Bigmal, you continue to taunt

1. I did not say Hansen “is such a demonstrable crook”, you did.

2. The IPCC assessed the published papers of 2500+ scientists (somehow I can’t picture 2500 people sitting around a table debating the merits or otherwise of each and every scientific nuance).

3. You are answering your own question. I will not say they were “appallingly exaggerated”. Politicians don’t dictate soil moisture content or precipitation rates, no matter how some think it so.

4. A question you should direct to the SA Premier or Professor Brook. FWIW, Brook is highly critical of Labor’s policies on climate change, so I think your fallacious argument is moot.

5. Gore is the last person I would have chosen to be the ‘ambassador’ of global warming. I would rather have seen someone like Steve Chu

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/12/15_obama.shtml

Gore, whether he likes it or not, disaffected a lot of people from accepting global warming just because of democratic politics. Notwithstanding, the judge did not dispute the science.

6. I’m still here juggling my finances – scientists don’t do it for the money. Gore is a politician turned actor. He got the Nobel Peace prize for a reason (climate change will threaten world peace) – he did not get a Nobel for any of the sciences.

7. You obviously don’t understand the process. I respect Spencer and Christy’s work, I don’t respect it when they publish in the mainstream media and the blogosphere before their work (with issues) could be reviewed by their peers.

And I am jet to see Roy’s retraction about ocean cooling when this paper was published (of which he was very aware) before his own.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030323.shtml

If you can’t download the full article try this, explained in simple terms.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

_______________

rpg

The details/nuances will never be settled, for example; attribution and climate sensitivity research is ongoing. The ‘greenhouse’ theory’ is well understood by those working in the field. This is what is misunderstood by the "science is settled" howlers.

CJMoron “Personally, I prefer to form my opinions about AGW based on information from reputable climate scientists, rather than on the rants of self-opinionated bean-counters and lawyers.”

Your personal choices and the machinations you base them on is up to you and a matter of complete indifference to me.

However, I find it strange you consider the reputation of climate scientists in those deliberations when you clearly have no regard for your own (reputation that is), unless you are suggesting your own “immersion in the vacuous” qualifies as scientific study?

Now how did this go last time?

Oh yes,

“fractelle "but I just can't get my head around the thought of CR and CJ at the same table"

It would not be difficult, we would not need to be in contact with one another, we would not even see each other....

I would be sat at the table and

CJ would be licking himself underneath it....”


Q&A

“The details/nuances will never be settled, for example; attribution and climate sensitivity research is ongoing. The ‘greenhouse’ theory’ is well understood by those working in the field. This is what is misunderstood by the "science is settled" howlers.”

It seems to me, the antagonists to the “science is settled” argument are you have spent many of your post decrying as “deniers” and as holding “misguided opinions”.

Which reminds me, over many months now, you have repeatedly claimed I have made “misguided statements” and posted “misguided views”

And I have repeatedly requested you identify those views and statements.

I am still waiting

maybe it is time for you to exercise some introspection and consider how silly you sound in your selective support or denigration of your fellow travelers (unless when you refer to “Gore”, you are talking about “Gore Vidal” and we all know how he and his 'fellow travelers' liked to 'ride')

btw understanding any theory does not elevate it closer to becoming a "fact".


Actually, where "theories" really fall down is

they are closer a synonym for "opinion"

than they ever are for "science"

Col

I have opinions on subjects I am not expert in, so I defer to those that do – including my plumber, doctor and accountant. I would be misguided in my knowledge, judgement and opinion if I was to tell them they have got it all wrong – this is not to say I can’t have an opinion, or question and learn from them.

You on the other hand, are one of the most opinionated people on OLO, never tempering your stance on anything from pornography to paedophilia, capitalism to communism. Hence my sarcastic remark about you writing a book “Col’s guide to the Universe”. You did not take it in the light-hearted frame it was offered.

You retort in adhom whenever people with expertise in something you don’t challenges your opinion, to the extent of complaining to the moderator when you feel they are being too provocative. The epitome of hypocrisy methinks.

To risk assessment/management

You have rolled out the ANZ cheque stuff before, and I understand.

However, you avoided answering my query on what you thought of Munich Re policies on risk management with respect to climate change – clearly stated in the link I gave you. I would have thought they were somewhat more expert than you but I also thought an accountant would concur with their rationale - you seem at odds with them.

So, simple question ... do you think Munich Re is wrong to adopt their position on climate change?

You might not have had the time to review the link

http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/climate_change_and_insurance/default.aspx

and if so, my apologies. Nevertheless, Munich Re has major concerns and policies that appear to put your comments and opinions (or lack thereof) into contradictory perspective - why is that so?

Thanks anyway.

ps: I don't think you understand the stats of climate change well enough - but that is only my opinion.

Delightful - like a Pavlovian dog, Col demonstrates my previous point that he has "no rejoinder but name-calling and other fallacies". He apparently can't help himself, poor dear.

Q&A: << You retort in adhom whenever people with expertise in something you don’t challenges your opinion, to the extent of complaining to the moderator when you feel they are being too provocative. The epitome of hypocrisy methinks.

[...]

I don't think you understand the stats of climate change well enough - but that is only my opinion. >>

Q&A strikes me as one of the most consistently erudite and reasonable AGW proponents on this forum. For a science ignoramus like Col to go for him the way he does can only strengthen Q&A's credibility, to the equivalent detriment of Col's demonstratedly parlous understanding of science.

Of course, we're all missing the point that the whole climate change thing is a grand conspiracy to impose worldwide "Socialism by Stealth".

Q&A My response to your dummy spit was prefaced by the statement;

"If you are so concerned about your professional status in the eyes of everyone, why dont you:"

I then listed series of matters that under normal circumstances, the subject of which would have elicited a comment of defence or denial, from the scientific community.

I was not claiming that you personally had made the comments, but as a practicing scientist, so you say, you would have been aware of such matters.

In this light I was not claiming that you had said that Hansen is a crook for example- but that it is a well founded claim being made by others, which your kind tolerate by your silence.

Similarly about Gore, and his infamous AIT and the way it has been supported by scientists in USA and here in Australia-despite the egregious errors of fact.

etc etc

It seems that reading and comprehension are not your strong suits, in addition to dummy spitting petulance.

At least CJ Mogan has two of the scourges of the 21st Century named and shamed. That is bean counters and lawyers. He should have added pseudo scientists and the journalists who pander to them. Now we are able to go a surfin the net, those of us who have some knowledge of science, are getting so many mixed signals, that we must question the integrity of all those who want to impose carbon taxes, and put lots of industrial workers out of jobs.

The lawyers started rampaging in English law about 1870, and no more ingenious bunch of workmakers, ( for themselves) ever walked the earth and since 2000 years ago, they have not changed one bit. Now they have been joined by bean counters, as the most influential people in society, they use all the others.

When lawyers were allowed to creep back into Parliament, they were not considered commonwers so not allowed in Parlament for 498 years, unil then, they started to manipulate the system for their benefit. Who benefits from GST? the bean counters and lawyers, Who pays? business. Who will benefit most from a carbon tax? Bean Counters and lawyers. Who are the people who worship bean counters and lawyers? Journalists.

When they wanted to get the head of the Bonnano Mafia Family, they failed until they followed the money trail. Who most benefits from Climate Change Sensationalism, Newspapers, Media , Lawyers and accountants. What are Penny Wong and Peter Garrett. Lawyers. Who do they really serve? Their mates.

What do thay want us to believe? That Parliament is infallible. Ha Ha.

Lets get real, and realise what is really going on here.