Alarm about climate change is fashionable, trendy.
Like most trends, it will pass.
Then we can get back to reality.

York illustrates why claims of a scientific "consensus" have no value.

The hypothesis that manmade greenhouse gases are contributing towards planetary warming was first made nearly 150 years ago, by John Tyndall. Bad hypotheses die in science, good ones stay alive and become mainstream theories and eventually accepted fact. If the planet hadn't warmed in that time, or a better explanation of why it had warmed had been developed (and, importantly, an explanation of how increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could *not* lead to warmer temperatures had been found) then the current theories would have be largely abandoned by now. It has warmed, no better explanation has been found, so the current theories are the "best bet". Same way all science works.
If you want to believe that thousands of scientists all over the world have been falsifying their research for the sake of extra research grants for the last 40 years, then go for it.

Ahh.. But what if climate change is not only a reality but that humans have really been the prime movers. It's fine to be a bit sceptical but I worry about adamant non believers.

The world is NOT flat.

Though I did like the article and certainly agree with most of the sentiments offered. I mean there are people out there who actually don't understand chocolate as a health food or coffee as a nourishing tonic. We definitely need a grant.

Aaah dammit! I wish I'd written this article!

This piece was marked as "Humour & Satire" it just seems to be more right wing trash. Attracting the standard rightwing (read faith based)comments, and the standard left wing (read reality based)replys. Why did you bother Willy

i'm with al gore, but author is right about social mechanics, sub-set: academia. i'm with mencken, too, but 'they' have created a real boogeyman in islam, a certain percentage of moslems are seriously angry with usa and henchpersons. so they should be. they remain vastly less dangerous than a senile driver or a summer storm.

Here's one from a Prof. Bignall(?)

"the only experimentally proven effect of increased CO2 in the air is an increase in the growth rate of plants".

Standard conservative stuff: human beings only care about money, therefore any scientist who backs the case for climate change must be in it for the cash.

Funny how the skeptics never wonder aloud if the dissenters - all of whom are funded by the fossil-fuel industry - are telling fibs to keep the dollars rolling in. The tobacco industry did it, as did the manufacturers of thalidamide and those scientific purists at James Hardy, but I'm sure the petrol giants wouldn't undermine good science simply to keep their share price up.

Omitted by the article - the fourth law of motions:
If you consume enough rubbish, you will have one. Having read the article, it is enough to send me.

I'm more interested in the physical laws which govern what is said by politicians and the mainstream media. For instance, there seems to be no end of babble about climate change, yet it seems to be forbidden to speak of recent weather in Australia as anything other than "the drought". In fact, I often hear BOM meteorologists qualifying statements to remove any inference to specific weather events being resultant from global warming. It is good scientific practice, which is something quite foreign to global warming skeptics, though it would be equally valid to say that such events are in line with global warming predictions, but it will be several years before any trend becomes apparent.

Then there is the law which prevents any newsreader from mentioning Australia's growing population with anything other than a glib smile and a positive slant. Then it's on to all the stories about the myriad of problems resultant from a growing population.

This is democratic Australia, yet the unanimity of public utterances on these subjects would not be out of place in Moscow in the 1970s.

Ponder “Like most trends, it will pass.”

But how much damage will be done to national economies and more importantly, the people they represent in the mean time?

Wizofaus “If you want to believe that thousands of scientists all over the world have been falsifying their research for the sake of extra research grants for the last 40 years, then go for it.”

Climate science is an infant and immature science, studying the impact of mans occupancy and impact on the earths carbon balance and claiming some new, bute hockey stick effect which means doom unless we follow, like lemmings the high priests of climate science is akin to meeting a new messiah and jumping off the top of a cliff with him.

People followed Jim Jones to their doom, others followed the loonies of Heavens Gate. Climate scientists have a similar credibility, especially when fronted by a wannabe ego and snake oil salesman like Gore.

You might but don’t ask me to run up the cliff, like the lemmings, some of us like to take time to consider major issues, rather than listen to the first scare-mongers with “grants” at stake, claiming damnation for all humanity.

“Socialism by Stealth” is the hidden agenda. The innovative and able subsidizing the incompetent through the medium of what amounts to mythical carbon trading.

I think fester might be observing something similar.

The TITLE says it all....

and.. one might venture another 'faith based' Kenny annoyance, by suggesting that 'scientific consensus' on many issues which seek to discredit the Bible and faith are in the same category as highlighted here. "Grants anyone" ?

