If the critics are right, how does it hurt the environment to lower our greenhouse gas output; if they are wrong and we don't lower our output, we are killing off the only planet we have. What will we tell our children if we listen to global-warming critics and do nothing?

Mark Lawson is right: there is little point in trying to argue with the majority of people, who blindly accept the ‘human cause’ theory of climate change. The majority are just sheep who have, for so long, circled around in front of the dogs, bleating, because they don’t know how to do anything else.

When they find out that they have been sold a pup; when the power bills go through the roof, and the climate is still going its own way, they will be amazed and horrified. Too late to do anything then, of course, and they will continue their even more costly blunder through life, waiting for the same bullies who have brought them the greatest con of the 21st century, to lead them by the nose through the next ‘crisis’

Wrong Mr Right.

“The majority of people DO NOT blindly accept the human cause theory of climate change.”

“The majority of people are NOT sheep who have, for so long, circled around in front of the dogs, bleating, because they don’t know how to do anything else.”

Wrong Mr Right, why don’t you take your ideological blinkers off and constructively contribute to solving a global problem.

What the heck, why don’t you even sign up with George W Bush, you might learn something from his new policies and strategies in dealing with climate change – seen his press release today have you?

No? Then try a Google.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jJbf8oA_G6zwKdTKlJJNq_G_g8RQD9037TB80

Oh … how do you expect to garner support for your way of thinking by debasing anyone who may disagree with your point of view?

IMHO … grow up.

The sad part about this is that many gullible people vote for the Greens believing that their scaremongering somehow has a scientific basis. Still if you swallow evolution you are going to swallow the multitudes of lies associated with it. Man made GW is just one of many that the earth worshippers have even convinced themselves of. Mr Howard did himself a great discredit when he caved into acknowledging man made global warming which is being shown more and more to be a fallacy.

“The sad part about this is that many gullible people ...”

think addressing the issues of climate change is based on their political belief.

GW alarmists and denialists are not constructively addressing the issues.

This guy is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/27/catholicism.religion

Runner, you may wish to have a word with the Pope, he’s got the ear of George as we speak.

As to your claim, “man made global warming which is being shown more and more to be a fallacy.”

Could you please tell us where you get this information?
At least cite your source.
Thanks

This 'cooling' trend is a bit of a statistical contrivance if you start with hot years like 1998. Start the next sequence with 2007. If we wait another decade to clarify the long term trend (which I'm sure will be up) then the horse will have bolted. I think you only have to look at the hardship experienced by irrigators along the Murray to see that something is seriously amiss.

One saving grace of a carbon cap as opposed to a tax is that if recession causes fossil fuel usage to fall below the cap then it is no longer binding. A tonne of CO2 is then worth zero as we are within prescribed limits. If that doesn't happen perhaps we could afford the price increases after all. Some claim that the recent explosion in market prices for coal, oil and gas is a sign that their effective depletion is nearer than we think and that warming might be limited to only 2C. Note however how tough things are getting with 0.6C of warming. If as seems certain that supplies of water and energy are more volatile in the future that is a harsh legacy for todays children. Either way the transition to low carbon is inevitable and it seems unlikely that vested interests will make that path any smoother.

Thanks for the article Mark. Probably the least inflammatory and most balanced anti AGW article I've read. Well done.

However I must take you to task about your interpretation of the science.
Since a boomer year in 1998 solar forcing has been dropping. As a major player in global temperatures you would expect the trend of global temperatures to fall as well. However this is not the case, although warming has slowed somewhat as a result. (Unless you're the type of chap who might claim the globe has cooled because you have fudged the averages to produce the result you want http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-warming-stopped-in-1981.html).

Rhamstorf concludes "Overall, these observational data underscore the concerns about global climate change. Previous projections, as summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change, in particular for sea level" http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf
This is consistent with his observations "Carbon dioxide concentration follows the projections almost exactly..."
And
"The global mean surface temperature increase (land and ocean combined) in both the NASA GISS data set and the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit data set is 0.33°C for the 16 years since 1990, which is in the upper part of the range projected by the IPCC. Given the relatively short 16-year time period considered."
The "embedding period of 11 years" I believe is a statistical reference beyond my ken as well.

The next time you ask some "Australian scientists", try to include Dr Barrie Pittock. http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/4992.htm

Again thanks for the article. Nice to see some non-inflammatory discussion from the other side of the fence for a change. Keep it up.

<i>Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 17 April 2008 9:54:00 AM</i>

Wow. With such clear facts and a compelling argument as that I'm sure you convince people in the thousands by the minute.

Try this, stop doing what you're accusing others of doing. Go research some stuff for yourself. Have a look at what others have written, try to debunk them using science. It's far more effective than name calling (alarmist, sheep etc.)

True repentance from lust, greed, desire for power.. will fix us.

Faith in Christ.. will not only fix us, but save us.

"Human activity" is just a euphemism for the power struggles of man against man. In order to be the top dog, you have to cripple the others with some well placed bites to the hammy's.

Once ur top.. you then 'rule benevolently' for the good order of the pack.. (so you tell us anyway)

"he who is first will be last, and the last shall be first" said Jesus.

"He who would be great among you must become servant of all"

Now.. that doesn't sound like much fun to the carnal mind, that's why it takes 'Salvation' for it to become meaningful to the human heart.

I have spoken to Barrie Pittock - mind you decades ago when the first started talking about climate change, but nothing much has changed. The problem is not, and here I must repeat, that climate is changing. Obviously it is. The problem is trying to work out whether humans have had any affect on climate. Take another look at the graph (now in the article I hope). How do we know that human activity has had any affect at any time on the changes we see?
For there is no real way to tell the difference between human induced and natural warming. The argument that industrial gases have caused warming rests on comparisons of computer models - a point has been made time and time again.
The point about the solar cycle is an excellent one. Although temperatures may generally follow the cycle down and probably will, there will be a lot of variation. Any forecasting on our current state of knowledge is largely a waste of time, particularly in the short term. Because the system is so complex, it will probably still be a waste of time when we know more.

