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.