The fact that climate ‘debate’ can be pushed off the front pages by another rough phase in the economy indicates both how too much importance has been placed on climate change, and how easily fickle human beings are distracted from one media-made crisis to another.

Both situations are obviously of interest; but they both occur regularly: climate change for longer than economic changes, although the economic changes have occurred more frequently in our lifetimes. In both cases, people are affected aversely, and some changes have to be made. But all the scare-mongering and claims that idiot politicians can do something about either ‘crisis’ is pure humbug and the stuff of ‘news’ making.

There are people, in the media and people who feed the media, who love to frighten people. And, there are millions of people who like to be frightened: the sorts who scream at horror movies, but cannot avert their eyes or stop themselves from seeking out the genre. There are also the natural pessimists who are not happy unless they have something to moan and groan about.

For the past week or so, just about everything in Australia has been dropped in favour of the inauguration of a foreign president – something else most of us had nothing to do with, have not been affected by, and will never be affected by in our day to day lives.

Most of the rubbish we have forced on us by media and minority publicity freaks will not affect 80-90% of us. Change is all around us; crises come and go, and everything eventually settles down.

So, while I would probably agree with Mark Lawson’s article, I’m not going to read it. Like most people, there is nothing I can do about climate change, the economy or the big ticket items the scare-mongers peddle.

Bugger climate change, the economy and what goes on in America.

More grist for the mill; more muddying of the waters. In the good old days when scientists weren't the target of every right wing lunatic and government campaign we'd take them more seriously.

There's no shortage of press releases telling of warming trends in the arctic and antarctic. Perhpaps once one of them melts the skeptics will admit climate change exists.

All previous warming trends and major extinction events have been preceded by some catastrophe or another - meteor strike, volcanic eruption - but this warming cycle has no other identifiable catalyst other than pollution.

As the beloved ex-president would've said, it isn't pollution, it's the impurities in the air.

All in all this adds zero to the debate.

Lawson seems to be using the old John Howard/ George W Bush trick: If we can't be absolutely certain, then we have no certainty at all. And all of those who are not absolutely for us must be absolutely against us.

Let's back off for a moment from the fine details and computer models and consider this: I have been flying around the planet on a regular basis for more than 30 years. The view out of a plane window is most telling. Thirty years ago, you could tell that you were getting close to a major city because of the increased opacity of the atmosphere (smog if you like). Between cities, the view was pretty clear and there was not "smudge line" looking out to the horizon. Over that time, I have seen the visible pollution grow so that now the haze is spread from coast to coast in North and South America, Asia and Europe. The smudge line in everywhere now- even looking south from Christchurch.

Now, visible haze is not the cause of global warming- it's the invisibles- CO2 and the like- that cause the enhanced greenhouse effect. In fact, the haze can cause global cooling by increasing the reflectivity (albedo) of the atmosphere. Nonetheless, the increased haze is correlated positively with the greenhouse gases.

As a physicist, I ask: Given the major changes that we have wrought on the atmosphere, is it likely that these changes will have NO effect on the complex dynamics of the climate? If the answer proved to be "no", then I would have to be surprised. Then I see glaciers retreating and increasingly wild fluctuations in the weather everywhere and I'm not surprised.

In summary- you don't have to be a climate scientist to see the bleeding obvious. Just get out and about in the world- talk to people who live there, look up at the sky. And think about it.

Good article .. and the usual tripe is already turning up, Bennie, those of us who question Man-Made-Global-Warming or Man-Made-Climate-Change do not and never have, denied or questioned that Climate changes (climate means change of weather over time) - you have created that straw man in your minds as the preferred way you want to perceive anyone who disagrees with you.

What is questioned is that MAN is changing the climate - there is a lot of conjecture and supositions, models that "predict" behaviour and lots of theories, but no proof that man is doing it,or how much. More important for all the believers of AGW out there, that it can be stopped, reversed or controlled. That's even more fanciful, so suppose you can "stop" it, what temperature would you like? I'm trivialising it now, well of course, since it's all fantasy anyway. That would be a good James Bond movie plot, if Blofelt got the Thermostat control for the world!

If there was proof that Man was increasing the temperature, there would be no debate, no questioning, no skeptics - do you get that, no papers with any other position, no "denial".

So you want to be frightened, go see a movie as Leigh suggests, or if you just hate everyone and want to see anyone who has worked hard to be successful go broke, keep waiting.

