The Kyoto Protocol is being demonised because it is a fraud and a con, as well as a sweetheart deal between the EU and the third world. If it provided that each country is responsible for the emissions it creates, it would be fair enough; but it doesn't do that. If we burn a kilo of our coal, we get the blame. That's fair enough. But if we export that kilo to Japan and they burn it, we STILL get the blame. If we tell the Japs to import their coal from South Africa and they burn it, NO-ONE gets the blame. The restrictions only apply to annex 1 countries, so the whole third world, including India and China, are let off. With the rate of increase in emissions from China and forest burning in Indonesia we must be very close to the point where a majority of emissions come form the third world. the EU gets off because it imports coal and oil, for which it gets no blame, and Australia, as the only significant energy exporter in the list of Annex 1 countries, is singled out for discriminatory treatment. No wonder we are supposed to have the largest emissions per head in the world! Using crazy EU economics you could calculate anything. Look at the way their common agricultural policy is devastating the third world.

The problem for ordinary folk like me is that the “debate” about who and what causes emissions and whether or not these emissions cause global warming goes on between opposing groups of scientists with, presumably, equal qualifications but with opposing views. What hope is there for any understanding and conclusion for the layman?

Throw in the politicisation of the issue with “neo-conservatives” – for people who have probably always been conservative, not new at all – and references to the “Howard” government and its wickedness (we don’t know what the current opposition would be doing if it were in government) and I lose interest and get on with life

To put it plainly, Australia is only accountable for what it emits within Australia -NOT what it exports. Here is the link to the Kyoto Protocol (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html), do a search for 'export or exporters' and you find nothing.

plerdsus doesnt know what he is talking about and is seriously misleading.

If there was that 'export' rationale then OPEC countries (mainly Saudia Arabia) would be directly accountable for most of the greenhouse gas emissions by cars/planes/tranes in the world (because it controls the oil supply). The US for example wouldnt be accountable at all for their emissions from Hummers or SUVS as they could simpy say 'it's Saudia Arabias fault for supplying us with the oil - not what we demand to drive!'. That is a ludicrous argument and plerdsus seems to be emanating selective bias

Ask the Kiwis about Kyoto. The Chinese population passing wind does more damage to the environment than all the NZ emmissions (including their passing wind) put together.
But our cousins across the Tasman got a bill for $1 billion.
It aint easy being green.
The funny thing is, the Kiwis could stop all industrialisation, ban electricity and move into caves and it would not make one bit of difference to the global temperature.
It might help us win the Bledisloe Cup though.
Now, where's my SUV.

t.u.s

An independently minded country like NZ could introduce a carbon tariff on imports. This could be quite high eg $10,000 in local currency on an imported car. This would be on the estimated CO2 produced in manufacturing the car. Of course it would be an administrative nightmare, for example how much of the aluminium in the car was hydro. Carbon tax could be kind to primary export nations and the Third World if they don't burn much at home. However it would invite hysterical retaliation by greenhouse rogue nations like the US and Australia. As the icebergs melt these kinds of ideas will get a more sympathetic hearing. The business-as-usual crowd will need to have their answers ready.

As unburdened by the truth as you are TUS, I can understand how difficult it must be find your SUV.

An overly keen and underly tasked intern in our office doubts your farting China claim.

A cursory examination of NZ’s emissions reveals them to total about 75 mt.

China’s population (1.1 billion) cannot possibly fart enough to emit this amount.

China’s livestock only manages to fart about 7 mt a year.

You need to have faith that there is more than a political link between the location of your SUV and where you left it.

Leigh, you’re right, there’s a lot of rubbish to have to cut through.

The intersection of science and politics is bound to be complicated. I try to be as clear as possible using universal terms. Clearly identifying the parties, e.g. names and organizations, and determining who benefits from their lobbying, is how I usually go about reviewing unfamiliar debates.

I take your point though.

Bim, you are wrong. Under the IPCC methodology, all emissions from wood products are deemed to take place in the country where the tree was cut down. So all the paper used by the Japanese and made from our woodchip is deemed to be an Australian emission.

The real sleaze lies in the fact that europe imports most of it's wood supplies and it's chip for paper from Africa and Sth America. So first world countries like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ, that still retain vast areas of productive forest, are at a serious disadvantage under Kyoto. No cost penalties are attached to the european value chain because the African source nations are exempt so, surprise, surprise, the Euro-spivs can have their cake and eat it too.

