Like most observers of the climate debate, I am not a scientist (though I do have the benefit of technical training). It is therefore sensible for me to rely largely on the strong consensus within the scientific community to form an opinion.

There, is, of course, always a danger in placing 100 percent of our faith in technology and science, so it is good to see a vibrant debate happening.

That said, the more you look at this flurry of point-versus-counterpoint, the more you see that for most people science is actually a facade. We tend to have an inate hunch that either side is right or wrong and then snatch snippets of information to try to back up their incipient belief.

Well, we are probably all guilty of that to some degree.

I don't need any scientific analysis to tell me that abusing my body with pollution, cigarette smoke and unnatural substances will make me sick. Of course it will.

I don't need any scientific research to tell me that continuously abusing the global atmosphere will cause it (and us) harm.

To a large extent, scientific research puts hard numbers on what we already know. It took 30 year of medical science to prove the link between smoking an cancer, even longer to prove the link between passive smoking and cancer. It took so long only because the powerful cigarette companies challenged the science ever step along the way.

We are now seeing a re-run of that smoking debate. Intuition tells us that the lungs of the world are vulnerable to abuse. The scientific consensus supports that intuition with hard numbers, ad the numbers are needed so that decision-makers can act appropriately.

As much as they may retard our response to the climate change, we should value the input of the legitimate scientific sceptics (like Prof Don Aitkin) - in the interests of open, democratic, dialectic debate.

But he is dead wrong!

There are several factors that make me a sceptic in this debate.

Firstly, common sense tells you that if the weather bureau cannot tell what the weather will be like in a month's time, what hope would they have in telling you what the weather will be like in 50 years?

Secondly, common sense tells you that the real underlying cause of the CO2 problem is the rise in world population, that trying to reduce the CO2 without doing something about population is futile, and that this problem is never mentioned.

Thirdly, that there are huge vested interests involved here, particularly for government, that can reap the enormous bounty of a new (carbon) tax.

Fourthly, that when we are told that this is a moral issue, you can immediately smell a rat.

Fifthly, that Australia's emissions are negligible, and any reduction in CO2 depends on countries like India and China, who don't give a toss what Australia does as they have far more urgent issues to address.

Sixthly, that the simplest action we can take to reduce congestion and pollution is to end our immigration program, but this is never mentioned, again due to massive vested interests.

I would be interested if posters would comment on any of the above issues. In addition, I would like to know by how much the average temperature has to fall before they will admit they were wrong.

plerdsus,

Your comments are fair.

On the matter of ‘denial’ and scepticism, it seems that anyone disagreeing with the GW bullies is called a ‘denier’, but some of us deny only that humans are to blame for GW, and we also believe that CO2 emissions have minimal influence on temperature.

Global warming is real, but it is a natural occurrence which we have to adapt to. Carbon taxes, as you say, are a grab for money by governments, and will have no effect whatsoever. Nor will ‘green’ energy.

Nature will take care of itself, and we have to adapt, forgetting the ridiculous idea that we can do anything about the forces of nature.

As for Geoff Davies’ article, I’ll stick with Don Aitken and Bob
Carter.

The point that AGW sceptics seemingly deliberately miss and it is a point that Don Aitkin makes at the end of his paper "A Cool Look at Global Warming" is this:

"We are an energy-dependent society whose sources of cheap oil are declining. We really do need to develop energy-sensitive ways of leading our lives. No doubt we will do so more urgently when we are paying $4 a litre for petrol. Like most of this audience, I should think, I would like to see the rest of the world enjoying an Australian standard of living. But will there be enough space for the roads, enough cement to build them, enough metal for the cars and enough petrol to run them? Because of my upbringing, by thrifty parents who re- cycled as a matter of course, I dislike unnecessary waste, and believe that as a matter of public policy we need to make much better and more thoughtful use of the resources available to us. We have a long way to go."

Extracted from Page 15 of Don Aitkin's paper.

This is the elephant in the room. While argument revolves endlessly around anthropogenic warming versus natural climate cycle, we are still running out of natural resources and are still polluting our environment.

That sceptics like Marohasy and Bob Carter fail to address the above mentioned fact, is very suspicious indeed. Just whose interests do they support? Our future or simply to maintain 'business as usual'?

The science debate continues to rage, but even a laymen like myself can see the ice melting. We can see glaciers retreating, we can see the effects of drought in Australia and in other places around the world. Something is happening to the planet. Scientists in Antarctica are telling us that the level of C02 and Methane gas in the atmosphere is higher now than it has been for 800,000 years and is rising faster than has been predicted. Human activity is having an effect on the planet. We are upsetting nature's balance. It is easy to say Australia's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is small and we need the rest of the world to do something. I think this is rubbish we are one of the highest per capita producers of greenhouse gas emissions. We are one of the worlds largest exporters of coal. We could stop all coal mining and reduce our emissions to world average now.

Plerdsus

1. Weather is not climate
2. Population is mentioned, check out IPCC AR4
3. There are vested interests in maintaining business as usual
4. So, let us all be immoral?
5. It is a global problem requiring a global response
6. Because politicians and business want economic growth?
7. Still don’t get it do you – those bloody statistics and trend analyses.

And Carter still won’t publish his thesis in a journal, ever wonder why?

Mr Right is on the correct track. Whether GW is natural or man-made, no one is going to do anything about it.
Today’s issue of The Economist has put it succinctly. . .
“Malthus will be wrong tomorrow because he was wrong yesterday” and “there is no limit to human ingenuity”.
Melting ice caps will give us more room to fish, drill for oil . . we are already converting coal to oil so “peak oil” is just rubbish. Who knows, we could soon have nuclear powered B doubles

The "we can't predict the weather tomorrow, so therefore we can't predict it in 20 years" line always cracks me up.

How about: "We can't predict what number will come up on the next roll of the dice, so probability theory is bogus"?

Predicting the next throw of the dice is a weather forecast.

Predicting the results of one million throws of the dice is climate science.

On a million throws of the dice, we can predict with a very high degree of confidence that we'll get within a very small percentage difference of 166,666 of each number. Yet amazingly, we still can't predict better than 1-in-6 what the next roll will be.

And guess what? These days even weather prediction gets it right a lot more often than the 1-in-6 chance you have of predicting the next throw of the dice!

OLO, whoever edited this down to 2000 words from the original 3600 did a wonderful job. It is more concise and clearer than the original, and yet retains all of the salient points. Like the article it critiques, it is addition it is an excellent contribution to the debate. Others, in particular a few (but not all) of the articles from members of the AEF were less than helpful.

I was wondering if are more flak generators on the skeptic side than there are on the support side. It seems like it. Elsewhere others have pointed out that OLO publishes more articles skeptical of AGW than articles supporting it. Is this a reflection on how many articles of each type that get submitted?

It seems from the responses that column inches given to AGW is somewhat out of step with its perceived importance to OLO's participants. The participants seem to be far more concerned with resource constraints - like Peak Oil, water and so on. It would be interesting to know if that is just a reflection of the attitudes in the wider community, or OLO represents the "bleating edge" as it were.

Dear plerdsus:

I fail to understand how immigration to Australia is bad for the environment globally?

It is likely that the majority of immigrants come from nations with significantly poorer environmental policies, technology and records than Australia. How keeping them "there" will help I don't understand.

Controlling our immigration levels to meet our skills/economic demands and any refugee obligations we have seems sensible to me; the upside of helping the environment is a small plus too.

