rstuart, sams, dickie and others.

I don’t want to believe humanity has caused this latest round of ‘global warming’ ... I want some real scientist to debunk it; they would be famous and could probably put a Nobel on their coffee table if they do.

There is much research on ‘climate sensitivity’, ‘feedbacks’ and ‘attribution’ – we should not rule out the possibility that Lindzen, Spencer or the small number of other ‘contrarian’ scientists are on to something. Personally, I am particularly interested in coupled ocean/atmosphere systems and think this has a more fundamental role in ‘climate change’ than many people realise. So, research like the above should be encouraged, supported and peer reviewed – not be dismissed out of hand.

However, the predominance of robust and vigorous science suggests that AGW is real, and it is significant. It would be wise to tread carefully, humanity is conducting an experiment that the planet has never experienced before ... and the consequences of getting it wrong would affect biodiversity of life as we know it.

Every country and government (and their oppositions) around the world know this; similarly do captains of industry. Make no mistake; the real debate is not about the science (as many would have us believe) – it’s about politics and economics, social and ideological power and control.

Corollary; ‘climate change’ is but a symptom of the human condition, it is not the cause.

In the past, major decision and policy makers around the world have been plundering the planet’s natural and finite resources in terms of ‘economic growth’, this is nonsense. The world’s leaders are now in a bun-fight on how to tackle sustainable development, not ‘climate change’.

Propagandists and alarmists (from both sides of the fence) distort and misrepresent the science for the reasons given above ... the ‘deny and delay brigade’ (see my previous post) are but a tiresome and weary distraction that must be challenged.

On a personal note:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opKBF5q7mks&feature=related

The artwork is stunning, especially in real life ... but listen to the words, it’s not hard to empathise with them or the man.

Ok, let’s try this,

Barrack Obama’s comments on ‘climate change’.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Obama-on-climate-change--US-needs-to-set-example/340796/

John McCain’s comments on ‘climate change’.

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00049&segmentID=3

China’s comments on ‘climate change’.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/04/china.jonathanwatts

etc

The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) comments on ‘climate change’.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/climate_change/climate_change.htm

Have you looked ... can you understand?

Q&A, you're dreaming if you think the Nobel system works that way. Non-conforming scientists, as with others in economics, politics and the arts, have next to no chance of getting the Nobel with its big cheque. May as well be talking about Rhodes scholarships, Churchill fellowships, or even Rotary exchange programs where family income and origin are specific prerequisites. Imperialism does not brook dissent, even at lower levels.

Like the reference to the argo buoy-letter box though: slick!

It is astounding to behold the amount of high-profile, expensive propaganda related to natural resources - and therefore natural events - these last few years. Just on local Australian issues of water and electricity supply we can see the brutal imperatives at work: privatized industries make hardly any upgrade to infrastructure, because it would deplete profits. Yet the populations have increased by as much as a million people in major cities!

CC/AGW works to much the same effect. Any apparent "consensus" or "predominance" of scientific evaluation is just that: apparent phenomena, or contrivance of preception via media.

And yes, I can understand Q&A. Especially the Guardian article relaying China's official blurbs over CC/AGW and China's softly-softly approach to rejecting imperialist emissions targets. China's leadership knows that the global propaganda has long ago infiltrated its people's minds, so they're approaching the challenge as would any spin doctor, but making sure it does not undermine its own efforts at meeting its responsibilities for its people.

The misanthropic nature of this AGW push is the nastiest aspect: notice how the anti-China and anti-India sleaze, in particular, manipulate many westerners into a vicious, nihilistic instinctive conclusion about presumed "over population". We've seen similar local nastiness before when applied to Catholic and Muslim families within the broader society under its imperialistic atheist/secular free market and hypocrite-WASP dominance. Notice too how the Guardian article confuses the matter of clear industrial pollution (dead fish from sudden toxic spill) with the long-term hocus pocus. Can you understand?

yes rstuart there is the graph from BOM - note that the temp variation of the past century is 1 degree C.

Here's an interesting article on NASA's temps over a similar time span and how it contradicts the other 3 measurement systems. They say there has been cooling, down .6C in fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/27/do2708.xml

Rather than BOM that are full of tricks look at the Southern Hemisphere .. where we live ….. has been trendless for thirty years.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3231

I suggest people read the 2007 IPCC report No 1 if looking for evidence that CO2 drives warming as the evidence is overwhelming. As for the point that the palaeoclimate record where warming precedes CO2 shows that CO2 does not cause warming, this is a bad blunder for an Electrical Engineer to make and the order of temp. and CO2 in the palaeoclimate record is actually strong evidence for CO2 warming.
In the first place, the temp. oscillations are a standard response to any system like the earth where energy is exchanged between different storage systems.(EEs study or used to study this). A change in the suns output, for example, would cause earth temperatures to oscillate and CO2 follows this in lock step(phase lock to EE). If there had been no event to pour lots of CO2 back into the atmosphere prior to say 1850, then of course there is no CO2 driving temp record and this appears to be the case for at least 600,000 years.
Since 1850, there have been increasing and now quite massive amounts of CO2 poured into the atmosphere and we are seeing the precise response expected from the record with temp. and CO2 tracking in phase lock but this time with CO2 leading rather than lagging.
All standard EE theory for systems subject to an impulse.
If the CO2 induced impulse is too large phase lock will be broken and temp. will most likely continue on its merry way irrespective pf what CO2 levels do.
Where can one place this bet with David Evans that he talks about?