I’m seriously worried about the “consequences of profligacy” argument. As Ian McEwan has pointed out it really makes you question the motivations behind what people are thinking and seeing: very much like a variation on the guy with the placard in the cartoon , “the end is nigh”. And hence the vociferousness and strange glee with which people celebrate any perceived evidence that the end may be nigh. “Repent, Crock!” is what I’m hearing.

Unfortunately, “a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.”

Of course you will say the same applies to me. But
I DIDN”T have trouble with Sams’ argument. I wasn’t talking about “fallacious appeal to authority”, I was talking about ANY appeal to authority. Stubbornly and by your view irrationally, I actually need more to convince me than that. I also understand perfectly the difference between proof and evidence. I just think this particular evidence is way too circumstantial.

However, you seem to be ignoring what I’m saying about the fact that I AM taking action, but from a broader basis than simply the possibility that AGW does exist. There are lots of things that impel us to take action at all sorts of levels. Family, local, regional, national etc. GW, A or not, is just one.

Meanwhile, neither you nor SAMS has answered anyone’s questions about nuclear power and your attitudes towards it. One thing we do seem to agree on is that we need to find alternative sources of power that are sustainable.

1. Is nuclear one of those?
2. Since you believe the problems are urgent, what is your urgent solution to meeting the power needs of the world?

I’ve been busy with other things but have watched from the sideline – interesting comments indeed. Thanks to those who specifically replied.

Froggie
From your perspective, I asked “what will it take for you to believe the scientific orthodoxy of AGW?” Not why you “don’t” believe in it.

Anyway, your reasons have been addressed before, here and elsewhere – should they be revisited again for clarification on OLO? Possibly, but it would save a lot of time, frustration (on all sides) and effort if people who are really interested in ‘climate change,’ go to the primary sources – OLO is just an ‘Opinion’ forum.

Sams
I thought it would have been constructive for you to engage with my question - if only for the benefit of others.

Clearly, the public debate is important, notwithstanding the policy and decision makers all over the planet know we have a problem and a certain amount of time to deal with it. It would help things enormously if the general public were better informed, this is not happening. Indeed, there are forces out there that deliberately misrepresent and distort the science for their own agenda.

fungochumley
Thanks for your comments.
I obviously was not clear. What I meant in others stepping into Sams’ shoes (for example) was for you (for example) to answer the question I posed to Sams: “what can all the academies of science Sams lists, do ... to better inform people of the science and risks associated with AGW?

Ad homs fly both ways in the blogosphere, no one is immune. This does not generally happen in scientific fora.

Crock

Thanks for really engaging. OLO is awash with GW stuff, but you should look to other sites for more scientific rationale.

I’m also a fan of WS ... Hamlet a favourite. Whilst science is complex, we do know a lot and technology is getting better all the time.

Contrary to one of your other statements, when we look at the GCM’s and compare them to the observations, the ‘hindcasts’ are really very good. What I think you confuse is climate prediction and climate projection.

GCM’s cannot predict the future climate, but they can picture a future climate given certain scenarios (within tolerances of course). What those scenarios are (or turn out to be) really depend on what we choose to do now, at least in the short term.

To your last post – nuclear power has to be a solution – and it is, with many countries in the world. I am particularly optimistic in 4th Gen or fast breeder reactors. I don’t think we need them in Australia, yet. Check out this link, starting half way down page 6.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080804_TripReport.pdf

I would be interested in your opinion on Hansen’s “Trip Report”.

Anyway, you raise a lot of questions and issues, too much to cover on this thread about sun-spots.

Professor Brook’s current thread can bring it back to topic. His web blog can also answer many of the questions you raise, or at least point you to them.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/14/what-if-the-sun-got-stuck/

Another really good site is

http://www.realclimate.org/

For alternative views and closer to home, try

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

There are others.

Q & A,
I don't think you realise I was trying to help answer your question. You say, Houston we have a problem. I think you have two. The first is Sams. The second is you are asking the first for the solution.

So, in answer to “what can all the academies of science do to better inform people of the science and risks associated with AGW?", communicate info honestly and reasonably, and respond to valid questions.

Having now read your response to IanC on Joliffe here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7870

I feel I am cutting you a lot of slack. He raised a reasonable, relevant, valid and, unfortunately for you, inconvenient comment from him. I saw no sign of a dummy spit or of hate. It was you who took it personally and fired back uncalled for defensive insults, and then projected your dummy spit onto him. That's not science, that's childish. Like when Sams gets caught and asked if he had his hand in the cookie jar above and replies "not really".

My point is, THAT is not a better way to inform people.

The curious question is this. If 'deniers' are such a miniscule minority of 'flat-earth' kooks, why are Sams et al so defensive. The 'consensus' is the dominant view, people and businesses are on board, govts are taking action (though, of course, not enough for Greenpeace and the Aust Youth Climate Coalition) so why so threatened? I don't feel the need to hang around flat earth websites arguing with them.

Thanks for the link Froggie. I'm glad some are still focussing on other large scale stuff which has determined climate since the earth was born.

The important point is fungo, while deniers are definitely in the minority, they are only really seem to be in tiny minority in scientific circles. Political action requires a good majority of regular people to work in a democracy.

But you raise a good point, this is only an opinion site, if you want really good information, I would suggest you won't find all that much here as most of the climate articles are written by journalists or economists.

And Crock, I find it really interesting that you can be sceptical of AGW on one hand and seriously push nuclear on the other as some sort of solution to a problem you don't believe exists.

Nuclear may be a part of the solution, especially in places like China, USA, Europe etc, as they already have infrastructure and eduction programs for technicians to run them. The one thing I really worry about is how many nuclear technicians globally will need to be trained and how much will that cost us? The labour market in such a highly skilled area globally will go through the roof. China, USA etc. have nuclear navies that supply a steady stream of trained recruits, what will we do? Recruit from overseas? Will the reactors be ready in time? Can't we reduce our emissions in the short term at least?

And Crock, to further the idea of imbuing our kids with fear and pessimism, I reckon that a lot the people that argue we can't do anything about it anyway and that we should not spend money on preventing anything but on building "lifeboats" or just dealing with it are the true pessimists.

"...I find it really interesting that you can be sceptical of AGW on one hand and seriously push nuclear on the other as some sort of solution to a problem you don't believe exists."

I'm sceptical of AGW and a supporter of nuclear power. The reason? I'd like to see our coal turned into auto fuel using Fischer-Tropsch technology like that in RSA's Sasol plant, and while I doubt that pollution from coal-fired power stations is responsible for GW, it is most certainly responsible for air pollution. So, I'd like for this country to be able to thumb our noses at the Arabs, make high quality fuel for motor vehicles from an abundant resource, and make electric power from another abundant resource, namely uranium.