John

Geoff Davies courteously gave me an advance copy of his paper, for which I thanked him. Nonetheless, close readers of my stuff will puzzle at some of what he says.

For example, he says that 'Having failed to understand why climate scientists are advocating urgent action ('stridently' he claims) Professor Aitkin proceeds to play the people instead of the ball...' What I actually said was that I would consider 'the reasons for the stridency of the AGW claim...' No climate scientists mentioned. It is a strident (literally 'harsh, loud') claim: if we don't do these things now were are doomed. The claim comes from the IPCC, but the leaders of the vcarious international climate organisations, by Al Gore, by some of our ministers. I did my best to avoid personalising the debate, naming people only where I used their own words and giving a reference.

Much more important than dismissive name-calling (of which I think there is far too much in this debate) is that Geoff Davies has introduced his own issues, after listing mine. As he knows, I agree that his issues are important, but they are not the ones I dealt with in my paper and, as one can infer from his paper, they do not depend on AGW for their importance. That's fine. Having read his objections, I think my tentative conclusions about each still stand. But can I suggest that people read both papers and see for themselves whether the questions that worry them are addressed there .

Finally, may I suggest, as courteously as possible, that people treat Wikipedia on climate change with a large grain of salt. While I use Wikipedia myself as a quick reference on a lot of things there is good evidence that what is presented there on AGW is not balanced (see http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=490337).

Don,

That link you posted about Wikipedia wasn't terribly convincing. There were around 800 words devoted to questioning the impartiality of one Wikipedia editor, William Connolley, but only one factual incident was given support them. That incident was the banning of Benny Peiser's edits on Wikipedia's Global Warming Consensus page. According to the link you posted, Connolley said his edits were "crap".

Peiser wrote a paper about the scientific consensus on climate change. It undermined an earlier paper Naomi Oreskes that is one of the pillars of the claimed consensus on climate change. The Oreskes paper features prominently on Wikipedia, and Peiser his paper to be given equal prominence. Oreskes paper was peer reviewed and published in Science. In it he said he reviewed 928 papers, and found that none argued against AGW. Peiser said he reviewed 1,247 papers and found 34 argued against AGW. He further went on to say that "Science should withdraw Oresekes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science."

The issues that Connolley had with Peiser's paper were:

- No peer reviewed journal would accept it. The paper was eventually published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

- The paper was factually wrong. When the 34 papers were examined by others, on one was found to argue against AGW. It wasn't peer reviewed. So in fact there were no pier reviewed papers arguing against AGW, which was in total agreement with Oreskes eariler paper. Peiser later agreed this was the case.

Personally, I am glad there are people like Connolley keeping crap like that out of Wikipedia.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html

Geoff Davies,"Three million yrs ago,when the earth was 2-3c hotter,sea levels were 15-35m higher."During this period CO2 levels were roughly 300 ppm[Much the same as today].Well during the Ordivician period of 450 million yrs ago CO2 levels were 4500ppm and average world temps were the same as today of deg 12C average.During the Cambrian period CO2 levels reached 7000ppm and average temps deg 22C.Jurassic period CO2 2900ppm and average temps deg 20C.Carboniferpous period,300ppm CO2 and average temps 12C.Where is the consistancy?

C02 levels do not proportionately reflect the median rise in world temps.Therefore there must be other more salient influences,outside of your CO2 scenarios,which affect median global temperatures.Please explain.

Funny how the onus is now on the skeptics to prove GW is crap when no true scientific evidence exists for it happening. Sounds like the evolution debate all over again, When people quote what the temperature was millions of years ago it shows how desperate the scaremongers are to brainwash the gullible. Seems like they have succeeded when reading many of the alarmist posts.

It would be impertinently impetuous and stupid for a layperson like me to argue with an expert in the field as professor DavieS is. I'm however a sceptic. It might well be scientifically true that human “greenhouse emissions are the cause of the present warming”. But in my opinion the real scientific question is whether these negative HUMAN actions can TRUMP the positive NATURAL FORCES of the Universe that determine the intra and inter relations of the planets and the sun in their state of equilibrium. It’s this AXIOMATIC QUESTION that the supporters of climate change, like Davies, must answer first.

There has been ample evidence that in Roman and medieval times the earth was warmer. Davies himself admits that there have been “fluctuations in the amount of heat received from the sun (due to the slow gyrations of the earth in its orbit around the sun”). It seems however that natural forces triggered their own stabilizers of cooling periods and the earth once again found its viable natural balance and was not threatened with extinction. Further, Nigel Lawson, the former editor of the Spectator and Chancellor of the Exchequer, poses the up till now unassailable question that has not been answered by the climate “gloomies”.: “Is it really plausible that there is an ideal average world temperature…from which a small departure in either direction would spell disaster?” I rest on the oars of my skepticism.

http://avant-gardestrategies.typepad.com

I think GY in his earlier article described Don Aitken as a GW 'agnostic' - I don't see an ardent denialist here just someone who questions and examines the presiding orthodoxy. Nothing wrong in that - if scientists/academics don't question and test theories they are not doing their jobs properly and we should all be worried.

Let's be honest - how are we to chart our way through the various conflicting scientific opinions and material available on this issue. Most agree GW is apon us, there is disagreement on the part humans have played. Actually let's be more honest, even the scientists cannot agree. Science is evidence-based but data can be interpreted in many ways which suggests that the data is inconclusive and drawn from many sources.

Even a non-scientist can see that man does indeed have a detrimental impact on his environment largely due to an almost religious adherence to an archaic and defunct enconomic system. I have yet to see many scientists argue against sustainability as a desirable and worthy objective.

This is probably where we should aim our efforts. The spin off will be postive regardless of whether future scientific 'evidence' conclusively confirms AGW over natural GW.

The other issue is how do we plan for GW (AGW or otherwise)? The future is how we prepare and plan for climate change - rising sea levels, displacement of large numbers of people, drastic changes in climate etal. These are the issues that should consume us rather than the never ending debate over who is right or wrong about AGW.

Dear RenegadeScience,

The effect of immigration to Australia on the global environment problem is simple.

The overwhelming proportion of the immigrants who come here do so to increase their standard of living. In doing so they will pollute more and generate more global warming gases than they would have done if they had remained in their original countries. Like most posters, I would like to see all the world live at our standard, but this is physically impossible, as the resources do not exist, and if they did, the pollution would be unbelievable. The most practical thing to do for those who are obsessed with closing the gap in living standards between the first and third worlds is to advocate a reduction in our living standard, and you would know how such advocacy would be received. I wouldn't worry too much, because I am sure that peak oil will do the job here in short order. Unfortunately it will cause a corresponding or even larger reduction elsewhere, so the gap will only increase. Nothing will be done to contain to contain the explosion in third world population, which will eventually have to be dealt with by the usual four horsemen.

There is no observational evidence for carbon emissions causing alarmist global warming. AGW is just a mind virus that operates as a literal top down mindset that would blind any effort to find anything. .... i.e. it is mind over matter rather than the much more demanding mind out of matter.

One of my concerns about AGW information, relates to the obvious promotion of `scientism', which is a belief held by many scientists that knowledge not acquired by professional scientists is knowledge not worth having. i.e. "Scientism is an affront to free people everywhere as it denies the right of the public to judge the work of science, even where this work is funded from taxpayer's money. It is a formula that holds scientists above criticism, and unaccountable to anyone but their own peers. It is an anti-democratic view of the world ....."