Perseus, that is very interesting that the carbon debit is incurred in the country where the tree is cut down.

If this is so, then why doesnt the same logic apply to where the coal is dug up from, which would mean that the previous poster "Plerdsus" is right, and BIM and Callinan are quite wrong. Again I say, as a method of cardon accounting this has to be bloody ridiculous

There are many complications and yet to be decided issues surrounding carbon accounting. But on this simple matter BIM is correct. As he plainly said, Australia is only accountable for what it emits within Australia -NOT what it exports.

If you cut a tree down or burn coal in Australia, Australia is responsible for the consequent emission. If you cut a tree down or burn coal in Japan, Japan is responsible for the consequent emission. Could it be any simpler?

Perseus, you said that all emissions from wood products are deemed to take place in the country where the tree was cut down. Well, yes, because that’s where the ‘act’ took place.

It would be insanely complicated and thus impractical to account for the entire life of every bit of paper, car component, bit of coal; what the coal was used to make, who bought it, and in which country they ever used it for whatever length of time, through out its life. This would be quite illogical.

The person who cuts down the tree is responsible, not the person who grew the tree. Similarly, the person who burns the coal is responsible, not the person who dug it up.

Most of the debate over climate change seems to be based on what "they" are doing about it. We assume that any contribution we can make by reducing "our" greenhouse gas emissions is so small that is it not worth the effort. If everyone refuses to accept responsibility to take part in fixing the problem then the problem will not be fixed (yes, the SUV does make a difference).

So Martin if we in OZ are dopey enough to sell the control over our timber assets to the Japanese,who organise the chopping down of the trees on Oz soil, which they then wood chip and ship to Japan to turn into many end products, we cop the carbon debit but the Japs, as the end user gets away scot free. They are the end user( burner) by your own analogy and they should wear the carbon penalty. I can well understand how a bunch of academics with a vested interest in alarmism, couldn't work out a more equitable way of handling the problem,and one with less fairly obvious contradictions.

I am well pleased that our Goverment had the sense not to sign up to Kyoto,despite what you say Mr.Callinan.

PS: Todays Australian has an article about Germany and NZ businesses urging their Govts to get out of the Kyoto mess, and go with the Clean Development Scheme of the USA and Australia

Big Mal, mighty Big Mal, we’re not dopey at all.

Name one (1) dopey Tasmanian forest worker (or wood chipper as you may like to call them). We sell wood for a price, which we reckon covers the wood we’ve harvested and exported, and the carbon we’ve added to the atmosphere.

I see that some business groups in New Zealand and Germany have called for progress. This is a good thing. Kyoto is but an attempt at progress (a fine attempt in my view) but any prospect is a good thing, in my view. I am not wed to Kyoto at all. It has many problems. But I am yet to see anything better.

Big Mal, and the rest of the Nay Sayers, by what mechanism would the world see a reduction in greenhouse gas by, say, 2020? Do you even (honestly) want this?

Can you put your money were your mouth is?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16416794%255E2702,00.html
As usual with you people, you dont pay attention. To make it clear and easy for you I have provided the reference to the specific article,in the Australian. Quite a different story to your response.
You also failed to notice that I said if we are dopey enough to sell the "control" over our assets (which can take many forms in a free and open economy).I never mentioned Tasmania workers, dopey or other wise, but then anything goes to get a razz,and when one is trying to prop up grossly over stated and scientifically suspicious arguments like AGW, and the attendant protocols bound up in Kyoto.

Tell me also oh knowledegable one, how does the calculation of our carbon debt get built into the price that the Japanese pay for wood chipping the trees that are cut down in OZ. How does that mechanism work.

It would also help if the so called cures for GW were more soundly based than Kyoto is, and likely of doing some good. Thats were I'd put my money and mouth. How about you?

Unfortunately because of dubious science,and even worse public policy all put together by IPCC acolytes, Kyoto was going to cost huge sums of money to achieve precious little. Not much logic in that, but then I wouldn't expect a bunch of myopic academics to appreciate that either.

Big Mal, yeah I read the article. It reports that one NZ industry group estimate “that New Zealand may have to spend between $600million and $1.2billion to meet its Kyoto commitments” and that “Mr Howard said the Coalition's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was based on the belief it would hurt Australian industry and cost jobs”.

