CJ Morgan

Could you please list the number of people killed as a result of global warming. Nearest 1,000 is fine, thanks

Grey, you are probably correct in saying the Sanders article was supporting climate models of the time - and thus the original doesn't.

However after I hit the "Submit" button on my previous post, I realised there is a bigger flaw than that. There is nothing in the original paper (or Sanders abstract that matter) that indicates disagreement, or otherwise, with AGW. It is a paper discussing a technical issue with the models. The authors stance of whether AGW is real or not is simply not mentioned.

Thus to say the paper doesn't support AGW is at best misleading. This is worse than making a mistake with one paper, as I imagine all of the other papers listed were chosen using the same criteria.

Thanks for replying as politely as you did, BTW. The tone of my response didn't deserve such kind treatment.

jc2, have you ever applied thge breaks in a car as you see yourself heading into an intersection where if you continued at speed a serious crash would almost certainly occur.

Should you have you avoided using the breaks because you and your family had not yet been killed.

In this case the world has been experiencing severe weather extremes (not proof on it's own but an expected symptom of GW whatever the cause). People are being killed by severe weather - whats the current estimate on the deaths in Burma due to the cyclone they experienced? Just one out of the ordinary incident.

R0bert

I used to read Online Opinion almost every day, but I stopped for the reasons Clive outlined. In fact I'd deleted my account and hadn't looked at OLO for months. The only way I knew that Clive had decided to say goodbye was a post in another blog.

Let me say that some of the most interesting articles I have read online have been in Online Opinion. But Clive is right. Online Opinion has been captured by the denialists. It seems that the editors have some blind spot, some irrational urge that makes them publish the silliest, most ludicrous, most poorly researched article, so long as it pushes a denialist line. The articles on global warming are extraordinary in their awfulness, particularly when compared with the excellent articles on other topics.

The day I finally decided I couldn't be bothered with OLO anymore was earlier this year when some book-keeper wrote an article that comprised a few EXCEL graphs proving that global warming had stopped in 1998. It was a shocker - a dismal piece of propaganda that wouldn't have passed muster in Primary School. If that's the quality, the depth of research, the profundity of understanding that OLO has sunk to then I'm sorry, but I'm not interested.

...demise of On Line Opinion ??

What a strange article and sentiment...

Here's my twist to this topic...

If Clive Hamilton is converting to Islam and is leaving OLO because he perceived that OLO is hijacked by anti-Islam elements then I can understand the sentiment. Not that I think OLO is captured by anti-Islam elements.

I think the main reasons so few Muslims post here are:
(1) Islam is inherently against freedom of expression
(2) Muslims are not capable of intellectually defend Islam.

I notice Muslims invariably dodge difficult questions. (Amazingly, naive sympathisers claim their evasiveness proof of "politeness")

Islamic forums are the comfort zones of Muslims. Over there they never publish claims that Muhammad lied about his encounters with an angel. Needless to say, they would never publish claims that the foundation of Islam is based on Muhammad's lies.

If Clive Hamilton is not converting to Islam... could he be leaving for a comfort zone, where any talk of climate change is politically correct?

Another thought... the Islam religion claims to be a complete way of life for 1.2 billions Muslims around the world. Has any climate-change advocate ever wondered if Islam religion gives a toss about global warning and greenhouse gas? If not, what hope is there when Muslims form such a large population on earth?

R0bert,
"In this case the world has been experiencing severe weather extremes (not proof on it's [sic] own but an expected symptom of GW whatever the cause). People are being killed by severe weather - whats [sic] the current estimate on the deaths in Burma due to the cyclone they experienced? Just one out of the ordinary incident."

The past few decades' worth of severe weather is neither out of the ordinary nor more severe. In fact, extreme weather events have caused many times the casualties of more recent ones due to better warning systems (TC Nargis is notable in that warnings available to the Burmese junta, issued by the Indian Met Service, were not disseminated to those at risk). A cyclone in 1970 killed over a half million people in Bangladesh and cyclones there have killed people in the tens of thousands for centuries.

The issue with recent severe weather events is that many people have moved into cyclone-prone (and flood-prone) regions for lifestyle and population pressure reasons. The cost of cyclones, floods and tornadoes has gone up in large part because the value of goods and infrastructure in the effected regions have increased- in the US, markedly so. In general, the cost in lives has been steadily decreasing for years, with the possible exception of the Bay of Bengal area, which is heavily populated, low-lying, and poor.

Cyclone Nargis was by no means unusual. The only thing unusual about it was the criminal negligence of the ruling junta in Burma. Katrina was not out of the ordinary either- only the preparedness (lack of) and the follow up were unusual in their slackness. Andrew was unusual only in the damage to real estate and infrastructure.