer, Senior Research Meteorologist, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA, Princeton
- Dr Penny Whetton, Stream Leader, Climate Impacts and Risk, CSIRO
- Richard A. Wood. Met Office, Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
- Dr David Wratt is a Principal Scientist with NIWA in Wellington NZ

There may be some unintended mistakes or outdated info in my list so please double-check any information, however I have confirmed that each is a scientist and that Nick Lanelaw had lead us "down the garden path". He has provided information and in this instance about 30 minutes of my time was wasted showing he writes unreliable nonsense. According to Richard Castles, my efforts to verify information is an exercise in "self-delusion and deception". Except that I had the golden rule. It already informed me that the IPCC report was written by scientists.

Nick Lanelaw has confirmed my Golden Rule: To make a climate denial argument involves lies, misinformation or an attack on science.

Thanks Nick wasting my time, but at least I've confirmed with evidence your lack of fidelity in this debate.

Next?

Leo Lane says (2-Apr-07 7:52PM) the "working group who have the final say are not named." How many times do climate sceptics want to prove the golden rule about lies and misinformation?

The names are easily obtained from the IPCC website. There's an attractive pdf brochure called Who's who at the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf

And I have already shown that Working Group 1 is entirely made up of scientists, its hard to see how Lanes claim that "there is one scientist in it" is anything other than nonsense.

Seriously, why does he expect to get away with it? It is so simple to show him to be outrageously wrong.

The golden rule is that for a climate sceptic to make their argument, they need to revert to lies, misinformation or personal attacks against science or the scientific community.

Thanks Leo Lane, Nick Lanelaw, Mark Lawson and Richard Castles for helping with the demonstration of the rule.

Anything further?

David's golden rule is called fundamentalism. It is also a defense mechanism that Freud called reaction formation. A common example is the 'gay basher' who is actually disturbed by his own homosexual impulses. In this case, David goes to the extreme of accusing anyone who disagrees with him to be a liar in order to avoid doubts about his own honesty.

In respect of the claim that we are in a period of no change in temperature of the globe since 1998, apart from a small amount of cooling, I was directed to a NASA Goddard site which asserts 2005 to be as hot as or hotter than 1998.

Apparently there are four sources of global temperature. One uses the same database as NASA, and the other two use different methods. All except NASA found 2005 to be cooler.

UK Climate Research Unit, using the same database as NASA found it cooler, as did the two other sources, each using different methods. NASA is one out in its finding, but gives no indication of this on its web site, where it blithely announces, in addition to the claim in respect of 2005, that the globe has warmed by .6 of a degree in total over the last hundred years.

Most other sources give the total warming as one half of a degree.

I am not inclined to give credence to NASA, in these circumstances.

A full account is at:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/BobCarterUSSenate2006-1.pdf

Nick Lanelaw is "not inclined to give credence to NASA". (4-Apr-2007 12:09PM). This is the same NASA which put Neil Armstrong on the moon -(well some people waste time debating that too.)

Nick Lanelaw believes "the IPCC remains guilty of misrepresenting the situation on global warming in its summary" (2-Apr-2007) and "persists in prevarication, and misleading statements, in its summary, which is not prepared by scientists." (19-Mar-2007) But when I checked who prepared the reports, I discovered that it was Nick Lanelaw who made the misleading statement (3-Apr-2007). All the authors were scientists and anybody can easily double-check this.

As Nick Lanelaw tried to deceive us about the qualifications of IPCC authors and working party members, then we'd be foolish to listen to his pronouncements about NASA or the IPCC in general. Very foolish.

And Richard Castles thinks this is just a matter of disagreement. Evidence and fact checking? Apparently, none of this is relevant. So whether someone is a scientist or not is a "disagreement". It does not matter that extensive biographies exist for these scientists on the Internet. The Bureau of Meterology climate summary is merely an alternative view. Plagiarism is an acceptable contribution to debate. And don't use the Internet, because facts make people hysterical.

After ignoring information from the BOM, from NASA, from various universities. After the attacks on scientists. After their lies and misinformation has been uncovered so easily, how can climate sceptics imagine they have any credibility at all.

Having firmly established that scientists are being attacked only by people you wouldn't trust to tell you the time of day, let's respond positively to the sober warnings by the scientific community. These warnings are not hysterical and we can make the switch over the coming years and decades with economically-sensible conservation measures and efficient technologies.

David, it is simply not possible to have a meaningful or fruitful discussion with someone who repeatedly miscomprehends, misinterprets and misinforms. Where you got the idea that I don't believe in using the Internet is something only you could explain? I think the Internet is marvellous, but like all technology it's how you use it that is important. Why, just today I read of the report that claims that Mars has warmed by 0.65 degrees since the 1970's. Fascinating. Anyway, good luck to you.

Response to Richard Castles:

Everything which has been provided by me has been backed up by links and references that anybody can review. As far as I can remember all my sources are from reputable sources, such as government agencies (BOM, NASA), universities, research institutes. All my quotes have been marked appropriately. Where I have quoted from a thread, I have also provided the date and time, so it can be readily found. I have not relied upon blogs or PR material. This is why my posts are fair and honest. They get to the heart of the matter. If posters make inventive or spurious claims that are contradicted when you go to the source(s), then it is right and proper to set the record straight.

This applies in all cases and if wrong I will admit my mistake, such as in this case: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=379#7267

From your article (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5543) I am responding to the the following view was expressed in your article you wrote "In the Internet, the first “global” issue found its perfect medium, and promptly spread like a virus."; then: "Global warming + global medium = global panic."

Mars survey from is NASA and I give it full credence. Here are some articles on the subject in recent years:
2003: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/dec/HQ_03415_ice_age.html
2001: http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=962

Science is looking into every aspect of global warming and this includes looking at other planets and the sun. The IPCC summarises the science, which is continuously advancing and there is no evidence that any relevant scientific evidence is ignored. The conspiracy theories are proven false by the open publication of these reports by NASA and other universities and reputable institutes.