THE FUNNIEST THING.. well actually there are 2 funny things. One is Tim Flannery on whales.. ROFLx100 howwwww muffed are the Greenpeace/Animal libbers about THAT.. Prof flannery suddenly speaking HERESY!
Another funny thing is an anecdote from my holiday..involving Greenies. The mouth of the chanel at my holiday place is regularly blocked up by sand movements etc. If allowed to remain closed the area will flood and residents have to be evacuated. So it is regularly opened, usually with explosives. BUT WAIT...there is a colony of Arctic Terns which nest there.. OH NOOOOOoooo.. we cannot have big bangs in their vicinity. Aah.. solution? Hand responsibility of opening chanel to the Greenies.
Greeny solution:

SOLUTION 1
1/ Bring in a Bobcat (over large sand dunes and drive it up to the mouth)
Problem.. bobcat is bogged after about 10 minutes.

SOLUTION 2
2/ Bring in All Terrain Rescue Vehicle to rescue the Bobcat.

Problem: ATRV gets bogged in about 20 minutes.

SOLUTION 3

3/ FINAL SOLUTION.. 'blow the chanel with dynamite' :) and indeed they did :)

There seems to be a bit of a trope among those who continue - against the overwhelming weight of evidence - to deny that the earth's climate is changing rapidly due to anthropogenic causes. That minority of individuals who rail against measures to ameliorate this global problem are no longer able to claim that there is insufficient scientific evidence, so they attack the evidence itself by claiming that scientists all over the world who have produced evidence for anthropogenic climate change are simply motivated by filthy lucre.

It seems to me that those who promote this view have little actual knowledge of scientists and the way science works. Having known and worked with many scientists over the years, I can't say that I can recall a single one who is wealthy when compared with other sectors of the population. By and large, people don't become scientists in order to make money, and I think that this trope is largely a product of those selfish and greedy types who project their own base motivations on to others.

The other kind of denialism is evidenced by puerile and inane comments such as that above from good old Boazy, who has demonstrated many times in this forum his lack of comprehension of science. Fortunately for the rest of us, denialists who are motivated by greedy self-interest, blissful ignorance or childish envy of those who are more intelligent than themselves are increasingly in the minority.

You forgot to mention time. The skeptics of and the proponents of Climate change are both subject to it.

Take the world, the pressures it is subjected to it(Earth) will adjust to in its own time. The pressures humans are put under they will react in their own time. The events that take place in this adjustment(Earth) will directly or indirectly affect the world. The problem is humans live short lives, are easily alarmed and will react to what's going on around them.

Lets use Newtons 3 laws:
1. We already started the ball rolling by putting our stamp on the world.
2. The world was traveling at its own pace until pressured upon. This brings the 3rd law into play.
3. Accelerated pressure on the Earth by humans is causing accelerated reaction on the part of the Earth.

This brings my first part about time into play. The Earth will react in it's own time and place. Due to acceleration there will be a higher number of events taking place in the world(Newtons Law). Humans will react or adjust rapidly? How if they cannot come up with a solution soon enough. They WILL react. This is a world with 6 billion people. Maybe we should send you out to face the masses when they are ready to react.

The problem with you sir is you are playing politics and pretending to be humorous about it, while at the same time trying to undermine anything constructive taking place concerning climate change. You would be better of to accept climate change as accepted theory and looking for flaws from within. The PROBABILITY of pointing out any flaws are much higher. By the way business uses probability does it not??

Col Rouge,

Lemmings do not jump off cliffs. The movie that showed them doing so was faked: they were chased off the cliff by the movie-makers - an act that should have had said movie-makers up on animal cruelty charges and probably would have had it been this year and not decades ago.

Anyone remember the Y2K bug? That was a similar panic, backed by a similar apparent 'consensus' -- in other words, the media reported the hystericals and ignored everyone else -- and it turned out to have no foundation in fact. Yes, there were a few problems. But they were problems that could be fixed, and we fixed them in good time.

Humans need to have something to fear; it promotes solidarity. It's no coincidence that the Global Warming bogeyman is appearing just as the terrorism bogeyman is running out of steam. And the fear is always of unknown consequences. If someone told you as a fact that your suburb was going to be one degree hotter in fifty years' time, would you really care? But tsunamis! hurricanes! drought! Unknown consequences are much scarier -- and make much better stories -- than the truth, which is that climate changes gradually all the time, has done so since long before people appeared, and will continue to do so long after people have gone.

I like it.It may be humourous but there is more than a bit of acid truth reflected in the reality.Climate has always changed but is C02 the main culprit?

Chris C “Lemmings do not jump off cliffs. “

Per wikipedia “While many people believe that lemmings commit mass suicide when they migrate, this is not the case.”

