Col,

'elitist wannabes'.

Oh, Oh, can I pick them out and name them!? ;-)

Accepting that I'm probably... scratch that.. definately, in the camp of CJ's 'tendentious nutters and wingnuts'.

I'm in the group that as a layman watching the debate thinks there is enough evidence for man made (or contributed to) global warning for the issue to be taken seriously.

I doubt that the answer lies in yet another tax paid to the government which they won't be able to afford to give up when it becomes irrelevant (petrol parity pricing anybody) nor do I think making peoples lives harder economically will help us to make better choices environmentally. People who are pushed are more likely to take shortcuts (filament lamps are a lot cheaper than the low energy ones).

I do find the reaction to global warming deniars and sceptics worrying. The kind of reaction I've seen normally indicates to me people who are not confident of their case rather than those who know they have nothing to fear from open debate.

I think we have at least two kinds of deniars/sceptics - those who just are not interested in considering anything which goes against existing beliefs (if it's not in the bible or on a conspiracy web site I don't believe it) and those who have looked at the evidence and are not convinced. We should not confuse the two.

OLO's standards should not be harmed by the latter (enhanced in fact) and I can't think of a viable way around the former. I suspect that those positions are mirrored in the acceptor/believer camp.

For myself I've only look at the summary material so maybe both sides do have a third grouping, those who are willing to consider evidence but who lack the background to come to trully informed decisions about this.

R0bert

Well done Clive - this must be a record.

I think the common thread that runs through the comments is FEAR.

FEAR that the Golem of our glorious industrial consumer society has leprosy.

FEAR that the extremities are obviously beginning to fester.

FEAR of the amputations that must be performed.

Everyone wants to be a surgeon. No-one admits to being a problem. See how they run!

*

HIV-like, the spread of Environmental Leprosy was transmitted by contact with unconstrained global economics. Thanks to high priests like my old hero Pope Keating, the condoms were peeled off - and boy - didn't we have an orgy of growth!

So now we are outgrowing the limits to our present existence. Peak Oil is happening now. Peak People was exceeded decades ago. Peak air and clean water are just a distant memory. I fear the extent of the Peak Denial, Hubris and Greed that is yet to follow, if this thread is anything to go by.

Our atmosphere is no more substantial than the filmy plastic bag we tried to take our newly purchased planet home in. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Our gravity-defying excrement floats away out of sight and irrational mind. Look not to your instep for a stinking mess. You're soakin' in it.

^

I'll give an elephant stamp to anyone who watches this short video through to the end.

Nandor Says Farewell:

http://www.greens.org.nz/node/18811

- enjoy!

Further to previous posts, this paper by one of the world’s experts on the time series analysis of hydrological phenomena falsifies IPCC climate models. It is not about the role of the Sun. As the limit is 2 X 350 words per day, I will have quite a few more posts to come on this matter.
Koutsoyiannis:
Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series.
Abstract
As falsifiability is an essential element of science (Karl Popper), many have disputed the scientific basis of climatic predictions on the grounds that they are not falsifiable or verifiable at present. This critique arises from the argument that we need to wait several decades before we may know how reliable the predictions will be. However, elements of falsifiability already exist, given that many of the climatic model outputs contain time series for past periods. In particular, the models of the IPCC Third Assessment Report have projected future climate starting from 1990; thus, there is an 18-year period for which comparison of model outputs and reality is possible. In practice, the climatic model outputs are downscaled to finer spatial scales, and conclusions are drawn for the evolution of regional climates and hydrological regimes; thus, it is essential to make such comparisons on regional scales and point basis rather than on global or hemispheric scales. In this study, we have retrieved temperature and precipitation records, at least 100-year long, from a number of stations worldwide. We have also retrieved a number of climatic model outputs, extracted the time series for the grid points closest to each examined station, and produced a time series for the station location based on best linear estimation. Finally, to assess the reliability of model predictions, we have compared the historical with the model time series using several statistical indicators including long-term variability, from monthly to over a year (climatic) time scales. Based on these analyses, we discuss the usefulness of climatic model future projections (with emphasis on precipitation) from a hydrological perspective, in relationship to a long-term uncertainty framework.
See: http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850

Well - it seems to me that Clive Hamilton has had a very good opportunity to put his case and to highlight what he sees as lack of disclosure by Tom Harris.

I am a bit concerned that the attitude appears to be a demand that OLO restrict its postings to those with whom Clive agrees.

I for one am not convinced that the science is in and have, personally, taken a 'its prudent to prepare' approach. I am certainly not convinced that Clive has proved his own case, so I am a little bit sceptical about his tactic to instead seek to gag those with alternative views.

For all that, I would rather see him continue to argue his case than to take his ball and go home. OLO is hardly demised just because Clive has 'deemed' it so.

Let me defend the diversity of OLO. I too have been an avid reader and sometimes contributor to OLO. Over the years I to have found I am reading less and less of the articles published.

However I think that has been the result of OLO attracting a much wider group of contributors. Many of those people have interests and concerns that I'd never considered and in many cases I'm simply am not interested. I don't see that as a decline but much rather an increase in diversity. I'd be more concerned if item after item had no or very few comments. And that happily isn't the case and just proves we are thankfully all different and tolerant. Well done Susan and Graham.

In the climate change debate I'm a fence sitter. I simply don't know what is causing the changes in temperature, both up and down. I read as much as I can but recently I've stopped reading the articles of people who support the idea of manmade climate change simply because they have so little to so that is new. On the other hand people who don't support or who question Climate change causation are contributing new data, information and opinion.

Seeing Clive leave OLO for that reason leaves me totally underwhelmed.

As for bias in OLO I've experienced rejection and think they lean far to far to thr left. Oh and as a personal note the rejection I received was justified. I sat down re-assessed what I'd written and simply rewrote the article. It was published in it's new form. The content didn't really change. Many people deride my opinions and challenge them. In one particular opinion I see great imbalance in articles. It only encourages me to debate.