Ah, so that's the tactic: do not respond to posts that debunk the disinformation (in this case on the sinister-sounding Lavoisier scare/conspiracy implication), but troll it about instead on related threads.

You seem either quite paranoid, obsessed or plain dishonest with this Lavoisier distraction. What's its sinister connection to 103 dissident scientists in 17 countries?

Treatment of ice core data was 100% absolutely correct in refuting the silly notion - indeed lie - that CO2 increases were a causal precedent for global warming.

Mil-maaate... seems you are the one a tad paranoid - I’m the neurotic one, remember? Or is it early on set?

Every time there is a meeting, conference or event of some sort (either nationally or internationally) on climate change the ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade roll out the “dissident scientists” from, what is it now, 17 countries?

Just watch, it will be trotted out again in New York at the Heartland Institute’s annual convention. Guess good ol’ Ray will be there too, with an entourage made up of Bob (“born again”) Carter and his steadfast groupies, Marohasy included.

Tony,

I'm disappointed. Deeply disappointed.

What I said was the same as what Ross said. We each take the existing state of the scientific orthodoxy as our starting point. Both of us think it could be wrong. Both of us think that we should take strong measures on risk management grounds even so.

Looks like you want a 'form of words' - and a form of words that makes sure people don't mention that there's a large degree of uncertainty (however much they affirm that action is warranted even given that there is).

Anyway, I'll leave you to it - looks like you have the matter well in hand.

Dear Nick

We may not be so far apart after all. If you had time to become more familiar with the underlying science of climate change, we could be quite close.

Yes, there is real scientific uncertainty, but please be clear where it resides.

There is certainty that over the past 650,000 years (covering the presence of homo sapiens and his antecedents), CO2 atmospheric concentrations have varied between around 180 ppm and 300 ppm. The pre-Industrial Revolution level was 270ppm. The current concentration of CO2, in the 380 range, is 40% higher. That is certain, and seriously disturbing.

Second, there is certainty that rising CO2 concentrations are associated with rising global average temperatures. This correlation has been theoretically explained and laboratory test-verified. It has also been factually confirmed in nature, by data over geological time (polar ice cores) and contemporary time (e.g., half a century of data from Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii). The correlation is certain, and very strong.

The scientific uncertainty resides in how quickly this is happening now. There are both large masking and negative feedback (buffering) effects that delay the flow-through, and large positive feedback effects that speed it up. The 4th IPCC (2007) tried to strike a majority scientific middle ground as to the net effect of all these hard-to-quantify factors. Many climate scientists now consider the positive feedbacks are accelerating to the point that the IPCC4 predictions have become too conservative, and that the earth is warming more quickly than IPCC4 anticipated. So as Garnaut explains, it becomes a question of risk – see his graphs in Chapter 2.

I have low tolerance of risk where my children’s and grandchildren’s futures are concerned. I would rather work on the latest more pessimistic climate science scenarios than the IPCC4 scenario. These suggest a need to decarbonise the global economy very rapidly indeed, if we are to avoid much of the planet becoming unsustainable for human life within a few generations.

Tony,

I'll take my scientific advice from scientists thanks. I have no problem with making large sacrifices. The risks scare me too.

But I think the moral effort that's required needs to take into account the human propensity to be discouraged from contributing in the presence of too much free riding.

Perhaps you could consult the science - such as it is - on this topic. If you haven't I suggest you put ["public goods games" "behavioural economics"] into Google and have a hunt around.

[Tony Kevin]: "...there is certainty that rising CO2 concentrations are associated with rising global average temperatures. This correlation has been theoretically explained and laboratory test-verified. It has also been factually confirmed in nature, by data over geological time (polar ice cores) and contemporary time (e.g., half a century of data from Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii). The correlation is certain, and very strong".

A re-affirmation of the faith and a withdrawal of harsh excommunication - or was it a bull denouncing heresy?

In alluding to ice cores, Tony Kevin's claim is fatally incorrect in associating "rising CO2 concentrations" "with rising global average temperatures". The actual results of ice core analysis of CO2 revealed that such "rising CO2 concentrations" appeared centuries AFTER the rising temperatures. That error of comprehension appeared in Gore's Nobel Prize-helping film, in a devastating "own goal" for the AGW cause.

It is a false and ultimately cynical scare - as is green opportunism over a heat spell and bushfires in Victoria. Here in Melbourne the heating is back on in my dwelling, just as it was on through November and December. While the northern hemisphere continues its record stretches of cold and ice.