"Some may be part of a natural cycle, but it would be difficult to deny some contribution from humankind."

There is no proof that there is any contribution from anthropogenic sources. There has also been no warming since 1998.

Many of the cycles of earth climate come from Milankovic Cycles which involve changes in earth orbit, eccentricity, wobbles, and variations in the angle of tilt, which have varying periods.

Hi Bronwyn,

A bit harsh to criticise the title, when, as I say, it reflected the motion put before the Deakin debate. That motion, I imagine, was deliberately framed to be provocative, though it did not imply that climate change wasn't 'an' issue (see, however, my discussion of two of the speakers for the negative - they seemed reluctant to grant it 'issue' status). Again, if you read the article, my position is clear. Thank you for the apology.

Cheers, Darren

Bronwyn “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.”

I do not think so.

I think maintaining the liberty of individuals in the face of state or government dominance is the most important thing.

I think to experience and personally grow through the deployment of individual choice is a fundamental freedom and is why we are born in the first place.

I think “climate change” is an emotional hobby horse which, for some (possibly with too much time on their hands or have an innate interest which they are using to claim their 15 minutes of fame) can be used to terrorise the rest of us but really could be easily fixed by doing something about population numbers.

I think “poverty” is as much a matter of attitude as it is of economic alienation.

Conversely, I think when people are denied the right to follow the path of their own choosing, through the imposition of over zealous central or local government regulation and taxation, you destroy the environment which makes life worth living.

Now I am sure you disagree with me and I recognise and support your right to disagree.

However, if we look through the pages of history, they are soiled by actions of powerful theologies and organised governments, crushing the individuals who they are supposedly intended to serve.

We have seen here an example of someone of public prominence deciding his view is omnipotent and because others have the temerity to criticise and challenge that view, he is going to withdraw his contribution, not silently but with a clamour and bustle of the petulant and bullying child.

God forbid such intolerance is ever expressed or sanctioned by government because, when they are, we are all damned and our individual worth, assigned to irrelevance.

We still come back to the central agenda –

Climate Change > Carbon Tax > Socialism by Stealth

Viking I agree with your assertion

EvilCapitalist, those who believe in global warming don’t have to prove the points that you quote to any greater extent than those who don’t believe in it would have to prove the opposite.

If you wish to absolutely assert that there is no AGW then you would need to prove points 1 to 3, the opposite of point 4 – that we can accurately assess anthropogenic contributions as not contributing to changing temperature, and the opposite of point 5 – that we can accurately model and predict that further increases in CO2, CH4, etc will have no impact on warming.

You wouldn’t need to worry about points 6 to 9.

Of course, denialists can’t do this. So the whole argument from that side of the debate that AGW advocates have to prove anything is fundamentally silly.

I believe that AGW is very real, but I can’t get enthused about it. There are much bigger and more urgent issues, namely peak oil, population growth and sustainability. The whole climate change debate is more of distraction from these huge issues than a meaningful debate.

What’s more, in addressing these other issues as effectively as we possibly could, we would be dealing with greenhouse gas emissions as effectively as we possibly could, whereas the reverse is certainly not true.

Rather than complain about an imbalance in this debate on this forum in favour of the denialists, as Clive Hamilton has done, I would complain about our collective misfocussed energies, which should be directed much more so at the other big three abovementioned interconnected issues….which I am pleased to say all get pretty good coverage on OLO.

Further to yesterday’s posts.
Scafetta etal:

The non-equilibrium thermodynamic models we used suggest that the Sun is influencing climate significantly more than the IPCC report claims. If climate is as sensitive to solar changes as [our] phenomenological findings suggest, the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly over-estimated.

Wilson, etal:
The level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 - 2 C. Changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.

We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun. However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling. Some researchers have proposed that it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun that controls both the duration and strength of the Solar cycle. We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.

The Wilson etal reference:
Wilson, I. R., Carter, B. D. and Waite, I. A. “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85–93 Published: 26 June 2008

Just published; by Australian astronomers.

Here is another recent relevant publication:

ABSTRACT
Rhodes Fairbridge died on 8th November, 2006. He was one of Australia’s most accomplished scientists and has a special connection with Australia. In July, 1912 his father Kingsley established Fairbridge Village near Perth.

It contains a chapel of elegant simplicity designed by one of the world’s most famous architects of the time, Sir Herbert Baker, as a labour of love to commemorate Kingsley. Rhodes is one of the few scientists to research the sun/climate relationship in terms of the totality of the sun’s impact on the earth (i.e. gravity, the electromagnetic force and output and their interaction). When the totality of the sun’s impact is considered, having regard to the relevant research published over the last two decades, the influence of solar variability on the earth’s climate is very strongly non-linear and stochastic. Rhodes also researched the idea that the planets might have a role in producing the sun’s variable activity. If they do and if the sun’s variable activity regulates climate, then ultimately the planets may regulate it. Recent research about the sun/climate relationship and the solar inertial motion (sim) hypothesis shows a large body of circumstantial evidence and several working hypotheses but no satisfactory account of a physical sim process. In 2007 Ulysses will send information about the solar poles. This could be decisive regarding the predictions about emergent Sunspot Cycle No 24, including the sim hypothesis.

According to the sim hypothesis, this cycle should be like Sunspot Cycle No 14, and be followed by two that will create a brief ice age. During the 1920s and ‘30s Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology published research about the sun/climate relationship, especially Sunspot Cycle No 14, showing that it probably caused the worst drought then on record.
See: http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf