Q&A

You have made a good initiative.

Why I don't believe in AGW:
1. There are a lot of scientists, some in the climate field, who don't agree with the theory.
2. Some of the contributors to the IPCC have distanced themselves from its conclusions and recommendations.
3. There appears to be a strong political side to the pro-AGW argument. As I said before, politics has hijacked science.
4. The AGW side seem to have this "believe or else" attitude.
5. Too much alarmism and ridiculous "scenarios" advanced by leaders and followers of the AGW movement - viz Steven Schneider. Films like "Inconvenient Truth", and "The day after tomorrow".
6. "Scenarios" by way of computer models are influenced heavily by the information that is fed into them. GIGO principal. I can't believe that scientists have managed to put every possible influence and feed-back into their scenarios with something as complex as the climate. Indeed, solar activity was all but ignored until recently.
7. The observed climate does not appear to agree with the models.
8. Al Gore believes in it for the benefit of his hip pocket.
There are other reasons. You are right, the AGW mob needs to do a better job of informing the great unwashed.

Crock: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you two seem to be saying is basically this: I (crock) am not a scientist, therefore I should agree what a majority of climate scientists (not all climate scientists) say, or become a climate scientist myself and subject my theories to peer review."

I indicated that, in my opinion, this was the most effective approach for establishing *scientific* fact. I have not told you the keep quiet, although I have be told that be a few here lately (or possibly by the same person who keeps making up new aliases).

Bugsy: "Oh Crock, well done you, likening your opponents to Fascists. Like that hasn't been done on the internet before."

"As a [forum] discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

fungochumley: "Ian refutes this in the commentary on his article above"

Er, no. Blithely denies is not the same as "refutes".

Froggie: "Why I don't believe in AGW"

Froggie: "There are a lot of scientists, some in the climate field, who don't agree with the theory"

Assuming "the theory" is: 'the current regime of climate change is human-caused, primarily by CO2 emissions'.

No there aren't, far from it. There are a very small number - of those, almost all are linked to the fossil-fuel industry, and almost none in the climate science field. You probably have vastly underestimate the total number of scientists. For example, FASTS boasts a membership of 60,000 *Australian* scientists. If you have a reference estimating the *current* percentage then show it. One way to estimate this is to examine publications in peer-reviewed climate science journals. One of the key criteria of being an active scientist is keeping up publications in such journals, so this is a good measure.

Froggie: "Some of the contributors to the IPCC have distanced themselves from its conclusions and recommendations."

Which authors? Since submissions about the report were open to the public, a number of people that made such submissions have labelled themselves "IPCC expert reviewers" or "contributors".

Froggie: "There appears to be a strong political side to the pro-AGW argument."

The politics is being driven by scientific advice, and the huge community call for action - a big majority and rising.

Froggie: "The AGW side seem to have this "believe or else" attitude"

Or else what?

Froggie: "Too much alarmism and ridiculous "scenarios" .."

That is putting the cart before the horse. If you don't accept the basic theory then the rest will seem ridiculous. Some populist films haven't helped the cause, but there are still some very frightening scenarios, such as the various tipping points that have a good scientific basis.

Froggie: ""Scenarios" by way of computer models are influenced heavily by the information that is fed into them."

Obviously. Its the best we've got. Do you have a better approach, other than wait and see?

Froggie: "The observed climate does not appear to agree with the models."

If anything, climate change is proceeeding faster than predicted

It is a good initiative, Q&A. Froggie's points pretty well coincide with mine, although I neither believe nor disbelieve in human-created global warming. i am like that about most things, and I suspect that a lot of the problems in this debate relate to individual philosophies and personalities . I prefer to operate on the basis of probability, and historical experience. So far science hasn't been good at getting future scenarios right. I am also disturbed by the alacrity with which non-scientists oversimplify and distort facts, and then assume that some things are given then use intimidation and ridicule to suppress debate.

I would be a more convinced if I had a satisfactory explanation of what caused previous cold spells and warm spells, including recent ones , and why such a small amount carbon dioxide can have such an enormous effect. I also wonder if there is so much uncertainty about the extent of the greenhouse effect, PLUS the possibility of a European ice age caused by the disruption of the golf stream, PLUS controversy about when global warming will resume in earnest after plateauing out. It seems people are making things up as they go along. . I also wonder whether clouds have really been fully included in the models
But getting back to personal philosophies, I suspect the twain shall never meet with me and Sams or Bugsy. I don't care how many clever people say what is going to happen, I stick with William: "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." We just don't know what they are. I'm happy to accept that Sams and Bugsy have their own opinions, I just think they should respect others'. If they say that's not appropriate in times of "emergency" .. which they seeem to be ... then my fears of fascsim are well-grounded, whatever Wikkipedia says.
Please note: there is no ridicule or name-calling in this post,. I request you to show the same restraint. I am NOT calling anyone fascists. fascism is a proclivity within all of us.

Then we're agreed. You can all believe what you like and we won't send any of your children to re-education camps. The scientists will continue to advise the politicians on what the science says, the politicians can make policy accordingly and the bloggers can do whatever they want to do, which is mainly fill up the internet with useless opinions (yes, I am under no illusions that my opinions are actually useless, at least when written on the internet). The fact that the policy makers do not consult you personally when making decisions, does not make it fascism.

And then in 40 years time, when our grandchildren ask us we can tell them what we did. Will you be proud to tell them?

Sams: "No there aren't, far from it. There are a very small number - of those, almost all are linked to the fossil-fuel industry, and almost none in the climate science field".

Ever heard of Bill Kinninmonth? He's neither a tool of the "fossil-fuel industry nor is he outside the climate field, having been director of the National Climate Centre for some years.

There are others, all from the climate or related sciences:
Lindzen, Landsea, Wingham, Kirkby, Dyson, Solanki, Tsonis, Leroux, Christy, Jaworowski, Carter, Gray, Bryson, Segalstad, Svensmark, Abdussamatov, Ollier, Michaels, Motl, Soon and McKitrick.

So much for your "tiny minority" argument.