Reducing pollution, developing sustainable technologies, recycling instead of filling rubbish tips are hardly actions which will destory the much vaunted Economy.

Yet these "business-as-usual" people would have us focus on more argument and no action.

Now, Boaz, you proselytised:

"True repentance from lust, greed, desire for power.. will fix us.

Faith in Christ.. will not only fix us, but save us."

As a religion, Christianity has had 2000+ years where faith in Christ produced the Crusades, the Inquisition, Ku Klux Klan (just a few notables).

None of which would indicate that a belief in Jesus will have any effect on pollution, depleting resources, over-population, water shortage nor provide us with any practicable solutions.

You have just been bragging about your "green" efforts on my discussion thread on sustainable action, but here you can't offer anything of any worth.

In a universe full of pushers the biggest pusher in our part of the world is good old sunnyboy. Whilst we can study sun spot numbers I find that it is the aa index of geomagnetic activity that gives the best indication of what has happened since 1884. Does it occur to anyone that poor old sunnyboy is, to use the current parlance, guilty and the sinner but hasn’t been put on trial yet? Plus how is it unreasonable to understand that all we are experiencing is within normal natural cycles?

Our production of CO2 is puny in the scheme of things with a minuscule effect on temperature but this means little to try-hards or a particularly nasty media priest class who believe they are the weather maker or opportunist bankers or spivs wanting to make big money out of thin air. My alarm is best seen in the popular media and with our national broadcaster just about every day where all news ends up dealing with anthropogenic global warming. These are clearly misleading reports which should be preceded by a disclaimer that it is propaganda.

I feel all Australians have an important fiduciary responsibility to manage our economy on sound economic principles without regard for risky superstitious climate schemes that will make the subprime bubble look tame by comparison. i.e There is no due diligence when it comes to climateering spivs.

I particularly don’t want a colder world because of the hardship it will bring to humanity and nature but I must confess my growing desire to flush these charlatans down the dunny.

No Keiran

It is not unreasonable as you stated; "how is it unreasonable to understand that all we are experiencing is within normal natural cycles?"

Nor is it unreasonable to develop sustainable living practices, reduce pollution, conserve natural resources and simply be less wasteful.

But the Lawsons and Carters and people like you will have us continuing debate weighed down by circular arguments, when instead we could be moving towards a more equitable future for all nations.

There is no justification to continue with the present consumer based economy. Sooner or later we will run out of oil, gas, uranium and other non-renewable materials. Nor can we continue to justify the demolition of forests or pollution of rivers and oceans. Irrespective of where you stand on climate change, whether it be anthropomorphic or a part of the natural cycle, we have to take responsibility for our management of this world.

Q&A and all the other climate alarmists. You don't seem to have looked very far to find some real science which will make you think a little more openly about AGW. Suggest you try www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org for a start. Large amounts of information and updated several times a week. You too may realise that we are all being conned.

When we hear the Pope making positive statements about population control we will know that he is fair dinkum about climate change.

Don't hold your breath.

David

This article doesn't make sense.

First Mr Lawson argues that the climate isn't warming at all, based on average temperature over the last few years.

Next he makes a passing reference to the Arctic melting, which he doesn't try to refute.

Then he says the point isn't that the climate is warming (which he spent half the article arguing against), but that we can't prove it's human activity and that therefore we shouldn't change our behaviour.

There's certainly a place for scepticism in this field, but we need better constructed arguments than the one here.

Anybody know a bookie who would be perpared to take a bet that in the coming years 'carbon trading' will eventually be found to be a scam that only acheivement will be to separate money from a lot of people and make some people very rich.

Cazza and others - again most of the comments miss the point. Climate is changing - it changes constantly - and as part of that change the earth has warmed. The article can in no way be taken as a denial of that basic point. Nor does it rely on scientific argument. Therefore calls to examine the science are irrelevent. The point is that the Greenhouse activists have won the debate despite some basic problems with their arguments, including the major difficulty of deciding how much, if any, of the now past warming is due to human activigties.
However, in a year or so the electorate will soon be presented with a very large bill for this victory. At that time it also may (note: 'may') be more obvious - certainly more so than it is now - that the earth is cooling, not warming. The solar cycle is turning down so its possible temperatures may follow - eventually. Admittedly it will be cooling off a peak so the cooling itself won't be a problem, but consumers will be taking a closer look at the arguments. A much closer look. And they will not be happy. I would save your arguments for then.

It's truly amazing how ordinary lay people, in the face of almost unanimous scientific opinion that climate change is happening and is human generated, somehow believe they are much better scientists themselves.

In the war of words, nowadays websites get thrown back and forward just like biblical passages used to be. I can prove anything on the web just as one can make all sorts of contrary interpretations of the bible.

For most of the past 35 years the scientific community did not accept climate change. Would not accept it - that is, until there was enough proof to overcome their natural conservatism. Even when evidence started to mount, they deferred on the issue until they were confidant this was not a temporary aberration. Then the statistics started to pile in, and the disasters and droughts and insurance bills.

I know many scientists. As a profession they are not a reckless bunch. Their reputations depend on them being fastidiously thorough. If anything, they were too conservative for the good of the planet. They should have strongly championed by the Precautionary Principle whilst they were deliberating on the scientific evidence.

In the long run it may even be the conservatism and tardiness of scientists that prevented action being taken whilst there was still yet time enough to react.

I have sympathy for those who find climate change too confronting. That is a normal reaction to social change. But they will get over it in time, just as the flat-earthers and anti-evolutionists have done.

Well said gecko.

Another bunch of very cautious professionals are the analysts in insurance companies. After all, they have to put their money where they mouth is. They are currently at the forefront of pushing for change.

T. Sett,

Why do you think that I’m trying to convince anyone of anything? Are you trying to convince others that your opinions are right? If so, you are on a hiding to nothing. I’m expressing an OPINION. This site is “On Line Opinion”. Got it?

I’ve reached an age where I’ve had ample real experience of life to be sure of what I think about my fellow humans. I meant it when I said, “…there is little point in trying to argue with the majority of people…”, and I am, therefore, the last person to try to convince the average person of anything; particularly my fellow OLO posters.

Disagree with me by all means; but kindly keep your sarcastic suggestions to yourself. I have no interest at all in your smart aleck, presumptuous “try this” suggestions. You have no idea what I have read, what “stuff” I have researched, and how and why I have come to the conclusions I have.

Express any opinions you wish to, but don’t ride on the back of people who have posted before you, like so many others who don’t have an original thought of their own

Mr Right. You do not know what research others have done, or what they have read, or where they have been, so you can not state with any degree of certainty that they are being led like sheep, or have blindly come to whatever conclusions they may have reached. They may in fact agree with your point of view, and nonetheless have come to that end whilst also being blindly lead. You do not know.

David

So in 50 or a hundred years time, when the forests have gone and all the wildlife are extinct, the oceans are barren and the waves are lapping on the foothills of the great dividing range, our grandchildren can console themselves with: "it's not all our fault; it's all part of a natural cycle. After all, two major extinctions have happened before, in the past thousand million years or so".
If you get shot in the foot, is it really any consolation that someone else pulled the trigger?
Perhaps the real question is not so much 'have we changed the climate', as 'can we change the climate'.
There appears to be quite compelling evidence that (wooden) shipbuilding around the Mediterranean for the past three thousand years has changed the climate of that area quite significantly, so the answer to both questions appears to be YES.

Gecko's comments are correct but only part of the story. It wasn't long ago that rejecting climate change was the scientific orthodoxy. Even a passing acquaintance with how orthodoxy in the scientific world changes shows that it doesn't happen easily or painlessly. Most scientists, steeped in a different theory or different assumptions and different conclusions find repudiation of previous orthodoxy incredibly hard (as most of us would) and only likely when the evidence is ovewhelming. There will always be those in the scientific community that are the last to move - and for years they will argue (and find scientific reasons to argue) that the earth is flat or the centre of the universe. It doesn't mean that the new orthodoxy is all right - but it clearly indicates that the scientific community has accepted the central claim of AGW.

'After all, two major extinctions have happened before, in the past thousand million years or so".' This is the sort of fantasy and myth that some 'scientist' make their predictions on.

Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 17 April 2008 6:17:26 PM
If I have an opinion about a distasteful comment I will continue to feel free to speak as I please. I did not request, nor do I require your approval.
If you want to be treated with respect, then set an example. Using inflammatory and insulting remarks such as blind, sheep, bleating and bullies just because someone disagrees with you is hardly respectful and attracts the response it deserves.
If my opinion of your remarks upsets you so much, as they clearly have done, then don't read it.

Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:54:27 AM
Thanks for the input Keiran, that one is an oldie but a goodie. However it has been debunked before. For some concise science about it you can look here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Curmudgeon:

“The problem is trying to work out whether humans have had any effect on climate.”

How much do you really understand about ‘radiative forcing’?

How much do you really understand about Carbon and Oxygen isotope studies in climate science?

Are you aware that climate change is NOT just about “industrial gases”?

Are you aware that climate science does NOT “rest on comparisons of computer models”? A point that has been made time and time again.

Are you aware that if you take out CO2e as a major driver of this ‘current climate-change’ that NO other natural forcing can explain the warming we have been experiencing?

Yes, the system is complex – let the scientists do their job (climate sensitivity, attribution/commitment and ocean/atmosphere/land couplings will be exciting and challenging). Ergo, people should not misrepresent or distort something they do not understand.

Malrob:

“Q&A and all the other climate alarmists.”

What bit don’t you understand?

Let me rephrase …
‘Denialists’ AND ‘alarmists’ should pull their collective heads out of their butts.

“You don't seem to have looked very far to find some real science which will make you think a little more openly about AGW.”

You seem to be new here (another sock-puppet)? At the very least you don’t know me so your claim is fallacious.

I am well aware of various ‘think-tanks’ that have sprouted to confront the “problems” of addressing climate-change issues. The SPPI is no different to other “denialist” sites such as the Heartland Institute, Cato Institute, Tech Central Station, Institute of Public Affairs, Lavoisier Group, etc, etc.

Indeed, Bob Carter et al seem to be “scientific advisor” trolls.

Answer me this … Why doesn’t Carter (a real scientist) publish his ‘claims’ in reputable journals rather than in blog-spots, newspapers, shock-jock right-wing radio/TV programmes and popular magazines?

David

I take your point about the Pope.

My point … the real problem facing humanity is to do with (un)sustainable development (AGW is just a symptom). As usual, science is developing faster than the politicians, economists, social anthropologists, religious groups, etc. can deal with.

But, who will save the children.

Pffft.

You're quite right, Mark, this article won't make a lot of difference. Scientific opinion is waaay ahead of you. The concensus you deride has been developing since the 80's.

Curious how your article and a similar once recently ignore what's going on in Europe and at the poles. Maybe all these reports are bogus and economists do have all the answers?

Here is yet more evidence of a warming Earth, with measurements showing that the Southern Ocean is becoming less salty, suggesting Antarctic melting.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/17/2219659.htm

mark lawson: scientist extraordinaire.

"The argument is if human activity has added to the current, natural warming cycle: and if it hasn't then why spend up big on carbon trading?"

um...because they might be right?

The current astronomical rise in prices for oil and coal are a mere indicator that the carbon producing industry is close to an end.

The economic 'smarties' are making as much hay while the sun shines ... hotter ... apparently.

