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).