Wills
You seem to be saying that adapting to a wetter and warmer world or reducing our dependency on a fossil fuel economy should cost nothing. What econometric world do you live in?

You don’t see any positives ... really? Ok, keep your head stuck in the mud.

“The Manhattan Declaration.” Do you mean the one set up and funded by the Heartland Institute? The political activist group pushing their own agenda?

“Flawed IPCC science.” Have you even read the science behind the IPCC reports? Or do you just troll the denialosphere? Why don’t you just come out and say all the governments in the world are behind the global warming conspiracy?

“No evidence ... recent observations indicate ... ice isn’t melting ... oceans getting cooler ... sea levels are falling ... blah, blah.” Why don’t you just link to your sources of scientific endeavour? At the very least why don’t you reference them ... surely these gems are not your own? You’re the one who is sounding delusional.

And that web site of yours ... what's your agenda again?

Bazz
Disagree with some of the details but good post! A global problem requires a global solution.

Mr Right
So all the international institutions and science academies that Sams name are involved in a global conspiracy? There are people you can talk to, or stress pills you can take ... classic symptom of paranoia IMO.

Ian Castles
You are starting to sound like someone with ADHD ... or a statistician who (like many approaching emeritus status) spit the dummy and spruiks mantra like ... I told them so, I told them so.

Why don't you just pick up your ball and go home, or better still ... write a paper with DS and get it published in a journal of known repute.

Then wait at the post box for your Fields!

Hello Q&A (whoever you are),

Some weeks ago you ‘popped in’ to this Forum to suggest to Sams (whoever he is) that he might wish to look at a thread on ‘a site run by a statistician.’ You said that you’d ‘prefer to look and learn from someone like Tamino, particularly when it comes to climate change issues’ (‘Scientists, politicians and public policy: Comments’, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7736&page=7 , 11 August). Earlier you’d told Don Aitkin that you preferred Tamino (whoever he is) to Lucia (she makes no secret of the fact that she is Dr. Lucia Liljegren), because of Tamino’s ‘proper analysis’ (‘An initial reaction to Garnaut: Comments’, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7639&page=8 , 18 July).

In the light of this history, I thought I’d alert you to a recent development that might affect your assessment of Tamino’s statistical expertise and judgement.

In a characteristically ill-mannered attack on other scientists on his website earlier this year ( tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/pca-part-4-non-centered-hockey-sticks/ , 6 March),Tamino argued that ‘You shouldn’t just take my word for it, but you should take the word of Ian Jolliffe, one of the world’s foremost experts on PCA [and] author of a seminal book on the subject.’

Unfortunately for Tamino, Professor Jolliffe has now written to Tamino's blog to say that his views had been misrepresented, and that he had not endorsed ‘decentred PCA [principal components analysis]’ as had been implied in the article in question. He’s also written to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit to say that Steve’s work with Ross McKitrick accurately reflected his (Jolliffe’s) views.

Sams, as you have boasted on this Forum (‘Scientists, politicians and public policy: Comments’, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7736&page=4 ,10 August) that you don’t read Climate Audit ‘or any other amateurish crank blog that comes along’, I assume you haven’t seen Professor Jolliffe’s letter to Steve McIntyre or the ensuing discussion at that blog. In the hope that you can find the time to pay CA a visit to read Jolliffe’s expert views on this important statistical issue, I’ll paste in here a link to his letter and the related discussion: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3601 .

Prof. Jolliffe: "I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick."

Sam
your quote proves nothing except that teh professor has an open mind. The fact that he contacted Steve MacIntyre says much more than the minor reservation that you so desperately cling too here Sam.

Global Emissions can be reduced to zero or less and the world will be richer simply by investing in renewables.

There is another approach to encouraging investment in emissions reducing technology than the one of increasing the price of emissions or putting a charge on carbon.

The approach is to pay people zero interest money if they consume less energy and require them to invest those payments in renewables or energy saving infrastructure.

This will REDUCE inflation, cause no economic crisis, and it can be adjusted to get whatever reduction we need as fast as we can build renewable energy systems. The cost of running renewable energy plants is less than the cost of burning fossil fuel and the capital cost of renewable energy systems will be the same as fossil fuel power plants within 5 doublings of renewable capacity.

There is an abundance of solar thermal sites and geothermal sites in Australia to supply the whole world let alone Australia with all the energy it needs.

Electric cars will soon become cheaper and more efficient than petrol driven cars and we will rapidly move away from burning oil and coal and turn to using them for higher valued products.

Very simple and easy to implement.

Well, hello to you too Ian.

Thanks for the alert to the Tamino/Jolliffe dialogue (and a review of my OLO history ;-)

As others may be interested in following (you haven’t provided a link), here-tis:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/open-thread-5-2/#comment-21873

WARNING, those not familiar with Principal Component Analysis (PCA); un-centred and doubly-centred, decentred and non-centred; or multi-scale PCA, non-linear PCA, kernel PCA ... well, you get the drift.

Basically (for others) it ‘centres’ (pun intended) around the so called ‘Hockey Stick’ (again).

It’s probably worth following the thread to its conclusion, but what Tamino goes on to say is;

“... the hockey stick remains when using centered PCA, AND when using NO PCA at all (my emphasis) ...

The case for global warming rests on a mountain of evidence, of which the hockey stick is only a small (and far from crucial) part. It's the denialists who focus on the hockey stick to the exclusion of all else, in an attempt to discredit climate science in general.”

Notwithstanding, there are many ‘hockey sticks’ – to make a whole team no less!

Mann et al (MBH98) is not the only proxy reconstruction of past climate. In any event, he has recently published an update, unlike some critics that don’t publish – unless of course you include populist denialist blog and shock-jock web sites as akin to peer reviewed science journals of well known repute.

Oh, I find Steve Mac's site intriguing, if not beguiling.
__________

Off topic but since you raised it ... I have to succumb ... my real is Ilya Borenchenkovitch.

I am currently employed by the combined Fijian and Lichtensteinian intelligence service (part-time). Hobbies include US elections, coupled-bingo and lawn bowls. I'm now engaged in an MI9 assignment to infiltrate the OLO fraternity and report on un-Ozzie activity.

I can no longer carry on this pitiful ruse, and intend to pledge my life to the goal of healing the wounds that divide global warming deniers/believers.

Seriously Ian – my family have endured real ‘hate threats’ on previous occasions. OLO, after all, is just an opinion site.