These are beliefs / assertions that, in my view, do not stand up to scrutiny.

It makes no mention of what the benefits of meeting the Kyoto targets will be.

IF Australia were part of an international emission trading scheme, IF Australia had cooperated and helped build an international scheme instead of hindering such action, then carbon costs would be internalized by requiring emitters to account for and, to some extent, offset their emissions.

Australian exporters of paper products may have to ad a few cents to their sale price in order to appropriately offset their emissions, whatever they may be. In the case of the forest industry, where replanting takes-up carbon, companies may in fact be carbon neutral and have no net emissions; if they grow as many trees as they emit carbon. They may even have a carbon surplus, which they would, if their country had a trading scheme, be able to sell to another company which had a carbon debt.

You say it’d help if the cures for GW were more soundly based than Kyoto is, and more likely of doing some good. I couldn’t agree more.

The problem is that very little is being done because certain interests wish nothing to be done.

You doubt the validity of climate change science and the prospects of Kyoto. Fair enough. Most of the world understands that climate change is a real threat and most of the world is trying to do something about it. The effectiveness of Kyoto is the result of the whole world’s attitude; those committed to reducing emissions and those who are committed to emissions as usual.

Q. When and how will we reduce our emissions?

Martin, Bim was correct in relation to coal. Coal exports are the emission of the country that burns it not the country that dug it up. The carbon was in good order and still stable when it was sold overseas. They then burned it to produce the emission.

It is not the case with wood. Wood products are sold with stable carbon in good order and condition. The paper can be used for a classic novel or fine furniture that will remain stable for 50 to 200 years or more. Or it may be used give a second rate journo an audience for 3 minutes. It may briefly promote Angelina's tits and commence emissions imediately. The choice is exercised by the final value adder but the emission is deemed to be made by the person cutting the tree.

And in my case, the trees I cut were re-established as native forest by my father on land that his father was compelled to clear on pain of forfeiture of land title. My wood is mostly durability class 1 that, even as fence posts, will last 60+ years and as house frames will last 200+ years.
And I find it deeply offensive that some landless, treeless, spiv from Brussels can set up a system that penalises every grower for the emissions of Rupert Murdoch.

The perfideousness of the Australian Greenhouse Office is even worse. Dutch power companies can now gain and trade carbon credits from the annual growth of native forests in Africa while our own expanded forest and annual growth gets nothing. And Bill Burrows has shown that 90 million hectares of open woodland is absorbing a tonne of carbon/ha each year through regrowth and thickenning and not a single gram is measured in our so-called inventory.

Overall Kyoto is a farce. It has completely forgotten some emmissions, for example, in NSW we have locked up forests in National Parks. When these forests were productive and managed there would have been a greenhouse negative effect from the cutting, utilising and subsequent regrowth of timber, accompanied by managed grazing. Now as national parks the forests burn about once every three years emmitting thousands of tons of greenhouse gases, I notice that no one in the green movement ever notices this, Kyoto like most political inventions is not a genuine attempt to solve the problem, it is simply a political ploy aimed at giving European politicians a boost on both the domestic and international fronts. It has been deviously exploited by the green movement.

Martin, you can't really accuse others of having beliefs/assertions that, in your view, do not stand up to scrutiny when the data does not support your own arguments.

The fact that a doubling of carbon dioxide will cause direct warming of less than 1 degree is well known to scientists and claims for any greater warming rely on dubious assumptions about positive feedback mechanisms.

Just take a look at the figures: In 1960 the CO2 levels were 319ppm and the average global temperature about 0.01 degrees below the 1961-90 average. More than 40 years later, in 2004, CO2 was about 375ppm and the temperature 0.455 degrees above that long-term average, and incidentally the 3rd year in a row that temperatures had fallen.

Regardless of what you might claim about positive feedbacks to CO2 warming, temperatures fluctuated in normal fashion across that 40 years. There's nothing unusual about that perid of warming because from 1910 to 1940 the global average temperature rose about 0.6 degrees.

Personally I don't give a rat's what you and others of your ilk have fed the gullible news media. It's not belief or computer models that count but real-world data, and that data gives no clear sign of any human influence. On that basis the Kyoto Agreement simply has no merit.

