Sams said

5. The fact that anti-climate change authors go to great pains not to
disclose their links to fossil-fuel funding. This is clear signal of dishonesty and lack of integrity

Might not it be an indication that they know they will not be allowed
to take part in the discussion if their affiliations were known ?

That they would be insulted and called corrupt ?

The problem that I see as an outsider is that the pro global warming
proponents have reached the level of a religion and anyone who
questions their "science" is in the same catagory as someone who swears in church.

I see them as the other side of the same coin.
Frankly they have become a mob of ratbags.
Now you will try and say that is not at the level at which you are
operating but you have brought up the suggestion that their opinions
should not be considered.
Even if the coal and oil companies express contrary opinions surely
it is their right to air them ? Or do we need an inquisition ?
I am not picking on you here in particular but on the general trend
that I see.

Bazz: "you have brought up the suggestion that their opinions should not be considered."

Those strawmen sure are easy to mow down aren't they. It is general practice in law and government that vested interests must be declared. There are very goods reason for this that also apply here. Anyone who fails to declare such interests is of sub-par ethical standard in my opinion.

Trying to dirty up strongly held beliefs about climate change by calling it a "religion" is a new tactic we are seeing. It has no basis in fact. If a significant proportion the G8+5 national science academies overnight reversed their current unanimous endorsement of the human-caused climate change explanation, we would take notice. Thus it lacks that absolutism of religious belief. Additonally, there is no CC bible and there are no CC deities involved either, so the whole concept is just the dying throws of a lost debate.

Bazz: "Might not it be an indication that they know they will not be allowed to take part in the discussion if their affiliations were known ?"

And what would lead them to that conclusion? For the most part we obviously do know their affiliations and yet they are allowed to take part in the discussion. (You could not of missed the great kerfuffle created by claims that OLO published more of this side of the story than the other, surely?) Have a look on www.sourcewatch.org sometime if you think anyone can hide.

In general disclosure of relationships that may effect your viewpoint, such as being paid by someone effected by the outcome or a story, or being related to them, is considered a normal part of ethical reporting. Surely you don't disagree with it?

Tom Harris is copping a pasting here because not just because he doesn't disclose it, he has been caught actively trying to hide it in the past.

Normally its done more subtly. For example we get a number of contributors here from the AEF. I am fairly sure that when we see an article from Jennifer Marohasy, Bod Carter and friends what we get is their views - not the AEF's. One reason for thinking this is Jennifer loudly protests any time someone claims she is paid to express a particular view, and I take her at her word. The AEF merely chooses members that reflect its political outlook, and then ensures their voices get heard far and wide. As a astroturfing strategy it works well, while remaining on the ethical high ground. Yet despite not being paid, Jennifer still acknowledges her links with the AEF on every article she submits.

If Tom displayed the same ethical standards he might have more success at being taken at his word.

rstuart;
I meant to thank you for that link to co2 logarithmic article.
I have read through quickly once and more carefully a second time, but
I am sure I have not got everything out of it yet.

However the graphs did display what I had thought was the case from
other reading. That even a doubling of co2 will not make much
difference to global warming. The curve has indeed rolled over quite
significantly at present co2 levels.

Now I am prepared to believe my interpretation is premature so I will
have to through it all again.

Yes, I believe that disclosure is important but it should not lead to
abuse and accusations of dishonesty. However it looks like the
scientific community is subject to the same human failings as us poor
mortals.

The sad thing is that all this argument will have no effect, even if
the whole scientific community decided that global warming was not on
the politicians have the bit between their teeth and can never be
seen to be wrong.
Come hell or high water (oh dear) we are in for a full on anti co2
regime and bureaucratic expense.

Bazz,

Yes, the CO2 effects on temperature are logarithmic.

You point to the logarithmic effects of CO2, but obviously the climate scientists would be well aware of it. Unlike Peak Oil or energy reserves, the climate models are dammed complex and take into account a whole pile of other variables. I can't evaluate them myself, all I can say is that they have done a reasonable job of predicting what has happened up until how.

Recall that what triggered Al Gore's interest in this what his professor's prediction of what would happen to the climate given the rapid CO2 rise. He probably didn't take too much interest in them at the time, but it sure put a bomb under him when he realised those models were right.

They have said all along the fastest changes would happen at the highest latitudes. While it is true the worlds temperature has stabilised for now, guess what - they are right as if anything the deicing of Arctic in particular is if anything proceeding faster than they predicted. You would also expect the higher latitudes of Australia to notice the changing weather patterns first. And again, broadly, that is what is happening as they predicted it will dry out down there, and despite having a good rain up north that continues to be true. Thus the changes are happening when and where they said they would. Its this broad history of success at getting the basics right that gives me confidence in their models.

I suspect you have read my posts elsewhere, so you know my thoughts on what will happen next. The Peak Oil die has been cast. CO2 levels are going to start rising faster than they have to date, and will do so regardless of the outcome of this debate about AGW. We will just have to weather whatever storm follows.

rstuart:
I have seen comment about the wx systems in moving west to east
have taken a more southerly course and that is the cause of the dryness
in southern Australia, which is not inconsistent with what you were
saying.

No, I have not seen your posting other than on OLO.
This and a couple of peak oil sites are really the only public places
that I inhabit, my interests are in other technical areas.

It should be interesting to watch trends for the rest of this year
especially if the sunspot count remains effectively at zero.