My other chief concern relates to the role of the media when it comes to examining science. The ABC, our national broadcaster, has proven itself to be truly disgraceful when they see themselves as a powerful priest class. Isn't this how thought police operate or is it simply inflated, cheap, self serving, bias? The media need to understand that there is nothing wrong with passionate debate but ongoing DEBATE is what there needs to be.

for rstuart: My test about balance is whether or not the three issues that concern me are discussed at any length. Wikipedia does say, in passing, that the earth seems to have been warming for the past 150 years, does not pay much attention to whether or not such warming is unprecedented, and does not deal at all well with the problem of the link between CO2 concentrations and increased temperature, I do not regard its treatment as balanced. Again and again, the entry on global warming talks about 'consensus'. I have argued that we have to look past consensus, firstly because it is not factually sound, and secondly because consensus is irrelevant. I accept in a practical sense we often do take notice of consensus, but in this case my central issues compel me to go past it.

I know that in other areas of Wikipedia there have been concerns about the capacity of people to edit their own biographies and entries with which they have an interest (this is one of the cost of Wikipedia's undoubted benefits). I thought the Solomon piece was a good illustration of some of the processes at work. But it is not at all central to my point.

We will certainly know about GW when the nukes come out against Israel. The clock is ticking.

Aitkin is a mere tool in Graham Young's let's-bully-the-ABC denialist toolkit.
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/graham-young-vs-robyn-williams-and.html

pelican, "even the scientists cannot agree".

Within the scientists who publish peer reviewed studies on study climate change there is complete agreement. It is not just a consensus, its 100% unanimous agreement, without a single dissenter. This has now been confirmed by two studies, one peer reviewed and one not.

It's only once you move outside the circle of people who have spent their lifetimes studying climate that you begin to see disagreement. Moving outside that circle also means you are hearing to the opinions of "climate layman". Some of them have spent their life times studying other fields of science, but I don't view that as particularly relevant.

The climate scientists could be, to the man, wrong. In that case it won't be called "climate science" for a generation or so, instead it will be called the "climate joke" and the people who study it will be ridiculed. If the current weather continues for a decade or so that will be the outcome. But until that point is reached I can't see any reasonable course of action but to accept what they say.

So I am believer and Don is an agnostic. Despite that my view on what should be done isn't too different to Don's, primarily because of all the other environmental pressures we face. The one step I would take is a ban on building more coal fired power plants.

Don, I accept your view on the political processes behind the current consensus. Partially by the reasoning above - you are an expert in the field, and partially because it appeals to my common sense. However, your example was poor. It is very popular to accuse Wikipedia of bias, but in my experience the reverse is true. In fact to the extent that settling on "the truth" is a political process, I would of though Wikipedia's method of doing it was one of the better processes available. Its looks better than the IPCC process, for example. This is your area - are there any studies saying one way or the other?

SURE, Plerdsus.

Forecasting 1 week and 1 century is not the same thing. We know it'll get colder in Australia over the next month or two 'cos it's winter. We know enough to forecast long-range, though not with precision.

Common sense tells us more people = more demand on resources. If CO2 increase was not an inevitable part of this there's nothing to worry about. However, it is.

I'm pretty sure governments worldwide would sooner choose not to consider the implications, whether policy- or tax-wise, given the choice. Carbon tax seeme the only measure 'the market' understands.

When we're told it's a moral issue, it's up to you how you respond. Churches must be full of rats.

True, China & India are problematic. Still, no excuse to sit on our hands.

Ceasing immigration won't reduce CO2 emissions.

Where is the temperature falling, and is it connected to the disappearing glaciers?

rstuart, brilliant posts. thank-you.

don, i have attempted a couple of times to read your article. each time i have quit in disgust. i don't give a damn about your summary of AGW. in that regard, you're simply another amateur. you're entitled to your opinion, i simply don't care what it is.

but your clumsy references to scientific history give me no confidence that you understand the nature of scientific truth or the scientific method. and i think your flippant and unsubstantiated slandering of the scientific community is disgraceful.

there's a modern fad, where critics of science think that a few references to feyerabend and popper make them philosophers of science. and they think that the obvious truth that science is a human endeavour, and thus science and scientists are prone to poor behaviour and error, gives them license to a snide skepticism on any particular scientific question. it's cheap and it's dumb.

as per davies, i am an academic. i have worked with scientists, including climate scientists. i do not put them on a pedestal. but i see them and their community as fundamentally one of intellectual integrity, in no way resembling the cartoon community in your article.

Scientists must believe in causality else they are NOT scientists. So how can ANY scientist believe in the the AGW hypothesis when there is no observational evidence for carbon emissions causing alarmist global warming. As I've said elsewhere, it seems a ridiculously simple question to ask but just how will computer modeling change the observational fact and prove alarmist AGW?

We hear a lot about computer models yet I've searched the web for someone who has done a very basic experiment.Just isolate a body of air,either under glass or isolated with it's own energy source and increase the amount of CO2 and measure the temp changes.Now every good experiment should have a control,so this should not be too difficult to achieve.Existing sealed glass houses would be ideal.Just remove enough plants and put in enough moisture to represent our planet on a miniture scale.

My question to Geoff Davies or any of our lucid AGW enthusiasts is,has this been done and what were the results?

Second question,if Christopher Scotese still stands by his data showing very little relationship between GW and CO2 concentrations over millions of yrs,why are his arguments flawed?

I’m beginning to wonder if the myriad of articles on A/CO2 is a ploy to delay any actions to mitigate the effect of industrial pollution. We could be arguing over the global warming debate for decades, while the modern day” Neros” fiddle and “Rome” continues to burn.

However, it is pleasing to note that Geoff Davies has alluded to man’s desecration of the planet when he remarks:

“However, sensible action would mitigate all three crises, and others besides, including declining soils, rivers, forests, fisheries and coral reefs, and pervasive chemical pollution.

Strangely, A/pollution is rarely acknowledged by the denialists who publish papers on CO2; however, that anthropogenic toxic substances are destroying our eco-systems, is beyond dispute. Failure to address this serious problem will have ongoing economic implications leading to considerable expenditure.

Already, humans and eco-systems detoxification abilities are failing. This is not surprising when laboratory analyses reveal the level of toxicants in soil, water supplies, oceans, atmosphere, human and animal bodies and the long-distance, transboundary distribution of those toxicants throughout the biosphere.

Discerning citizens now appear everywhere, carrying their water in plastic bottles due to their distrust of our polluted and chemically “cleaned” scheme water and the petrochemical industry is delighted.

While CO2 may sound rather benign to some, other chemicals are also emitted with industrial CO2 and we continue to be exposed to pesticides and herbicides, toxic metals, man-made persistent organic pollutants, fluorides, petroleum substances and radionuclides.

Often temperature inversions prevent the dispersion of these toxicants. Annually, billions of kilograms of carcinogenic hydrocarbons are emitted in Australia alone from the vehicular industry and industrial estates - hydrocarbons which have the ability to contaminate all living organisms.

These are the problems, currently with few solutions and these insidious problems will not be resolved until they are clearly expressed by experts so that people are aware they exist.

Geoff Davies states that “These are all symptoms of our over-exploitation of the Earth, which we must reduce anyway, regardless of global warming.”

Touche Geoff Davies. Let the remediation process begin!

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE POSTING ABOUT THIS ARTICLE?

Is it because you're totally stuck in negativity? Do you do it just to reiterate, ad nauseum, the alleged stupidity of scientists, or their alleged conspiracy to defraud taxpayers of their money?