Perseus, it is not the spivs, as you put it, from Brussels that wrote Kyoto but representatives from every country, including ours. And please, how on earth has the Australian Greenhouse Office been treacherous? The AGO does an excellent job carrying out the Prime Minister’s policy.

Australia’s expanded forest and annual growth is not internationally recognized for two reasons, 1) because Australia turned it back on international developments by refusing to ratify Kyoto and, in part because of this, 2) international agreement on carbon sinks has been delayed and are not yet fully developed, even if we were to be part of international trading.

Snowman, the data does, in fact, support my position, at least according to virtually all the world’s climatologists and certainly all the world’s national science academies. My political ilk include Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, President of the United States German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, His Excellency Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, the Italian President Silvio Berlusconi, the French President Jacques Chirac, and yes, even the Right Honourable George W. Bush. We all agree that while uncertainty remains in our understanding of climate science, we also agree that the consequences of climate change are serious, that its happening now, that human activity is contributing to it, and that that globally, emissions must slow, peak and then decline, moving us towards a low-carbon economy. And all in a manner consistent with the aims and principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Who can you name that supports your views or data?

Let me also add to my reasonable list Arnie and David King.

"Climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism." - David King, UK government chief scientific adviser, January 2004.

"I say the debate is over. We know the science, we see the threat, and the time for action is now." - Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, July 2005.

Mr Callinan.Why dont you put your feet under a desk not owned by a politician or a political party and do some proper homework.It is sheer first grade naivety to rattle off your list of world politicians and imply that because they are supporting your view then it must be so.

They are making political statements to protect a voting base that is being stirred up by greenies, and an uninformed press who in turn are being mislead by lazy journalists who just publish press releases without checking.The greenies have never let any science get in the way of a beat up, or funding drive, or manipulation of the political scene. It is has nothing to do with facts of the position at all.

As for David King he has to be an embarrassment to the once proud UK scientific establishment.

Why dont you read the recent UK Houses of Parliament Report on the Economics of GW, and/or the latest from Castles and Henderson on how dredful is the economic analysis in the IPCC reports. When you have finished that,read some of the latest postings on CO2Science.
There are many more to add to these to show that your implication of there being overwhelming agreement/consensus, political and scientific, is complete bollocks.

Big Mal, I’ve done my homework, so much so that above you also list me as a myopic academic.

If you disagree with the world’s academic academies, Jacques Chirac AND George W Bush, you’d better have some convincing objections.

If your point is that I am wrong because of an ‘improvable’ conspiracy then you haven’t convinced me.

I’ve read all the reports from UK Parliament and the various contributions from Castles and Henderson. In very different ways both made contributions to the economic and scientific debate. But neither supports your view that political and scientific argument is not overwhelming.

As for the good folk at CO2Science.com, they are funded by Western Fuels Association, a US coal lobby. Ten second’s examination via google tells me this family operation has a little less weight than the national academies, see: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Everyone on earth doesn’t agree that climate change is worth worrying about but there IS absolutely overwhelming political and scientific agreement that we should worry.

What is bollocks is that an ever dwindling number of people is able to continue to peddle rubbish because their view has traditional recognition as the ‘other side’ of the argument.

Mr Callinan.
1.How any one can say they have read the Lords Report and the various Castles/Henderson material and NOT conclude that there is something seriously awry with this whole IPCC argument just beggars belief.
2.Who cares how C02 Science is funded and how is that any different to people like your self being employed by political parties/masters or publically funded researches and academics.In any case, all they do is provide comments/review on the research done by others. If they are wrong, then so are the research papers they review.
3.Why is the review work done by C02 Science any different to the attempts by commentators like your self. Why are they wrong and you are right.
4.As for the academy of sciences press release, that was done just prior to the last G8 in Scotland under the Chairmanship of Blair, the outcome of which was its own testimony to what is real.

I return to my original comments namely that I am well pleased that my goverment did not sign up to Kyoto, its a complete joke. The latest deal involving China and India et al, and concentrating on solving a problem that is better defined in the first place is a much better way of going, despite what you say

My understanding of the climate modelling is that CO2 is deemed to remain in the atmosphers for 50 years. My problem with this is that when I cut down an ironbark and mill it for house frames etc, the IPCC has already assumed that all that carbon is already in the atmosphere. So the carbon will be deemed to have broken down long before the wood even starts to emit CO2.