In suppose that is what you are refering to

In reference to Lemmings, I did mention “jumping off the top of a cliff”

The same source as above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming#_note-5) says

“On occasion, and particularly in the case of the Norway lemmings in Scandinavia, large migrating groups will reach a cliff overlooking the ocean. They will stop until the urge to press on causes them to jump off the cliff and start swimming, sometimes to exhaustion and death.”

And

“1954 National Geographic article, showed massive numbers of lemmings jumping over Norwegian cliffs.”

Before bothering to claim I am wrong, do some basic research.

You might get away with only seeming like a fool but your feeble attempt to miss-correct me simply confirms it for all the other posters too.

JonJ oh what a hoot was the old Y2K. I do recall one client spending huge amounts for me to field their Y2K responses to their customers and suppliers, I almost felt guilty about taking the money.

Now I could suggest working out a similar angle on carbon trading. But I do know already - and it integrates very well with some other applications of mine.

Sabycal “By the way business uses probability does it not”

Yes and business is already factoring in the price increases necessary to recover the probability of a carbon tax. However, business is largely reactive to such things. Governments are the “movers and shakers” on climate change. They are not driven by the disciplines of the commercial cycle but of the ballot box.
Krudd will find a “cool climate” awaiting him when he is required to levy tax payers and Australian consumers for a carbon tax based on “imponderable probabilities”.

Arjay “is C02 the main culprit”
Maybe, maybe-not but equally important, is human activity really responsible or not?

Col,

You used the imagery of lemmings jumping off cliffs as a metaphor for mass suicide, so I was referring to the belief that lemmings commit suicide, not to the fact that they may be forced to jump off a cliff. I did not want your imagery to continue the mistaken belief, so I corrected it.

Your Wikipedia reference actually says ‘…The Lemming with the Locket . This comic, which was inspired by a 1954 National Geographic article, showed massive numbers of lemmings jumping over Norwegian cliffs.’ You left out the words before ‘1954’, which changes the meaning. I don’t have any 1954 editions to see what they actually said.

‘The myth of mass lemming suicide began when the Walt Disney movie, Wild Wilderness was released in 1958. It was filmed in Alberta, Canada, far from the sea and not a native home to lemmings. So the filmmakers imported lemmings, by buying them from Inuit children. The migration sequence was filmed by placing the lemmings on a spinning turntable that was covered with snow, and then shooting it from many different angles. The cliff-death-plunge sequence was done by herding the lemmings over a small cliff into a river. It's easy to understand why the filmmakers did this - wild animals are notoriously uncooperative, and a migration-of-doom followed by a cliff-of-death sequence is far more dramatic to show than the lemmings' self-implemented population-density management plan.’
(‘Lemmings Suicide Myth’)
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1081903.htm

‘Arctic foxes' most vital food source—or lack thereof—is a little fur ball called the lemming. Problem is, the rodents aren't reliable. "They don't commit mass suicide: That's a myth popularized by an old Walt Disney film," says James D. Roth, an ecologist at the University of Central Florida who has studied Hudson Bay foxes. "But lemmings do follow a natural boom-and-bust cycle. About every four years they're super-abundant, then they crash for one year, and gradually increase until the next peak." With a circumpolar range, arctic foxes probably total several hundred thousand with wide fluctuations because of variations in the lemming populations.’
(‘Seasons of the Snow Fox’, National Geographic)
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature4/

Col, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 35% since the beginning of the industrial age. Radioisotope analysis confirms that the increase is almost entirely due to burning fossil fuels (which is good, because nobody has come up with another theory as to where all the extra CO2 could have come from). That much is about the least controversial part of the debate. What matters is how the atmosphere responds to the extra CO2 - do the positive feedback effects outweigh the any negative ones? If there weren't strong positive feedback effects, the amount of warming from the extra CO2 would very small, and quite manageable for at least another century. This is the position of some climate scientists, e.g. Lindzen/Christy/Pielke etc. They may well be right, but it hardly seems a risk worth taking.

Col, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 35% since the beginning of the industrial age. Radioisotope analysis confirms that the increase is almost entirely due to burning fossil fuels (which is good, because nobody has come up with another theory as to where all the extra CO2 could have come from). That much is about the least controversial part of the debate. What matters is how the atmosphere responds to the extra CO2 - do the positive feedback effects outweigh any negative ones? If there weren't strong positive feedback effects, the amount of warming from the extra CO2 would very small, and quite manageable for at least another century. This is the position of some climate scientists, e.g. Lindzen/Christy/Pielke etc. They may well be right, but it hardly seems a risk worth taking.