I'm not from "big oil" or "big industry" for the paranoid out there, who can only see questioning of AGW in terms of a conspiracy.

The article describes a wait and see position, that's what I'd like to see so we can gather more data rather than rushing off to some perceived solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There is no reason, other than marketing by alarmist greenie and enviromental fanatics, to do anything at all immediately. We will adapt to the climate where we are living, or do what people have done for thousands of years - move.

"Wait and see" yes that always works out...When your told a flood is on its way down stream do you wait and see if it does, or do you start moving to higher ground.
That money that has been found and spent trying to fix a problem in the finance sector created by a few greedy bankers. Is a great deal more than would need to be spent on creating cleaner energies sources. Even if global warming doesn't turn out as bad as some believe it will still be a good thing done.
The fact is you will always have people who can’t cope with new ideas or changes. They are a wart on the face of progress. Let’s ignore them.

Kenny: "you will always have people who can’t cope with new ideas or changes."

Funny. It's seems to be you who is worried about change? Or doesn't climate count?

Jedimaster, after 30 years flying around the world, have you considered that maybe it's your eyes that have changed? Or do you just see it with The Force?

I like the common sense approach of this article, the only problem is that Barack Obama only has four years to save the planet. Omigod!

Seriously though, the whole "Warming" pitch is based on short-term data and long-term extrapolation. A couple of years ago, the UK Tyndall Centre produced a climate forecast for the year 3000, for heavens sake.

Science is now science by press release and the more that the evidence of our own eyes starts to challenge the theory, the greater the hysteria from those who can see their grants slipping away.

Oh dear,On Line Opinion seems to be the place to be for the Deniers.

Anyway, a bit of comedy never goes astray.

Yes, a typical OLO article on climate change where denialism is dressed up as skepticism. I used to think that Internet forums might provide venues for the exchange of informed ideas about how we might collectively address major problems like climate change, but sadly all we ever seem to get are tendentious articles that attract entrenched ranting from decreasingly civil commenters.

Speaking of which, I think that Leigh's initial comment in this thread is a classic of the genre - several hundred ignorant, fact-free words, ending with the boofheaded admission that he hasn't even bothered to read Lawson's admittedly predictable article. I think it's incredibly rude (and axiomatically ignorant) to presume to comment on an article without having read it, but it seems that some OLO members just utilise any vaguely relevant sounding topic as a soapbox from which to broadcast their entrenched, invariably ignorant, and all too often hateful ideas at the world.

CJ Morgan
I agree wholeheartedly- and whole-headedly- with you.I think that most OLO postings are a disgrace. The second last thing I want is people who agree with me. The last thing I want is to support drivel.

What was that old Chinese saying? "Don't toy with your enemies- it only makes them stronger." These guys are the enemies of reason.

Can anyone suggest an online forum that doesn't pander to this inane bigotry?

I agree Manorina, "a bit of comedy never goes astray."

I found this one from CJ Morgan particularly funny:

"why does just about every discussion at OLO lately descend into Godwinesque comparisons with Hitler, Nazis, brownshirts etc etc?...Undoubtedly [fungochumley'd] be joined by...the rest of OLO's increasingly rabid DENIALIST crew." [my emphasis]

Hmmm, yes, why I wonder?

Take a look in the mirror, CJ, or go back to Baywatch.

As an oldie who has cleared too much farmland, and followed by a study on the way to a doctorate does know -

The major cause is simply man and his advancing technology, aided so very much by flame and fire -

Which even our Aboriginals made so much use of, some say helping to form our deserts.

But the above means nothing compared to what our technics can do right now, mechines so perfect and powerful, the densest heavier jungle means simply nothing.

It was many years ago that I felt the first pangs, the first guilt as me and my heavy crawler smashed just a bit more for the the good of our wheatbelt.

But what makes me still feel sadder, was to find the last patch of timber and scrub seething with all types of wildlife.

Not only big 'roos and small wallabies, but scrub turkey, mallee hens, and a host of little furry creatures, as well as plovers, so scared they were not even game to take off.

