Hotrod “Isn't this speculation what most of the worlds financial markets are based on?”

Speculators “speculate” on many things. Whenever an elected government tries, it ends in disaster for the tax payers ( example the Kirner government and the “Tricontinental” banking disaster of the 1990s). History is littered with the wrecks of politically motivated government forays into business processes which they do not understand and every time, the tax payer gets stiffed with picking up the tab). Governments are created to act as regulators, not speculators.

Q&A I am accredited to two separate accounting bodies (among other credentials). The profession of accountancy has been around for several hundred years and provides in depth commercial analysis and probabilities which, if compared to “climate science” is analogous to a seasoned professional footballer, at the peak of his game, versus some kindergarten infants trying to kick a ball around the playground.

As for my “verbosity”, too hard for you to read?
It says more about the limits of your comprehension than my “wordliness”.

Re “There is an abundance of evidence now from the historical record, couple that with the latest in science, engineering, satellite and computer modelling”

The history of satellite photography and the “science” and computer modelling are a few decades old. Most say metrological agencies were still squeezing sea weed to guess 3 day weather forecasts until few years ago.

To risk the economic wealth of the nation on an infant science, lacking the veracity or real trials of history, is to basically ignore the legal maxim, of “reasonable doubt”.

Finding the western economies “guilty of climate change”, based on a trial where the “evidence” fails to meet any evidentary standard is a miscarriage of justice.

The IPCC and its snivelling acolytes are behaving as a lynch mob in a kangaroo court.

A limerick by Col Rouge

One Failed Wannabe President named Gore,

Loved to grace the stage more and more,

Having wasted his youth,

He invented “An Inconvenient Truth”

Then spread his legs as a "climate change whore"

What are you all saying? That we should go on as we have been since the industrial revolution, consuming more and more while pumping millions of tons of noxious gasses into the atmosphere, vast amounts of toxic effluent into the sea and spraying megatons of poisons onto the land?
Forget CO2 emmissions for the moment. They are only a small part of humanity's waste products. By reducing them and looking for cleaner alternatives, we will simulataneously be cutting nitrous oxide, CO, methane, lead, and hundreds of other lethal mixtures from being dumped in the atmosphere, in the seas, rivers and land. Toxic smogs are enveloping the planet, food chains on land and sea are disrupted causing daily extinctions of thousands of species. Surely it is better to use renewable, non toxic energy sources than polluting, finite reserves? Saving energy also saves money -- it doesn't cost money. So energy efficiency, which is a huge plank in the CO2 reduction plan, can only be for the good of the planet, all life and humanity. Dont you realise that by pouring scorn on the reason given for cleaning up our act, you risk scuttling the program, and thus jeopardising the future of life on earth? Because the warming planet is only a small part of our problem. Acidification of the oceans is more serious! Lung cancers and hundreds of other diseases directly caused by human toxic effluent are rising dramatically. Who cares what reason governments use to improve things? Use your common sense and embrace the move for change; get behind this last desperate effort to rectify human caused problems before it is too late.

Snake

Sorry mate, when I re-read my post to KAEP that “ditto” could have been taken the wrong way. I meant it in terms of “I agree with your sentiments above”, you know, “ditto”.

KAEP

You don’t know me or anything about my background – just get off your *friggin* dilettante naivety assertion. Of course the science is complex – but what makes you think - in a forum such as this - you can explain the mathematic or scientific complexities of the oceans, atmosphere or terrestrial biospere (with an ‘h’)?

Why do you think experts in their respective fields stay away from blog-spots like this? If we dabble, we do it with anonymity, simplicity and as an aside.

Read my lips – HEREIN LIES THE DILEMMA.

This thread is alive with ‘wanabes’ who don’t understand the science, they misrepresent it or they intentionally distort it with their own blinkered ‘head-in-the-sand’ interpretation of the science of climate change – and they have the temerity to attack the IPCC? They wouldn’t have a clue about the great advances in science/technology since the IPCC’s inception or how the IPCC has evolved over the 4 reporting periods since.