The sceptics are there but you need look for them, to not do so is to deny an argument.
Why do you need look for them is the problem. Is it that what we have become accustomed to lies being told to benefit the few, I'm sure there is money to be made in the trading of carbon credits.
Anyone claiming to be able to predict climate, is in danger of misrepresenting causes.
Is the basis of their argument sound "that we are pumping too much CO.2 into the air" I think it "may be".
The probability is a justification for action, not over reaction.
Over reaction is the food of scepticism, as one poster has said for money he worked for a goal he didn't believe in, how does one do that?
Until the science is proven scepticism has a role to play, even if only proving that the source of funding is benign, we can;t even do that.
The perpetrator is/was 26yrs using a computer model, this alone is food for sceptics as modeling used for prediction is new science, not necessarily wrong.
"carbon cops" shows the prolificacy and over use of resources as income and prosperity grows. Be aware not alarmed.
Gore need be a subject for "who do you think you are" not the recipient of awards.
Do what need be done, is the science we need.
We have assailed the problem of famine, and our success has the cost of more people, not difficult to reason, along with more CO2. The next problem is reducing carbon, if it means become aware of the pollution this brings about, lets tackle it sensitively the solutions are being promoted, lets at least choose a good one.
If I read the trend correctly panic means profit to some, surely not to choose correctly is now the danger.
fluff4

I just loved the lemming bit, and I still can not stop laughing. That was just brilliant. People! Man kind has just undone what nature has packed away for millions of years. Its really that easy.

Chris C – your dissertation on lemmings……

Yawn - who cares ? not me.

Wizofaus “Col, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 35% since the beginning of the industrial age.”

Well the “industrial revolution” commenced over 200 years ago, even if your statement is true, it still does not explain the “hockey stick”.

“They may well be right, but it hardly seems a risk worth taking.”

They might be wrong, in which case you are presuming to impose a pointless social surcharge of institutionalized extortion (socialism by stealth) to finance carbon revenues for an unproven and critically contentious theory.

I would note the expectation of a carbon surcharge/tax is simple. The consumer will be taxed more without commensurate increase in income, thus the consumer will see a marked increase in the basic cost of living which can only mean a reduction in the affordability of and thus diminution in the consumers “quality of life”.

Simply put, the artificial inclusion of a “carbon cost” into everything consumed by consumers will be paid for by the consumers. Meaning, they are being artificially forced to either consume less or subsidise their consumption from savings, whilst government plays “lady bountiful” by propping up sub-economic “non-carbon” energy resources.

It is the response of the feeble minded to not question but blindly accept, at face value, the theories of the academically opinionated.

It is the response of the wise to continually question and not be lead by the nose.

As I said before I see no virtue in the intrusion by government to impose “a carbon tax based on “imponderable probabilities”.”

Fluff4 “The perpetrator is/was 26yrs using a computer model, this alone is food for sceptics as modeling used for prediction is new science, not necessarily wrong.”

I have been building commercial computer models, of diverse complexities, professionally, since 2 years before the “perpetrator” you speak of was born.

I am experienced to question the accuracy of all such model.
“Reliability” is extremely fragile with any predictability system, especially when the available data is, itself, unreliable due to lack of frequent measurement or short history.

Col Rouge the *wise-one*? Touché for beancounters (joke Col).

It would seem prudent (and wise) if you’re going to rant against the so called “hockey stick” that you should learn something about atmospheric physics or chemistry (you clearly have not).

For starters, check out how long CO2 stays in the troposphere (compared to H2O for example). Then (if you’re wise) checkout how we know (hint: isotope analyses) this latest period of warming is mainly due to fossil fuel burning, poor land management practices and rampant and unsustainable consumerism.

The latter of which you overtly seem to proclaim as *good* - The “buy, buy, buy … I must have it and I want it now” philosophy of today’s consumer driven and pay-for-it-later credit society. The USA and Oz are prime examples.

As an accountant, you would know about *risk management* – you clearly don’t understand it insofar as global warming (AGW), political ideology (“socialism by stealth”? what a conspiracy brouhaha!) or even economics (not accountancy) is concerned.

You are right about the lemmings and you are also not feeble minded – but don’t think yourself wise, that is for others to judge.

Maybe you should stick to accountancy and professionally build commercial computer models, of diverse complexities.

Col, CO2 levels have their own "hockey stick"-like graph:

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/co2-increase.jpg

The lag between temperature rise and CO2 rise is in the order of a several decades - mainly because the oceans absorb most of the extra trapped heat before the surface temperature begins to rise.
Even today, warming in the Southern Hemisphere is considerably delayed to the higher ocean-land ratio.

Oh, and every suggestion for a carbon tax that I have read suggests it should go in tandem with a cut in income tax.
Further, any slight drop in material standard of living will be quickly compensated for by exponentional economic growth,
which isn't going to stop anytime soon. Even if energy prices were to double, it wouldn't take long before the effect of that would be be absorbed by rising incomes and more efficient technology. I can almost guarantee that by 2030 we'll be paying comparitively less for energy than we do today, and it will be much cleaner.

Q&A, be as patronizing as you want. Ultimately we are dealing with opinion more than “science”.

Concerning “Risk management”

Risk management is about balancing the costs with the consequences,

Hence, the risk management strategy for one of the major banking groups I am been associated with is to not even bother to check the signature on any cheque less than $25,000.

Hysterical novice computer modelers and the dull-witted who, like lemmings (real of mythological), blindly scamper after the cause of supposed “global warming” are actually ignoring the basic rules of “Risk Management”

Risk Management strategy would declare that the unproven, future theoretical consequences of global warming, when offset by a world wide recession and the expropriation of individual discretionary income through government carbon taxes is, on, a risk management basis, not worth pursuing.

As for “unsustainable consumerism.”

It is an obsessively virulent ego which expects to tell other private individuals how they should divest themselves of their personal, earned resources.

If you wish to live in a humpy, denying yourself the amenities which “consumerism” might bring you, then you are entitled to do so.

However, it is plain hubris for you to presume to forcefully impose your social expectations on anyone else.

Btw I never presumed myself to be “wise”, merely wiser than those who do not recognize “socialism by stealth” when it is coming up to bite one in the nuts.

As for “Maybe you should stick to ….”

I will stick to doing what enlightened companies are happy to pay me handsomely for.

Wizofaus “it wouldn't take long before the effect of that would be be absorbed by rising incomes and more efficient technology. I can almost guarantee that by 2030 we'll be paying comparitively less for energy than we do today, and it will be much cleaner.”

It seems to me that, despite your obvious lack of understanding to what inflation is and how it impacts on real people’s lives; you are prepared to “guarantee” comparatively lower energy costs.

You reflect the same gap between "untested theory" and "real consequences" as do supposed “climate scientists”

Col,

You cared enough to respond to my first comment on lemmings. You used a common metaphor for mass suicide - the lemmings jumping off cliffs. I took the opportunity to correct the impression you gave so that other readers would be informed of the true story behind this myth because I used to believe it too. I wasn’t rude. I wasn’t abusive. It is a particular lesson about lemmings and a general lesson about not believing everything you are told. Other myths are that John Howard changed the definition of unemployment and that teacher unions control state Labor Governments – both commonly believed, both repeated without investigation, but both false.

You could have responded with the references you gave and left it at that, as it seems that you do not now hold that lemmings commit mass suicide. You could even have said that you have never held that belief and that you had not meant to imply that you did.

Instead in your first reply, you added, ‘You might get away with only seeming like a fool but your feeble attempt to miss-correct me simply confirms it for all the other posters too.’ This statement will have no effect on how others see me, so why did you add it? Was it an impulse? Is it difficult for you to accept that others may dare to contradict you? Is it a dislike of being thought wrong? Is it part of your character to show gratuitous rudeness to others – customers, employees, shop assistants, waiters, family even?

I can understand face-to-face encounters becoming heated because they are matters of the moment. I can understand a poster becoming heated in response to abuse and giving as good as he gets, though some of us can remain calm even then. However, I do not understand why those such as you need to resort to abuse on an internet site when you have to time to reflect and shape your response and your response is to someone who has done no more than give some factual information about lemmings.

William York is wrong about universities being devoted to developing new ideas. The last thing many academicians want is new ideas that may make them look bad because they don't understand the new ideas. The physical sciences are particularly bad about wanting to limit new ideas except for an occasional theoretical physicist or mathematician.

Biologists who question the teaching of the prophet Darwin are likely to be ostracized.

The claim that greenhouses are heated by trapping IR radiation was disproved nearly a century ago by physicist R. W. Wood who invented both IR and UV photography.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

the concept of greenhouse gases claimed by supporters is inconsistent with physics.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdfp

Col, not even economists agree on what inflation is. But I fail to see how that's relevant to my point. Energy costs as a portion of income has been falling consistently since the oil shocks of the 70's. There's no reason that trend shouldn't continue even after a period of rising costs needed to fund development of cleaner sources (compounded by inevitable rises in the price of oil as we face likely supply squeezes). Of course there will be individuals that will struggle for a time with rising energy costs, but there is no reality where everyone wins all the time, and myriad ways to mitigate the worst difficulties anyone might face (many of which no doubt you would classify as "socialism", but our country is not run by ideologically driven libertarians).

The only thing missing from the global warming idea is evidence.
So we can put it in the same bucket as evolutionism, and then toss the contents in the toilet.

(Don't forget to flush.)

