To quote John McEnroe, "you cannot be serious!"

To declare that the 2007 Federal election was about climate change is frankly ridiculous.

If the 2007 Federal election was fought on any issue, it was industrial relations; specifically, Work Choices.

More than anything, though, Australians did not vote for change. The 2007 Australian Federal election was not the 2008 US Presidential election. In 2007, Australians basically voted for more of the same, just with a reassuring new face. The underlying message of the ALP's campaign was all about "we're just like the Liberals, only a bit nicer".

The new water management regime was likewise largely cemented during the Howard era. The only thing that stopped it during Howard's time was Victorian Labor's party-political spoiling. To claim that a new era in the management of Australia's water magically appeared with election of the Rudd government is frankly foolish.

To blame the parlous state of Australia's rivers entirely on climate change is also misleading, although it does comfortingly deflect any examination of Australia's appalling history of mismanagement of its scarce water resources.

On the issue of the 2009 bushfires, the role of climate change is of much debated. Certainly, one suspects perhaps in order to avoid any uncomfortable reflection of their own role, some politicians were inordinately quick to claim that climate change was responsible, but this is as foolish as blaming the devastation of Hurricane Katrina on climate change. As Freeman Dyson noted, "with Katrina, all the damage was due to the fact that nobody had taken the trouble to build adequate dikes. To point to Katrina and make any clear connection to global warming is very misleading.”

Interesting article. However, I think the point about the destruction of the Murray Darling basin resulting in Australia not being able to feed itself is misleading. Government reports suggest that Australia exports around two thirds of its agricultural produce. One of the reasons for the demise of the Murray Darling region is the excessive drainage of the river system and clearing of the land for agricultural production for export, as opposed to domestic consumption - which is inferred in the article.

Some information about agricultural production in Australia:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/trade_in_agriculture.html

"Australians are increasingly convinced they are facing the early impacts of global warming."

My experience is that the reverse is true, scepticism is increasing.

It was refreshing to see the article at least cite a different opinion by quoting William Kininmonth, the former head of Australia's National Climate Centre, but I did not find much else to agree with.
First off it is clear that there has been a shift in rainfall patterns, combined with a major drought. No-one knows why the rainfall pattern has changed, but such changes are known to have occured before. In South Australia, for example, parts of the state's North was used for sheep farming in the 19th century only for the areas to be abandoned due to changes in rainfall.
Temperatues are generally higher than they were a few decades ago (when many city reservoirs were planned) so perhaps that has something to do with it, but the relationship between temperature, cloud cover and rainfall is a major unknown. (This has not stopped some scientists from trying to claim there is a link.)
then we have the problem that temperatues actually have not increased in a past decade or so. They have declined. those who doubt the point are welcome to look at the Hadley site's record
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

to get better resolution over the past 20 years use the data in the ASCII file in an excell spread sheet to make their own graph of temperatures since 1990 (the Kyoto year)

This bloke's at least 30 years out of date.

He referred to the CSIRO as if it was still a research organisation to be admired, & respected.

Perhaps he doesn't know that it's now an organisation to be bought, & paid for, by anyone with a few quid to spend.

Of course he does, he's a fellow traveller.

If Australians voted to replace the last government with an ALP government because the latter had “promised action to reduce global warming”, then they will be mightily disappointed. As Prof. Bob Carter said recently in “A New Policy Direction For Climate Change”, the currently proposed taxing of carbon is a “non-solution to a non-problem”. This is because the climate change is natural, and there is nothing to be gained by fiddling with CO2 emissions.

Carter says that global temperature is now about the same as it was in 1940! And that there has been a lack of warming over the past 68 years despite a 20% increase in CO2. But, thanks to the media’s ignoring of any scientist but those in the main climate lobby, Rudd and company are intent on blundering along the route to expensive losses of jobs and production for Australia.

Carter sees the not debate about climate, but “… a shrill campaign to scare citizens into accepting dramatic changes in their way of life in pursuit of the false god of preventing global warming.” The election of President Obama has seen a 300% rise in global warming lobbyists. They now reckon they have more chance of feathering their nests with a Leftist, I suppose. Funny how the numbers didn’t increase under Bush if they sincerely thought that there was a real problem.

This unknown Keith Schneider claims no scientific qualifications; Prof. Carter has them in abundance, and he believes that we DO need to introduce “… adaptive policies to deal with NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE rather than the government’s “expensive and ineffectual plans…”. He writes that “The failure of both Mr. Rudd and Mr. Turnbull to respond to this need by confronting ecosalvationist hysteria about imaginary global warming, and at the same time to deal sensibly with the real threat of natural climate change, now bids fair to undermine their leadership positions.”

BOM predicted a lower than average rainfall for North Queensland for the summer just gone. When the 'scientist' can get it close in their short term predictions they might not look nearly as ridiculous in their long term scaremongering. The author again is so selective about high temperatures and bushfires. I noticed he did not mention that Perth had its coolest night on record in March. Of course this did not make the headlines because it contradicts the mantra of global warming. Thankfully even some of the hardened believers on OLO are starting to wake up to the fraud that so many have swallowed. The science is far from settled and if anything a simple look at temperature graphs shows that we have wet and dry winters, cool and wet or cool and dry summers. Nothing has changed for a long long time. There are far more pressing matters on this planet than making up problems.

Thanks for your article Keith. I am familiar with the current algaeal bloom in the Murray River and remember the floods of 1974.
I think climate skeptics live in those parts of Australia that have been waterlogged this year. If you live on the coastal strip its hard to imagine how dry and dusty it is inland in south eastern Australia.

Dear Greg it's been awhile !
I am a bit perplexed you have lent your name to what is propaganda .
You should have asked your mother how many times the Murray stopped running at Tooleybuc , How many years the Gem paddle steamer was holed up at Best's because it couldn't get over the "Bitch & Pups" etc.
I remember my father remarking at brekky that he was going down to the River Murray with the intention of reversing it's flow , we kids challenged him so he said come on , down we went and sure enough reverse it's flow he did just by starting the irrigation pump !
AFAIK there is and has been water at Tooleybuc , now compare , now with then , about 55 yrs on check out the Home numbers from the Hume Weir to Tooleybuc wow what a surprise ! what a lot of water . Your Grandfather was still using a 40hp Oliver !

All the Global Warming is just hype and every intellectual has entered a lotto like game to attract dollars for a nice grant from a hyperactive government bent on becoming famous for something . It will be fun until they run out of other peoples money . Then the "Greatest Depression Ever" will begin .

Keith Scneider really takes the cake here.
Mistakes, ommissions and plain silliness abounds in this whole lot of nonsense.
Like Shazbaz I am aprehensive that the Lords of the Universe have effectively stolen my superannuation with their "Recession". Now Rudd is spending taxes we will have to pay for more years than I will be alive.
Here is a thought, what about turning all the politicians and public service pensions into the future fund but letting those geniuses run it and no top ups from us taxpayers. They get what they earn? Some chace!

