Bigmal,

1. I agree, calving of an ice-shelf is dramatic and it is well known warming of the surrounding waters can lead to such events. However, there may be other causes. Scientists studying these events will publish papers on their findings and they will be reviewed and critiqued by other scientists. So yes, the British Antarctic Survey was premature in announcing the correlation, but make no mistake, they are not misrepresenting a possible cause.

2. Science doesn’t work like that and you are engaging in misrepresentation yourself for inferring such. Science is not absolute (unambiguous) – it has more to do with probabilities – you will not get 100% certainty on anything. If we waited for 100%, nothing will ever get done.

Scientists test hypotheses and the more they are unable to refute a particular hypothesis, the more it develops into a theory. The preponderance of evidence for AGW can’t be denied, although this is NOT to say the theory of AGW is settled, it isn’t. This is where the “deniers” misrepresent the “science is settled” statement.

3. No he is not.
Carter can publish a scientific paper for peer review/critique, he does not. He distorts the science in newspapers, in talks and on the blogosphere.
Gore is a propagandist, he can not write a scientific paper for peer review/critique.

4. Of course they can, and I encourage them to. Scientists should continually test the theory of AGW and publish their results in the appropriate journals, not newspaper columns.

5. By all means, have conferences, many do.

Clearly, you don’t understand or appreciate the processes and procedures of the UNFCCC or the IPCC. If anything, it is even more conservative than some would like us to believe (Hansen, Gore, alarmists) – even Bush is relaxing his stance on climate change.

Just because you don’t like what they conclude, does not make it not so.

As for Hansen’s letter to Rudd, what do you expect from such an alarmist?
Carter should write one himself, as a denier (not contrarian).

McLean … well, he is just conducting a snow-job.

Dealing with anthropogenic global warming on a site like this is not the way to go. But it's always better if people stick to what can be shown to be the case, and avoid denouncing those who do not agree with them.

I too am perplexed, indeed, pretty unimpressed by the BAS/NSIDC 'warning' about the Wilkins Ice Shelf 'collapse', and how it must be due to global warming. Their announcement, full of dramatic words, failed to mention that in 2004 there was no Wilkins Ice Shelf in this site at all — it was all open sea, right up to the pack ice.. It froze over again, and then melted again during the recent summer.

Given that all the pictures come from the NISDC itself, that looks pretty shoddy to me. Indeed, it seems to me completely dishonest.

Q&A you are still peddling nonsense.

1. It is the scientific fraternity themselves (or some of them),who are saying that the science is now unambiguous. Witness Pearmans soiree last week in NSW for but ONE example.

2. Carter as a scientist is perfectly entitled to undertake any analysis he likes. If its OK for the IPCC and the select group which has operated under its umbrella to do it, then why not others. The only difference is one of structure- not intellect, relevance or ability. Spare me a diatribe that the IPCC represents 2500 scientists, because that has also been shown to be not true as well.

3. Mcleans work is not a snow job at all. Obviously you have not read any of it, and of course would not like one bit the way he has given the lie to the claims repeatedly made about how the IPCC's document's were reveiwed and refereed. Importantly he used data that had to be extracted from the IPCC and others via FOI. Its obvious why they wanted to keep it hidden. Where have we heard this before, I wonder.

4. David Hendersons talk at the Heartland Institute regarding the origins of the UNFCC is important in that it is frightening to contemplate that AGW was a clear given from the start back in 1992.(Come on tell me it was un-ambiguous back in 1992 as well.)

All it required since then was enough dollar induced researchers to " prove it", by any means available, including delusional nonsense about a grossly overstated ability to model the earths climate 50-100 years out, with a degree of confidence that warrants screwing up economies, and standards of living.

For what end ---a change in the GMT by us in Australia of 0.000043C pa

If this is standard of rational behaviour by Governments,the AGW scientific fraternity, and entirely complicit economists then we are all stuffed.

Bigmal wants me to “spare (him) a diatribe that the IPCC represents 2500 scientists.”

I'll go further; the IPCC does NOT represent 2500 scientists.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

Some may even wish to peruse the UNFCCC site.

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Some groups (including industry lobbyists, ‘think-tanks’, political PR spin-doctors, etc) and some genuine scientists don’t like the structure (or “intellect, relevance or ability”) of the IPCC. So be it, these ‘deniers, delayers, naysayers, contrarians, whatever) are perfectly entitled to have a get-together wherever and whenever they like – the Heartland Institute’s soiree in New York for example.

The scientific experts attending such soirees should (must) be encouraged to do research in their respective fields, and publish their results for all to see.

If an architect, someone who dabbles in computers or even a snowman wants to write a book, or publish a paper then yes, they are quite entitled to do so. If scientists don’t want to critique the science in the proper forums, they just may have a credibility issue – but that’s their choice.

Some people want 100% ‘proof’ before they will act. This is foolish – nothing will ever get done based on this flawed logic.

I remember when Bush’s Vice President said the US will do all in its power, no matter the cost, if there was only a 10% chance (I think it was 1% but will err on the side of caution) of the threat of terrorism impacting the western world.

Well, we are told that there is at least a 90% chance of a ‘weather of mass destruction’ threatening the whole world.

Roy Spencer is doing some good research, his findings (IF ROBUST) will find their way into GCMs, contrary to what bigmal thinks of climate modelling.

Sure, adapting to climate change is a tough task (and won’t happen overnight), so too is mitigating GHG emissions. But to deny or delay taking action is selfish at best, irrational at worst.

Besides, there are many benefits and opportunities to be had – as Drs Nikki Williams (Coal industry rep) and Ziggy Switkowski (nuclear scientist) allude to.

More dribbling by Q&A.

I have indeed re -read some of the web references you supplied just to ensure that things hadnt changed.

Sure enough it hasnt.Just as David Henderson and others have said repeatedly AGW was a given. No hypothesis and scientific method for the UNFCC et al. All you scientists with mega bucks of public funds just go out there and proselytise. Use any means at your disposal.

Not only is it contrary to the scientific method which you seem to like lecturing others on, but it fails the basic systems theory tests.

There is no room for it to be wrong or ambiguous.

Oh sure the IPCC expresses its outcomes in terms of probabilities etc, but there is no doubting what we have to do to be saved.

Let me say it again, and all for what.

Even if it is is true and we meet all our carbon reduction targets we will affect the Global Mean temperature by 0.000043C pa.

Sound sensible to me.

Bigmal

You were at least prepared to look at and read the links to the UNFCCC and IPCC (many don't) and we may have to agree to disagree on some fundamental issues.

However, I think you would have to acknowledge that these bodies are trying to undertake a huge task; in correlating the vast body of scientific research available and then presenting their findings to the world's leaders and people like you and me alike.

If there is another way of doing this then please enlighten the movers and shakers.

It's really up to the movers and shakers to do something about what the science is telling them (politicians, economists, strategic analysts, etc).

You may (or may not) be interested in the latest from the IPCC. It's a summary from their 28th session and was held from 9-10 April in Budapest, Hungary.

They met for the first time since the release of the final AR4 Report last year. The session brought together representatives from governments, lead authors, UN agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry and academia.

http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12363e.html

I would be interested in your thoughts.