Did anyone, apart from Dickie and perhaps one or two others, notice the idea that we can improve our lives by addressing our general over-exploitation of the Earth? If we are causing global warming, it would mitigate that problem too. If not, no harm done.

Does this possibility hold any interest? You don't have to just believe me, but is it something that might be worth looking a little further into? Could it, perhaps, be GOOD NEWS? Are you interested in good news? Don, this includes you.

Here is what is written in the longer, downloadable version of my article:

It is not so widely appreciated how relatively easy it is to reduce our wasteful use of energy and other resources. Energy use and greenhouse emissions have been reduce by two thirds or more by major corporations and many individuals, and they have saved money as a result. As our energy needs decline, renewable resources become more sufficient and the old and dirty sources become unnecessary. It is not true that renewable energy would be seriously unreliable, despite the ignorant and self-interested claims of big-energy advocates.

Recycling of materials is increasing rapidly, and Germany requires ninety percent of car components to be returned to manufacturers for recycling. There is little reason why our ingenuity will not lead us to recycle almost all materials indefinitely. This path will indeed mitigate the many crises now confronting us. In fact it is the only path that will allow our grandchildren’s grandchildren to inherit a rich and fulfilling world.

Would anybody be interested in a CONSTRUCTIVE, POSITIVE exploration of this? Or is this site only for crapping on things and people you have an instant negative emotional reaction to?

No, I'm not bitter, I'm just wondering if it's possible to provoke something more worthwhile here.

to Wadard: I could not get access to post a note on your site, so it's here: 'Since you directed us to this site, which I had not encountered before, I thought I would make a couple of comments. First, my remark about the correspondence I had received referred to the summary article and correspondence in The Australian, not the talks on the ABC, where the number of comments was quite small. Second, I too was puzzled by the 90/10 distribution of responses to the survey question. I spent 20 years or so in survey research, and that is an astonishing split. Where are the DKs and NAs (don't knows and not ascertained)? Where is the middle ground? The extra information you provided is interesting but doesn't answer those questions. And, alas, you can't add together three different lots of people and call it a sample of 3000 or so. Not on.'

to bushbasher and others of that ilk: I will try, time permitting, to engage with people who are puzzled and trying to work it out. I don't engage with ad hominem, abusive or vituperative posts. I can't help you, and you certainly don't help me.

to Geoff Davies: I have to repeat that I agree with some of what you put forward, but neither my agreement nor your position depends on AGW. I think my proposed remedies are different to yours, and we have discussed this elsewhere.

Don Aitkin

don, i can see nothing abusive or ad hominem in my post. if you do not see why i think life is too short to read amateurs' summaries of agw, i'm sorry but i can't explain it further. if you think i gave insufficient argument for censuring you for your article, i'm sorry but i am not going to lose sleep filling in the detail.

you might consider the ad hominem elements in your article. despite your claims, not naming the man doesn't mean you're not playing the man.

for rstuart: I'm sorry, I didn't answer your last question. No, I don't know of any studies that point one way or the other. Wikipedia is very new. To the best of my knowledge, university teachers at three universities known to me warn their students not to use Wikipedia as a reference. I have to say that I find it most useful as a first stop, but usually go further.

for bushbasher: You can't see anything abusive or ad hominem in what you wrote? Let me remind you. You 'quit in disgust', 'you don't give a damn', and you find what I have said 'clumsy', 'snide', 'cheap', 'dumb', 'flippant', 'unsubstantiated,' and 'slandering'. What do you regard as 'abusive' ? One of my teachers, Russel Ward, once warned me to be careful of adverbs and adjectives. If what I wanted to say needed them, I should think again. It was good advice.

OLO has gotta change its name to Irony Central.

"A cool look at Professor Aitkin’s global warming scepticism..."

Then...
"Professor Aitkin proceeds to play the people instead of the ball..."

Too funny.

What a great example of good scientific focus on the subject.

And this outstanding nugget...
"However there are other equally important questions lurking behind this debate, such as whether it would really be so hard for us to change our lifestyle, whether such changes would have other benefits, and whether we must change anyway, for reasons other than global warming."

Woohoo. Nary a logical fallacy to ponder.

In other words, when the forces of gravity were not well understood, people shouldnt walk off cliffs. Revealling.

You dont need to confound people with expansive technical articulations of gravity to impart the value of not walking off cliffs.

Doing so, smells of hidden agenda, raising our natural doubt and questioning nature. Maligning that basic tendency is ignorant and fishy. And to start calling them names like 'denialist' or 'true believer' are merely veiled backhanders attempting to drown the clear thinking in favour of emotive appeals, by making veiled inferences to holocaust denial or religious zealotry.

You cant get into the ad hom game without falling on your own sword. The only way to deal with it is to stay on point, being purely rational and in this case scientific.

The pro camp would do well no to be drawn into the ad hom nonsense, as its playing against them very badly. They're already at a disadvantage, doing all the hard work of supporting their claims. Which isnt easy to do in the face of a natural tendency to doubt claims about the unknown. It takes much effort to build something and very little to knock it over.

The pro camp take it all so personally and are heavily invested in their views. The (gravy) train is already pulling out, there are myriad things being done at the public and private levels regarding our poluting ways. Its doubtful that any of thats gonna abate in the face of generalised skepticsm.

Geoff Davies

Whenever I make a post on climate change I always refer to the fact that over-exploitation and pollution are ignored while the debate rages on as to whether climate change is anthropogenic or not.

Time and time again this 'elephant in the room' is completely ignored by both sides of the argument. Will we continue the ad hominem attacks on each other, while business still continues as usual?

If this absurd game of 'I'm right; you're wrong' continues, we deserve whatever the environmental result will be of our egocentric games.

Let Rome burn then. This argument is absurd and nothing more than a smoke-screen to prevent us from taking any positive action towards cleaning up our methods and reaching a sustainable level of existence.

mercurius,

"How about: "We can't predict what number will come up on the next roll of the dice, so probability theory is bogus"?"

Fair enuff, but do we wanna bet the whole house on the next roll.

"Predicting the results of one million throws of the dice is climate science."

Thats fine too, if it were only one roll of one die. The probabilities become rather more complex and the odds of successfully predicting outcomes widens considerably when the previous roll has an effect on the next roll (not so with die, each roll being independent) and there are millions of rolls in the predictive sequence.

"1-in-6 chance you have of predicting the next throw of the dice!"
Again, thats fine for 'a die.' There is no 1-in-six chance when its 'dice.' At the very least its 1-in-36 (2 freckled twins), 1-in-216 (3 freckled triplets) and so on, the odds widening very quickly and considerably from here on.

Predicting the probabilities of climate, with its many constantly shifting, intra-dependent variables, is like trying to predict the outcome of say a million monkeys throwing 100 dice each, some without numbers on their faces, some of the time. And with some of the monkeys playing with loaded die.

Geoff Davies “Would anybody be interested in a CONSTRUCTIVE, POSITIVE exploration of this? Or is this site only for crapping on things and people you have an instant negative emotional reaction to?”

Seems to me that is a bit like “Don’t Feed the trolls” comment which lead the Barry Brook “I am a scientist and you are not allowed to express an independent opinion” article.

I would suggest the constructive and positive exploration is coming from the skeptics, by challenging the dogmatic mantra of AGW modelers.

I would suggest the negativity and troll like actions are the product of pro-AGWists who lack the reasoning skills to counter with logic and thus descend to vilification and denigration as an expedient.

