Arjay: "Sams also indulged in a big porky.He said that co2 emitions [sic] " ...

No, I didn't.

Pericles: "It is however beholden upon those who are qualified to do so to give direct answers to direct questions" ...

Since there are no climate change scientists here to answer Arjay's question, then what is the point of it. Given that I have PhD in particle physics, I could wade into the scientific side of the climate change, but I deliberately choose not to (here) for the reasons I have mentioned - plus more below ...

The question again:

Arjay: "Why has the Earth cooled since 1998 with expodential [sic] increases in CO2 gases?""

This question might be asked for two reasons:

(a) to show that he can't even understand that a trend can have short terms fluctuations and a long term upward trend: this is analogous to saying "You say its going to get hotter as we go further into summer, and yet it was 1 degree cooler today than yesterday. Obviously you are talking rubbish." Yes Timmy, a curve with wiggles can still go up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Its simply not worth trying to explain the complexities of climate change to people who are are this thick. There are plenty of resources where they can learn this but either they don't understand them in the least, or they *choose* to either ignore them or not to look.

(b) but also because the denier astroturfers are using this tactic to try to litter the Internet with the impression that there is still some huge scientific uncertainty and debate. This is why they keep asking the same lame questions that have been answered over and over again in other forums/threads (or at least that's the kindest explanation I can think of).

Lev, I know you are trying to do the right thing, but don't play their game. If they want to disprove the science of climate change, endorsed by 30 science academies around the world, then let them do so in the science community itself.

WHERE HAVE ALL THOSE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS GONE?

Would any climate change guru please provide links / details of a model that can generate accurate and reliable predictions of how climate in Australia ONLY will change over specified periods, if Australia ONLY were to reduce CO2 emissions by specified amounts?

i.e. a model to predict local impacts for given local changes in CO2 emissions.

I am still waiting... and waiting.

LATO: "Would any climate change guru please provide ... a model to predict local impacts for given local changes in CO2 emissions."

Rhetorical questions like that generally only work if they aren't so obviously flawed. As it stands, your question is rather like asking sociologists to provide a model showing you will loose money if you embark on a crime rampage in your local neighbourhood. If that proposition really reflects your principles then give it a go. If you do it well you could become a very wealthy man.

LATO,

There are no climate change scientists who have responded to this discussion. True, some commentators have PhDs (such as Sams), although that is in particle physics. I suggest you make your secondary inquiries (primary inquiries you should do yourself) towards CSIRO or the Bureau of Metereology, although I believe that the question is moot as nobody is advocacting the policy which you suggest.

Sams,

I do give people the benefit of the doubt in the first - and often second - instance. Arjay's questions have been answered adequately and the shrill accusations of the "AGW cult" will receive the recognition that they so thoroughly deserve.

The most telling comment you have made however is that some people do seem to have gone out their way to assert from a position of wilful ignorance. The opportunities to study both the basics and more complex aspects of climate change are available.

If I may paraphrase Robert Conquest, they have attempted to establish the facts of a situation from a policy position, rather than vice-versa. In such circumstances the famous quote by Thomas Paine is most appropriate:

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."

Lev wrote: "If I may paraphrase Robert Conquest, they have attempted to establish the facts of a situation from a policy position, rather than vice-versa."

A useful reference that I must remember. I still think though that you give them too much credibility in assuming that they are even trying to "establish the facts". However, I could just be overly cynical.

I am not at all surprised that I have not had any responses to my question. There are no such models which satisfy my criteria _ and I have done a good deal of homework looking at models generated by the main research organisations.

Some years ago I attended a seminar about econometrics given by a world famous economist_ later a nobel prize winner. The seminar was attended mainly by economists , econometricians and mathematical statisticians. I had the audacity to ask the speaker to compare the predictive capability of econometric models to predictions made by astronomers, which as we know are very accurate. Most of the audience objected to my question, but the speaker was very happy to give me a very interesting reply.

He asked me to think of the development of the motor car _ from the very early models at one end of the spectrum to the very latest models with all the electronics etc. at the other end. He said, “Well, on that scale, in econometrics we are about to start designing the Model-T.” Neither I, nor the rest of the audience expected such a humble response!

Climate change models are a more recent development than econometric models and in general are far more complex and consequently prone to many more pitfalls.

The point I am trying to make is that it is very easy to fall into the trap of assigning too much credibility to predictions made climate change models, which broadly speaking are by their very nature very fragile especially when it comes to long term predictions.