YOU HEARD ABOUT THE NEW GLOBAL currency?
well its the carbon credit

brought to you by the same think tank that gave us equity debt swaps and derivitives [and enron etc]

as we dither garrot and the greenie minesters are slipping the deal through

*the new reserve currency* [courtesy of those fraudsters ;derivatives traitors][and environment minesters] in usa right now sealing the deal

using the fortuinate event of a shelf collapsing in the antarctic , because the earth is going through its current warming[following the cooling cycle ,in the earths elipictal path arround the sun, we have gone through this warming cooling for ever, but timming is everything

just watch the libs [opposition melts as they do a turn arround in record time ,and before you know what went down the derivitives speculators have got their new global carbon credit,

that the enron derivitives traitors /speculators will speculate [and you will be tied into paying at whatever the market will bear],!

whatever these banker trators / traders can set the neo global order ...of the car-bon credit currency at

dont say you wernt told, the neo new carbon credit [derivitive scam is nearly a done deal] and you will be paying for the neo con bull [all you can bear]

...aint the free-mark-et a free for them [not free for-all], you just pay your new tax, while the derivitives traitors speculate it into their latest bubble

In trying to understand the reasoning of climate change, peak oil and overpopulation denialists, I have grouped them in the five groups below.

1. Totally stupid, able to ignore the evidence and rationalize it.

2. Have pecuniary interests in pushing their nonsense .

3. Really believe that they are telling the truth.

4. Are using this approach to make a name for themselves and have their moment of fame and do not really care or believe about what they are promoting.

5. Unable to face up to the facts because they find them too hard to live with.

In the first group I find quite a few people that I would classify as “stupid”. They are incapable of researching into the facts and have no inclination to do so.

The second group, “in it for the money”, the big corporations are set on maximizing profit and do not have any morals or conscious.
They in turn use their immense wealth to buy the allegiance of unscrupulous pseudo scientists and politicians to raise a smoke screen and distort the issues.

The third group who really believe that none of these events are happening, they are able to take facts that are apparent to all and spin them into a fantasy world of half-truths to explain them.

The fourth group “doing it to attract attention”. Self-interest is everything to them.

The fifth group is quite large and found everywhere. They cannot cope with terminal illness, and this is a form of that. The Kübler-Ross model explains this.
It is groups 2 and 4 that are the biggest cause for worry because they are deliberately going out of their way to appose any solutions to the problem. They are sometimes able to affect outcomes and do their best to slow or stop action to counteract global warming.
It will of course be too late for any action to reverse the process by then.

A most revealing post, sarnian. You demonstrate the typical holier-than-thou arrogance of the faithful.

Firstly, there is the collective dismissal of anyone who deviates from the received climate change dogma as a "denialist". This is the Godwin's Law of climate change debate, akin to shouting "Nazi! Fascist!" at one's opponent.

It's also curious that you lump climate change, peak oil and overpopulation together. This is as honest and helpful as someone like Rush Limbaugh calling an opponent a tree-hugging, homosexual liberal abortionist.

Secondly, you cannot bring yourself to allow a category of people who are well acquainted with the evidence available, and simply express honest doubt. Anyone who honestly disagrees with you is living in a "fantasy".

This is not debate. This is a cadre of dogmatic inquisitors, absolutely convinced that they, and only they, have received the one, true revelation. The holy words of the prophets are inerrant and must not be doubted. Heretics are assiduously sought out, reviled and banished from the community of the faithful.

Craig Scutt links to a DFAT publication that says two thirds of Australia's agriculture was exported in 2006-7 then lists the products that contributed to exports. 18% of agricultural exports are beef, 7% are sheep 12% is wine, 10% is wheat and 8% is dairy. Most of these exports are grown on irrigated land in the Murray Darling Basin.

Australia risks not being able to feed itself, already our garlic and green beans are imported from China, although Tasmania used to be England's appple orchard there is a push to import New Zealand and Chinese apples, our orange juice is made from imported concentrate.

Although 2% of our agricultural exports were vegtables and 2% of our exports were fruit and nuts I think our imports probably outweighed our exports and we are on track to import more in these categories.

Melbourne is about to enter its 13th year of drought as Bureau of Meteorology is forecasting another dry autumn. When I was growing up I was told to expect a drought once in 7 years, a flood once in 7 years and average years for 5 years out of 7. The climatic conditions this year were very favourable for above average rainfall as the Pacific Ocean currents produced a La Nina event. Although coastal Australia has been sodden south eastern Australia had its 12th dry year.

Is southern Australia in drought or after 12 years do you have to admit its desertification.

With all change, we have different viewpoints and none more galvanising as global warming. From what I've read, they gauge warming across the whole planet as local areas may not show any changes and some will show dramatic ones.

Everything happening now has happened in the past, the Antarctic was once warm so it's not unusual for it to be melting now. It's hard to accept the planet is cooling as glaciers and ice shelves collapse, snow fields providing water for the river systems dry up.

We are witnessing change, whatever is happening requires action from us as a race to mitigate the effects for the best outcome. Under the present regimes it appears impossible, as it will effect their elitist status quo of control over resources, energies and society.

It really doesn't matter if it's global warming or climate change, we can cope with those changes. Everyone is neglecting the sleeping giant of human calamity, collapsing biodiversity and ecology. This is resulting in a breakdown of the food chain and along with acidification of the oceans, is like a pot ready to boil over. The great southern Ocean is the engine room of the worlds climate, as it changes so does our climate. atmospheric balance is changing, which effects the oceans, driving changes further.

The truth is we haven't got a clue about what is happening and won't know until it actually happens, as there are to many other parameters we have to take into account. One super volcanic eruption anywhere on the planet, would change our climate drastically very quickly, by pumping huge amount of carbon, ash and other particles into the atmosphere, blocking the sun and cooling the planet. We're emulating a volcanic eruption with our way of life, it's just a lot slower and along with our ecological destruction agenda, the accumulated effects of all these things may be fatal for many species including humans.

Billie,
Australia's agricultural exports vastly outweigh its imports and Australian farms produce most of what is needed to stock supermarket shelves and farmer's markets across the nation.

The DFAT figures you quoted were the percentages by which the various agricultural goods (i.e. beef, cotton, wheat) contributed to the total (i.e. 100 percent) of Australia's agri exports in 2006/7.

I think this information from the National Farmers' Union should clarify my point:
(http://www.nff.org.au/farm-facts.html)

"Australian farmers produce 93% of Australia's domestic food supply. Food imports contribute 7.5% of the total value of Australian retail food sales.
[source - Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Australian Food Statistics 2007]

"Yet, Australia exports a massive 61% (in volume) of total agricultural production. In terms of value, this represents around 80% of the total gross value of Australian agricultural production."
[source - ABARE, Australian Commodity Statistics, 2007]

What these figures suggest is that if tomorrow we all woke up and there were no ships or planes capable of importing or exporting Australia's agricultural produce, the country would still be capable of keeping its population alive with home-grown goods. Not only that, we'd have 60 percent more produce to consume. Although, to satisfy our taste and dietary requirements, we'd probably want to look at increasing the diversity of the products produced

Clownfish,

"Denialist" is not code for "Nazi". As per the Wikipedia definition

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

it refers to someone who stubbornly refuses to entertain a proposition, even though overwhelming evidence has accumulated, leading to a scholarly or scientific consensus. See the following survey from the earth science journal Eos for evidence of an overwhelming consensus among active climate scientists (97% of those responding) that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) exists and is significant.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

See also

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm#international

100% agreement is almost never attained. Scientists are people too and can be as dishonest or quirky as anyone else. Some examples of mavericks deviating from the consensus in their fields are John Mack, a Harvard psychologist, who believed that alien abduction was a genuine phenomenon, and Peter Duesberg, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who disputes that the HIV virus causes AIDS.

