I wish I could claim authorship of the following brilliant argument AGAINST rash action concerning CO2, but I can't. The author derives an easily-understandable probability formula measures the seriousness with which we should respond to "global warming". Spot on...

All of the following is a quote from http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/global-warming/

In order to adopt the Warmers’ full program, you have to prove:

1. That we can accurately measure whether the earth is getting warmer or not.
2. That the proxy data (ice core samples, tree rings, etc.) is reliable enough to provide a good baseline for comparison.
3. That the timeline of climate change is adequately large to be meaningful. (1,000 years versus 1 billion, for example).

Now that you’ve proven all these things. You must prove:

4. That we can accurately assess man’s contributions to the putative warming.
5. That we can accurately model and predict how changes to man’s behavior will affect the putative warming trend.
6. That we can meaningfully lower man’s impact on the climate through a coordinated global effort.
7. That this effort at remediation can be shared equitably around the world.

If you’ve gotten that far, then you must show:

8. That the global efforts at combating the putative warming have a net quality of life and economic benefit around the globe. In other words, the costs of remediation are outweighed by the benefits.

Finally, you need to disprove that:

9. There is a higher net benefit to mankind by letting the earth warm, as the above post discusses.

If you take any reasonable guess at odds for each of these and plug this percentage into a sequential probability formula, you can see how utterly ridiculous this whole warming religion is. You can never get even close to 50 percent. These idiots want to tax us all into oblivion for a longshot bet that none of them would make at a craps table.

pAGWR = (p1 * p2 * p3 * p4 * p5 * p6 * p7 * p8) * (1 - p9)

Linear thinking is indeed in short supply among these so-called climate scientists.

Just a note to say that my piece from Thursday 26 June, 'Is climate change "the" issue, or one of many', is not, as one commenter to this article appears to think, one in a series published by Online Opinion expressing climate change denialism. The title reflects the motion put to the recent Deakin debate, which was part of the 2008 Deakin lectures.

In the piece, it is very clear which side of the debate I come down on. Climate change is real, and urgent action must be taken globally, including by Australia in response to the Garnaut Review. My article makes the point that there is little point setting up false oppositions between climate change and other issues, such as global poverty, as they are more productively seen as very much related. However, I conclude that climate change deserves recognition as the overarching issue, agreeing with Chris Turner, a speaker in the debate, that, despite the importance of many other issues, climate change is 'the big tent in which they all dance'.

Further, I did not care at all for the recent Harris and McLean piece, and agree with Clive Hamilton's comments in that regard, but I was happy that Online Opinion chose to give space to my piece on the Deakin debate, and to include links to recent reports suggesting our target for carbon emissions needs to be a lot lower - for example, in Bill McKibben's late-2007 Washington Post piece reporting James Hansen's finding that 350ppm would be a CO2 target more likely to avert dangerous climate change.

What a shame there isn't a hardcopy edition of Online Opinion so Clive could burn it.

Duncan73": What a shame there isn't a hardcopy edition of Online Opinion so Clive could burn it."

What a shame many OLO posters can't see the difference between preferring to publish elsewhere and censorship.

What are you arguing: That Clive Hamilton should be forced to publish on OLO? Or that he has no right to be critical of any perceived bias on OLO? Or that he should not defend his colleagues from the OLO's editor's over-the-top criticism? That Clive Hamilton should be censored?

Can we use this debate to refocus on “climate change”?

Over millennia, the world has undergone “climate change” cycles of warm periods and ice ages, associated with solar and volcanic activity. Three key questions of relevance are (my opinion) 1) the contribution of humankind in the last 5,000 years, 2) how big that contribution may be by us in 21st century, and 3) what can we do about it. I can only briefly discuss in a short post.

Humankind started contributing to environmental changes with burning of grass and woodlands as an aid to hunting. When nomadic tribes first settled in valleys and plains, humankind cut down trees for shelter, fuel, and tools. The denuded hills in Western Europe, Middle East and Mediterranean give testimony.

In last 2 centuries, large tracts of field and arable land have been replaced by brick and concrete cities and roads, with different heat absorption and reflection properties. This may only be 5% of the world’s surface, but has made city liver hotter, as air conditioners testify.

Currently, we are witnessing melting of ice caps, bigger cycles of “wet and dry” than in previous decades, potential population and food crises and some measurable increase in sea levels. Some may be part of a natural cycle, but it would be difficult to deny some contribution from humankind.

Over the globe, population has grown enormously. We cannot expect undeveloped countries not to seize opportunities for economic prosperity.

In simple terms, this raises issues of “shelter, food and fuel” and the clash with environmental and climate issues. In reality, it is a complex challenge.

So far, a lot of debate has focused on alternative forms of producing energy. Good, but more consideration needs be given to more efficient use of existing resources and energy in urban design; e.g. double-glazing, solar hot water, more efficient cars, water recycling, etc.

We need to develop an attitude of mind and range of practical and achievable solutions.

I am commercially involved in solid and permeable seawall construction for protection of coastlines and marine wet lands. We have to start somewhere.

Darren

"Just a note to say that my piece from Thursday 26 June, 'Is climate change "the" issue, or one of many', is not, as one commenter to this article appears to think, one in a series published by Online Opinion expressing climate change denialism. The title reflects the motion put to the recent Deakin debate, which was part of the 2008 Deakin lectures."

My apologies, but it certainly is an unfortunate choice of title! "Is climate change 'the' issue, or one of many?" definitely gives the impression of downplaying the importance of climate change. I understand that climate change does have a complex interplay with poverty, but it is still the most urgent issue facing humanity. If we fail on this one, nothing else really matters.

Every title of every article arguing such a case should have a title that reflects this reality. Especially on OLO where there are so many articles and time constraints force you to make selective judgements based largely on your reading of the initial title.