Janama: "Sams, you keep pointing me to springerlink.com knowing full well I am not about to outlay $32 for every article I wish to read."

Referring to:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/ ("Climatic Change")

It should be sufficient for our purposes to read the abstracts, which are free.

You see, there is no dissent amongst the real practising climate scientists taken from a large sample in a peer-reviewed climate science journal --- according to them, human-caused climate change is accepted and they've moved on to analyse the impacts and means of dealing with it.

There are possibly a handful climate scientists in the world who dissent, but the ones that have been mentioned so far on OLO are either:

1. Linked to funding from big fossil fuel companies - this is by far the commonest scenario; or

2. have had errors discovered in their analysis by more than one independent study, yet refuse to budge on their conclusions based on their flawed analysis.

Links to political posts on EPW public blogs, blogs pretending to be science journals, ex TV weather reporters, retired 86 year old coal chemists, etc. etc. are a poor substitutes for the research of active climate scientists.

I'm afraid, if you accept the jury to be the set of all active qualified climate scientists, then the jury is clearly decided and humans are guilty of causing the current regime of climate change.

oh really Sams - well this qualified practicing climate scientist disagrees with you.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3

positive feedback means runaway warming as predicted by Hansen and Gore - negative feedback means the earth compensates through it's own systems and maintains a regular life supporting system.

Dr Roy Spencer's recent research, which has been peer reviewed and is about to be published, presents evidence that the earth operates with a negative feedback system.

Now that's good news isn't it? - well for me it is, maybe not for you.

Janama: "oh really Sams - well this qualified practicing climate scientist disagrees with you"

Yes, really. And you prove my point in fact.

You keep pasting up the same old names and I'll keep knocking them down. Roy Spencer is one of those handful of dissenters I mentioned. He is:

1. part of an organisation that claims it is "bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

2. linked to organisations that have received millions of dollars of private funding by ExxonMobil, and also organisations that " make the claim that 'anti-smoking advocates' are exaggerating the health threats of smoking"

3. His research about cooling in certain parts of the atmosphere was shown to be wrong by independent science teams. He now admits it was wrong but seemingly is too proud to retract the theories that he based on it.

Yoo-hoo KEITH. Sorry I took so long to reply.
You asked “why the change of emphasis?”

This is a distinction I have consistently made because my reading of knowledgeable and/or scientific literature. The climate Scientists I have talked with tell me that is and always has been THE Issue.

Like the hole in the ozone layer it was a fact not the end conclusion. ‘Global warming’ was intended as a possibility; it is the media who set it in public impression as the ultimate event context, the catchy brand name if you like. Some have used this brand to make the point for change.
Hence my point of the “[in]articulate unknowing”. Science is never cut and dried the devil is always in the caveats and terminology.

As the subject developed the scientist tell me that “Global warming” became either an advanced symptom or one of many vectors in the scientific discussion of the ultimate consequence ‘Catastrophic Climate Change’.

Ask yourself is Global warming the end result or is there more beyond? Are there undeniable events that will in all probability change the climate? Are these events may independent of “GLOBAL warming “?
- ocean acidification
- The melting of land locked glaciers
- The movement of Flora and Fauna to higher altitudes including species related extinctions.
- Rising Green house gasses other than CO2
To mention a few. The list goes on and on.

If these are spontaneous events then what is the cause and what will be the consequences? Probable Global CLIMATE change! (Not necessarily GW).
Is it man made or natural? Hence my point of defensive planing e.g. if we’re being killed by rising or super angry oceans the root cause is moot at that point!

A cursory look around to day demonstrates our polluted World one can reasonably ask how long before we choke in the stuff. Polluted water, inappropriate agriculture, salientian, desertification etc.
Science/life is not all about the seeming big ticket items it’s about the billions of prosaic issues and events. We need to stop squabbling over profit and focus on the real game…Survival.

While the whole World is whacked out of fear of Climate apocalypse, it seems Apple Isle Senator and gamine, Christine Milne is indeed living her own nightmare of waking up in lots of strange places. Masquerading as a green warrior, like her mentor Bob Brown, she lampoons tiresome Rudd/Wong/Garett as " paralysed with fear ", clinging to the past ? Some Pollies have short memories - most suffer chronic selective amnesia.