The consensus does not mean that there is absolute proof of AGW or that there haven't been cases where the maverick was right and the scientific establishment wrong, as with Alfred Wegener and continental drift. Statistically, however, such cases are rare. The climate scientists have passed stiff examinations on mathematics, physics, and chemistry. They serve a long apprenticeship under experienced scientists, publish in peer reviewed journals, and have the time and background to think about climate all the time. Why do you think that you know more than they do about their own field? Why is your opinion (or mine) on AGW worth more than your opinions on brain surgery or 18th century Turkish architecture? Are you willing to bet your children's future that Bob Carter (or Peter Duesberg) are right? Do you really want to claim that there is a vast global conspiracy to suppress the truth?

Clownfish.
I am wondering if you are a 1 or 4, under my definitions?

Craig Scutt.
We would have a large surplus of food for a time till market forces so beloved by the Globalists reduced the output and some of the land was returned to nature, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It would also reduce the amount of water exported abroad, embodied in the crops shipped out.
I know that there would be an outcry about all the farmers “jobs” lost but they would eventually diversify into managing the new forests and into manufacturing local products again.

sarnian, I might well ask if you have stopped beating your wife yet.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't fit into any of your prejudiced little boxes.

Try reading my post again, Divergence.

I did not say that "denialist" was "code for Nazi". What I said was, blanket-labelling anyone and everyone who disagrees with the received orthodoxy regarding climate change is akin to, in other contexts, shouting "Nazi!" at one's opponent. It's a childish tactic, with the effect of immediately delegitimising one's opponent and effectively shutting down debate forthwith.

It's also dishonest: Disagreement about climate change is not denialism.

Argument from authority ("Why do you think that you know more than they do about their own field?") is also weak, and a hallmark of dogmatism. As Freeman Dyson has commented, "of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak."

I may not be a climatologist, but I can read and I can reason. I may not know a hell of a lot about cars, either, but I can reason enough to suspect when someone is trying to sell me a lemon.

Or another example: I currently work in a brand-spanking new building, purposely designed by a highly-qualified architect, to be as "green" as is currently possible. This architect is an enthusiastic and clearly highly intelligent person, who is an acknowledged expert in his field. The building was extensively modelled in the appropriate computer environments.

I, on the other hand, only know as much about architecture as I learned in my long-ago arts courses.

But, as we sit shivering in our offices in winter, after repeatedly stifling during the recent summer, as people continually bash their heads on a service window built so low to the ground that they have to bend or even kneel to speak to person at the counter, while they also have to squirm around the bracing beam that runs crosswise through the same window (quite purposefully, the architect reassured me), I sometimes wonder just what planet our expert architect is living on.

Clearly it ain't the same one the rest of us are living on.

Look,

All we gotta do is double immigration (especially more Beer, circuses & drugsy Italians),
kick the $GST$ up to 25% & pay God to dump more rain.

The Murray is F#$#$ed, so we can situate Peter Garret in the Snowies. He is so full of 'it' with his crystal ball Global Warming scenarios, he can replenish the Murray by himself everytime he goes potty.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/murray-flows-lowest-in-a-
century-20090407-9zld.html

You see Labor has it all covered. We are the luckiest nation on Earth. Aren't you glad you voted for us?

Kevin.

PS. I want no further talk about the fact that The Drought & Nthn. Floods were caused by billions of extra litres of human excrement from our beefed up immigration and visa programs. So what if quasi-stable Ricci flows of all that extra high entropy human, industrial & and agri crap attracts ocean heat INTO northern Qld and out over southern Victoria to give the bushfire/flood double-whammy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics IS a bitch.
We can always get the CSIRO to come up with another Indian Ocean Dipole theory or el Nino-II or Global warming-IV or some other BS theory to keep the public mushroomed in the dark.

Hell, by the time the public catch-on, we'll be as big & as divine as America .. and have the BOMB.

Labor will never lose another election .. period!

Clownfish,

Of course there is room for scepticism and disagreement on this issue. As I wrote, occasionally the maverick turns out to be right. Even Jim Hanson admits that there is a small chance that he is wrong. Saying that there isn't absolute proof of AGW isn't denialism, but saying that there is no significant chance that that 97% consensus of climatologists could be right, and therefore no action should be taken, is another matter, especially when you have no qualifications in this field. Surely you admit that people can be so blinded by religious dogma or other ideology that they are impervious to argument. There is no imaginable argument that could convince, say, Runner of evolution, even if he had the background to properly understand it. As an American bumper sticker puts it, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." That is denialism, not scepticism.

You accept an argument from authority every time you get into an elevator or airplane, or expect your doctor to be a properly licensed professional and not a quack (which is not to say that he still can't be incompetent, like your architect). Why is this different? You are not "reading and thinking for yourself" if you are unable to fully understand and explain the papers in a climatology journal. You are merely cherry picking which experts you choose to believe. Moreover, if a climatologist started making pronouncements in your own area of expertise, you would most likely proclaim him an idiot.

Touché ... Divergence.

Your argument seems circular to me, divergence. The 3%, according to you, who are skeptical or disagree with AGW orthodoxy should shut up and agree because 97% do. Huh? What do you think freedom of thought and skepticism are exactly.

Interestingly, your bible bumper sticker sounds surprisingly like "the debate is over" statements of alarmists.

thanks for your grandiose, reductionistic categorization, sarnian. Remember, dehumanize the opposition. Before you send me to the chambers, my birth certificate says I am only 1/16th skeptic.

I don't know why you say touche, Q&A. You use the term "denialist" liberally in the context which divergence excludes.

OMG, his FOLO life has been resurrected - the messiah ... not.

Curmudgeon’s post is perplexing: “Temperatues are generally higher than they were a few decades ago …… but the relationship between temperature, cloud cover and rainfall is a major unknown. (This has not stopped some scientists from trying to claim there is a link.)” Is Curmudgeon suggesting that those in the "major unknown" camp, know more than those who do? Links please?

Perhaps he should ponder the many scientific papers on the formation of the Asian brown "cloud", which hovers over the north west of Australia and beyond on which the World Health Organisation released figures showing that the haze was causing the premature deaths of 530,000 Asians every year. Currently the pollution levels are at six times the level that WHO considers safe, however, it increases Australia's rainfall, currently masking the long-term, adverse impacts:

http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=587&Itemid=670

http://www.abc.net.au/news/scitech/2002/09/item20020930115213_1.htm

Curmudgeon’s propensity to transport his CRU map from one thread to another, to support his claim that temperatures have declined is equally perplexing when the same institute provides information to the contrary:

“The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre.

“ The period 2001-2008 (0.43°C above 1961-90 mean) is 0.19°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean).”

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

“He referred to the CSIRO as if it was still a research organisation to be admired, & respected.”

Hasbeen that is not what he indicated at all. He described the CSIRO as “the country’s premier scientific agency.” The definition of “premier” means “principal" or "chief.” If you know of another Australian institute which has replaced the CSIRO as Australia's “premier” scientific agency, please advise.

Btw. I'm advised that about 50% of funding for the CSIRO comes from government. Who do you think are "buying" the other 50% (apart from the fossil fuel industy of course!?)

I must apologies to clownfish. In my first post I said, “In trying to understand the reasoning of climate change, peak oil and overpopulation denialists”.
I should have added to this list: The holocaust, round earths, and even perhaps gravity.

Divergence, you surely missed your calling; comedy would seem to be your forte.

Your entire answer could be summed up as: "Yes, there is room for scepticism and disagreement. Now shut up and do as you're told."

I'm curious, do you fully understand published papers on, say, nuclear physics or engineering? Yet you no doubt have an opinion on nuclear energy or the risks of air travel?

Yes, people can be impervious to argument. That much is obvious everyday, here. However, it may interest you to know that I am quite capable of changing my mind: Up until about a year ago, I was a firm believer in AGW.

Oh, and I wasn't saying the architect is incompetent, at all; He is obviously quite gifted, and knows a lot more about architecture and engineering than I'll ever know. The problem is that the real world has a messy way of disagreeing the nice, neat models engineered on his computers.

"I'm curious, do you fully understand published papers on, say, nuclear physics or engineering? Yet you no doubt have an opinion on nuclear energy or the risks of air travel?"

I have a practical understanding of thermal expansion and latent heat. Would anyone care to explain why the oceans are continuing to rise if the world has been cooling since 1998?

Actually, Clownfish, I have a first class honours degree and a PhD in physics, and have also held a radiation licence, so I might just have a basis for opinions on things nuclear. So far as aircraft are concerned, I would take the advice of the relevant engineers, pilots, etc. and not tell them their business. If the vast majority of climatologists tell me there is a problem sufficient to justify taking action, I shut up and listen, even if they are telling us things we would rather not hear. I might follow any well founded sceptical arguments with interest, but would leave the climatologists to sort it out in their journals.

Damn, Divergence, I just *knew* I was setting myself up for a fall! I'll pay you full points for that one.

Nevertheless, I still think the analogy stands.

And nonetheless, I still remain skeptical. Perhaps I've missed something, but it seems that the causal link between warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide remains a chimaera. Rather than rely on the predicted possibilities generated by computer models, I prefer to look at what has happened in the past. Why were atmospheric carbon dioxide levels so much higher than today, yet climate so much colder?

Why are we so afraid of warming anyway? If the past is anything to go by, greenhouse periods have always seemed to be pretty good places to live in.

That doesn't mean that there won't be difficult transitions, but humans are nothing if not adaptable. Which is where we should be putting our money and our efforts: adapting, not vainly hunting snarks like carbon trading.

I also, btw, liked your reference to Wegener. I'd have also added Samuel Warren Carey, a fellow Tasmanian who well and truly swam against the tide, or Tommy Gold, or even Freeman Dyson and William Kinninmonth.

Top comment, Q&A. Messiah...not. Ha. I love the 'not' bit. What a classic.

No expert in any field should consider themselves above scrutiny. Ideally, they should encourage it. Otherwise, it is about blind faith, which divergence seems happy to invest. There is potential for corruption of quality with absolute power. Peer review is not infallible. There are good and bad in every field. Any person should have the right to question anyone and their work - doctor, lawyer, phrenologist - much as the likes of Q&A would like to silence those who do with bullying, smearing and intimidation (weak as it is). His defensive attacks suggest a lack of belief in his work and only makes me trust it less. Climate scientists are getting their moment in the sun and it seems to be going to their heads. It is good to see more skeptics coming out of the woodwork and refusing to be silenced.

Some history of the IPCC on this website:
http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations Organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” Review by experts and governments is an essential part of the IPCC process. For its first task, the IPCC was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies."

It would appear that the IPCC had already made up its mind on 'the risk of human-induced climate change'. They were not tasked to see if there was AGW they were tasked to highlight the risks of AGW. They were operating under a foregone conclusion in 1988.

The IPCC is a political organization. It was told "this is the argument we need to make, so find something to support it. "

Don't trust politicians (or the media) ...

“They were not tasked to see if there was AGW they were tasked to highlight the risks of AGW.”

Naturally Ratty since those who’ve been genuinely interested in the health of the planet, know that the first theory of global warming came around 1824, from French mathematician Jean Fourier who discovered the Earth’s temperature was slowly increasing. By 1850, the temperature of the Earth had warmed considerably and scientists were looking for an answer.

By the end of the 19th century Fourier’s theory was labelled the “greenhouse effect” when Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius, one of the founders of the science, physical chemistry, coined the term to explain how carbon dioxide traps heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and he linked the burning of fossil fuels to GW. However Arrhenius thought warming would take many centuries.

Present levels of carbon dioxide - which continue to rise inexorably each year are unprecedented for the long period of geological history that scientists are able to analyse.

As a result, the thousands of scientists who support the endeavours of the IPCC accept the correlation between increased warming and the burning of fossil fuels, therefore, any unscientific squawks from non-believers are not that important.

The only criticism I have of the IPCC’s ongoing research (and if necessary, corrections) is to ask: “What took them so long?”

‘The IPCC is a political organization. It was told "this is the argument we need to make, so find something to support it "’

Who are you quoting in the paragraph above Ratty? Please advise.

IPCCFacts.org was created with support from the United Nations Foundation to publish "The facts surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". See http://www.ipccfacts.org/about.html

The final two paragraphs are all my own work and follow logically from the paragraph I quoted from http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html. That paragraph had the phrase "for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change". Note that it did not say "the risks associated with climate change".

The IPCC is a political (interGovernmental) organisation charged with the task of proving that humans are responsible for climate change.

Speaking of Arrhenius, he did not have access to the data from the Vostok ice core project which began in 1957. When CO2 levels are high, temperature plunges still occur, which suggests strongly that CO2 is not an important driver of warming. CO2 alone cannot keep the planet warm when other factors are at work (eg Sun cycles, orbital variations, volcanic eruptions, etc).

The problem in understanding climate is to recognize that the Earth is NOT a greenhouse. It is NOT an enclosed system: It is an incredibly complex global circulation system with many influences. CO2 is only a very small part of the equation.

Ratty, << CO2 is only a very small part of the equation >>

Of the 33 K ‘greenhouse effect’, about 20% of the infrared opacity is due to CO2. Roughly 75% of the infrared opacity is due to water vapour and clouds. This ‘water’ is condensable and is responsive to temperature (falling out as rain or snow in a matter of days). Greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, ozone, etc) on the other hand do not condense, remaining in the atmosphere for decades, and provide the supporting framework for the 'atmospheric greenhouse effect'. Removing all of the CO2 and other non-condensable GHG’s would result in most of the water vapour and clouds precipitating, and a consequent collapse of the 'terrestrial greenhouse effect'. The corresponding change in surface albedo would likely make the planet much more reflective and thus colder than the 255 K baseline temperature.

However, specific humidity climbs in a warmer world (essentially following the Clausius-Clapeyron equation) which forces a strong positive water vapour feedback, predominant in the tropics and higher altitudes. Most of the water vapour feedback is caused by enhanced infrared opacity (although water vapour also absorbs solar radiation which becomes important at the polar areas, where it can absorb upwelling photons in the visible spectrum). Decreases in ice cover lower the surface albedo, and thus provide a mechanism to enhance warming. Decreases in the vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere (following a moist adiabat) essentially reduces the strength of the greenhouse effect, providing a partial negative feedback.