I am not a hot shot maths geek but even I can tell that this might distort the scenario somewhat.

Martin,

Are you claiming that Tony Blair, Paul Martin, Junichiro Koizumi, Gerhard Schroder, Vladimir Putin, Silvio Berlusconi, Jacques Chirac, George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger and David King are experts in the field of climatology?

David King, supposedly Britains chief Scientist, had a major dummy spit when he was not allowed to control Russia's serious review of the knowledge and claims about climate change. He behaved like a spoilt little child by refusing to answer questions, storming off the podium and then threatening Russia with political action. After listening to the uncertainties and doubts, Russia decided to join Kyoto in order to obtain financial advantages from western Europe. Putin won't acknowledge that publicly but his leading scientists do.

Berlusconi's government was the first European government to indicate that they would be pulling out at the earliest opportunity. Germany has recently indicated that it wants to exit the Kyoto Agreement and join the Asia-Pacific Agreement (ie. the US, Australia, China & India agreement).

To counter your list of non-scientists (except for the biologist David King), I suggest readers take a look at the research by Professor hans von Storch that found that fewer than 20% of 500 international climatologists and meteorologists considered that human activities have played a significant part in recent warming.

PS. Why do you say that Gerhard Schroder is president of the United States? Is this an indication of the quality of your investigations?

Big Mal,

1) I have confidence in the IPCC after reading Lords report, C&H etc. because I have also read dozens of other reports that offer far more compelling counter arguments.

2) Whose coin one takes is whose tune one sings.

3) My case is born from the interests of the many, while C02 Science’s is born from the interests of one part of one industry. The fact that virtually all the world’s scientists and the world’s leaders agree with me also, I think, says something.

My point, a point of my article, is that the latest deal involving China and India et al., has very little prospect of reducing emissions anytime soon and may even further delay international efforts to reduce emissions.

Perseus,

Carbon accounting for forests is complicated and many uncertainties remain. All nations, particularly Scandinavian countries, recognize this and it remains one of the issues to be ironed out at Kyoto Meeting of Parties 1 (MOP1) in Montreal soon. Australia though is not a party.

Kyoto is neither a fraud nor a con; it is simply our best attempt. It has shortcomings; the biggest being only indirect in that it has enabled scant progress to date but I’d suggest this lack of progress and clarity is largely a result of lobbying by some fossil fuel companies which perceive the obliged reduction in emissions as a threat their interests.

Snowman,

Clearly, the politicians listed are of my political “ilk” on this issue. And yes, well spotted, there should be a comma in there to separate the German Chancellor from the US President; a cut and paste mistake; sorry for all the confusion.

Does Germany want to exit the Kyoto Agreement and join the Asia-Pacific Agreement or did one business group in Germany recently suggest this? Can you post a reference?

Can you also post a reference to Professor Hans Von Storch’s work that fewer than 20% of 500 international climatologists and meteorologists considered that human activities have played a significant part in recent warming.

Q. When and how should we reduce our emissions?

Mr. Callinan

1) I have confidence in the IPCC after reading Lords

So when Castles refers to the opinion of 3-4 Nobel Laureates in economics he is still wrong and you, and the IPCC industry is right. Utter Rubbish.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=318#more-318

2) Whose coin one takes is whose tune one sings.

Yes, and that would also apply to those on the pay roll of political entities.

3) My case is born from the .....

Consensus isn’t science and science isn’t consensus.

For the IPCC/Kyoto to have left India and China and others out of the game says something about the underlying politics of this whole cause.
At least now there is a chance that the issue can be better managed, by other than an idiotic Eurocentric command and control style of system that is already falling apart at the seams.

The details of exactly how the new scheme is going to work I assume is still being worked out just like the IPCC/Kyoto idiocy is still trying to work it out after how long on job, 15 years?

Perseus,

.....by some fossil fuel companies which perceive the obliged reduction in emissions as a threat their interests.

Yes and why wouldn’t they when it was going to cost a bomb and yield no tangible result worth bothering about, even when not measured against the grossly inflated projections of the IPCC.