If you people were to stop reading the guesswork guff from all scientists and start reading of the solid developments being provided by engineers you'd soon come to see science is always in the past and engineering is always the future. Engineering developments in battery longevity and solar power will see the end of the current major producers of CO2 within a couple of years.

Economics and carbon trading schemes will just hurry the process along as consumers and economic smarties react to higher and unsustainable costs... (If you think the current crisis in food shortage is greatly accentuated by anything other than an increase in transport costs, you live in fantasyland.) Then if temperatures still vary either up or down over say 50 years the evidence will be overwhelming for a natural cycle. If not and they just plummet then we'll all know humans caused global warming (Science with it's backward looking emphasis will confirm either theory) and our kids and grandkids will ... well ... just find some other way to destroy the environment.

Thank god I'm going sailing, for you are all too bloody narrowly focused and don't read widely enough to truely understand human endeavour.

But I'll have to exchange my diesel sail for something else maybe a battery run model solar power regenerated type and my Admiralty charts well if global warming raises sea levels I'll be up s..t creek when close to land but there are positives I'll able to moor in my backyard and I won't have to buy diesel or pay marina fees.

I note that T.Sett has referred me to the skepticalscience page for some concise science debunking "an oldie but a goodie" ... i.e. In response to my statement "Our production of CO2 is puny in the scheme of things with a minuscule effect on temperature". Cannot say that this skepticalscience article changes anything I have said ... i.e. our CO2 emissions are puny and have minuscule effect on temps.

However, I presume that for the insecure, frozen-in, fixed-in-place mindset, human CO2 emissions upsets what they understand as the natural balance. This is the crux of the debate on climate where by definition, a change is bad, always bad and even worse than bad where there is this premise that nature has been designed as if it were a printed circuit board forcing electrons to follow a certain path, and the human influence is like unsoldering and replacing a component. It is a ridiculous, disconnected, maladaptive notion.

Perhaps people need to know that a stable physical system always responds to the external changes in the direction that reduces their effect. If you add additional CO2, those who consume carbon or those who take it away will inevitably thrive a little bit more than before while those who produce CO2 automatically thrive a little bit less. Nature self-regulates in this fashion.

Whilst it is not uncommon for most people to at times become disgruntled with modern life in general, may I suggest that it is the mind that is playing tricks and that some observational diligence may just help things. Rather than mind over matter it needs to be mind out of matter. i.e. We adapt.

Keith "(If you think the current crisis in food shortage is greatly accentuated by anything other than an increase in transport costs, you live in fantasyland.)"

I am afraid that you may be the one in fantasyland. The food shortages in China are caused by an alarming shortage of water from various causes including , but not restricted to drought and movement of population to cities.

I suggest you read
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1621
and
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update1.htm

Keiren
The combined current yearly emissions world wide of something approximating 30 billion tonnes of CO2 is something which should concern us all.

David

Keiran,

Put a puny amount of arsenic in your morning tea. Would you drink it?
Humans put a puny amount of CFCs in the atmosphere, where did that ozone hole come from?

I will have to agree with you on one point. The climate has changed in the past. I am yet to come across any peer review articles claiming that the climate does not change by its own accord from time to time. Could you cite your source please? Unless it was your mind playing tricks on you?
What I find concerning is the current RATE of change; the lack of the usual natural culprits for climate change; the rapidly approaching CO2 saturation point of the oceans; the prevalence of isotopically identifiable fossil fuel produced CO2 in the atmosphere.
We (humans) may well adapt, but the rest of the ecosystem will need time to do so as well.
Observational diligence is serving current climatologists quite well. The empirical evidence collected to date convinces me more and more that we need to reduce Anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

An interesting article by Mark S Lawson. I agree skeptics will have their day but I disagree we should lay low; I suspect this thing will blow open sooner than people think.

Regarding the science how many people understand that for a CO2 doubling only 1/3 (1C) of the anticipated warming of 3C comes from the IR radiative forcing effects of CO2! The other 2C comes from net positive (i.e. amplifying) FEEDBACKS (IPPC 2007).

It is these postulated net positive FEEDBACKS that are, IMO, the "Achilles heel" of the hypothesis "that a large increase in CO2 atmospheric concentrations will have significant detrimental effects on the global climate”.

For example if in fact FEEDBACKS are net negative (i.e. they reduce the initial radiative forcing warming) then the warming for 2 X CO2 will be less than 1C. Clouds for example are modelled as positive FEEDBACKS; does this make intuitive sense?

The science of climate FEEDBACKS is quite complex to explain in limited space, however see Dr. Roy Spencer’s (link below), “Global Warming & Nature’s Thermostat”, for an excellent exposition on this issue for the lay reader, with links to his peer reviewed journal papers. For those of you who are not aware, Dr. Roy Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, where he directs a variety of climate research projects. He serves as the U.S. Science team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth- orbiting satellites. He has authored numerous articles in scientific journals, and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming (source -back inside jacket of his book noted below).

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Those really interested can read his recently released book, “Climate Confusion, How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor”. It is currently the number one seller in the climatology section at Amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=node%3D1000%2C75%2C13592%2C16053231&field-keywords=&x=17&y=19

G Larsen makes mention from (IPPC 2007) .... "Clouds for example are modelled as positive FEEDBACKS; does this make intuitive sense?"

I say NO. As I've mentioned previously, if that is the whole hypothesis and the basis of the UN IPCC models, then if true, earth would have overheated long ago just on water vapour. If you have a basic primary school understanding of positive feedbacks then you would know how they make for an unstable situation ...... something like continually pushing someone up on a swing. Crikey, in such an event who would need any CO2? What ridiculous stuff. LOL

Mark Lawson in his article refers to the Rahmstorf et al report (Science 2007 - linked below, download the small file PDF), where the authors' “claimed that the warming is actually at the top end of the range predicted by the IPPC in 2001”.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Rahmstorf_etal.html

This 2nd rate document which has found its way into an Australian policy document (Garnaut Interim Report Feb 08), doesn’t even pass the 1st smell test. As the prediction was formulated by the IPCC in 2001 (TAR & updated in the AR4 last year), and involved temperatures increasing by about .2C per decade in the initial years, how can they have possibly come to this conclusion when global temperatures have been flat since 2001?