Much of this was known a century ago, with many of the key developments happening earlier in the century (mainly in the form of observational evidence of climate change e.g. rising CO2 levels from Keeling, better radiation experiments, and carbon cycle understanding). The key uncertainties now do not relate to the reality of AGW, but in the general response to the terrestrial biosphere and climate system (including the ice sheets, sea ice, and possible thresholds for “tipping points” within the system - not least the ecosystem).

Cont’d

Ratty,

Any objections to the above should take the form of a real, competing synthesis which better describes not only the 20th century warming, but the basic structure of the entire climate record – this has not been done, and certainly not by you. Ergo, if you remove CO2 as a major driver, then total solar irradiance, sun spots, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions, galactic cosmic rays, etc. cannot explain this latest episode of global warming.

Can you now understand the difference between a “greenhouse” and the “greenhouse effect”? Many people don’t.

“The final two paragraphs are all my own work and follow logically from the paragraph I quoted from”

Hardly logical Ratty (or proper) since you misled us into believing the following quote was attributed to someone else:

‘The IPCC is a political organization. It was told "this is the argument we need to make, so find something to support it. "’

“It was told” Ratty?

No further correspondence entered into.

I am sure Protogas and Q&A think they are very smart. However history is littered with nonsensical statements. The Patents Chief in the 1800's who said anything that could be discovered has been discovered. IBM saying who would want a home computer?
Furthermore the UN is easily the most corrupt organisation on the planet. It is filled with bodies spending millions of dollars on self serving agrandisement and looting of the monies from us ordinary Joes. See the UN Food programe? A total balls up from start to finish run by a parade of idiots who are not only paid ludicrous amounts of money but also pensions beyond the reach of the rest of us.
You think you are smart. You and your blah blah blah will be shown to be the next Y2000 bug but by then you will be riding another silly hobby horse.Get a life!

Q&A said: [Quote] ....Ergo, if you remove CO2 as a major driver, then total solar irradiance, sun spots, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions, galactic cosmic rays, etc. cannot explain this latest episode of global warming. [EndQuote]

Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail but I still don't think CO2 is the culprit.

Are you aware of the work of Scotese & Berner?
. palaeontologist C.R. Scotese (Temp - http://www.scotese.com/ScoteseCV.htm) and
. geophysicist R.A. Berner (CO2 - http://love.geology.yale.edu/people/moreinfo.cgi?netid=berner)
... and this graph:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

In their graph, over the past 120 million years or so, temperatures remain high while CO2 steadily plunges. It appears to me that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is tenuous. I would appreciate your comments.

Q&A said: [Quote] Can you now understand the difference between a “greenhouse” and the “greenhouse effect”? Many people don’t. [EndQuote]

I do understand the difference.

Protagoras said: [Quote] No further correspondence entered into. [EndQuote]

Are you a moderator of this forum?

Ratty

This is not a game where you show me yours and I show you mine. Otherwise, I would be able to outnumber you 99 to 1, seriously.

You should realise that humanity is conducting an experiment that the planet has never before been subjected to (we have only one test-tube, we don’t have a control). Yes, the planet has in the distant geological past experienced warmer and colder times (we should be heading towards another glacial – in say 30,000 yrs). However, this current epoch (now widely known as the anthropocene) is only a mere 200 years old. We are having an impact, Ratty.

Your understanding of the IPCC (and the UNFCCC) process is not correct.
“Review by experts and governments is an essential part of the IPCC process” ... yes, but you don’t appear to grasp that governments/politicians cannot change or alter the science. Translating a lot of immensely technical stuff into a Summary for Policy Makers (for people from diverse cultural, linguistic and ideological backgrounds) is no mean feat. Whilst the SPM’s are more ‘conservative’ than what the scientists would prefer to see, the science is unchanged. Have you actually read the technical papers?

You also don’t seem to appreciate that all member states of the UNFCCC have accepted the ‘science’, or that the IPCC only evaluate the ‘science’ that has been already scientifically critiqued – they don’t carry out the research themselves.

What the UNFCCC do haggle about is how to adapt to climate change, and how to address the challenges in ‘developing’ in a more sustainable way. You know, things like; ‘you go first ... I will if you do ... why should we pay for your pollution ... you caused it ... ETS/tax ... etc’. These are issues people should be jumping-up-and-down-about, because these issues will have to be addressed.

The UNFCCC meet in Denmark later this year. The nuances of the science are ongoing; including much research into climate sensitivity (the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature) and attribution (how much is due to human activity/natural variability).

JBowyer

No, not very smart. If I was, then I would be making a motza on the public speaking circuit denouncing AGW (aka Carter, Bellamy, Evans & Co) or engendering fear into the minds of people like you about ‘the sky is about to fall’ – neither of which is true.

If you are suggesting my “blah blah blah” to Ratty is “nonsensical”, then you really do not understand the science behind global warming. My guess is you don’t want to believe in global warming (for whatever reason) and are adopting a defence mechanism to suit your action ... correction, inaction.

“Silly hobby horse. Get a life!” ... No JBowyer. Science is my career and I know something about land/ocean/atmosphere coupled systems. Oh yeah, I am not in it for the money – my bank manager can attest to that.

Do you really think Albert Einstein, IBM, the Y2 bug or the UN Food Programme have something to do with the physics or chemistry of global warming? What playing field are you on, or do you just like changing goal posts when you feel uncomfortable with the other players?

JBowyer, I can’t speak for Protagoras, but there is a difference between ‘smart’ and ‘intelligent’, not necessarily mutually exclusive of course.

Dear sad protogas well you are playing the martyr here and no one loves you or is impressed by all your qualifications, toughen up princess.

I have been around a long time and have gone through all the sincere "this time it really is dangerous" nonsense. I have been told all my life something is going to cause the end of the world all different and all absolutely true, I am still here lol.

I only mentioned the Y200 bug which as we all know was a million dollar con perpetrated by frauds who made a lot of money from people duped and then too embarrassed to complain (The perfect con!)

Also the UN Food con they are now making a come back to say we are all going to starve to death haahaha! another beautiful con!

Smart does not mean intelligent and intelligen may not mean smart but
whatever I say you are convinced you are right with the folly of youth, please do yourself a favour and just get a life.

Science- do not make me laugh! They cannot even get todays weather forecast right so I have never been impressed with people who tell me trust me, give me money or the world is going to end lol. You must think we are all mugs?
Here is a project for you, note how many times you hear the term Global Warming? Well it is changing now because the world has stopped warming so we call it something new "Climate change" and you reckon the oceans are rising what planet are you on? What an absolute joke.

Climate change exists as REGIONAL-vectors of increased heat flowing along ENTROPY-gradients.

Ze concept of Global climate change is spurious. Ze concept of Global (AGW) warming is ludicrous. How can a greenhouse spinning ze atmospheric boundary layer at 1000Mph be und greenhouse? I zink dis is und PROPAGANDA for ze economic/genitalia stimulus package. No better way to grow economies than AGW-worried women having more babies!

Cosmetics allure, Fornication, fighting for women, lack of fornication, pregnancy & natal care is ze biggest (90% all commerce) global market sector on zis planet. Some people here been sleeping I zink!

Here is ze rub. More economic stimulus=more babies=more marine pollution from lipstick, nappies, farm-chemistry, landfill leachates und industrial-fish-kiiler-poisons (Hello Mr Gunns$friends Rudd&Garret).

