Ahh, the Lavoisier Group, such a trustworthy organisation with no vested interets whatsoever.

Shares a 'phone number with the Bennelong Society, and a post-office box with the same and the HR Nicholls Society. Founded by an executive of Western Mining Corporation (WMC), and whose current VP is the Director of WMC Resources, whose Treasuer is the Director of the Clough mining and resource group.

And once accurately described as the "true fairies at the bottom of the garden"

http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/news/Lavoisier0104.html

I believe the group is now following the "cyclical" weather theories of the astrologer Theodore Landscheidt.

IPCC "lying", "misleading." That's a clever play on words to influence the reader. What are the IPCC's motives for "lying" and "misleading"? It was Landsea who threw the tantrum and declined to stay and fight, to be part of the fray. Did any other IPCC members support him?

Interestingly, since Landsea made his attack in 2005, to my knowledge, he's remained silent. Of course his views are strongly favoured by the White House. However, there is nothing to indicate Landsea disagrees with the bulk of the GW science but simply a lack of predictability with hurricanes.

Landsea's opponents, Prof. Greg Holland of the Nat. Centre of Atmospheric Research and Prof. Peter Webster of Georgia Tech. School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences theorise that anthropogenic CO2 is causing intensity in hurricanes.

Other scientists are claiming that storm tracks over the North Pacific are a result of Asian pollution.

Yes indeed. There is much work and more investigations to be done by the IPCC, unhindered by the likes of Bob Carter and the other silly coot, Ian Plimer, who in the twilight of their careers, have resorted to writing misleading articles on behalf of the Lavoisier Group and the powerful eco-destructive mining industry.

Lev,

Thanks for the post (and the link). However, I would have said “Agghhh – the let’s maintain the power and control of the politicians and the masses group” – aka, let’s maintain the status quo and business as usual group!

I alluded to this right-wing ‘think tank’ in a previous post – although Nick Lanelaw seems to be a Lavoisier front-man by his insidious and repetitious links to their website, here and else ware.

Notwithstanding, I tried to point him to an alternative perspective, based on reason. Unfortunately, I ran out of word-space and he, head-space.

I would appreciate your thoughts here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6038

Some people want to kill, the messenger that is, vis-à-vis: the IPCC.

These same people obviously don’t understand the science and are not prepared to read the technical papers (or even the technical summary in the AR4) but are quite prepared to criticise it … hello?

Climate Change science is there for anyone who wishes to understand it – if they could be bothered to look – even simple graphs and basic statistics seems to elude the recalcitrant.

Anyway, my contention is that political ideology and philosophical posturing are exacerbating the problems we now see.

Corollary, it’s not the science stupid – it’s the ‘me vs them’, east vs west, capitalist vs socialist, Islam vs Christianity’, etc. that is causing all the consternation, and only with particular individuals.

Population pressures, education, pollution, food, health, ‘Peak Oil, gas & coal,’ global warming – these are the real problems we are facing. Humanity has a real chance to alleviate these problems – governments are trying, businesses are, even some individuals are. It really is about sustainable development, all else follows.

Others, as we are seeing, are mired in the mud, they don’t see the big picture – they don’t even want to help in a constructive way, they are full of negativity and criticism.

Is this the way to educate our children, it is going to be their world one day?

KAEP

In the 'real' world I am heavily involved in inter/national water resources and wastewater management. I am interested in your musings, as would be others I am sure.

It is recognised that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 to 380 ppm since about 1850 and fossil fuel burning is the main cause.

It is also recognised that the oceans and terrestrial biosphere can not absorb GHG emissions at the rate humanity is pumping them out.

Your hypothesis does raise some interesting points, not least the oceans are a huge sink of CO2 (albeit with raising ocean temps and acidity make it increasingly more difficult to absorb CO2).

Seriously, please point us to more research on your ideas.

I appreciate your posts on other threads - got tied up with off-topics.
Cheers

Dickie,
Go see the thread on "Is this it.. where to now?"
I would also like to hear your comments on this subject.
Regards
Spanky