Snowman,

Can you also post a reference to Professor Hans Von Storch’s work

In case Snowman doesn’t have it here is one version
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-342376,00.html

Q. When and how should we reduce our emissions?

When we have a system that has been properly thought through, and doesn’t deliberately and unfairly damage our international competitiveness, and spreads the burden within OZ and globally more equitably. In addition we need a system that is based upon a more valid problem definition, including a more sustainable argument as to all the sources of the GW. Note the plural. Can you deliver that?

Big Mal,

A discussion of von Storch's work can be found in a PDF document at http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf

My source also comments "Professor Dennis Bray's letter was submitted to Science in response to the Oreskes essay [in 'Science' in Dec 2004 claiming complete consesnsus on global warming] . It was rejected. In fact, the editors of Science refused to publish *any* of the numerous letters critical of the Oreskes study. No wonder many readers of Science believe that there is a universal consensus among climate researchers..."

Also see an article by von Storch in Der Spiegel of 24 Jan 2005 at http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html which stated in part "Last year, for example, a survey of climate researchers from all over the world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes."

Finally a word from Michael Crichton on the kind of consensus that Martin seems so keen on....

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.."

Big Mal,

It is not a childlike case of Castles is wrong and I am right. I’m saying that I have heard his point, and the points of many others, and from all I’ve read and heard, I have confidence in IPCC. If I’d only read Castles then sure, I’d have a different view.

The difference between being on the pay roll of a political entity (My party represents the political wish of about half of Australia, UK and US) and one company, is the difference between interest in the future of millions and interest in the financial future of a few.

How would Australia meeting its Kyoto obligations deliberately and unfairly damage our international competitiveness? You have got to be joking!

Snowman,

Where can I find Von Storch’s paper? The links you cite are oped and discussion pieces written by Von Storch and his his co-author, Bray. The actual paper does not appear to be either published in any journal or available on the internet.

The discussion refers to the paper written 2 years ago - Bray, D. and Hans von Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003”.

In 2003 George W. Bush (President of the United States of America) questioned the seriousness of climate change and whether human activity is contributing to it. By August 2005 he says it is serious and that human activity is contributing to it. He is doing this because he is satisfied by the consensus in August 2005.

Michael Crichton is a best selling author of fiction. And just like the importance of considered analysis of all the information, there’s more to scientific development than paperback truisms about consensus.

What has brought us the internet, modern surgery and our understanding of climate change is provable scientific cannons. Sometimes, we’re wrong but over the years we have put together a body of knowledge built upon universally agreed understandings.

Turns out the earth isn’t flat, that air is made up of gases and things are electromagnetically related. We have consensus on these things; useful consensus.

Martin,

I did wonder if you are simply repeating the opinions of others or whether you actually investigate at least some of these matters for yourself and when you see a possible correlation you interpret it the way that you want to regardless of the scientific validity for your claim (ie. whether the situation is entirely explained by Physics).

I also wondered if you were repeating the unsubstantiated claims of others or using judgements based on the circles you move in when you denigrated all scientists by claiming that scientists' conclusions could be bought by whoever provides funding. (I've been told that Exxon fund research at Stanford University to the tune of a couple of $million per year so maybe they fund Stephen Schneider, the person who claimed in the 1970's that an Ice age was imminent but now claims we'll all fry...)

My current impression is that you are not repeating the claims of others but are showing your own wilful misinterpretations.

Why do I say this? I inserted the comma that you said was missing from your earlier posting and I now find you saying "My political ilk include ... Blair, ..Martin, ..Koizumi, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ..Schroder, ..Putin, ..Berlusconi, ..Chirac, and yes, even the Right Honourable GEORGE W. BUSH."

I can't think anyone else who would be of the opinion that Bush and the President are (currently) two separate people.

As for the references, I am not sure that von Storch's original paper has been published because "Science" is in the habit of refusing articles that contradict a certain viewpoint. The rest of the references you can search for. You do know how to use a search engine, don't you?

Mr Callinan.
Within the constraints of the short hand of blogs I stick to my original comment, namely that, how anyone can read the Lords Report and the Castles/Henderson material and NOT conclude that there is something seriously awry with this whole IPCC industry does beggar belief. Other than that I was making no judgement,but you are. You are claiming that you, and the IPCC, are right.

So your hot little Phd gives you the right to draw firm conclusions on any matter even when they may be miles away from your area of expertise, and at odds with the supporting opinion /advice of a gaggle of Nobel Prize winners whose topic it most certainly is.

The arrogance of it all is astounding.