Some people’s “opinions” on climate change or risk management are more valid than others.

Col says: “Hysterical novice computer modellers and the dull-witted who, like lemmings (real of mythological), blindly scamper after the cause of supposed “global warming” are actually ignoring the basic rules of “Risk Management”

AND

“Risk Management strategy would declare that the unproven, future theoretical consequences of global warming, when offset by a world wide recession and the expropriation of individual discretionary income through government carbon taxes is, on, a risk management basis, not worth pursuing.”

Does anyone else have thoughts on Risk Management when it comes to global warming, particularly after following the below links?

Climate Change and Risk Management – Australian Government:

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/impacts/publications/risk-management.html

Risk Management and Decision Processes Centre, University of Pennsylvania:

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/J2007UPLR_ClimateChange_HK,EMK.pdf

The Association of British Insurers:

http://www.abi.org.uk/Display/Display_Popup/default.asp?Menu_ID=1090&Menu_All=1,1088,1090&Child_ID=552

The World Bank’s screen for climate risk:

http://go.worldbank.org/AWJKT60300

The World Economic Forum:

http://www.weforum.org/en/media/Latest%20Press%20Releases/AM07_climate_change

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology's head of climate analysis:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/this-drought-may-never-break/2008/01/03/1198949986473.html

Things happening in America:

http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2007/02/01/hoffman/

Things happening in the UK:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html

And from the popular on-line video on risk management:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI&feature=related

To name but only a few.

I would defer to any of the above “opinions” before Col’s, but that is just my opinion.

Oh yeah, it’s typical of global warming deniers to suggest that humanity has to go back to living in caves or humpies – a load of crock.

It really is about sustainable development, not just for the here-and-now, but for future generations.

Q&A “I would defer to any of the above “opinions” before Col’s, but that is just my opinion.”

Exactly, just your “opinion” and not worth any more than my humble opinion but lacking the prudence of my position in debate and my morality of keeping power out of the hands of politicians and scientific elites.

You may be happy to sell your liberty down the drain for some misguided sense of comfort that climate science has “got it right”.

I am skeptical about the basic accuracy of “climate science”, especially when it requires some carpet bag politician to front the “science” with slick (if inaccurate) slideshows and movies and when we are likely to experience a significant diminution in our individual quality of life and personal choices (liberty) through carbon tax diversions.

Re “It really is about sustainable development, not just for the here-and-now, but for future generations.”

Governments are not there to determine what is allowed due to its “sustainability”. Everything a government does is merely piggy backing on the endeavours of people making private choices to what they decide is suitable and "sustainable" in their private lives.

The problem is, those who seek the socialist policy are the ones too afraid, too feeble minded or too indolent to make the choices for themselves.

Simply because you think that you are backing “sustainability” does not make it so. All it means is you are either too afraid, indolent or feeble minded to make the choices for yourself.

As liberty said “The only thing missing from the global warming idea is evidence.
So we can put it in the same bucket as evolutionism,”

The only difference,

I do not recall a massive changes in the tax system (to pay for carbon emissions) ever being associated with “evolutionism”

Socialism has been defeated by libertarian capitalism as symbolized by the collapse of USSR communism (the authoritive goal of socialism).

Now we face “Socialism by Stealth” through ubiquitous introduction of artificial carbon trading taxes.

As Socrates observed, “Carthage must be destroyed”

So too this “socialism by stealth” must be destroyed.

As I have always said, it's not about the science - it's about power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda and the resources behind them with vested interests.

Col keeps on about "socialism by stealth", others could equally talk about the new world order under the neo-cons, but of course that would be wrong hey Col?

You are really into conspiracy theories mate - the scientists, the economists, big business, politicians of all persuasions, the national and international academies of science, the World Bank, our Liberal Party, our Labor Party, Republicans, Democrats, different religious groups, etc.

Yep, they have got it all wrong hey Col? You of course know better than everybody - beancounters rule the world.

Why aren't the people that count listening to you mate? They can't all be as stupid as you make them out to be.

Could it be they understand risk management or 'climate change' better than you? Surely not.

Q&A “ I have always said, it's not about the science - it's about power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda and the resources behind them with vested interests.”

I do so agree… it is what I have been on about all along.

I knew if I beat the drum loud and often enough even the likes of you and the other weak and feeble would eventually get it.

My agenda is simple. I am identifying danger of strong powerful centralist government and identifying it as the primary cause of real problems when it comes to

– and I quote your words here

“power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda”

Individual strength is only protected / achieved by a state constrained by “limited” authority.

Ultimately, a community’s strength is in the protection of the rights of the creative to create, the innovative to innovate, the inventive to invent, the entrepreneurial to invest and take risks.