Yet the above is insignificant to what is now happening to our jungles to the north, making me in his old age wondering why we are still letting it all happen -

and even believing that if there truly is a God, surely He would vouchsafe that after the way modern man has treated nature it is surely he who has become the evil one.

fungochumley, despite the feigned association with Nazi sympathies that some climate change deniers make about the term "denialism", its currency has now extended well beyond denial of the truth of the Holocaust. Wikipedia's far from perfect, but here's what it says about this neologism:

<< Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists. Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

The term was first used in the sense of 'holocaust denialism', but the usage has broadened to include 'AIDS denialism', 'climate change denialism' and 'evolution denialism'. >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

fungochumley: << Take a look in the mirror, CJ, or go back to Baywatch. >>

What was it I said about the lack of civility from some commenters?

Mark

A minor quibble, you got his name wrong. It's Keenlyside.

http://www.ifm-geomar.de/~nkeenlyside

Many in the 'deny-n-delay' camp have misunderstood his research.

Thankfully, those that count, don't.

qanda

Mark Lawson – please - not another red herring! We do not require another fatuous article to distract readers from reality - to baffle them with climate science on which you are not qualified to speak.

Whether we’re heading for a warming or an ice age is no longer number one concern for this nation.

Totally new deserts and arid regions are emerging through desertification, whereby normally mostly dry, yet otherwise still productive semi-arid regions are completely drying out and turning to sand.

Behind the human crime of extensive desertification and destruction of nature lurks purely unscrupulous, irresponsible greed.

33% of Australia’s arid zone mammals are already extinct caused by air pollution, mining, overgrazing; plundering native timbers; plundering native habitats, inappropriate farming, poor irrigation management, population growth etc.

Salinity in Australia is catastrophic, costing millions but to no avail. Many of our rivers are “dead.” Mass fish and bird deaths occur on a regular basis, beyond the natural rate – not least from industries which pollute with impunity. Recent tests on marine life show that some fish are now contaminated with nickel and lead up to 6,000 times the recommended safe level.

Nine thousand dead birds in Esperance poisoned by lead. Six and half native animals killed over six weeks by Newcrest’s gas pipeline. Unregulated chemical and hazardous waste emissions have desecrated our biodiversity where Australia has the largest extinction rates in the world.

The quality of drinking water has deteriorated and residents in an increasing number of towns are being supplied with salty tasting water which do not meet key quality guidelines.

High nitrate levels have seen nursing mothers with small babies having to be supplied with free bottled water to prevent the risk of poisoning. The rest of the community can take their chances.

In the meantime, spewing from industrial stacks, without restraint, are chemicals with funny names – polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc etc – all carbon based, all oxidizing to CO2. Add particulates with carbon adsorptions, nickel, lead, mercury dioxins, cadmium, VOC'S etc and wow!

Shame on you Mark Lawson, for you too wear the leper’s bell.

Mark,
The problem with journo's even one with “a rather sorry BSc” should stick to being objective and be up to date. See "Real Climate.com" new paper on in Nature about rising temperature in the Antarctic temperature rise over the last 50 years etc.

You have clearly written this for a specific audience and as such the slant is misleading. The truth is way more complex than is article gives acknowledgement of.
Scepticism is a double edged sword both positive but when it’s used as a means of denial then it decidedly negative. In this latter role it encourages denial and business as usual.

Common sense and a veritable sea of evidence dictate that AGW is real. Sure in some areas scientists don’t fully agree/understand or even don’t know the mechanics/mechanisms by which some events happen but they DO have more than a passing idea of what will be the consequences.
The collapse of the ice shelves in Antarctica is one such example.

The imminent collapse of the huge Wilks ice shelf is a point in fact (down to 50meters at its narrowest point. A big but hardly catastrophic event except for the environment. It’s not holding significant glaciers back. But if the trend continues with other ice shelves…

Take the la Nina effect scientists currently can’t predict them to the inth degree their intensity or their occurrence far in advance but does that reduce their potential disaster? Should we ignore warnings and continue business as usual and then wring our hands at the ensuing catastrophes?

We aren’t talking about after life or extra terrestrials or some esoteric supernatural event here we’re talking about observable, measurable and to some degree predictable tangible issues. Issues that may reasonably alter life/civilization as we know it on earth and not for the better.

Prudence suggests we stop this endless pointless gamesmanship.
I suggest the article tries to solve the wrong questions.

Sceptics and denialists are necessary for a healthy debate, but it seems on this issue their domain is becoming limited to debate and nothing more.

The article itself contributes very little. Will a recommendation to "do nothing for a few years" ever be regarded as a noble and diligent way to tackle any issue?