Painting the kettle black, the Greenies minority Party are no better at posturing and pandering to populism as any other. After all, where else would they find the lucrative lurks and perks of Office except in Oz's chimerical Parliament ?

Synergistic no less, CM whinges her constituents complain of the lack of action in providing freebie solar water heating appliances, insulation etc, fact is our welfare-gravy train mind-set is on notice. The true irony - they should opt for another Party that provides taxpayer largess quick smart. Apart from the tokenism, the Greenies are as irrevelant as the defunct keep-the-bastards-honest Democrats.Sayonara !

Fearless Green Leader Brown's call to shift Carbon Emission Agenda from Politicians to Scientist is perplexing. There is no concensus in the scientific world over Global warming. Camps are equally divided. Proponents accepting .4 degrees F to .8 F are squabbling at the uncertainty of a 200 years time span ? Laboratory modelling is iffy science at best. Evidence based theories and Phd hypotheses are just as ambivalent.

Wong's Green paper should have been shredded and pulped. Impromptu hairy-fairy 2007 Kyoto Protocol promises made on the run, conflict with Ross Garnaut's 500 page manifesto - which favours Corporate sponsership.The secrecy and clandestine venues between Govt, power brokers,lobbyist, vested interest ultimately determined it's belated outcome. The implausible 25,000 tonnes shared by 1000 company stakeholders are the obvious beneficiaries of Govt's scheme.

Latest OECD's Climate Emission Report on Aust, definitely rules out compensation of any kind to polluters, plus elemination of environmental harmful subsidies e.g. Argricultural, transport, and Building construction. Sustainable development is high priority. The Sink or swim dilemma. The focus here is not blinkered - like the

the present crop of egocentric opportunist who have climbed on board climate band wagon, painted themselves green and joined the greenhouse mafia, replete with wrist-bands and grotesque tee shirts. Bunny ear's anyone ?

The abject paucity of ideas coming from Rudd & Co, despite the much publicised 2020 blab-fest of eminently brilliant minds, and Kate Blanchette/ Hugh Jackman, consistes mainly of making plastic shopping bags a cost item,replacing light bulbs with one's 3 times it's value, planting shrubs, diverting the Murray-Darling rivers, erecting solar panels, water tanks etc, all of which involve a cost burden on the consumer's hip-pocket. Electricity charges have increased and despite air-conditioner's galore, for every 10.5 kwh we consume, one metric tonne of GHG is generated. The average Oz household chews 60-90 kwh per month.CSIO maintains each aussie-bleeder generates 27.54 mt/y. All at a time when the economy is spiralling out of control, inflation, petrol,food,rents,mortgage defaults etc.

What of our carbon foot print ? Like Blind Freddy, we grope for intelligent ideas - with Political overtones. To make things palatable to the electorate - token tax incentives, maternity leave, child care subsidies, carer's bonuses, a raft of other allowances, to placate the dissidents.

Here,we are addicted to the motor vehicle like no other Nation.After home ownership, the automobile is King.Many will attest to the pride, utmost care, and devotion aficionados heap on # Uno. Partners, family play second-fiddle.

ABS - Bureau of Statistics reveal 507,627 vehicles in 2007, and 518,873 in 2008. Annually we expect 6 million adding to traffic snarls and congestion. Significantly, GHE is horrendous. Importantly, NO Govt is prepared to crack down on the user pays syndrome.In context,Motor Sport is the most highly publicied event, bar none.Revenues are astronomical. State'svie for the privilege to stage Formula 1 & 3,V8 Supercar's,Rally's, Motorcycle, ans Marine speedboat events.All use high octane formulated inhibiters to enhance performance. Without exception, all are gas-guzzlers.Indy 300,Bathust Panorama, Melbourne Grand Prix, Adelaide Supercar series. Endless adrenalin charging spectaculars. Thousands drive to these events.

Not be be outdone, the Army Chinooks,Blackhawk, and Iroquois choppers stage their own brand of entertainment.

Seriously ?