It is never found in the strength of the government to govern.

As Lenin said “When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.”

He also said “A lie told often enough becomes truth.”

So, if you want to think of me as conspiracy deluded, all I can say is, it contradicts your own posts, since you now agree with my views on the dangers of powerful central government authorised to impose say carbon taxes on the electorate.

For you the next step is easy, resist with all your efforts a central government agenda which will deprive you of your choices by imposing unproven, arbitrary climate-science upon you.

Remember, “power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda”

cannot be achieved whilst “power” is distributed across many different people, only when it is centralized.

Your arrogance would not allow you to admit it but, despite your venal rhetoric, I see you have turned to my view.

I will take that as a success for the day.

Col, I hope you understand what I say in response because your last post opened a way for dialogue.

I have linked to various bodies that have assessed the risk of global warming. Have you any comments given that the common thread from these diverse bodies is that the planet is faced with huge risks?

You don’t believe the science – that is an issue you have to deal with.
I am a scientist and I know what I know – and I have to deal with it (I am concerned).

So your agenda is to warn everybody of a ‘powerful centralist government’. That’s ok Col, but please – please don’t use science in the context of climate change as an excuse to push that agenda – the UN is not a government.

I’ll rephrase; science is telling humanity that we have a problem. Scientists can not tell the politicians, policy makers, big business, religious groups, etc how to overcome their problems of ideology. What we can say is, if you don’t come to some agreement in tackling the issues of global warming, the consequences of such inaction will not be good, for anybody.

Col, you have misinterpreted my views on government, power and control. Example: the fossil fuel lobby got the nod from Howard in regards to their preferred option in dealing with the Kyoto Protocol. Howard did a back-flip on global warming (too late) and became a stick-in-the-mud when it came to climate-change policy.

The environment does not care whether you are Liberal or Labor (our Turnbull and the US Schwarzenegger are both conservatives). It's wrong to play the political ideology game as you seem intent on doing. Further, it is not a contest between you/me or us/them as you imply.

I would like to ask you (anyone that does not believe in global warming) a question.

Given that all countries (big business, different cultures and religions, etc) of the world take GLOBAL warming seriously –

How should they respond to the risk that can/will cause wars, political, economic, environmental and ecological devastation? What should they do?

Q&A “ I have always said, it's not about the science - it's about power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda and the resources behind them with vested interests.”

I do so agree… it is what I have been on about all along, I knew if I beat the drum loud and often enough even the likes of you and the other weak and feeble would eventually get it.

My agenda is simple I am identifying danger of strong powerful central government and identifying it as the primary cause of real problems when it comes to

– and I quote your words here

“power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda”

Individual strength is only protectged / achieved by a state contained by the most limited authority.

Ultimately, a community’s strength is in the protection of the rights of the creative to create, the innovative to innovate, the inventive to invent, the entrepreneurial to invest and take risks.

It is never found in the strength of the government to govern.

As Lenin said “When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.”

He also said “A lie told often enough becomes truth.”

So, if you want to think of me as conspiracy deluded, all I can say is, it contradicts your own posts, since you now agree with my views on the dangers of powerful central government authorised to impose say carbon taxes on the electorate.

For you the next step is easy, resist with all your efforts a central government agenda which will deprive you of your choices by imposing unproven, arbitrary climate-science upon you.

Remember, “power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda”

cannot be achieved whilst “power” is distributed across many different people, only when it is centralized.

Your arrogance would not allow you to admit it but, despite your venal rhetoric, I see you have turned to my view.

I will take that as a success for the day.

Just goes to show how much of a ranting old troll Col Rouge is.

He is challenged to engage in a reasoned and rational way yet the best he can do is re-post his epiphany from only 2 posts prior … from the same thread no less.

He has lost me, anyone else wish to continue the discussion?

Q&A “I’ll rephrase; science is telling humanity that we have a problem.”

No, some “scientists” are predicting a possible problem based on very dubious and limited observations.

Other scientists are critical to the accuracy of the observations.

Diversity of opinion is as prevalent in the science community as it is in general life. Example, if you want 3 economic opinions, just ask 2 economists to debate a simple subject. Or we could equally debate whether Hepworth is a better sculptor than Moore.

Now!

Q&A “I have linked to various bodies that have assessed the risk of global warming. Have you any comments given that the common thread from these diverse bodies is that the planet is faced with huge risks?”

the "missing linked"?

Q&A “I am a scientist and I know what I know and I have to deal with it (I am concerned).”

Your "concern" is my "opportunity"

“Col, you have misinterpreted my views on government, power and control.”

Those who have the temerity to disagree are misrepresenting you ?