The decisions we make today lock us into an emissions profile for decades to come. Time is of the essence.

Digging up deposits that took millions of years to form and chucking them into the atmosphere after we've inefficiently extracted their useful energy is a flawed and wasteful approach. This is just common sense. It's really that simple.

Scientists will continue to generate good credible research, sceptics will continue to stoke the debates, and the rest of us will get on with the business of engineering a better energy infrastructure.

If you take a look around, and talk to people coming out of the Universities and the TAFEs, you'll find they are keen to get involved. People in the Clean Energy industry know that it really isn't that hard to find highly-intelligent and highly-skilled people who have decided, or are looking for a way, to dedicate their careers to this sort of work. The political winds are finally blowing in the same direction as well.

Cheers to Dickie, Examinator and JamieAlly.
Ok, let's play the 'what if' game.
If AGW is a myth, so what?
Does that mean we shouldn't address the increasing problems of pollution?
That we shouldn't worry about deforestation, desertification, decreasing fresh water supplies, ocean dead zones, Peak Oil, over population, world wide poverty?
It seems to me, the principal difference between so called 'lefties' and 'righties' is that the latter are only interested in the welfare of themselves and their immediate families, and to hell with the rest of the world, whereas the former have somewhat broader concerns.
All the 'righties' seem to care about is: "how is addressing these problems going to affect me, personally?" Meaning basically, more taxes, higher prices, bad bad.
I sincerely hope these people and their families get everything they deserve.

Grim - thanks for the hateful little rant, it's everything I've come to expect from the hysterical AGW believer types who deny that climate changes (as it always has) and can't accept that, and now want to stop it. When you close your mind off to any argument, debate or changing facts it's called religion.

So to summarize your rant - "lefties" are all that's good in the world, with broader concerns (and closed minds of course who want violence on anyone who disagrees with them, that's nice isn't it!) and "righties" are evil people who need to get a come uppance.

Folks who doubt, or question AGW, must be:
1. From the right, and thus "you sincerely hope these people and their families get everything they deserve", wow, like death even?
2. Rampant pollutors, do you really believe your own position here, that only the "left" cares about their environment?
3. Having no interest in the welfare of others, jeez, you must be such a saint /sarc. How do you come to that conclusion anyway?
4. Funded by big oil or big industry or .. (insert evil hateful enemy of today here) .. another delusion, I've added that as I figured you must have left it out when you were ranting.

Do you wonder why some folks who doubt the AGW delusion are not swayed by your arguments? We rely on ALL the science available, not the cherry picked bits that agree with the position you set out to reinforce? Do you think you can be from the "left" and not believe in AGW, think about it, it is possible you know.

BTW - some folks think what separates the "left" from anyone and everyone else is their hate, personal abuse and violent threats.

CJ, don't get why you would supply a quote from wiki that supports my point. But anyway, I agree wiki is far from perfect, and am glad to see Britannica stepping in with some much needed competition for this excessively powerful and narrowly controlled locus of info which is seen as the final word on truth by an uncritical public, who say they want a diverse media but can't deal with if it doesn't say what they already think. I find the entry as given more uncivil and offensive than a light-hearted jibe, but I give up arguing at length with numbskulls who can't see the rhetorical tactic behind the use of the word itself. If someone challenges accepted views in one area they are in denial, but if they accept official reports on other things they are blind to conspiracy, all decided by whom? It is Orwellian stuff. See ya in the knackery.

Grim. I respect your wise counsel but you are not left, not right but forward my friend. The dissenters are not heroes but Neroes for they shun the evidence, the reality. They deny the desecration of our lands, our waterways, our soil, our air and our fish stock depletions. They know not of these matters. They do not seek knowledge for they are consumed only by profits.

And as the cabal here describe others as “numbskulls,” “ranters” and the “deluded,” allow yourself the time to peruse the following links. I but refer to the good “corporate citizens” who operate in Australia, who are supported by the “Mark Lawsons” in our society.

These good corporate citizens, plant their young in nests around the corridors of our parliaments, at the EPA's, the IPA and the Lavoisier Group.

They secret the litigious briefs they are bombarded with around the world and vigorously deny they have destroyed the lands, the soils, the rivers, the crops, the dispossessions and the health of other nations or the human rights abuses they have committed.