Ah Dickie, as I said trolls, now Dickie I do recall you cliaiming I myself had promoted support for “cartels”, in an attempt to vilify my view.

I have asked before and will repeat now, where are the quotes which support your vilification?

Until you can present them your view is tainted and before you suggest it again, I am not “stalking you” but merely making you accountable for what you have stated in your posts.

Geoff, in his article is certainly an alarmist AGWer focussing solely on carbon emissions, with perceptions of dramatic acceleration, of tipping points, chain reactions, of toppling of big dominos etc all to do with our elevating to dangerous levels Earth's temperature. This is simply ALARMISM built on the Goracle and it is now long past the time for us to separate climate change fact from hysteria. It is the AGWers that need to constructively/positively prove it correct or abandon this perception as false. i.e. If you are denying natural climate change then prove it with observational evidence.

Geoff, I don't mean to be rude, but even if I was an obnoxious little weed, I would be thankful of all this extra and free CO2 that would allow me to grow healthier, bigger, stronger and greeener. As an alarmist haven't you in fact missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth’s temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions. i.e. The minimal warming trend of the 20thC just happens to coincide with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production, human health, in the history of our planet. How can this be horrific and mean we are all doomed because of CO2 emissions? Every last scrap of existing scientific evidence confirms overwhelmingly that human CO2 release is good for people and enhances the biosphere/environment. If you find any plausible evidence you are welcome to let everyone know.

sigh! don, "disgust" describes my reaction, it is not abuse. ditto not giving a "damn" about your summary of agw. i gave my reasons for both of these.

the first pejorative directed at your argument (not you) was "clumsy", as in "your clumsy references to scientific history". so let's see. from your article:

"So the notion that the sun revolved around the earth was controverted by the telescope and reasoning, some of Newton’s laws of gravity were controverted by Einstein".

you are right, that i should have not referred to this as clumsy. i should have described it as meaningless or wrong, or both. (if you don't know why, look it up: wikipedia should suffice). please forgive me for pulling my punches.

shall we go through the other adjectives? let's not and say we did.

please do not confuse contempt with abuse.

And while the boys, er, fiddle on, industry continues to pollute....

"My first visit to the SIPCOT Chemicals Hub in Cuddalore, India could have appeared deceptively pleasant to outside eyes. It's a beautiful day and there's a good breeze as we drive past the welcome sign for SIPCOT. The air in some places seems far cleaner than the air in nearby Chennai. In some spots it smells sweet, in others, like opening a bottle of ibuprofen -- an antiseptic, medicinal smell.

That is until my throat gets sore, I feel a bit nauseated and my guide starts retching. My guide, a local community environmental monitor finally recovers with bloodshot eyes. A headache follows and I begin to wonder how anyone manages to work in these facilities. SIPCOT Chemical Hub sandwiches its picturesque fishing villages in between rusting hulks of chemical factories. The court ordered waste channels are overflowing with an eerily pale blue green liquid, cattle graze not far away."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/85630/

Enough with the size contest, we need to clean up our act - is there no-one paying attention?

Keiran
The only way for us to ‘observe’ the evidence is to conduct the experiment, and we are. The results tell us we should tread with caution, particularly when we have no other test tube to conduct the experiment in (While presumptuous, I don’t think either Don Aitken or Geoff Davies would disagree).
Regardless, you are again promoting the issue of “scientism” when you yourself use the science of cosmic rays, solar irradiance and sun spots to dismiss the significance of AGW – you seem to contradict yourself.
Yes, the media has a very important role in ‘disseminating’ the science and, as we continually see, it is the media that often ‘sensationalises’ a story. It really is incumbent on the scientists to ‘keep the bastards honest.’ As we have seen, this is not easy to do, and as you (and others here) so clearly demonstrate, they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
In reference to GCMs; hindcasts have been very good (giving us more confidence). No one can predict the future. However, we can project a future if certain things happen (or don’t happen) – focal to the current debate.

Arjay
I entered ‘green house effect experiment’ into my search engine and had no problem. Here is a link to an experiment conducted in high schools;

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Of course, the enhanced green house effect is more complicated.
Also, to get the geologic record in perspective, try these;

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#iceage

It's worth noting that the current era is being generically referred to as the anthropocene, for obvious reasons.

Geoff
I can understand your frustration in light of the issues you raise. Can you see a better way to disseminate the science? Nevertheless, Don raised a salient point in a previous article comment in relation to Natural Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7335#113500

While not resolved, it could be argued the whole kerfuffle can be distilled down to the philosophical bun-fight that has rocked science and the arts for millennia.

When one chooses to go on the warpath one must be confident about his position and clear and unshifting about one’s goals. Dr Davies seems like a defeated “combatant” to have abandoned the field of battle and its original goal. Now his goal no longer is to prove that greenhouse emissions cause global warming but to argue, by shifting his position and aims, that by stopping the “over-exploitation of the earth, reducing “energy use and greenhouse emissions”, all of which are easily achievable according to him, the end result will be ‘to improve our lives’, save money, and “allow our grandchildren’s grandchildren to inherit a rich and fulfilling world”.

With this new position Dr Davies has dropped the scepter of science from his hand and replaced it with the staff of the Greek seer Tiresias predicting generations ahead the fulfilled life of “grandchildren” But forgetting that the threats to a happy future of mankind do not only arise from the over exploitation of the earth but also from the mutual deadly belligerence of men their religious dogmas and ideologies.

And also his zinger that “if we are causing global warming” by “a change in our lifestyle… for reasons other than global warming…it would mitigate that problem too. If not, no harm done” Hence, there is a great chance that by the Walpolean fairy of serendipity AGM will evaporate.

http://kotzabasis1.wordpress.com

Themistocles

I disagree, it is not a war between us/them, Right/Left, scientists/non-scientists, whatever ...

Whether you believe in AGW or not, we must adapt to a warmer and wetter world.

Whether you believe in AGW or not, we must live in a more sustainable way.

By addressing both, we lessen the threats to food/water resources, energy supply/use, biodiversity/environment, national/international security, etc.

In my challenge of 17 May my intention was to broaden the view to see if there might be some common ground. Evidently Thermistocles wasn't capable of comprehending that.

I'll broaden it even a little more. If you don't believe we can endlessly increase our use of Earth's resources, the implication is that at some time we will have to change the way our economies work, and also stop the increase in population. If you also agree the Earth is showing many signs of over-exploitation (I include global warming, though you may not), then it suggests the time is now. Then, why would you spend so much energy arguing against "AGW"? Why not argue for (or work for) the change we must make?

Clive Hamilton on New Matilda says a better description of many objectors is "contrarian". Do you just like to object and be contrary? If so, deal with your personal problem instead of spraying it around on everyone else.

If you think we CAN endlessly increase our use of Earth's resources, I can only refer you to basic physics, starting with conservation of mass. (Note: I said "endlessly increase our use of resources". I didn't say "indefinitely improve the quality of our lives". We can use fewer resources more cleverly than we do now and still live well.)

If you don't see the Earth showing any signs of stress, I suggest there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I refer everyone to Clive's article:
http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-skeptics
He does a better job than me of giving a fair portrait of science, climate scientists and IPCC, and contrasting them with the shonky denialists, who of course always claim there's a conspiracy to prevent them from publishing.

Q&A ” Whether you believe in AGW or not, we must adapt to a warmer and wetter world.

Whether you believe in AGW or not, we must live in a more sustainable way.