Now ze incremental increase in loss of marine biomass, Mb, from economic stimulus packages causes und increase in REGIONAL oceanic heats proportioonal to E=MbC^2 -You know my famous equation ja? Zis can be calculate to much greater value than ze any kind of CO2 heat trappings. Zis will become more evident in 1-3 economic stimulus years, not 100 year silly global warming crystal ball gazings.

Now back to my first point, you see up there at the top? Pay attention! Now we have ze same Entropy gradient but less marine ecology life to absorb ze ocean heat. Zis means more heat flowing into Queensland from ze equatorial to mak flood. Und flowing to dirty Tasman sea via Victoia from ze dead-heart to mak bushfire.

So you see Climate change is caused by placard waving ,save the environment women und zer babies. Und women are being manipulated by ze makers of ze economic/genital stimulus packages. How equal-righted und smart is zat? Yust as vell zey's pretty ja!

Zer is only one sustainable solution for ze humankind ... KAEP (zat is PEAK spells backward ja?).

Ze current unsustainable 'populate and perisch' breeding-of-the-fittest-consumer solution to ze human future is no future at all.

Ze sky will not fall...oh-no..but your children will kill you in your sleep soon enough, ja? Being German I know somesing about zis.

Now vere's my brush?

A. Einstein.

"I have been around a long time........." (JBowyer)

So has Alf Garnett..........silly moo!

Even if people here have every right to pick and choose what to believe or who to trust on climate science I expect Australia's governments to take seriously the advice of the CSIRO on matters of science. Unless CSIRO's science and advice is seriously out of step with the rest of the scientific world (and it's not) I think it's imperative it be treated with genuine seriousness. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology appears to agree with the CSIRO as do the science faculties at our universities. Individuals have every right to disagree but the fundamental of AGW are not in serious scientific dispute within any major scientific institution around the world. The scientific case for AGW has grown stronger, not weaker. Me, I think they're telling us the truth, as best they can, from what actually collecting and studying the data can tell us. They are saying it's likely that heatwaves across south eastern Australia wouldn't have been that hot or that prolonged except for global warming. CSIRO studies show as likely consequences of AGW... Reduced rainfall - making dry conditions drier. More evaporation -making dry conditions drier. Warmer overnight average minimums - making dry conditions drier - and critically, less nights with dew and frost over greater areas there is the practical consequence of being less able to count on cool nights to extingish or significantly retard fires, meaning less opportunities to undertake controlled burning off with safety. That's global warming contributing to the recent busfires. Add extreme hot winds at the height of an exceptionally extreme heatwave and it's a recipe for firestorms - worse firestorms than in the absence of global warming.

Even if people here have every right to pick and choose what to believe or who to trust on climate science, what's gonna happen is gonna happen .. und its happening fast.

I expect Australia's governments to take seriously economic growth, immigration, baby bonuses and 'F' the Environment because they think with their little heads and not their brains.

The advice of the CSIRO matters little.

Unless CSIRO's science and advice is seriously upgraded to include how the human footprint on this nation & the world, is a hyperdimensional Morse Mapping
closely related to DEMOGRAPHICS/GEOGRAPHY &MARINE ECOLOGY and not atmospheric chemistry, they out of step with REALITY.
This Morse map in question is a 3-Surface with ENTROPY metric and very obvious but somewhat distasteful parametric endpoints. The Ricci flow solutions across this Morse Map are so clear in the mathematics that it is hard to NOT know what is going on and what is very soon about to happen.

The rest of the scientific world, The Australian Bureau of Meteorology & science faculties at our universities are failing not only Australian citizens in their rush for lost economic grandeur. They are failing themselves. If they are true scientists I know their intuition is already needling them. The fiscal restraints that keep them 'mum' also bind them to an economic/population growth mantra that will have us all playing deck chairs on the Titanic in short order.

Ken Fabos and KAEP
Just explain why a billion dollars was spent on the computer Y2000 "Problem".
Then I will take notice of the new trendy problem that is going to wipe us all out in the next? Well how long? Vague threats, Ooooooh it's going to start soon lol. Don't make me laugh this sort of scare has been going on forever and I do mean forever.
Lets have a run down of the Y2000 bug, after all we paid handsomly for that one and I think there should be some sort of accounting but you will just tell me to focus on the next impending doom.
Sorry boys been there, done that and read the book and I am waiting for your explanation when Eastern Australia gets it's next flood. Oh of course that will be "Climate Change" as opposed to global warming.
The Global warming phrase is already being swiftly supplanted as I have already said in these posts!

In an article titled "Beware the climate of conformity" by Paul Sheehan in today's Sydney Morning (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-climate-of-conformity-20090412-a3ya.html?page=-1), he reviewed Professor Ian Plimer's book "Heaven And Earth". Here is an excerpt fromthe article:

[Quote] ..................
If we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years. The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time. What follows is an intense compression of the book's 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions:

Is dangerous warming occurring? No.

Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

"To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science."

Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life.
.......................[EndQuote]

Ian Plimer is but one of many eminent scientists who regularly debunk the AGW hysteria. If you think that Plimer's view is fringe or discredited, check out this link for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change held in New York last month:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html

JBowyer, still shifting goal posts I see.

I am not surprised really, since your reply to Protagoras on Saturday was in fact a reply to me.

Btw, what is this “whatever I say you are convinced you are right with the folly of youth, please do yourself a favour and just get a life” crapola?
I am not 100% convinced I am right (there is a possibility that ‘negative feedbacks’ are more at play, for example). However, I am 100% convinced you haven’t got a clue about climate science.

Oh yeah, my 10 yr old grandchild loves that last bit of your rant, especially since I am to retire soon you twerp. But, we are getting too personal ... so back-off, JBowyer!

Here is some light reading, you obviously have forgotten to do your own homework.

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

Excerpts:
“In a 2002 memo to President George W Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community.

Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy (on global warming), it was his idea that administration communications reframe “global warming” as “climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.

Luntz ... now believes humans have contributed to global warming.”

Now JBowyer, spin your guff for all it’s worth. The fact remains, you don’t understand the science, you don’t know what playing field you are on and you believe only what you want to believe ... that is your life.

Ratty,

Now your slip is showing ... the Heartland Institute?

If the serious contenders there had something really important to say to the scientific community, don't you think they would have presented their case to the International Science Congress in Copenhagen, held at the same time?

No, the Heartland group have disenfranchised themselves by their dummy-spits.

And here was me hoping to have some rational discussion with you, thanks for your non-reply.

Btw, Ian Plimer and Vaclav Klaus are stalwarts to Heartland.
Paul Sheehan is a journalist.

It would not make any difference if I could show you CO2 does not always follow temperature because you want to believe what you want to believe (like JBowyer) - that is not science. You are unintentionally distorting and misrepresenting the science by your posts.

This is exactly what the so called "deny-n-delay" crowd wants - create 'noise' so that their own agenda can be fulfilled.

The following link is to an article in Scientific American, which asks the question "Is Global Warming a Myth?" and provides interesting facts and links to relevant organisations.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-a-myth&sc=CAT_ENRG_20090409

I hope that people take the time to read and consider their views.

