Taswegian and Q&A,

I think from your last two posts that there is not a lot of difference between us on these issues. My comments on geothermal were intended more to illustrate the irrational attitudes to nuclear power than to oppose it as such.

To me, there seems only one long term source of continuous baseload power, and that is nuclear fusion. With the raw material being water, and very minor radiation problems, it could be supplying power after uranium, coal and everything else was finished.

The only problem is that we cannot yet get it to work, and need temporary power sources to tide us over until it does work. Once it does, the some of the energy from fusion could be used to dispose of nuclear wastes permanently by sending them into the sun.

If we cannot get it to work, then I believe mankind is doomed, at least at the current population level.

I found the sensitivity on nuclear issues interesting some years ago on a trip to Roxby Downs, where, whenever we were asked for questions I replied "What about the radon?", and they couldn't hear me. Later I was quietly taken aside and told of an expert who could help me. I replied that like Sir Humphrey, you never ask a question unless you know the answer, and the answer was yes, the radon would increase the background radiation, but only to the effect of living one floor higher than you were already. (Not many people realise that in general, background radiation increases 1% for every 20 metres you rise above sea level, and that it impossible to find anywhere on earth with zero background radiation.)

I also share the view expressed by other posters that unless something is done to restrain world population we are all urinating into the breeze.

ManBearPig
It never ceases to amaze me (a.k.a. I don’t understand) why the so called “deniers” of AGW are quite willing to trot out recent papers (some not even published) that raises doubts about the theory, yet are not willing to give the same credence to recent papers that support the theory (but, I take your point ... time will tell).

For example, they espouse the studies of Roy Spencer (clouds/feedbacks/etc) as though he is the modern day Messiah that will debunk AGW, while at the same time ignore the vast amount of research that adds weight to it, by virtue of it being too recent.

MBP, you say;
“In spite on increasing scientific evidence that the climate is NOT driven by CO2, that the earth is entering a cooling phase, ...”

I ask again, please cite this “increasing scientific evidence” as you opine – or are these too recent?
You will have to reference research that can explain the warming trend (that you acknowledge is happening) but which does not include the enhanced green house effect – the basic science of which has been understood for over one hundred years.

So, again in terms of comparing GCMs to the measured observations (instrumental record) – they are proving to be very robust. Reliable and accurate instrumental observations cover only 150 yrs or so. If we want to go back further, we must (and do) look at the many proxy reconstructions that cover the LIA, MM, MWP, etc (of which MBH98 is only one). It is the “deniers” who focus on the bristlecone pine proxy, not the “alarmists” as you proclaim – the correction made negligible difference to the global means and marginal difference to the contiguous USA.

And your comment about “proofs” of AGW?
You have to understand that science is not about ‘proofs’ like that found in mathematics, or in a court room (beyond reasonable doubt). It is very much about probabilities and weight of evidence.

Q&A-

'I ask again, please cite this “increasing scientific evidence” as you opine – or are these too recent?'

sorry about that - here we are.

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm#intro

BTW, I managed to read the article you cited - my suspicions are confirmed. Lean et al rely on James Hansen's data, and also are funded by NASA- that is, Hansen is their boss. And we all know how naughty Mr Hansen has been, don't we?

Now, what about those ice cores? Isn't it amazing that CO2 levels rise AFTER the temperature does? And I don't need a lecture on what science is, thanks. I'll stick with Karl Poppers definition.

A pop vox in Sydney asked teenagers about climate change. "I don't believe in it" was a common answer.

Job well done! I suspect once the north pole is scarcely holding on we'll get the same answer.

ManBearPig has provided a link which claims to be "the ONLY place in the world where doubts and uncertainties [about oceanic acidification] are raised. Our ignorance exceeds knowledge by a wide margin. It's never time not to be skeptical."

Indeed, "the scientific literature and Internet are awash in articles relating to ocean acidification, mainly as part of a world-wide scare for global warming."

So. If it's on the net it must be false. Er, true.

And here's where the author is coming from:

"Hopefully the world will become warmer too, and all this is welcome to the starving billions. As oceans become more acidic, they will become more productive too, adjusting to the new scenario."

Comforting, huh?

Thanks ManBearPig

I am aware of these ‘papers’, they are trotted around the ‘denialist’ blogoshere with gay abandon. While their postulates are not generally accepted in the mainstream scientific community, I would encourage them to keep doing the research, and publish in reputable journals.

To connect names to faces; Tom Segalstad and Zbiegnew Jaworowski are the first two from the bottom left in the following photo:

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/NIPCC-07-c.jpg

Craig Idso, Fred Singer, Walter Kutschera, Chris de Freitas, Olavi Kärner, Hans Labohm, Joe D'Aleo, Martin Livermore, and Vincent Gray follow in order around the table.

For those who don’t know, these people are well known contrarians. In fact, the pickie was taken shortly after the IPCC’s release of the AR4 report last year. They call their cabal the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). An unfortunate misnomer really, spitting the dummy disenfranchised themselves from the IPCC process:

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

The NIPCC group (among some others on Senator Inhoffe’s list, e.g. Bob Carter, William Kininmouth, Hans Labohm, Christopher Monckton, Ross McKitrick, etc) participated in, and contributed to, the publication of an Independent Summary for Policy Makers (ISPM) published by the Fraser and Heartland Institutes in response to the IPCC’s AR4.

ManBearPig, why not link to Segalstad’s website, where the first paper you cited is often lifted from:

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/

Jaworowski’s piece comes from the LaRouche neo-con website, Executive Intelligence Review:

http://www.larouchepub.com/

Glassman’s paper is drawn from his own (under construction) “Rocket Scientist’s Journal”:

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

Puting things in perspective, Anthoni’s (your last cite) own words (widely circulated in denialist blog sites like Jennifer Marohassy’s and WUWT) aptly sum up the efforts of the contrarians.

“My personal experience with ocean acidity ... that, IF CONFIRMED (my emphasis) would turn the whole debate on its head ... That was in 2005, and mainstream scientists have not reacted since.”

Now, you don’t like GISS data. Why do denialists rely on it to prove some of their hypotheses but decry it when mainstream scientists use it?

To finish on Hansen, your argument is a logical fallacy – he is also Roy Spencer’s boss. Do you therefore besmirch Spencer’s work?

AGW debates are being used as a red herring and Mr Masters’ article is typical of a mining man’s view of the current situation in Australia.

Alas, his red herring became evident when he declared that we should: “give the big polluters free emission permits.”

So why should the polluters continue to pollute Mr Masters when the entire global community argues about climate change because the “big polluters” (not least, Australia's mining barons) have poisoned the planet for profits?

Whilst science continues to evolve to discover how anthropogenic CO2 is impacting on climate change, the “big polluters” remain free to pollute with impunity, desecrating what’s left of our ecosystems.

Largest emitters of Particulate Matter in Australia last year? The mining industry, an ignominious First Place with 260,000,000 million kilograms (seriously underestimated in my opinion.)

The largest emitters of arsenic and cyanide? Same answer and Australia’s emissions of carbon monoxide – some 5,500,000,000 kilograms is not one to be proud of though I would suggest that the Commonwealth National Pollutant Inventory team have long ceased counting.

Add other carbon based A/emissions, which oxidize to CO2 and that’s a real toxic soup. Where are the regulators? Where are our politicians? Feasting on the same poisoned fruits as the “empire builders” of course:

http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/australians_39worst_per_capita_emitters39_135130

Major rivers in Australia are on life support due to dumping of industrial waste, resulting in a decrease in oxygen levels and an increase in eutrophication

Fish kills increasing above natural kills – a result of A/pollution (no argument with the science here)

Bird kills increasing above natural levels – industrial pollution

Contaminated industrial sites Australia? 80,000

One of the planet’s most threatened eco systems? The S/W of WA – official!

The following excerpt is written into the Environmental Protection Act:

“The Polluter Pays Principle.” Those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement.” Huh?

And an ETS? Who would desire to trade with a cabal of ethics-free snake-oil salesmen?

I propose an amendment to the ETS - an “Emissions Capping Scheme” (trading for credits not permitted.) Offenders will be prosecuted!