They arrive at this conclusion by the gross misuse & abuse of statistics. For those interested in a current debate on this very issue refer to Lucia’s Statistical Climate blog (US), “Comment on the Slide & Eyeball Method” and earlier posts.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/comment-on-the-slide-and-eyeball-method/#comment-1997

Thanks for the link G Larsen.

What do you think of Tamino’s critique about this very issue you talk about?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/

It would help those that are interested to put Lucia’s comments in perspective, don’t you think?

We are still shuffling out the same old 'them and us' rhetoric.

While acknowledging the two opposing views even within the scientific community, there is much to be gained by reducing over-consumption of the earth's resources,reducing pollution, setting population limits, eradicating contamination of our waterways and logging of old growth forests etc.

Sustainability is not bad science.

Our concerns should be more with how AGW will be used to create a 'green' industry that may or may not have little credibility if not properly monitored. Also the idea of carbon trading does not by itself reduce the polluting activity and only shifts responsibility. It will be the consumer in the end that will pay and those who can least afford to modify their consumer choices will be the most affected.

Unfortunately, Mark, I doubt sceptics will have their day. Rather we should be prepared for part II of the great global warming delusion (I don't think of it as a deliberate con or swindle). This is where it doesn't happen, but only because we DID SOMETHING. Of course, we shouldn't buy this, because we have been told repeatedly that it is almost - it's always almost - too late, and that even if CO2 emissions stay put, temps will continue to rise for 50 years or so. But by then, the story will have faded, and the usual suspects will have moved onto their next scare. One can only imagine. The important thing, as illustrated by many of the posts here, is to DO SOMETHING, with little consideration of the possible consequences. Even the generally GW-friendly Time magazine has a cover story this week on the effects of the subsidized push on biofuels. After reading it, you'd think the greens would be promoting oil exploration.
PS. I look forward to ignoring your reply Q&A (an interesting pseudonym as I have yet to see you provide a worthwhile example of either).

V

Does the same apply in Africa, Cuba, Malaysia and Indonesia?

China's water problem is restricted to the Northern and Eastern Industrial povinces where water is scarce because of the industry. Agricultural land in those regions is be used for urban expansion and does contribute to China's falling food production as does the increasing population due to increasing longevity BUT the main cause is the lack of infrastructure and diesel oil rationing due to a lack of supply.

This year is the first in China's history where China has become a net importer of food.

You need to read more widely.

I was preparing a scathing response to Richard Castles. But then realised there was not much to respond to.
If a person wants to complain about not getting wet in the rain because they're holding an umbrella. Who am I to stop them?

T.Sett, says "I will have to agree with you on one point. The climate has changed in the past." .... but you give me no option but to ask the obvious. Why is climate now not deemed as normal natural historical change too?

When I look at the aa index of geomagnetic activity I simply see as clear as day that our largest plasma discharge formation, the sun drives earth's climate ..... it gives the best indication of what has happened since 1884 and better than sun spot numbers. Of course a word of warning, you will find that there is no necessity to go looking for some imaginary or substantially manufactured hole since the 1950s for some dodgy AGWer to plug CO2 into.

My interest in this climate debate stems mostly from the rise of a particularly nasty media priest class who continually pump out this deceitful theology posing as science. There is no honest investigative science journalism to be found in Australia. If Kevvy really is intent on an education revolution then he should start by depoliticising science and opening it up to greater scrutiny and debate. He has completely failed on this core promise since day one and we appear to now have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save Australia and the planet.

Keith, I would suggest that you have your facts wrong. China has been a net importer of food during several years starting at 1980.

See
http://www.cast-science.org/charlesABlackCurrent.asp?idBoardMember=108

David

T.Sett

Yeah, Richard Castles is looking forward to ignoring my reply (to what I have no idea unless G Larsen is Castle’s sock-puppet) so I’ll make it easier for him … I won’t reply.

Hi Keiran,

I already addressed your question in the same post you quote from. Perhaps I need to elaborate.
1. The current warming trend cannot be attributed to the usual suspects (solar activity, as measured as output of Watts per square metre, is down, Earth's orbit is stable, etc.)
2. Fossil fuel produced carbon is isotopically identifiable. It is also prevalent in the atmosphere.
3. Evidence suggests that the Oceans are reaching saturation point for CO2 storage.

There are many more points that convince me but they are the main three. I am after all limited to two posts a day and 350 words.
I am happy to be proved wrong. But skewing a graph to suite your argument or looking solely at one of the numerous factors of climate will not do it for me.
I can't speak for the media. All I can say is ignore them, I try to. They still have a lot to answer for for portraying lay persons such as professors of History as experts in this field.

T Sett,

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that what you’re saying is your gut reaction to scathe me was tempered when you realized my comment was above challenge. Was this the gentle sound of a penny dropping?

For surely, the alternative is inconceivable. The Time article to which I referred talks about increased carbon emission, massive deforestation in Brazil, rising food prices and food shortages. I’ll quote:

“Four years ago, two University of Minnesota researchers predicted the ranks of the hungry would drop to 625 million by 2025; last year, after adjusting for the inflationary effects of biofuels, they increased their prediction to 1.2 billion.”

I can only hope that I have misunderstood you in saying that half a billion starving people isn’t “much to respond to.” Or is it the climate alarmists who are “in denial” of the real issues in the world?