The evidence is but a portion of the voluminous documented atrocities attributed to these corporate citizens – those who walk on their knuckles:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21504856-401,00.html?from=public_rss

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/contract/2006/0705bhp.htm

http://www.philippinesfactfinding.blogspot.com/

http://www.cathnews.com/news/608/92.php

http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidDN20080228000013

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14490

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/06/indonesia.johnaglionby

http://www.terradaily.com/2007/071009154249.xytavr0w.html

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24071770-5017009,00.html

http://protestbarrick.net/downloads/barrick_report.pdf

Though what can one expect when we, the sheeple continue to worship and promote our eco-vandals (clutching brown paper bags) to public office?:

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/cartel

Cheerio

"We rely on ALL the science available, not the cherry picked bits that agree with the position you set out to reinforce?" - rpg

Which of these scientific facts do you actually dispute, rpg?

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).

2. Carbon dioxide in the air is increasing (Keeling et al. 1958).

3. The new carbon dioxide is coming from fossil fuels (Suess 1955).

4 The temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Meet Office Hadley Centre CRU, etc).

I have yet to see any scientific literature rebuking any of these points, and yet it seems slightly disingenuous for rpg to claim that him and his so called 'doubters of the AGW delusion' know better than the 97% of climatologists whom agree that human activity is causing global warming.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

peachy - I see your 4 points, so what - where is your paper that proves an increase in CO2 is responsible for how much warming? Thanks for proving my point with cherry picking in action .. you could prove the sky was really falling if you pick enough papers with as little linkage as those. What a wonderful thing Google is, but it doesn't prove your case does it?

I keep saying if it's proved, I'll change my mind, but I'm not going to be berated or bullied by little mantas and pithy cliches like the precautionary principle either. (If you go that way then I insist we bomb the crap out of Iran and North Korea.)

Why should there by scientific literature disproving it? There is as much need for that as papers disproving elephants flying .

If you want everyone to change their minds and lifestyles and spend my taxpayer money, you need to prove it. Everytime some new idea comes out to scare people and take their taxpayers $ for "research", you should prove it, I've seen a lot of scares already, including the GBR is going to be eaten by Starfish, all the press and scientists got on board, turns out it was a natural process.

Copernicus was an odd one out when all the thinking of the day, the "consensus" was that the heavens rotated about the earth .. he was right, though he was also into recanting .. sound familiar?

97% agreement isn't enough, you have to have 100% .. and it's not disingenuous, it's science to question, it's religion to suspend thinking in favor of your beliefs.

I didn't say I knew better, I said I'm skeptical and question the whole AGW belief, try to keep up.

“97% agreement isn't enough, you have to have 100%”

rpg. In science there is rarely a 100% consensus. If you were rational rpg, you would know that the “100%” consensus expression is redundant. A consensus is taken in the sense “majority of opinion.”

Take the dinosaur extinction which scientists claim was caused by an outer space missile, however, palaeontologist, Dewey Mclean’s hypothesis, now in favour, is due to the massive volcanic eruptions which occurred during that period. The Siberian Traps could be evidence of that. The volcanic ash and carbon emissions were capable of wiping life from the face of the earth as it then was.

Scientists estimate that humans emit 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes - (Let us pray that the volcanoes never become so angry again!)

“Over 150 States signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in June 1992 at the Rio "Earth Summit". In doing so they recognised climate change as "a common concern of humankind".

"Governments that became Parties to the Convention agreed to achieve its ultimate objective of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human-made] interference with the climate system."

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change provides the basis for concerted international action to mitigate climate change and to adapt to its impacts.

Its provisions are far-sighted and firmly embedded in the concept of sustainable development. It recognizes that the climate system’s stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Now, the Convention enjoys near universal membership, with 192 countries having ratified it.

192 nations' ratifications rpg? And there are some 196 countries on the planet? Not a bad “consensus” eh?

These hundred and ninety two countries now accept that Planet Earth’s hazardous waste repositories of fossil fuels were interred for good reason - to contain excessive carbon.

However, the avaricious "empire builders" do not flinch from an opportunity to scheme and plot, no matter how sordid. Oh but we do enjoy such comical vaudeville from these ethics free, moral pygmies!

Grim, no one's stopping you from worrying about whatever you wish.

rpg, the only cherries being picked are on your side of the paddock. The four points I made are demonstratable scientific fact, unless of course your skepticism extends to the laws of physics

I give up... Well almost anyhow.

No amount of sound argument and no number of facts will sway the GW deniers. They, like the creationists that continue to deny evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence supporting it, will not relinquish their faith. Its either blind faith (in what, I'm not sure - perhaps in the concept of perpetual growth) is it not? Or perhaps it is a more sinister mischievousness designed to protect some vested interest or other?

Whatever it is that drives this conscientious denialism the vested interests are winning the war as is evidenced by the useless Rudd governments lamentable back flip on its ETS scheme and their's and the Liberal's unwillingness to go beyond token gestures to "combat" the climate change problem.

And voters don't take the crises seriously enough to dislodge these dinosaurs from office here or anywhere else in the world.

What a fascinating insight into the mind of RPG.
In the first place, I didn't say I believed in AGW. I was pointing out that it didn't matter. The claimed causes of the alleged AGW are real, and need to be addressed, whether they cause climate change or not.
A "hateful little rant"?
Again, I was pointing out that 'righties' tend to think with their chequebooks. Isn't that pretty much a definition of Capitalism?
Surely you couldn't be referring to my wish that you get what you deserve, RPG?
I would have thought most people would want to get what they deserve.
At least, those with clear consciences, anyway.
Dickie, thankyou, you are quite right. I am neither left nor right.
I happen to believe in the power and strength of the free market.
I just wish we had one.

Congratulations Q&A, of all those who posted criticisms (mostly broad-spectrum abuse) of the article you were the only one to raise a valid point, or make a reasonable comment.. it is indeed Keenlyside. I'll ask for that to be changed. However, I'm not sure Keenlyside has been misinterpreted, by anyone very much. As the article notes he is simply modifying IPCC forecasts by adding climate cycles to them - and that is widely recognised. So, as the article notes, if temperatues level peg for the next few years he is looking good. His forecasts will have been put to a test and come up trumps - assuming temperatues behave that way. The only problem that I can see is that his forecasts seem to have enraged the AGW hardliners.. one would think the forecasts would be welcomed as giving the AGW supporters some leeway, but no! Anyway.. tnks...

This is the point, global warming, no identified reason.

So how to influence an outcome when the source of the issue has become less certain, rather than more certain, with the passage of recent times?

I see a lot of cheap shots, suggesting that those who dare to question the conventional wisdom espoused by the climate zealots of the scientific community and their inquisitorial protagonists are to be publically denigrated with words like “Denier”

Well in my book, it is better to be called a “denier” than an “elitist Liar”

It is better to work with facts than the egoistic fantasies of scientists, salivating over some juicy taxpayer grant

It is better to devote scientific resources to address curtailment of global population growth, the base source of anthropogenic global warming, if it exists

than creating more hot air and wasting time speculating on who did which to whom and with what, in terms of counting the carbon molecules in a cubic metre of air.

Curmudgeon/Mark Lawson

Q&A may be the only poster to remark on topic, however, the “AGW hardliners” as you describe them, are capable of seeing the bleedin’ obvious. With apologies for sounding like a broken down record player, allow me to again quote:

“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.”

Unfortunately you et al appear not to get the connection for the article is merely flogging a dead horse on the few vagaries which remain on climate change, though I note that many “deniers” have reverted to the term “global warming” to enhance their argument that we’re in for an ice age!

Fortunately many of us are more acutely aware of the “here and now” which is physical, visual and scientific and far more urgent than addressing the issue of climate change in some distant geologic time warp to maintain the status quo - the bomb and destroy proposal!

We are acutely aware that the “web” is in a bad way. We are acutely aware that the planet’s eco-systems are failing to survive man’s unmitigated abuse and we have a working knowledge of environmental toxicology which has, without fail, eluded the attention of the sceptics.

The urgent remediation solutions to restore our eco-systems, to ensure man’s survival, is the same solution to mitigate climate change – cease carbon pollution! Unfortunately Mark Lawson, we cannot have it both ways as you are suggesting, by delaying remedial action.

The “Cretaceous, about 50 to 100 million years ago” referred to in the article, or any other past warming period, did not have 6.7 billion homosapiens helping themselves to the earth’s resources or digging up carbon sinks.

I have yet to read an article by a sceptic which displays the slightest hint of an altruistic motive.