Q&A “re-post his epiphany “

Yes I double posted, human error.

Q&A” Just goes to show how much of a ranting old troll Col Rouge is.”

Think what you like but first let us re-share some other folks views of you posts

In response to your “qualifications”

GrahamY, Friday, 14 December 2007 11:01:49 PM

On Line Opinion carries argument from both sides of this debate, but I acknowledge that there are two sides. Some, like you, don't want to. I'd like to see your science qualifications. I bet they don't exist.”

i bet they don't exist too.

Or for a more general analysis of your “posting style”

KAEP of 11 December 2007,

“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.”

Collectively, you have no “credibility” left to support any pet “scientific theory” or to challenge my “skepticism”.

Q&A “He has lost me, anyone else wish to continue the discussion?”

Q&A slithers out of the debate, a battered whimp, defeated, credibility in tatters.

A new site which puts the global warming claims side by side with the sceptics' research:

http://climatedebatedaily.com

With all due respect, the site is run by two members of a philosophy department in NZ. Until I see input from qualified scientists, I don't see much point in it. Having seen pretty much everything global-warming denier argument under the sun, most of the ones there are easily dismissable, if not utterly irrelevant.

There are some scientists that have done some genuinely interesting work calling into question just how severe the effects of global warming might be, but I don't any of it there. Which is odd, because they specifically state their position to be "skeptical of the threat of anthropogenic global warming", rather than taking the increasingly absurd position of denying that warming is even happening, or that human activity is not a significant of cause of it.

FWIW, I agree the threat of anthropogenic global warming is overhyped - not because I think the science is questionable, but because very few people are thinking much about all the other serious threats humanity faces in the next century. Global warming may end up being the least of our worries.

It is important society has an understanding of what science is and what science can and cannot do in helping settle issues of climate change.

Most people understand that science is a process of seeking the answers about how nature works. It is the process itself that lies at the heart of science. Fewer people realise that this process virtually guarantees the integrity of science.

This guarantee stems from research published and examined by scientific colleagues in the most esteemed journals and refereed publications. Scientists who detect an error often gain as much credit for their scrutiny as those whose work survives it. Scientists who deliberately avoid this scrutiny by publishing their work in less respected journals or daily papers are understandably given less credence for their efforts.

Science does not offer 100% certainty and the findings of modern science are typically presented in the language of statistics and probabilities. This is especially true of scientific studies of complex phenomena; climate science is but one example.

In the absence of 100% certainty, some people less familiar with science interpret this ‘uncertainty’ as evidence of “a major scientific controversy” even when there is none within the scientific community.

The general public is then vulnerable to the claim that a major scientific dispute over climate science is underway between two equally large and well-qualified groups of scientists, when this is simply not so.

This false claim is often made by those who wish to discourage action to address the problems associated with climate change.

There are a few genuine scientists who remain sceptical about the details of climate change and we can all hope they are on to something. However, they are far out-numbered by other scientists (from a diverse range of sciences) that believe that climate change is occurring and who are very confident (not 100%) that humanity has caused this latest climate change.

The real issue at stake is what to do in light of what science has uncovered? Here there is a real controversy – evidenced in this thread.

Con’t

Con’t

One side favours action in response to the evidence that climate change is occurring, very likely driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, while the other side opposes this view for reasons mainly due to concerns of a political-socio-economic nature.

Typically, the latter group is dominated by those fearing change and tend to be more vehement in advocating their position. Therefore, it is important to address both the dislocations and opportunities that will result from actions to mitigate the effects of climate change.

There is an understandable tendency to want to continue with ‘business as usual’. However, this produces a natural inclination to oppose change unless it becomes disastrous not to do so, which can lead to overlooking the many opportunities associated with pursuing more climate-friendly and eco-friendly technologies.

Major public policies depend on science for their proper formulation – this is particularly true of climate science today. It is the duty of the scientist to inform the public and the political establishment of the best science available on the issue, especially when there are others exerting a major effort to deny that global warming is happening at all.

_______________________

Col

Ok, you posted twice in error.

The “missing linked” is here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6812#102807

So, have you any comments given that the common thread from these diverse bodies is that the planet is faced with huge risks?

As far as my quals go, it was you who categorically said “you asked me what credentials I held, I replied out of courtesy; I do not recall asking you the same.” No matter, my response is the same I gave Graham;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6745#101586

As far as my posts go – it seems to me you are quite prepared to *give it* (Q&A slithers out of the debate, a battered whimp, defeated, credibility in tatters”) to people who don’t share your views, but you get testy when your views are challenged … you can’t *take it* so you resort to vitriol.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Wizofaus, AGW is just a symptom – the planet has many woes.