I was going to mention Lutz and the GWBush administration in connection to attempts to change perceptions of global warming by referring to it as climate change but Q&A beat me to it. In any case the CC in IPCC was CC since it's inception and I don't think it matters if it's called Global Warming, AGW or Climate Change.
Meanwhile the only reason I can see for preferring Plimer's or Carter's or Kininmonth's minority take on AGW over the current output of the world's leading scientific insititutions is because they say what a lot of people want to hear. There's nothing to indicate their understanding of climate is superior and plenty of reason to think it's inferior. I did take the time to read a couple of articles by Carter and even without a science degree I had to conclude his arguments are thinner than arctic summer ice and definitely aimed at non-scientists - they weren't quality science in any sense. About as convincing as Curmudgeon's linked to graph that shows "cooling". I welcome people to look at it and try and explain to me how it shows any cooling for the past decade - Curmudgeon might like to explain how, given that only year 2000 is cooler than 1999 and every other year warmer. Looks much more like warming unless the black line ( which I think is the 5yr average, too short for a long term trend) is misinterpreted and people insist on putting great store in short term fluctuations.

Q & A
If you are as old as me then surely you remember the following : -
We are all going to die in a nuclear war (1950's)
We are going to starve to death because there will be more people than food for them.(1960's)
The earth is going to go into another ice age (This is a doozy) about the time of Gough Whitlam who used our money to pay for a scientist/politician junket on the subject(1970's).
We are going to run out of petrol by about the year 2000, I think(1970's)
The hole in the ozone layer? Completely explained by an Australian scientist but totally ignored in favour of remedial action costing millions. (1980's)
The famous Y2000 bug 1990's)
Global warming now being changed to climate change(1990's?)
Do you see the pattern here? This has been going on for centuries people have always been predicting this we are all going to die thingy and in so many cases making a tidy little sum out of it too.
I really do not want to get personal and apologise for the jibes I have made but they have only been in fun I assure you.
The day Bob Brown sells up his waterfront property (Or the leading Victorian expert sells his Yarra side apartment) I will start to worry but why they are coining it in I will be quite relaxed. Also I am sure my Grandchildren will face the same doomsayers but with a different story.
The challenge is why a billion dollars for the Y2000 bug that did not exist and who was brought to account? Because!the present predictions are all based on computer modeling, now what about that?

And JBowyer, I'm sure you remember:

- The Nazis pose no threat to Europe, let alone the world
- The free market is self-correcting and will prevent boom/bust cycles
- Communism is the way forward

Sometimes the doomsayers are right.

The global warming/climate change shift in rhetoric reflects genuine refinement in the science. Compare that to the desperate back-pedalling
that's characterised the sceptic movement from day one:

"Global warming is a socialist hoax", then...

"Okay, it's happening, but too slowly to worry about", followed by...

"Yes, it's happening - fast - but it's a perfectly natural cycle which humans can't affect", and now...

"It's sunspots, or closet socialist scientists, or the alarmist liberal media. Whatever it is, it's not industry or overpopulation", edging toward, inevitably...

"Huh. Fancy that. We could have fixed it if we'd acted two decades ago. Oh, well, damage is done now. No point complaining. And just LOOK at my bulging share portfolio!"

The "acknowledgist" movement is based on science, while, as you know, the denialist movement owes its entire base to corporate revenue protection. Those are the terms of this game, and it's why action is being delayed with FUB.

“The hole in the ozone layer? Completely explained by an Australian scientist but totally ignored in favour of remedial action costing millions. (1980's)”

I’m pleased to learn that an Australian scientist explained the hole in the ozone layer JBowyer so could you tell me what he said that was ignored and who paid the millions of dollars for remedial action?

You don’t happen to work for the chlorine industry do you?

http://www.theozonehole.com/noaa2008.htm

Temper, temper, Q&A. What were you saying about dummy spits?

Plimer can't have anything to say because associated with Heartland Institute? Only important if he goes to biggum Copenhagen junket likem me?

I thought you believed in arguing science not smearing by association. Confucius say all criticism is self-criticism.

"Plimer can't have anything to say because associated with Heartland Institute?"

Pretty much. The Heartland Institute will create a smokescreen for any industry that pays enough, and science be damned.

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

Jbowyer. I happen to know that Bob Browns waterfront property is at least 20 meters above sea level and there fore will not be effected by the sea level rise that will definitely occur but not before about another 50 years. He will not therefore be in any danger.

Jbowyer,
Nuclear destruction in the 50’s and 60’s– was a very real possibility given the abundance of nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction as the dominant strategy for avoiding nuclear war.
More people than food – a problem that human ingenuity has delayed but not solved. The interim solutions have relied on abundant oil and energy and have left vast tracts of formerly arable land as wasteland. Permanent solutions are still notably absent and climate change will make things worse.
Global cooling – The US National Academy of Sciences did a report on the issue in 1975 which basically said understanding of climate at that time was too limited to make such predictions. Compare to more recent reports on climate change from which the NAS which say climate is now well enough understood to make predictions. With the US’s premier science advisory body’s position clear enough I fail to see that there was any widespread scientific agreement on what was happening to climate in the 70’s, regardless of what the mainstream media was saying then or now.
Ozone hole – is real, is still scientifically accepted to be a result of CFC’s and has consequences, including climate ones, that are real no matter that “a scientist” says otherwise.
Y2K? Having communicated with people who worked on Y2K problems they were real and serious. That people foresaw the problems and fixed them isn’t evidence the problems didn’t exist - just evidence that forseeing problems and taking action can be successful.
I don’t think the public and governmental responses to unrelated issues over many decades can really be expected to exhibit clear patterns. In any case they are irrelevant to the scientific basis for AGW. The clearest pattern I see is that you appear willing to uncritically accept the truth of such assertions and uncritically reject any contrary explanations.
Give me the recent output of the world’s leading scientific bodies over these paranoid speculations any day.

"Plimer can't have anything to say because associated with Heartland Institute?"

Mr Plimer may say what he wishes - even on climate change but since he's never written a paper on climate science, nobody's listening though the media finds him amusing.

Mind you the gentleman has an impressive industry profile:

Director of CBH Resources Limited (lead-zinc-silver deposits and a variety of other base and precious metal mineralisation styles and a producer with a A$700 million market capitalisation.)

Director of Kefi Minerals

Director of Ivanhoe Australia

The good professor lists in his bio the following:

"Research Interests

"Characterisation of the stratigraphy, structure and alteration associated with the Broken Hill orebody."

Aw...wot? No climate research?!!

Science be damned?! However did Plimer become Professor Emiritus of Earth Sciences at Melbourne University. That is the planet we're talking about isn't it? It's the one I'm on anyway.

Heartland has been "disenfranchised" according to Q&A. Are there alarmist franchises available now? A chain of inconvenience stores perhaps. A better word might be excommunicated, given that he dares to remain open to questioning orthodoxy - the point of the article. He wouldn't be the first scientist to have experienced it.

Thank heavens Bob Brown is not in any danger! I was panicking there for a minute. 20 metres above sea level. Phew! If his current altitude were, say, -50cm below it, I would be very concerned, and could only pray that God gives him the intuition to walk in an upwardly direction.

As far as the gabfest in New York was concerned:

Conference co-sponsors received the following benefits:

• input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics

• admission to all meals and sessions for up to 20 people

• logo and organization info on all promotional material produced, including advertising prior to the event.