Until they address the bleedin’ obvious, the whole "web," the dire situation of our eco-systems and the problem of overpopulation, readers are fully justified in presuming these authors are imposters.

Proving that all things are connected in the web of life, when dickie posts a comment there, my stomach convulses with laughter here!

Just so I can remember the joke, it is "deniers" who are now "reverting" to using the term "global warming", and "whether we’re heading for a warming or an ice age is no longer number one concern for this nation." Priceless.

Things may all be connected, but for most people, this begins with the neurons in their heads. For dickie, everything in this "connected" world can nonetheless be broken down into a series of isolated placard slogans, without any comprehension of their interrelation. dickie is like (still is?) the child who complains about the heat, then the wind in her hair when Daddy drives her to the shop to get her an ice cream, then the cold and the mess when she drops it on her leg, then at Daddy for not buying her another one, then at Daddy for driving the big, polluting car, etc etc. She has just extended this rant to the Big World, while others were getting an education. I suspect Daddy had his own motivations for shoving an ice cream in her mouth.

There may be a web, but some try to make sense of it and work with it, while some like dickie get lost in it, makes it worse with a tangle of thought and deceit, and when they aren't heard, just scream louder and adopt the hifalutin language of the spoilt and morally superior Princess ("We are acutely aware..." "Readers are justified..."

You may run and play now, dickie, but don't breathe too hard - all that carbon pollution, you know!

Fungochumley “Proving that all things are connected in the web of life, when dickie posts a comment there, my stomach convulses with laughter here!”

I know what you mean

Dickie is so involved in “the web of life”, she probably braids her pubic hair.

Hi Dickie, still running away from your fraudulent accusations which I have called you on, to identify the 'lies' you previously claimed I have posted… I am patient and prepared to stalk you for as long as it takes.

Btw fungochumley, intriguing name… what is its origin?

Fungochumley,

Let me see if I understand you. If you don’t agree ridicule the individual by misinterpreting and applying the political ‘question time’ style avoid addressing the substance approach. That is
• Acknowledge minor point… implies reasonability and credibility.
• Change the context
• Then use “reduction to the ridiculous tactic?”
• Finally confuse the issue with a little understood theory (e.g. Chaos Theory)
Great if you’re a parliamentary opposition backbencher or selling used (sorry preloved) car repayment plans but as a rational rebuttal?

Dickie was saying in context that deniers (presumably you) use fallacious arguments and reduction to the ridiculous tactic rather than acknowledge and therefore discuss provable facts and/or scientifically arrived at conclusions.
Deniers focus on the on what is not known and then declaring that what is known is a plot/mistake. To whit they fixate on scientific debates/disagreements on mechanisms rather than the substance…After all there are still debates on mechanisms that drive Evolution but as a overall process it is scientifically unassailable.
These deniers are a bit like the blind man who examined the tail of an elephant and concluded that elephants were thin and hairy therefore not a threat.
While ignoring what a sighted person could see because they couldn’t all its behaviours. I recommend you trawl the ‘Real Climate’ site see my earlier post.

He then debunked the argument that the current situation was analogous to 100 million years ago natural event i.e. there is now the added 6.5 billion people all polluting etc.

The SUBSTANCE of dickie’s argument is sound. Unless you’re either akin to the blind man or just picky.

Thank you Examinator. Can we now assume that the “contributions” of the sceptics, Funguschumley and Col Rouge are worthless?

At considerable detriment to their affiliates and the "cause," they lack the ability to distill the pertinent facts and details of any debate.

Their deductive argument here, (a stupefying round of swill) on climate change, has descended into matters of “pubic hair and icecreams” - which merely adds to their useless and malicious onslaughts, permeating their posts on this forum.

Of course, after a lifetime of “seeing” in darkness, one can never see anything at all, can one?

Cheers

Mark ... Noel’s forbears would be proud of the correction :-)

Yes, it would be useful if we had better short term and regional forecasting models of climate. This is basically what Keenlyside’s work has tried to do. However, it did put a cat amongst the pigeons.

The so called ‘denialosphere’ trumpeted his work as evidence for the end of global warming. Notwithstanding his findings were taken out of context, distorted or misinterpreted – deliberately or otherwise – by many who try and cast doubt on AGW, including shock-jocks and uninformed media types. I prefer not to include you in this coterie.

Keenlyside did demonstrate that the enhanced GHG effect is superimposed on natural climate change forcings (you should be aware of ongoing climate sensitivity and attribution studies).