By addressing both, we lessen the threats to food/water resources, energy supply/use, biodiversity/environment, national/international security, etc.”

If you anticipate “global warming” by some means other than anthropogenic activity then come clean and be honest about it

The reasoning goes:

Regardless of what we do the world is getting warmer.

Footnote: Using a carbon tax system to curtail or discourage carbon emissions is a fraud which will make no difference to global warming.

If you wish to debate sustainability the option are more diverse but go like this

We need to recognise our dependence on non-renewable resources and the single most critical influence on this is burgeoning human population growth.

Footnote: Using a carbon tax system to curtail or discourage carbon emissions is a fraud which will make no difference to "sustainability".

Criticism folk and suggesting they are “misguided” because they do not agree with your view is to the appropriateness of your preferred actions will never resolve the problems, if what you claim as AGW is really a non-event and the real issues are “sustainability” or “GW from an indeterminate source”.

Hanging your hat on a AGW fraud belies the quality of both your scientific reasoning and your ethics.

Trying to suck the rest of us into an AGW deception is nothing more than that, deception.

As a scientist but a novice in this field, there are a number of questions that I would like to objectively pose.

We wouldn’t seek to use science to completely describe complex multi-variate systems such as the economy, so why would science be any better at describing the dynamics of the atmosphere and climate? Putting a mathematical slant on things, the climate is likely to be an aggregate of different paradigms/regimes that closely abut each other in time and space. An analogy to this is the fractal diagram in chaos theory. What comes out of this is that a slight difference in the starting point of an equation can lead to it representing a completely different physical mode of behaviour.

So, in a field as complex as climate science, the question is always going to exist, how do scientists know which discrete physical paradigm they are mainly in and studying? How do they know there isn’t a bigger one coming down the track that won’t have an offsetting effect, for example? That’s not to say they’re not learning something useful in the climatic behaviour paradigm they are currently studying, but do they know enough to say conclusively that anthropological effects dominate in controlling our climate?

From a non-scientific perspective, there’s a further argument that I think is reasonable. As man has pumped carbon into the atmosphere, it’s his job to (eventually) mitigate the effect. Not for any scientific reason, but because he put it there – like picking up rubbish that has been dropped by people. It’s a good enough reason on its own.

As to making a difference to carbon emissions, nothing is going to happen until a modern, inspired industrialist/technologist leads the revolution via actions. Talk is only talk and actions will be the only thing that beats the problem.

Geoff Davies, "WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE POSTING ABOUT THIS ARTICLE?".

This *IS* Online Opinion, with the emphasis on the word Opinion. Sadly, many posters limit themselves to just stating their opinion. In doing so they appear to use this forum as a soap box to tell the world how it should be run, usually without much justification as to why it should be that way. I agree this can get a little tedious, even for newcomers. For us regulars its even worse - we know the opinions of the other posters, to the point that they could ghost write the contributions of those that do limit themselves to stating their opinion over and over again.

However once in a while someone rises to the occasion and says something truly novel. It might be a new viewpoint, a new factoid, or a new link. Because there is such a diverse crowd out there, some with real expertise in the area, these posts can be real gems. The art of using these forums is to develop the ability to ignore the oft-repeated opinions and go hunting for the gems. Its a tedious process, but I find that over time it gives you get a better feel for the subject matter by than say reading the popular press articles on the same subject. The popular press seems to limit itself to repeating the accepted orthodoxy, or worse giving a "balanced" view without a lot of information on which way the balance should be leaning.

Don, regarding using Wikipedia as a source. I think I may have implied using Wikipedia is better than reading published reviewed papers on the subject, or reading original sources. If so I was wrong. The processes of publishing papers that have been reviewed by anonymous, randomly selected peers is much better political system for establishing "the truth" than Wikipedia will ever be. Learning how to use and contribute to that system must be one of the things imparted by a tertiary education, and to that end if I were a teaching academic I would insist that references sources came from there as well. That said, its not a very accessible system to plebs like me. The papers and their indexing systems are often locked behind "walled gardens" established by the publishers who payment for access. What is worse the information isn't in summary form - it takes a lot of time and effort to figure out what papers are relevant.

Wikipedia is free, summarises the information for me. There are other similar systems that do the same thing - books, forums like this one, magazines and so on. But out of all those, Wikipedia's system of public edits and audit trail seems to lead a much better approximation of "the truth" than the others. For example, the history all Peiser's contributions to Wikipedia is still available, as are the reasons Connolley gave for removing them. If you didn't like Connolley's version, you could always hand out links to Peiser's.

In Clive Hamilton's opinion piece he says .. "The work of climate scientists is subject to the most rigorous testing by the peer review process before it gets the accolade of publication in respected journals."

Geoff Davies here says ..... "He (Hamilton) does a better job than me of giving a fair portrait of science, climate scientists and IPCC, and contrasting them with the shonky denialists, who of course always claim there's a conspiracy to prevent them from publishing."

In issues like AGW it will always come down to ..... does the hypothesis over-ride the evidence? As an example 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."

It seems Hamilton and Davies like to raise the high priest argument that the IPCC is the standard of standards with the most rigorous testing by the peer review process. This old fashioned worship of authority cannot work anymore for the IPCC because on this one issue we see an eclipse of reason and total loss of all credibility on climate. This is not some harmless oversight or mere mistake that can be brushed off. It says everything about the delusional or more accurately, shonky IPCC.

If Hamilton and Davies are denying natural climate change then just prove it with observational evidence for AGW ... because it certainly looks like your climate is not going to co-operate with your delusions.

Geoff,
Thanks for the link to Clive Hamilton’s précis; well worth the read.

Col Rouge
You repeatedly distort and misrepresent what I (and many others) say.

You argue for the sake of argument and therefore constructive dialogue with you is pointless.
Your adhoms are tedious and bullying.
You know I have said (many times) that if GHG emissions are taken out as the major radiative forcing of ‘climate change’ then the current warming period cannot be explained by natural forcings alone ...
Not Solar, not Cosmic Rays, not Milankovich cycles, not volcanoes, not whatever … not even your flatulence.

AGW is real, it does not matter to me whether you believe it or not.
I have always said that our current ‘climate change’ is a symptom of unsustainable human activity, and you know it.

RobP
Good questions, methinks better posed and answered at sites like Real Climate:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Are you familiar with the IPCC process or what is in their reports? Much of what you seek can be explained there:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
I agree about walking the walk; a global problem requires a global response.

rstewart
I know what you mean, there are some that are so opinionated they can’t even cite or link to relevant sources – only what comes out of their own mouth, they are ‘experts’ on everything!

Keiran
You keep asking the same old questions and raising the same old crap despite time and time again; answers are given and ‘links’ are provided, that explains it to you. It’s like Hamilton says, blinkered denialists/contrarians can’t offer anything new.

Keiran … can you think of a better way of assessing/disseminating the scientific research in a better way than what the IPCC does? Go on, give it a shot.

You show disdain for science (yet you want to be scientific in your evaluation and assessment of cosmic rays, TSI and sun spots) – Repeat, you contradict yourself.

Btw, NO scientists say natural climate variation does not occur … can you understand?
If this is your opinion, bollocks! If someone else is claiming this, please cite some friggin source.

Dr. Davies

It was evident even to blind Fredie that you broadened your view since you felt you were “narrow” in your arguments to make your case on the original issue of global warming. It’s rather amusing to hear a scientist say that by broadening his view he was seeking to find “some common ground”. Scientists, as you know better than me, are not interested in seeking a common ground but in seeking the truth. And once they are confident that they are close to finding it they don’t deviate from their path. But you did! Without consciously realizing that by doing so you were weakening your original position.