If you have made some miraculous mathematical discovery, coupled to global warming, publish it in a peer reviewed journal – you may even get a Nobel, but not here you twerp.

BTW Prof. KAEP, you would know some of the recognised mathematicians working on climate change – you have corresponded with them of course. And?

Faustino

What irks most about your post is not your own failure to understand or comprehend the processes and procedures of the IPCC, but your usual reluctance to link to the source of your chagrin. People can judge for themselves.

Let me help, have a good, hard, objective look at the site (it will take some time).

http://www.ipcc.ch/

So, “around 1990 you were briefed by, and spoke to, the head of the IPCC’s scientific area (a true scientist that was knighted but you can’t remember his name … methinks it’s called Alzheimer’s – early on set).

Cont.

Cont.

Buon Ma Thuot,

Some people (as we see here and precipitated by the article) want to kill the messenger – the IPCC. These people don’t really understand how or why it functions. These same people would find it extremely difficult if not impossible to argue the science in the appropriate forums so therefore attack the bearer of ominous tidings here on OLO for Pete’s sake.

Yes, political dogma is the culprit – and environmental and sustainable development issues facing the world now are difficult, but they are multi-lateral. This is going to play out more in the next few years with the UNFCCC trying to steer our way past ‘Kyoto’ to post 2012. Many people/countries, businesses and organisations will be pushing their own agenda – we can see it now in Bali.

Col,

So you’re a ‘bean counter’? Great, would like to read your comments after the Garnaut report comes out (Rudd really should wait till then). You wouldn’t be an economist as well would you? Me (semi-retired and struggling), I have a double degree in science and engineering, a masters and a doctorate – but I would defer to you when it comes to accountancy, I know nuthin. Don’t worry about the verbosity dig, we all get frustrated sometimes and I am not immune.

Have you heard of the GRACE satellite, check it out either from the European Space Agency or NASA. Most of its data could not be included in the AR4, but its panning out that we’re in more deep s@!t than originally thought.

Point is Col, we scientists et al can say there is a problem, we can say what needs to be done, we can even say when it should be done – but it is up to the bean-counters and policy makers to decide how and when they must do it.

The limerick, LOL.

My ‘take’, Gore a politician turned actor, Arnold the actor turned politician – one a Democrat, the other a Republican, the environment doesn’t care.

Ybgirp – you’re on the money honey!

Q&A

Not only are you a naive amateur but you are a bully who is desperately trying to prove to people that you have a personality.

What we want to know is where's your science? You can't just tailgate IPCC findings when they are now under so much tight scrutiny.

For example if you can't debate the concept of entropy differentials and Ricci flows as applied to climate science, people on this thread are entitled to ask whether you have any degrees in science or engineering at all. Its not good enough to just say you don't understand Perelman and Hamilton's work as applied to climate science and therefore don't like it.

You don't add up!

BTW a general note: these fora are excellent grounds for testing & expressing new ideas and concepts from an Australian point of view. Similar fora on the New York Times get excellent US coverage as well.

When my research into US Atlantic hurricanes is complete, in I estimate between 2-5 years, and published, peer review will be so much simpler for it.

This is the way modern science is tending. In effect every bright person on the internet is now a potential scientist. Degrees without new ideas are just pieces of paper.

The marketing has of course been done by the energy companies who never bothered to involve themselves in the global warming debate until it looked like they might have to do something about it, at which point they started to dredge up corrupt "experts" to slow the process down.

The global warming argument has for me been very simple ever since I fist heard it in 1989. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled since 1800 or so. OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL this will cause the planet to warm.

Since 1989 I have seen the five hottest years on record, I have watched all the tropical glaciers melt, I have watched the Greenland ice sheet erode, I have seen hurricanes where they have not been before, I have watched WA's water supply drop by two thirds and dams empty everywhere else. The only thing that has surprised and rather scared me is how fast all the predictions have come true - I thought we would have more time to prepare.

How much do the climate change sceptics need before they will see the obvious? Standing up to their twats in water?