Who profits from global warming?

Governments who sell carbon emission permits.
Existing big business with the ability to profit in trading these permits.
Misanthropes.
Those who know what's best for us all.ie the cowardly.

What if the negative effect is real and does invalidate existing models?

The science is obviously not settled. (not to mention the infant understanding of the role of the sun in all this).

After Carbon Trading comes Carbon Trading Futures(irony intended) and then Derivatives.

PS the haste with which Keveryman signed the KP was just me-tooism on a larger stage.

PPS $2 spent on green energy to use the equivalent of $1 of fossil fuel energy will add to GDP, not subtract from it; regardless of the effect on our standard of living.

Dickie, “Big mistake to go after Q&A, a poster of modest persona with an immodest wealth of knowledge on this subject.”

I can live with my mistakes (although I am not fearful in this context)

“The personas of Jennifer, Col Rouge and Graham Young are as fragile as Humpty Dumpty”

Speaking for myself (I hate to act as someone else’s orifice, something dickie should remember) you have no idea of the resilience of my persona but let me assure you it has not broken, despite the “great falls” I have experienced.

As for Q&A, I would rather address him direct.

Dickie, you can think what you like of me but my lack of a scientific qualification does not limit by ability to reason, analyse and deduce.

The fact is the majority of the work done on climate change is still up for review and revision.

My posts contain a question which I am entitled to challenge any “scientist” with.

That question is how truthful and well tested is your hypothesis ?

Physics is defined by physical laws.
Chemistry is annotated by the periodic table.
Biology is now being defined by reference to DNA and other discernable biological facts and observations.

Lawyers work to a set of prescribed laws
Even humble Accountants live within the limits of truth being to “reflect a true and fair view”, subject to specific rules and standards.

All these laws of have evolved through centuries of repeated test, observation and scrutiny.

But for “climatology” and and theories to green house gases, the rules are still being written, the assumptions being refined.

The predictions and outcomes are thus, materially less reliable and the error factors significantly greater.

I consider it a more than folly, I consider it criminal negligence to place long term economic and social planning under the authority of the unproven and error prone speculations of climatologists and their egos.

If you think I am wrong, feel free to argue the point but never, ever try to shut me down by challenging my persona or right to be heard, it only fuels my tenacity.

Col

There are the observations, like earlier springs, melting glaciers, rising sea level and warming temperatures. Then there is the interpretation of these observations. Now if Spencer's research proves his hypothesis, then this could dramatically change the scientific interpretation of the significance of these events. But if Spencer's hypothesis is incorrect, will your opinion change, Col, or will you just tag along with the next barrow carrying your agenda?

Col Rouge,

“Your post is well below acceptable standard. Lift your game if you expect to retain anything resembling credibility.”

Thanks Col, but I have difficulty accepting this advice from you.

Whenever I see your name now I’m reminded of your reply to another poster who crossed your bow waves … these were your words;

"I am happy to present a polemic to whatever you care to elect and then swap roles and argue in reverse." This says a lot about your own credibility, Col.

You just want to argue for the sake of argument … you compromise, distort and misrepresent the truth for you own politico-ideological agenda.

You a “healthy sceptic”, LOL. You can’t argue the science (you haven’t got a clue) … your aim is to exacerbate the divisions between the so called ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ with your personal mantra of “socialism by stealth”.

What humanity could be doing (and they are trying) is working together to solve a global problem, clearly you don’t want this.

Oh yeah, however you try to spin it, no one will be asking us to “embrace the lifestyle of a Maoist Chinese peasant” – this is just fear mongering, typical of your ilk.

Dickie,

Don’t be too harsh on Graham; he is a journo after all. He tries to look at both sides in an unbiased way, tough. The media in general have a huge responsibility and they are creating just as much fear as the alarmists and the outright deniers.

As for Jennifer; well the IPA, Heartland and Cato Institute, Lavoisier Group, Tech Central Station, etc, etc. These are all ‘think tanks’ (IMO) that promote an ideological perspective to maintain the status quo and will use whatever scientific critique to ‘validate’ their inaction.

Roy Spencer may be onto something and maybe one day will be recognised as a latter-day Galileo, Newton or Einstein, and be forgiven by the Pope – but he is not there yet. Jennifer thinks he is the ‘ants-pants’ – that’s ok, no one is perfect.

This is not about personalities, this is about a simply theory which has been articulated, incorporated into models and has now been proven wrong.

To recap, this time from a new article by Roy Spencer:

"By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system."

Read more here: http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=82

sorry the above link is missing an '8' from the end, it should be:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828

Posted on Mar. 20, 2008
By Roy W. Spencer
The Sloppy Science of Global Warming