(continued) In these model versus data comparisons, the group find gross inconsistencies – hence Christy is sceptical of our ability to claim cause and effect about both past and future climate states. He says that “Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).”

Christy argues that fundamental knowledge is meagre, and that the IPCC should acknowledge research and evidence which conflicts with its consensus. He suggests that, rather than being definitive, the IPCC’s statements should begin with a line favoured by his physics teacher: “At our present level of ignorance, we think we know …”

There is also evidence that the impact of increased concentrations atmospheric carbon dioxide on global temperature is very strong at low concentrations, but negligible at current and projected levels.

Separately, the International Energy Agency forecasts that world demand for coal will increase by 73% from 2005-2030, primarily through the growth of China and India (The Australian, 15/11/07). Any drastic action within Australia, including the mandated renewable energy targets put forward in the election campaign, would impose large domestic costs but have negligible effects on global warming. In my view it would be absurd for Australia to adopt self-righteous hairshirt policies without (a) more convincing evidence that accelerated global warming is in train, is caused by humans, will impose severe costs and can be contained by human action; and (b) concerted action by present and prospective major polluters to contain emissions.

Christy (and to a lesser extent Pielke Sr) are about the only two consensus-objectors who have made any sort of intelligent comments regarding climate science. Notably, both of them agree that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon - they either believe that the CO2-temperature link has been overstated, or that the net effect of the CO2 and temperature increase is just as likely to be positive as it is negative.

They may well prove to be right.

Ultimately however, there are plenty of good reasons to reduce the carbon-intensive nature of our energy usage*, and plenty of good alternatives. The cost of doing may well be substantial, but far far less than the cost of doing nothing should the worst-case predictions have any truth to them at all, which, no matter how much you, Christy or Pielke personally feel about the probability of such a thing, remains a real possibility.

* Coal is a major source of particulate pollution for a start, responsible for many thousands of deaths every year. The mining process also creates high concentrations of toxic and radioactive substances, which often end up in waterways.

Faustino,

Why have you not included the “other view” by Professor Martin Parry in the BBC “viewpoint” article (13/11) you cited?

Why do you paraphrase when people can read it for themselves?

If anyone else is interested, if not off-topic - the link to the article Faustino cites is,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm

And here is the other that he conveniently doesn’t cite,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7082088.stm

Professor Christy’s views should be considered, as should Professor Parry’s (for balance).

The IPCC’s final report this year is to be published this week end.

I think what will be even more important will be the 180 country representation in Bali next month.

Let’s see what US, China, India, Europe, Australia, etc. does then.

Maybe then Faustino can call all the world’s leaders fools, big-businesses fools, and every body wanting to tackle climate change fools.

Lev, signing Kyoto will have exactly nil effect on global warming (not a single signatory is on track to meet their emmissions reduction targets, most have actually gone up), Labor has committed to bring "some" of the troops home but has not set a timeline and all the currently existing AWA's will still be in force for several years.

Doesn't matter who you vote for you won't notice the difference in a year.

One wonders why we continue to debate the urgent requirement for renewable energies or climate change. It's a non-event for Mr Howard who has no intention of altering the status quo. His interests lie clearly in protecting the big polluters:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21841497-5000117,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/16/pollution?gusrc=rss&feed=environment

One need only access the shonky reports by industry to the National Pollution Inventory (www.npi.gov.au) to realise Australia's self-regulated, self-reporting pollutant industries are out of control and running amok.

Furthermore, the "big" Australians continue to plunder the lands of other nations, destroying their eco systems, health and environment. They must also take considerable responsibility for the following abomination:

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2951

Could this be the motive for Australia's generous donations to the Philippines?

Perusing current "Letters to the Editor," on the forthcoming elections, reveals that renewable energy or climate change is not foremost on the minds of the majority of voters, who suffer from the "what's in it for me" syndrome.

Therefore, I suspect that this nation will return the government they deserve - those moral pygmies who also suffer from the same endemic contagion.

Latham is a good reminder of what a closet KRudd might actually become, if Garrett’s comments are an indicator or be run-over by, if socialist behind-closed-doors factional infighting is any clue.

Remember the socialists elected Latham (the arrogant face of socialism), as well as Krudd (the acceptable face of socialism) to leadership. It is quite likely they could, as they did with Hawke (over Hayden) and Keating (over Hawke) change leader with some faction deal behind closed doors and we end up with the entryist face of socialism. Either way, should the elections deliver a socialist majority, end up with a meddlesome bunch of incompetents who try develop policy on a white board (where they can wipe off the evidence or their mistakes) or run the country on an intellectual shoestring of two, as happened under the arrogance of Whitlam.

Certainties of labor will be

Meddling in private ownership rights
Lax attitudes to individual public responsibility
A public infrastructure boom (for their union masters to exploit) to develop dysfunctional emotion crutches which do not deliver real benefit, encourage inflation (through government funded extra competition for labor skills) and ultimately turn economy from the fiscal responsibility of the coalition into a waste land – like Kirner did to Victoria (when she produced the “rust bucket state”, only on a national scale).
Collapse of the private sector (the real wealth producers)
Pretending they know how to run broadband
Pointless investment in computers (we need plumbers as much, if not more than programmers).
A pretense that universities are the only educational institutions worth educating people in.
Undue political indoctrination through defended unionists in education.

All in all, an economic and moral charnel house of bungling incompetence, arrogance and bullying.

I vote for smaller government. But I have never found it on offer from the socialists.