I ca assure you I am no Hamiltonian “contrarian”. If you had read my first post you would have seen that. You just gave me the strong impression with your “broadening” post that you were no longer arguing like a scientist but like a seer or more precisely like an ideologue. And your current post with its “common ground” substantiates this impression.

I don’t disagree with you that we “CAN endlessly increase our use of Eath’s resources” without endangering our future well being, or that the earth does not show “signs of “stress”. But I thought we were specifically talking about the “stress” of global warming and not the earth’s overall exploitation by man in his foolishness not to use the earth’s resources with Occam’s razor.

http://kotzabasis4.wordpress.com

Q&A, i feel there is a bit of these Hamiltons and Davies in your beliefism makeup. Such types would want people like me burned as a heretic for breaking their perceived rules. Definitely a clear case of Scientism here. Cripes these people are insecure with their "truth" as revealed from above, rather than observed or discovered. This approach to a maladaptive belief is quite simply the basis of all religious pathology.

Well I need to say this again that you and the alarmist AGWers are denying that natural climate change can produce the slight temperature rise found in the last few decades of the 20thC. The AGW hypothesis seeks to hide/distort/ignore/minimise/disprove at every opportunity natural climate change by trying to oh so zealously slot human CO2 emissions into the data. In their zeal too, it is AGWers that deny human CO2 release as good for people by enhancing the biosphere/environment. As the proposer of this anthropocentric hypothesis it is not non-AGWers' task to prove a negative by offering "anything new" because it is the AGWers that are required to constructively/positively prove it correct. This is pretty simple stuff to comprehend because that is how science works and quite naive of you to ignore.

I suppose what i'm just saying is what Richard Dawkins says ... " Let's now stop being so damned respectful!" i.e Why should people simply allow vested groups to codify their domination and not be somewhat concerned about accountability? Scientists can be just as venal or fool themselves as anyone else in the community. Scientists survive professionally by determining causality else they cease to be scientists and i am certainly not contradicting myself in this respect.

Q&A “Your adhoms are tedious and bullying.”
As the above quote from you suggests, yours are.

“AGW is real, it does not matter to me whether you believe it or not.”

Of course it is real, I have never argued that it does not exist

But

Is it “significant”, relative to other possible causes of "global warming"?

That is what I believe has not been proved but is what you are constantly preaching (replete with ad hominines and bullying).

Plus, attempting to “prove” the ponderable with bodgy models is not the reasoning or testing processes which any responsible scientist would adopt.

“I have always said that our current ‘climate change’ is a symptom of unsustainable human activity, and you know it”

I disagree and suggest your “claim” is unproven.

As for "unsustainable"

"Population Growth" is unsustainable, I see nothing in your posts to support that view.

Cut the population numbers and your reduce the rate of "unsustainable usage".

I am a mere accountant, I understand that, it sticks out like the testicles on a greyhound.

You claim to have something to do with "science", what do you suggest?

btw you might want to wager your future away on an outside bet on AGW but do not ask me to risk my shirt when I think it is devoid of common senses and is likely to fall being finishing.

Keiran, and others here who welcome increased A/CO2 levels, claiming they are beneficial, have failed to take into account the impact of other GHGs which are also released with A/carbon emissions.

A recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that increasing levels of ozone due to the growing use of fossil fuels will damage global vegetation, resulting in serious costs to the world's economy.

The analysis, reported in the November issue of Energy Policy, focused on how three environmental changes (increases in temperature, carbon dioxide and ozone) associated with human activity will affect crops, pastures and forests.

Ozone is already responsible for damaging human health, crops and ecosystems.

Ozone is one of several air pollutants regulated in the United States by the USEPA but you guessed it, it’s not regulated in Australia - nor are many other chemical emissions. Just have an early morning peep over the waters in poor old Sydney town.

The net result for business as usual: Regions such as the United States, China and Europe would need to import food, although supplying those imports would be a benefit to tropical countries.

However, the effects of ozone are decidedly different.

Without emissions restrictions, growing fuel combustion worldwide will push global average ozone up 50 percent by 2100. That increase will have a disproportionately large impact on vegetation because ozone concentrations in many locations will rise above the critical level where adverse effects are observed in plants and ecosystems.

Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter also warns: "We estimate that ozone effects on plants could double the importance of ozone increases in the lower atmosphere as a driver of climate change, so policies to limit increases in near-surface ozone must be seen as an even higher priority."

The adverse effects of ozone as an air pollutant, have been long established so I don't see a dispute on that one.

Therefore, may we have your strategies for mitigating T/ozone whilst increasing the levels of A/CO2 please Keiran?

Col puts the term "global warming" in quotes, I assume questioning whether the phenomenon actually exists.

It seems to me the only way this could be objectively established is to have some kind of temperature audit of the whole planet (assuming this is within the capacity of modern science and technology, that is). This would test the possibility that, while the poles might in fact be heating up, other parts of the planet might be cooling down. It could be that the only thing that is changing is the distribution of heat around the planet.

RobP: you mean like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg

Dickie, when you are talking about pollution i agree with much you are saying. It is a concern but not related to the alarmist AGW hypothesis which is about temperature. Everyone knows that when plants decay, or the wind blows, etc or we burn something it will disaggregate all manner of gasses, chemicals and particulates .... some very nasty or unpleasant irritants or even beneficial ones. How we shield, filter, collect, disperse, etc these natural, environmental and human driven disaggregates is important and basically a fact of life itself. Much has been and needs to be done but I remember twenty years ago when people would go to Bondi and surf underTURD. There are simply innumerable environmental issues to contend with but CO2 is not the issue.

It is well understood that motor vehicles cause a wide range of air pollution problems in cities/towns, however quite a bit has been done with fitted basic anti-pollution equipment and responsible maintenance programs. The trend is that air quality has actually been improving because of tighter controls on car emissions but car use is increasing and again more needs to be done. Hybrid and electric vehicles are now coming on the scene which is excellent for cities.

Incidentally, Dickie do you live in the modern world? You have a computer i presume but what transport do you use? What heating and power do you use?

Chade,

Something like that. In order to prove global warming, you need to have the map compiled exactly the same way for, say, the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s etc and compare the maps to see where they differ. Mathematicians could then compute an average temperature for the whole globe for each 10-year period. If the average goes up with time, then you've got global warming.

There is a slight caveat though. The accuracy of the technique depends on how much interpolation of data values has been carried out to make the temperature map. If there are great big holes spatially in the data, then the technique is less accurate.

RobP "global warming"?

Please read the entire sentence.

Is it “significant”, relative to other possible causes of "global warming"?

“Significant” is likewise emphasised.

My point remains “Global warming and global cooling possibly exists, maybe as a cyclical consequence of something, be it wobbling on the earths axis, sunspots, the influence of the moon, I do not know.

It may also be attributable to anthropogenic causes.

What we do not know, however, is how “SIGNIFICANT” are the anthropogenic causes and what proportion is due to the increase production of carbon gases, relative to the total measure of global warming, in the current phase of the possible cycle.

There is some rudimentary sampling which occurs, I suspect often in isolation to other sampling. We have some computer models being built to extrapolate that sampling and supposedly predict future consequences.

I have some knowledge of computer modelling from some of the work I am paid to do.

I recognise how easy it is to miss errors in simple models and the likelihood of errors and unlikely-hood of identifying them in more complex world models increases exponentially.

I claim, that the hypotheses put forward to support the notion of “AGW”:

lack reliable data, are
too error prone and
too poorly measured

to justify imposing some world wide regime of carbon gas-production curtailment.

My other point remains, all this talk of carbon-gas curtailment is missing the point that the real contributor to “sustainability” comes more from population numbers than by lifestyle.

Yet, all these scientific experts focus on curtailing the activities which the you and I use in experiencing our lifestyle.

The idea of carbon trading is underpinning the introduction of some form of “Carbon Tax” the consequence of which will, supposedly justify diverting monies from those who earn it into government control which, in simple terms is a strategy of “Socialism by Stealth”.

So the real debate is less about global warming and more about imposing a failed political system through the back door because previous attempts at democratic adoption and revolution have failed but the “socialist” just won’t give up.

Thank you for your response Keiran. However, since you advocate "business as usual" in the GW debate, you will of course agree that emissions of A/CO2 would elevate regardless of warming and that those elevations would also increase the levels of ozone.

Despite the recent technology to mitigate vehicular pollution, over 2 billion kilograms of CO (an ozone player) were released from the transport industry in Australia last year.

Dr Kearney's article on fossil fuel use in that industry may be of interest:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3861

Unfortunately, fossil fuel plants, refineries etc are also significantly responsible for the formation of anthropogenic ozone.

Those who advocate for the status quo will of course be required to acknowledge the scientific consensus on ozone.

Therefore, I would appreciate it if you addressed my previous question:

"May we have your strategies for mitigating T/ozone whilst increasing the levels of A/CO2 please Keiran?"

Dickie i'm always amused with the expression "business as usual" that you infer quite often. What does it mean? For yourself it implies an old fixed in place and unchanging mindset but that is far from the truth. Much is in fact being done for the environment because "business as usual" USUALLY now incorporates processes that adapt to changes.
e.g.
Higher CO2 then consider ..... converting the energy of sunlight to chemical energy. Biofuels may not be everyone's option at the moment but these don't necessarily need to be from typical food crops.
http://www.oilgae.com/
"Oilgae – Oil & Biodiesel from Algae
While a number of bio-feedstock are currently being experimented for biodiesel (and ethanol ) production, algae have emerged as one of the most promising sources especially for biodiesel production, for two main reasons (1) The yields of oil from algae are orders of magnitude higher than those for traditional oilseeds, and (2) Algae can grow in places away from the farmlands & forests, thus minimising the damages caused to the eco- and food chain systems. There is a third interesting reason as well: Algae can be grown in sewages and next to power-plant smokestacks where they digest the pollutants and give us oil!"

See what wicked pedia also says .....
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Biodiesel_from_Algae_Oil

Col,

I understand what you are saying and I have no problem with your line of logic. It’s very clearly put, actually.

But, you should understand I wasn’t trying to buy into the socialist/individualist, Left/Right debate. I maintain that the fact the term “global warming” was in quotes implies that the phenomenon is either not fully proved or understood. I was using that as a starting point to try and branch the discussion out a bit, that’s all.

A thread like this should really be about coming up with new ideas that challenge the status quo. Probably the question of overriding importance is: “Does the pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere damage the biosphere either by warming of the atmosphere, chemical pollution or some other process we don’t fully appreciate yet?”

Some people’s attempts to do this just proves that as soon as a new shoot of thinking pops up, it gets cut down – or maybe the better analogy is that it gets squashed into the turf by the heavy roller.

RobP
Yes, GW since industrialisation is significant, with GMT increasing at a rate of about 0.2 degrees C/decade at current GHGe emissions (but emissions are growing exponentially). Do a search on ‘climate sensitivity’ but wiki or the Real Climate site explains the science basics quite well. Much research is being fine-tuned on ‘climate sensitivity’ and ‘attribution’.

Dickie
In terms of GHG emissions, the simple fact is that human activity is contributing billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, more than the oceans and terrestrial biosphere can absorb.

Keiran
While CO2 is good for plants, it's no good for its heat trapping properties. Yes, some areas will benefit from new agricultural opportunities, especially in the short term. In the long term, the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Col
So, “the real debate is less about global warming and more about POLITICS …” Thank you, I have been saying that for an eternity. Oh yeah, scientists are not a bunch of Trotskyites or loony-leftists as you are forever implying in your signature “socialism by stealth” mantra.

rstewart
How do you think the science can best be disseminated to the general public – no one else seems to want to answer this question? I am ok with the IPCC process, obviously others are less so. As for wiki, it’s generally ok too. Popular magazines, blogspots, media in general and shock-jocks in particular, do more to distort or misrepresent the science than they realise. As for the journals and scientific academies – I agree in the points you were trying to make to Don Aitken.

All
Some posters claim this or opine that … fine, but they don’t/can’t back these claims or opinions up with credible primary source material. They use OLO like their soap box in Sydney's Domain - quite amusing sometimes. Check out their history, spruiking on anything and everything with an assumed self proclaimed expertise to deride even the most ardent expert in whatever specialised field these experts live.

Q&A “Oh yeah, scientists are not a bunch of Trotskyites or loony-leftists as you are forever implying in your signature “socialism by stealth” mantra.”

Never suggested they are, merely the environmental / green political lobby has been the victim of entryism.

“So, “the real debate is less about global warming and more about POLITICS …” Thank you, I have been saying that for an eternity.”

Must be something to do with your writing style, because that never comes out, you seemed to be more concerned with the deriding the right of others to hold an opinion which disagrees with yours.

“Politics” is known as the “art of the possible” your posts are devoted to regaling us with your omnipotence, more than attempting, in any way, to “politically” persuade us to your view.

As for “Socialism by Stealth” I think it describes pretty accurately the agenda of some who pretend to be “environmentally concerned” but are really just about imposing a previously failed, immoral political philosophy upon us.

Some might say I am indulging in conspiracy theory, others might agree.

I do know the practice of entryism is well known and well documented for having infiltrated the greens & fellow travellers and I further know the first line of their defence would be to deny their existence and deride the claim.

The next line of defence is to pollute the minds of the gullible with the entryist denial.

Maybe you have, over time, become “polluted”.

to AGW and its gullible proponents (based on their reliance on pseudo-science and bodgy models), I can think of one phrase of Lenin's which suits

"A Lie told often enough becomes the truth"

Keiran

These are interesting technologies you mention.

You advise that much is being done which is pleasing, however, these technologies are only in the R&D stage though one company is hoping for results by 2010. One can only describe the technlogies you outline as "futuristic" - a glimmer of hope for the next generation.

In the meantime, as a result of "business as usual" the Swan and Canning Rivers have been placed on life support. The Swan River Trust has resorted to pumping oxygen into the waterways in a desperate bid to save the fish and other acquatic life.

And that's not all. The Department of Environment and Conservation have merely slapped the wrist of a company who not only polluted the Canning River but the Southern River also. So while the DEC regulates by persuasion (breaching its own act) and enjoying their cafe lattes with the "clients," the "polluter pays" principle is completely ignored.

The new coal fired plants are being constructed, the big end of town is pumping it out in the millions of tonnes through "persuasive" regulation, desperate members of the gullible public seek counsel from Erin Brockovich whilst tropospheric ozone sits heavily in ambient air and I return to perusing Part V 49 (5) of the WA EPA Act which states:

"A person who emits an unreasonable emission from any premises or causes an unreasonable emission....., commits an offence."

Huh??