The sad thing is that we are repeatedly told that it is the third world that will suffer most from the effects of climate change (although the IPCC’s emissions scenarios are based on them effectively becoming first world nations – figure that one out for me), yet it now appears that such policies are serving to keep them in their place, or worse, thus either making them more vulnerable if the climate predictions are founded, or has them paying a ghastly cost if they aren’t.

All this further confirms for me that “the issue” can’t simply be left in the hands of “climate scientists” alone, as much as the likes of Prof Karoly are enjoying paroxysms of self-importance in the spotlight.

I have read and re-read your comment about rain and umbrellas but, I’m sorry, for the life of me, it’s still meaningless.

Anyway, I’ve had enough for now. I return once in a while to OLO for some good articles, but find the commentary disappointingly shallow and nasty. I get sucked in thinking things might have changed but I always regret it. I’ve got better things to do

Q&A

Tamino's (Hanson’s Bulldog = HB) post you link to refers to a critique of various bloggers (principally Lucia) who have set up various statistical techniques to falsify, or otherwise, the IPPC AR4 temperature projection. This is a work in process. Note HB's analysis refers to the TAR while Lucia’s relates to last year’s AR4.

HB posts Ramhstorf’s temperature chart (to end 2006) with an updated chart (to end 2007 -courtesy of Ramhstorf).

Lucia’s (& David Stockwell’s – see link) issue is with the smoothing, trend technique used by Ramhstorf & its lack of documentation & uncertainty analysis accompanying its publication.

http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-et-al-2007-ipcc-error/#comment-112759

On another issue, I basically agree with HB that 7-10 years is too short a time to conclude that warming has stopped, as HB argues in another of his posts linked below (You Bet). I like his 2- sigma falsification method.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/#more-569

However this is a totally different kettle of fish to the proposition that “the warming is actually at the top end of the range predicted by the IPPC in 2001”, which stretches credibility beyond breaking point.

(BTW Q&A I just pinched myself; yes it’s me & not Richard Castles).

Jeez VK

You really should read and check the dates of the links you supply.

The latest link you supplied shows China has been a net importer of CEREALS at various points in the last 25 years.

My statement was not about cereals but about being a net importer of FOOD.

These points are ignored in your earlier links. And in previous years while China imported grain (Cereals) it was still a net exporter of food.

Fantasyland is full of people who lack basic comprehension skills...

Now consider reading this article to see the relation between fuel prices and oil demands and the resultant pressures exerted on food supply and demand and you'll perhaps start to understand my points. It's not all about water shortages and droughts nor diminishing agricultural land.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/06/food.foodanddrink

'you can lead a horse to water but ... whatever'

Oh and note the date of this article ... April 2008

not March 1998, nor April 1998 nor October 2001 which are the dates of the articles you quoted. Seven to ten years out of date.

Jeez really Vk are you keeping up or are you merely doing as the scientists do ... focusing on the past.

And if you think I'm ridiculing you and your attitudes, well I am, but I'm not so coarse as to suggest you are living in fantasyland. You show the evidence that you are doing that all by yourself without much help from me.

I'm sitting here wondering to myself why I bother?

And I'm thinking of Woodrow Wilson when he said

'Why would you murder a man when he's intent on suicide.'

Hope you get my point.

G Larsen

Appreciate your response. A lot of work is in progress (contrary to popular belief) and the links you point to are in one such area.

We won’t know if the "sceptics will have their day" for another 5-10 yrs.

In the mean time, we have some important policy decisions to make and this is where the ‘debate’ is being focussed (by the decision makers anyway) whether we like it or not.

It would help if everybody contributed in a constructive way.

Q&A suggests we should all contribute in a "constructive way". I agree because in issues like AGW it will always come down to ..... does the hypothesis over-ride the evidence? e.g. Just observe how the blinded IPCC and AGW greenhousers led a chorus of approval when they embraced with a complete lack of critical evaluation M Mann's attempted revision of the last millennium's climatic history with his "hockey stick " chart and hypothesis , ..... and "for one reason and one reason only - it told them exactly what they wanted to hear."

The political IPCC is giving us a pseudoscience with an eclipse of reason and total loss of all credibility on climate. It also assumes with anthropogenic grandeur that the debate is over without acknowledging that the case for AGW has been fully created from careless/very selective data acquisition and dodgy data processing. i.e. When you have a virtual monopoly of research funding who needs integrity?

When all we see involves an outcome directed pseudo science trying to force/fudge raw data to conform to something that is expected to be seen I would ask Q&A to take off the blinkers if he wishes to be constructive.

I'm sure I would agree to much of T.Sett's thoughts about the environment but on climate, however, there are numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed a weak media and propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view that they are carbon sinners, that they are in fact displaying intelligence and virtue. I simply find this profoundly disquieting.

This article by Professor Barry Brook is very interesting.
I am ashamed to say, I have been guilty of feeding trolls. No more!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/24/2226189.htm

T.Sett

“I am ashamed to say, I have been guilty of feeding trolls.”

Why “no more”? I find it quite amusing to see their musing!

“After over 100 years since the godless, liberal hippy Svante Arrhenius was inspired by Al Gore to publish estimates of a doubling of carbon dioxide, the global warming hysteria began!

Today, Global Warming is a scam put forth by people who care about the environment to steal all our tax dollars, destroy the free world, put computer chips into our bodies, and push Islamo-fascism on the innocent children of today.

Al Gore’s second coming began with his torturous power-point presentation, and his establishment of the church of warmist alarmism called “IPCC” of which he took over the role of Messiah.

After that, he decided to take his revenge on the American people by teaming up with thousands of scientists who secretly gathered in communist infested Kyoto where they all secretly agreed to perpetuate the myth that the average temperature was rising.

According to some economists, such a temperature doesn’t actually exist so whether we are on Venus or Earth would make no difference. This is simply more proof of the liberals attempt to make imaginary numbers up and scare us into going green.

... all things that look like hockey sticks are bad. If you see one, attack it. Also, if you’re a hockey fan, you’re a hypocrite.”

Read the full story here:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/summary-of-a-century-worth-of-physics/#more-142

T.Sett that article on the ABC from some Prof is pure propaganda. For the AGWers especially, we certainly see that they will need to be controlled, prepared and repeatedly warned, be well armed with entrenched avoidance behaviours like pulling down the shutters, disconnecting and walking away from highly plausible arguments. i.e. Keep the blinkers well and truly on and as I say, I simply find this arrogance profoundly disquieting.

Comments about your three main points.

(1) Since the IPCC selectively only looks at solar irradiance on selectively short timelines/data and ignores other essential solar "pulses", represents one very good reason to study the aa index of geomagnetic activity which has doubled and been in an uptrend for over 100 years. Only a halfwit would ignore this fact. The last thirty years of this index seems to indicate signs of instability or what one may call the shakes. This could mean a turning point after a rather long very active period. The present extended solar minimum could be confirmation .... we can only speculate but it is not going unnoticed by many leading scientists.

(2) Human CO2 emissions in the air is not rocket science but if I was an obnoxious little weed, I would be thankful of all this extra and free CO2 fertiliser that would allow me to grow healthier, bigger, stronger and greener.

(3) When we have long warming periods such as 20thC we know for a fact that the oceans that contain the bulk of the surface CO2, release this gas and when the climate cycle turns down cooler it just gets re-absorbed. Our emissions of this minuscule amount will have next to no effect on the earth’s CO2 quota let alone it’s temperature. i.e. Oceans reaching saturation point for CO2 is misleading nonsense.

I see the lines are drawn, the levelers with full defence of the defenceless argument based on fraudulent charts and bodgy climate models declaring we must all reduce our lifestyle to that of an 11th century subsistence farmer.
One thing good from it, no more children being brainwashed with environmental propaganda, they will all be toiling in the fields for sun up to sun down, pulling the plough and removing bugs from the maize crop.

Watch out, the EU set up these socialist structures for controlling food prices back in the 1970s. the policy doubled the cost of food in UK overnight, created surpluses which were sold at below cost to Russia and handed over an olive oil lake to be burgled by the Mafia.

Does anyone think “carbon trading” will be any different?

Give a government an opportunity and they will bugger it up but this time it will not be on a national scale, nor a continental scale. It will be a world wide stuff up and, here is the point,

It will be you and I who will pay for it.

Alternatively, we could all leave the doomsayers to slash their wrists, get on with our own lives and save the pain.

I for one will follow that alternative regardless of the protestrations from the environmental fascists.

You never know, I might have found or been tipped on an alternative to the problem and be quietly investing in the opportunities which are sure to come with change.

I see the lines are drawn, the levelers with full defence of the defenceless argument based on fraudulent charts and bodgy climate models declaring we must all reduce our lifestyle to that of an 11th century subsistence farmer.
One thing good from it, no more children being brainwashed with environmental propaganda, they will all be toiling in the fields for sun up to sun down, pulling the plough and removing bugs from the maize crop.

Watch out, the EU set up these socialist structures for controlling food prices back in the 1970s. the policy doubled the cost of food in UK overnight, created surpluses which were sold at below cost to Russia and handed over an olive oil lake to be burgled by the Mafia.

Does anyone think “carbon trading” will be any different?

Give a government an opportunity and they will bugger it up but this time it will not be on a national scale, nor a continental scale. It will be a world wide stuff up and, here is the point,

It will be you and I who will pay for it.

Alternatively, we could all leave the doomsayers to slash their wrists, get on with our own lives and save the pain.

I for one will follow that alternative regardless of the protestrations from the environmental fascists.

You never know, I might have found or been tipped on an alternative to the problem and be quietly investing in the opportunities which are sure to come with change.

Socialism by Stealth, that is all it is, dressed up as enrivonmentalism. Trotskys entryists quietky feeding the small minded envy of the gullible.

How are things Q&A, still peddling your partonising garbage?

Never did see you substantiate your fraudulent claim that I made "misguided statements".

I guess "sledging" is about as close as you get to "professional integrity"

“Argument based on fraudulent charts and bodgy climate models declaring we must all reduce our lifestyle to that of an 11th century subsistence farmer.”

Yep, another misguided statement from “The Book-keeper’s Guide to Climate Science”.

As for Col’s colourful classic; “Environmental fascists … Socialism by Stealth … Trotskys entryists quietly feeding the small minded envy of the gullible.”

Global Warming is just a hoax perpetrated by “environmental extremists”, "left-wing loonies" and ‘liberal wackos” such as:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
World Meteorological Organisation
National Academy of Sciences
State of the Canadian Cryosphere
Environmental Protection Agency
The Royal Society of the UK
Australian Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Centre for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Academia Brasiliera de CiÃncias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academia des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Well ... you get the drift.

And not least the 179 “enviro-nazi” countries of the world that are signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

More food Col?

Q&A “Yep, another misguided statement from “The Book-keeper’s Guide to Climate Science”.

I see you allude to my qualifications as “book-keeping”. How sneeringly dismissive and patronizing of you.

What I do covers bookkeeping (if you cannot reconcile a bank statement, you ain’t worth calling an accountant) but I also cover alot more, not that you could appreciate, being probably incapable of keeping a set of books or balance a budget to save your life.

But a deficiency in your performance has never stopped you from sneering at others. I guess, from your lowly perspective, “sneering” encapsulates the closest you can get to feelings of success.

As to my “misguided statements” – if they were so misguided, you would be able to challenge them directly, instead of listing the names of government and other authorities as evidence to my “misguided” nature.

Well the world was convinced of the merits of DDT, lead in petrol and thalidomide. All those authorities you list would have endorsed or at least condoned their use, had they been around at the time.

