Froggie, is that all you can scrape up. These have been dealt with in other threads ad nauseum - threads that you participated in. Has something happened to your memory? Retired coal chemists for example are not active climate scientists.

Retired scientists, who are not climate scientists, and are working for fossil fuel-funded propaganda organisations do not count either. Like a card-carrying Flat Earth Society member you seek to undermine scientific consensus and reject peer review and other legitimate scientific processes to try to been the fact to fit your prejudice.

The fact that you would list such people shows that you are clutching at straws.

Froggie: "I'm sure you'll find some way to denigrate these scientists though."

.. he says pretending this is some brand new list of names. You are just putting on a show for people that haven't seen the other threads. I hope the money's worth it.

Hi Sams

Well I can see that you've got too much emotional investment in your pet theory to ever have any doubts.

Maybe it's because they are retired that they have nothing more to fear?

It seems odd to me that in your view, "consensus" only works one way i.e. pro-AGW...

I wouldn't mind if the ETS were not going to cause a great deal of financial pain to ordinary working families. In any case, an ETS will never be implemented by India and China, they have said as much, so all we will be doing is sacrificing our Australian industries to the profit of those in other countries. So, absolutely no effect on global climate change, or even in Australia, unless you can see some force field shielding Australia from the supposed effects in other parts of the world.

Funnily enough, I'm not being paid to say what I'm saying. Maybe you are being paid for your views, though. What did you say your job was?

Froggie: "It seems odd to me that in your view, "consensus" only works one way i.e. pro-AGW..."

Look the word up some time.

Froggie: "so all we will be doing is sacrificing our Australian industries to the profit of those in other countries"

Climate change is affecting, and will affect, China and India just as much as us. In fact China is already hurting from record-breaking droughts. They will be forced to act. The alternative is to sit around and watch the world disintegrate around us while we wait for someone else to act - not very smart.

Froggie: "Maybe you are being paid for your views, though. What did you say your job was?"

My job? Computer programmer, IT consultant, managing director of an IT company, and my own private project: pointing out unscrupulous liars who, if I had my way, would be put on trial in much the same way as war criminals for deliberately misinforming the public. If the climate turns bad enough, my wish may come true.

Hmmm, not much light here.

What proportion of global warming is caused by human caused GW ?

We are experiencing a little cooling over the last few years.
If human caused global warming cannot overcome that small change and
continue temperature rise then is the Human caused global warming all
that significant ?

If I get increased power bills and it turns out that it was all a
big embarrassing mistake will I be able to claim back the unwarranted
charge ? Hmmm that would indeed put the cat amoung the pigeons.

Bazz: "We are experiencing a little cooling over the last few years. If human caused global warming cannot overcome that small change and continue temperature rise then is the Human caused global warming all that significant?"

This has been discussed many times - e.g. see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ as you would well know.

Think of it like this (hypothetical): suppose scientists discovered that the sea level was rising 1 cm per month. That would be devastating. Now someone comes along as says "but it dropped a metre since last night!" referring to the low tide. Does that mean we shouldn't worry about the rising sea levels because the tide is "overcoming" the sea level rise in the short term? Of course not: the important part is how high the sea gets at high tide.

The point is that we are currently at "low tide" in terms of the heating from the sun, as it is close to the minimum of its roughly 11 year solar cycle. We are about to find out just how high the next high tide is.

There is no doubt whatsoever that five year mean temperature has risen sharply since humans started producing CO2 en masse:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
and is continuing to rise (and faster than predicted).

There is no known natural process that could cause this so quickly:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/28/2349041.htm
"North Pole ice cap 'melting faster than ever'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm
"Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'"

Sams

I can now understand why you are a supporter of AGW. Perhaps your faith in the theory is connected with the fact that “Climate Change predictions” advanced by the IPCC is based on computer programmes.

I don’t think anyone is saying that climate change is not occurring. What we are arguing about is whether or not it is the result of man’s actions, or whether it is due to natural processes (perhaps not yet fully understood by the infant science of climatology) as it has occurred throughout history.

As for China, this country has always been subject to drought and floods. The question is, does this result from man’s actions or is it natural?

According to the following article droughts and floods have been a feature of climate in Chinese historical records since at least 206 BC.

www.lanl.gov/chinawater/documents/zhuerming.pdf

I also suggest that you read this book, which is available on line:

The Asian Monsoon by Bin Wang

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yRT57TENzT8C

The author specifically mentions “Global warming” as a possible cause, and discounts it due to lack of evidence.

We do know that world climate has changed even during the last thousand years. Climatologists do not deny the occurrence of the “little ice age”. The IPCC, however, has done its best to discount it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

John Steinbeck wrote the “Grapes of Wrath” about the “Dust Bowl” of 1930’s America. Admittedly the disaster was exacerbated by poor agricultural practices, but it was primarily the drought that caused it:
http://www.ccccok.org/museum/dustbowl.html

Finally the following shows that the climate has changed significantly throughout the millennia since 10,000 plus years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_environmental_events

Sams, you are not a climate scientist, and neither am I.

I believe with an open mind and some honest investigation, you will find that the IPCC process is a deeply flawed one, which has been undertaken for political reasons.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

More and more scientists are having the courage to speak out against it.

There is plenty of evidence running counter to the assumptions of the IPCC. You will find it easily enough if you are willing to open your mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming