one under god
Have been back since early in the week but curled up in a ball with a bad dose of food poisoning.

My question was to draw attention to the differences between things philosophical (race, culture, religion, politics, law, etc) and science – I think you have identified where I was coming from.

There are many issues that plague societies today and if we are to effectively address them we have to meet in the middle first, with mutual respect and a preparedness to listen and negotiate a sustainable outcome for the benefit of all – it may even culminate in moving towards the other end of the string.

In terms of the climate change debate, this is exactly what is happening in the forum of the UNFCCC. We have divergent parties that represent opposite ends of that straight line and as we have seen, some parties find it difficult to meet in the middle; they want it their way alone.

Science is different. It is not a religion, culture, law or economic paradigm. Outcomes are based on the probabilities of certain things happening – but it is not absolute. The Sun will probably rise tomorrow, but one day it won’t. In the context of the climate change debate, it is not about meeting in the middle. We have say 99% of scientists/scientific academies at one end of that string saying that AGW is real and poses a serious threat to life as we know it – but, it is not absolute.

In terms of Geoff Davies’ article, it never ceases to amaze me how those not trained in the specialities of science are prepared to dismiss the science as wrong.

In terms of my original post, those that have criticised the science (or the IPCC process) have not proffered any better way to disseminate the science to the general public. One has to question their motives.

Keiran,
You questioned the paper I linked to; contact the author (address in the paper). He can better answer you.

I think the ABC site was wrong in its caricature and have written hard copy to them, have you?

If you want to have more input, you should look at this site:

http://network.nature.com/boston/news/articles/2008/04/10/bringing-order-to-online-discussions-about-climate-change

It goes to the heart of my original post and while problematic (as Gavin Schmidt indicates) people like you would probably get some benefit out of the interaction.

Q&A, your AGW is a paradox and you can only have a paradox if you adopt wrong assumptions. The facts are so obviously positive because CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients ... carbon is the building block of life. We see biomass is booming and our earth is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

From my perspective the question is why we can have so many poor sods infected with the AGW mind virus, a serious psychotic disorder of perception all frothing with delusion and false assumptions. Also, why should we be so damned respectful of this lying, superstitious belief with its weird respect for lazy minds living in ratbaggery? Are people just so naive or stooopid not to comprehend?

This ABC's “Professor Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator" effort is no surprise. It quite clearly exposes the underbelly of the AGW faith where it instructs the paradox that CO2 emissions are evil, when you should die, that you are not welcome to this world, that you are a burden until you die, that we are all guilty of this carbon sin, you should never use a car, never fly anywhere, use no energy, eat grass, etc. One of the weirdest notions promoted here is that in life we are allowed or given quotas for everything? Cripes this AGW is an extraordinary, twisted, religious playpen.

I find it hillarious that you mention this fool Gavin Schmidt from UNrealclimate as someone you respect. I'd say Q&A, that as a scientist the first rule is that you should not fool yourself but this Schmidt has easily found himself and cleverly attempts to fool others. Also i did not question the paper you linked to at all ..... merely interpreted their graphs and repeated some of their findings for your benefit. Comprehend?

Thank you Keiran.

"CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients ... carbon is the building block of life"

But that's a matter of the Earth, the biosphere. I have no doubt that whatever we do, life on Earth will continue. Most likely humans also will continue.

It seems to me the question is whether our society/civilisation will survive. And I think there are many indications that our current system is not sustainable. AGW, if it exists, is just one symptom of that, but is the major symptom that has made it to public consciousness.

We can ignore (or debate without acting) what we are doing to the Earth until climate change destroys our society, or we can act now to change our society to one that suits both us and the Earth.

Keiran
You've convinced me … you haven't a clue, you're wasted space and you're consuming more time than I am prepared to keep giving, bye-bye.

_______________________

timbp

An example of “ignoring or debating without acting”:-

In April last year the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Massachusetts vs the United States Environmental Protection Authority and determined that the USEPA has the legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles as a pollutant under the United States Clean Air Act, and must regulate under that law if the agency determines that CO2 emissions lead to an endangerment of public health or welfare.

Six months ago the USEPA informed the White House of its finding that carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to public welfare in the United States and, pursuant to that endangerment finding, proposed to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles.

Due to the Bush Administration’s deny, delay and obfuscate agenda, the EPA took no further action.

Three months ago, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman, Henry Waxman, wrote a letter …

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080312110250.pdf

… to the EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, citing information provided to the Committee by several senior EPA officials on how a major effort to comply with the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs EPA had been, well … *blocked*.

The EPA “endangerment” document has not been released publicly.

However, a reading of the US Climate Change Science Program report, ‘The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States’

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm

… released on May 27, provides all the evidence that should be required in order to trigger significant steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,both through the Clean Air Act and via the implementation of emissions cap and trade legislation.

Two days ago we have a US Senate filibuster,

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-warming7-2008jun07,0,4903933.story

Now, whoever becomes the next US President, McCain (R) or Obama (D), neither intends to ignore/silence the scientists like Bush et al and the deny/delay brigade here on OLO.

For this I am cautiously optimistic, for the US, then China/India and the rest of world.