As for getting a “consensus” from a UN forum, you are pulling yourself. What comes out of those talk fests is a consensus to convene more talk fests and keep the scientific and diplomatic “trough-snorters” with full bellies and additional sojourns in exotic locations.

So try again Q&A. I do believe those initials of yours must be short for “Quixotic” and “Asinine”, you are certainly easily provoked to tilt at windmills, adopting the dim-witted posture, as we saw on the Jennifer Marohasy thread and are seeing here again.

And still no declaration of your test-tube boiler credentials. Indeed, the hollow claims of the wannabe

Hi Mark,

Hmmm.... I'm not impressed. A few obvious things. Why start your plot at 1990? Your explanation that it's the Kyoto year seems a bit disingenuous. A quick look at your data shows that both 1989 and 1991 were quite a bit cooler than 1990. In fact 1990 was a record breaking year, the hottest year ever up until then, broken five years later in 1995 and eight years later in 1998 (a record that still stands). But why only go back 18 years? Why not go back to the 70s or even the 50s? If you do that the rise in temperature is quite spectacular and greatly dwarfs any putative downturn in 2008.

The second thing that I think is a big weakness of this article is that you are placing a lot of faith in just two months of data for 2008. I know the results look promising, but you aren't following your own advice - lay low for a while until you get a bit more data.

Finally, I am very unimpressed by your assertion, stated as if uncontested fact, that "not much has happened since the monster high of 1998". The facts (from your data) are that following the scorcher of 1998, every year until 2005 was the second highest on record until modest declines in 2006 and 2007. I suppose at least you didn't do what some people have done - draw a straight line from 1998 to 2007 to show that we are about to enter a new ice-age.

Like you I wish AGW would go away - be a false alarm, something we don't have to worry about or pay for. But I'm not that desperate that I'm going to cling to a straw comprising just two months of data.

Col,

I can’t help it … Erratum, “The Accountant’s Guide to Climate Change” – my deepest apologies to book-keepers.

You would have to concede you are not averse to throwing the odd condescending insult or snarky remark yourself. I guess we all have our sensitivities, I’m sorry Col … I fed you and you took the bait.

Seriously, I know you are an accountant and believe you are a very good one at that. One only has to view your comments on threads that require an understanding of things fiscal – the current general discussion thread started by pelican; “A New Taxation System,” a case in point.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1730&page=0

You have particular expertise in a certain field (accountancy) that one assumes is utilised in a very constructive and rewarding way. I am sure your clients/employers pay well, commensurate with the value they perceive your service/s to be – as you remind us all quite often.

Indeed, I would hope that these same clients or employer/s of yours would ask you for fiscal advice on confronting the challenges that ‘climate change’ is presenting to them (this is where your advice can/could be very constructive).

I sincerely hope you don’t respond with statements like;

“Argument based on fraudulent charts and bodgy climate models declaring we must all reduce our lifestyle to that of an 11th century subsistence farmer.”

Nevertheless, making statements like this on OLO just demonstrates that you are no different to the GW alarmists, but from the extreme opposite point of view – this can’t be helpful, in fact it is a very divisive road to travel.

I too have my expertise and would like to think (like you) that people defer to my judgement on certain matters. Due to the nature of my work, I have particular interest in the hydrological cycle, land/ocean/atmosphere climate couplings, clouds, feedbacks, etc.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Col, you keep stalking my “credentials”. I told you last year – although at that time you did not want them. Suffice to say I’m a grumpy old fart nearing status emeritus working in the water resources sector. I certainly am not going to give you (or anyone else on an open forum) my personal details, for obvious reasons.

You raise Marohasy’s article. I was accused of being dishonest by OLO’s chief editor when talking about the 3 cells of the Walker Circulation (pertinent to the article and Spencer’s research on cloud formation and feedback loops).

This very public statement by OLO’s founder and chief editor I found reprehensible, contravening the very standards he lays down for everybody else. It is akin to me calling you a liar in matters of accountancy, something I (and I hope you, as a professional) would never do.

Col, where you and I could have some meaningful dialogue (about ‘climate change’) is in terms of business risk management. I have tried before but as I recall, you did not want to engage. Exposure to risk is something that all businesses must address if they are to deal with the issues raised by climate change. Denying this won’t make it go away – indeed, some businesses will fail if they don’t adapt to the changing climate (pun intended).

Regards

Dear Col Rouge

So you continue your bullying tactics on other threads while refusing to acknowledge these last comments from me here.

Now I understand the type of person you are and have a compassion for the hurt that you must be bearing.

Best wishes.

Q&A “So you continue your bullying tactics on other threads while refusing to acknowledge these last comments from me here.”

? ? ? you must be near to wetting yourself with excitement, waiting for my reply.

I do not know what you are on about Q&A, what arrogance you display presuming I should reply simply because you expect it.

“Now I understand the type of person you are and have a compassion for the hurt that you must be bearing.”

I neither need nor want your compassion or seek your emotional support. You are wasting your time. Whilst sarcasm becomes you, your delivery of it, like most things is pitiful.

I have been busy the last couple of days, negotiating and bringing on a new government contract.

Things more important than bandying words with a deluded, intellectual narcissist like you.

I will attend to responding to your drivel all in good time, maybe after you have climbed down off that pedestal you pretend to occupy.

For some reason, I always difficulty picturing you as “nearing status emeritus”.

(“nearing” is a very un-scientific and imprecise term. Its use casts doubt on the authenticity of the response, “nearing” could mean “I had a junior chemistry set when I was 12”).

No, I see Q&A more as one of those old ladies a smart entrepreneur employs to go around office blocks and clean the telephone hand sets and computer key boards, although it might well challenge your cognitive skills.

Erratum, “Col's Guide to Climate Change” – my deepest apologies to accountants.

Whether or not you need/want my compassion, you've got it ;-)