It will take decades for humanity to adapt to a changing climate, and adapt we must. Sure, we can carry out tests as you suggest, but given the real problems we have now (alluded to by other posters) and the real problems we will face in the future, it would be prudent to take steps to wean ourselves off a carbon intensive energy sector and poor land management practices. There are solutions.

You ask: “Can we wait several years before doing anything?” and then answer “most definitely.”

Whilst I did have a minor (albeit important) spelling quibble with your article, your last paragraph is a doozie – like, I would have a real major quibble. Your article is good for robust debate (and it’s great to see authors engage with posters) but online climate quibbles often bring out the nasties and extremists ... it can be tiresome, unproductive and for what real purpose?

The ‘road’ to Copenhagen will be tough, particularly with the view to a post 2012 ‘road map’. So I contend we can’t wait – we must look for the solutions to our ‘climate change’ problems (and debate the outcomes) with urgency. It’s hard to do this in this type of forum when many of the antagonists are vitriolic in response or misinformed about ‘climate science’ itself.

Oh dear, Col Rouge.
"I see a lot of cheap shots, suggesting that those who dare to question the conventional wisdom espoused by the climate zealots of the scientific community and their inquisitorial protagonists are to be publically denigrated with words like “Denier”"...
Such noble sentiments. How can one not feel sympathy for anyone so attuned to the sensitivities of others, so concerned about people being "denigrated". (And 'publically", (sic)).
One can only assume you evil twin brother penned the words:
"Dickie is so involved in “the web of life”, she probably braids her pubic hair."
What a magnificent and focussed contribution to a discussion about alleged anthropomorphic global warming. Yes, it is so clear now, the Rouge must be right.
I have to wonder, do you and your mate Chumley, actually enjoy hurting people?
"This is the point, global warming, no identified reason."
No identified reason?
As I recall from my high school science, back in the seventies, in a chemical reaction no (or very, very little) matter is destroyed.
Burning wood creates an equal amount of ash and gas, basically.
Since I personally have been driving cars and bikes and trucks and tractors for about 37 years now, I estimate very roughly about 70 litres of petrol/diesel a week adds up to about 134 tonnes of atmospheric pollution that I personally have created -just in driving alone.
Multiply that by how many billions of drivers? Now add on coal powered power stations, jumbo jets, trains, ships, home heating, etc, etc, etc...
I don't claim to be a climatologist. I don't know whether converting so much of an underground resource into aerial pollution will cause the temperature to rise.
But how can it possibly be good?
When you drive from the country to the city, that purple haze you encounter, is not actually a 'natural' phenomenon.
Remember?

dickie, "can we now assume". You can assume anything you want, dickie, as you freely do. Can I assume your attempts to appoint yourself facilitator and recruit allies suggests someone with a desire for control, little conviction and loads of defensiveness. Speaking of...

G'day Q&A, for a bloke who interprets a request to substantiate a defamatory statement (and still hasn't) as harassment, I can only guess what you mean by vitriol. If you feel your's isn't facilitating things in this forum, please feel free to leave.

Col, thanks for your curiosity. fungochumley is an anagram of mulcheyfogun. Hope this helps. ;-)

Fungochumley

I have tried to be honest and lucid with you. How you interpret my comments is something you have to deal with, not me.

Elsewhere (when I haven't answered your bait and switch tactic) you respond by casting doubt on whether I have any male genitalia (as if it matters twat).

Further dialogue between us is pointless - let it be.

Q&A - "Elsewhere...you respond by casting doubt on whether I have any male genitalia (as if it matters twat)."

Please tell me choice of last word there was intentional pun. Very funny. Think being tad literal - kahunas is metaphor for courage, in this case of honesty and humility to admit to mistakes. You may have tried but have failed, unless you can tell me how it is possible to be forgetful of something you've never read.

"How you interpret my comments is something you have to deal with, not me." Hard to know what heck you're on about here but I can deal with that.

"Further dilogue between us is pointless..." Repeat, has been no dialogue to further as you say I am in denial.

"...let it be." Again, if you mean let me be, sorry, but no. Sure i could easily, but like Col, I think I've decided not to let continued unsubstantiated defamation go unnoted. I expect will lose all battles here, but will do my bit to continue to fight for right - my "cause" if that's what (ech!) dickie means.