There was no fee for sponsorship, but conference co-sponsors were asked to do the following:

• place a link on the homepage of their Web sites to Heartland's web site

• send two or three emails to their membership/donor lists promoting the event

• describe the event in a newsletter or online essay

• get 20 people to attend the event as their guests

Meaning;

Sponsors had a hand in deciding what the topics of the conference would be (unlike real scientific conferences).

There was no fee for sponsorship (unusual) but “sponsors” were asked to spread the word about the “conference” and to get people to attend.

That is, the Heartland Institute looked for sponsorship not in the form of sponsorship fees, but in the form of ‘deny-n-delay’ noise ... sow the seeds of doubt, generate noise and promote inaction.

Btw, according to the “conference” registration information, there was a 20% registration fee discount for signers of the Oregon Petition.

Apparently, they had about 60 sponsors and 800 people registered to attend, that means they were giving away more admissions than people registered to attend. It's likely that almost everyone that attended got free admission.

No Fungo, they (the 'scientists') disenfranchised themselves.

If any allied to the Heartland Institute really wanted to get their message out, they would have presented their submission to the International Science Congress at Copenhagen. They did not.

It is very disturbing (if unscientific) that people like Roy Spencer "publishes" his papers on 'denialist' web sites like WUWT before they have been submitted (let alone published) in climate science journals or critiqued by his peers in the scientific community.

It is also disturbing that people like Bob Carter can rant in the popular press, blogosphere, right wing magazines and go on public speaking tours etc without actually having published any of his "claims" in climate science journals.

Extremists on both sides should pull their heads out of their nether-nethers ... global warming "alarmists" AND global warming "deniers".

Fungochumley, which part don't you understand?

Protagoras, if we're going to get into arguments about pecuniary interests, I might point out that Tim Flannery is a shareholder in geothermal company Geodynamics, a Director of Carbonscape and a Director of Australian Wildlife Conservancy, so there's not doubt that he stands to benefit by influencing government climate policy. He certainly makes a packet writing about it. Climateology is also absent from his collection of degrees.

Al Gore makes a nice little pile from being the principal climate Jeremiah, and his only qualification is as a politician (I'd add preachifyin', but he never finished Divinity School; I'm not sure if you need any qualifications to sell snake oil or not).

A fairly nasty p*ssing contest about who's making money from what, I know (I especially hate putting the boot into Tim, who's a likeable bloke), but you get my point.

Ian Plimer’s expertise is in mining geology not climate science.

GHGs are associated with the consumption of energy at every step in the mining production chain, from exploration through mining to milling and smelting; the use of explosives, the transport of ores and intermediate products which also contribute to GHG emissions, plus the massive use of water.

Given the vast quantities of mine wastes now produced annually in Australia with declining ore grades, there would be a very substantive quantity of listed National Pollutant Inventory pollutants contained within tailings and waste rock yet I believe they are excluded from, or at least poorly addressed by such accounting and reporting systems.

It strikes me that the good Professor has a large conflict of interest but in typically "humbled" tones, constantly witnessed in the representatives from the mining industry, he was quoted as declaring:

“I have a finely tuned bull**t detector and I don't see the point in wasting time with frauds, egos and those who talk a lot but deliver little,"

Touche Ian Plimer!

The stupid question at the end.

I notice you completely dodged my point, Protagoras: The poster boys of climate change alarmism have as much vested interest as the skeptics.

Mind you, it was a clever ploy by sarnian, I think it was, managed to successfully steer comment away from the ludicrous assertions of the actual article, and instead mire everyone in yet another endless standoff between the "faithful" and the "deniers".

We expect our politicians to lie to us and to conspire against us to serve corporate interests, as in the matter of junk food advertising to children. Individual scientists can be dishonest too, but science is a very different sort of enterprise from politics. It is a poor avenue for people who are motivated by greed or a lust for power. It is also self-correcting and international. Trofim Lysenko managed to get the ear of Stalin and impose his ridiculous ideas on the Soviet scientific community, setting back genetics there by 20 years, but Lysenkoism was a joke in the rest of the world. Even if nearly all the climatologists in the US and Australia were involved in some gigantic conspiracy, it is hard to see why the Indians, Russians, Chinese, etc. would also be taken in by it.

Since no one can know everything about everything, it makes sense to rely on the people who are in the best position to understand an issue. As the Nobel Prize winning physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote in New Scientist, the physics of AGW makes sense, and some very smart people are working on it. When scientists write papers, one of the things they do is to try to think of every possible argument against what they are saying, so you need to consider why an overwhelming majority of climatologists are not convinced by the sceptics. It is easy to point to some cases where the maverick was right, but there are far more where the maverick was wrong. I am not going to start worrying about alien abductions any time soon.

Since no one can know everything about everything, it makes sense to rely on the people who are in the best position to understand an issue. As the Catholic Church, Prize winning physicist Pope wrote as he sentenced Galileo to death:

The physics of A Flat Earth (AFE) makes sense, and some very smart people are working on it.

When eclesiastic scientists write papers, one of the things they do is to try to think of every possible argument against what they are saying. So you need to consider why an overwhelming majority of geographers are not convinced by the sceptics. It is easy to point to some cases where the maverick was right, but there are far more where the maverick was wrong. Galileo being the current case in point.

BTW Our theory on heavenly epiphanies (spiritual abductions) will be available to all our flock any time soon now.

Not at all Clownfish. I do not begrudge any company/individual conducting a profitable business providing it is environmentally friendly and ethical. While Tim Flannery has flip-flopped on occasion, such as nuclear energy, his association with the institutes you mention potentially lead to cleaner results for our environment.

Carbonscape is trying to develop a patented industrial microwave charcoal technology that sucks CO2 from the atmosphere, helping mitigate the impact of global warming and the same principle applies to Geodynamics.

Flannery has made contributions of international significance to the fields of palaeontology, mammalogy and conservation and to the importance of protecting endangered species.

A number of his major discoveries have received international acclaim from both peers and professionals. He also taught at Harvard in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and he has contributed greatly to the scientific studies of mammal populations which have led to a significant understanding of how ecological communities are organized and function – particularly with global warming.

You would need to explain how placing Dracula in charge of the blood bank is ecologically sustainable when you support a rock doctor who has astonishingly (and only recently) proclaimed himself an expert on the environment and is sufficiently avaricious to profit from publishing books, denying man’s contribution to climate change.

To Plimer, it would be a mere peccadillo that Australia’s mining industry, from which he profits, has slaughtered thousands of native species just this decade (officially 16,000 in WA alone) and the industry from which he profits, continues to contaminate and threaten the health of the environment and communities across the planet while the displacement of indigenous groups, human rights' atrocities and the accidental deaths of employees continue unabated.

And included in the top 10 companies to have greedy directors' packages overwhelmingly rejected by shareholders last year was CBH Resources where the "no" votes were huge and on a scale not seen before.

Seemingly you prefer the culpable mining Draculas to suck the life blood from this nation whilst they deny A/climate change and refute any urgent requirement for environmentally sustainable industry practices?

>> Protagoras: "To Plimer, it would be a mere peccadillo that Australia’s mining industry, from which he profits, has slaughtered thousands of native species just this decade (officially 16,000 in WA alone) and the industry from which he profits, continues to contaminate and threaten the health of the environment and communities across the planet while the displacement of indigenous groups, human rights' atrocities and the accidental deaths of employees continue unabated."

Do you have a source for the 16,000 extinct WA native species?

You are therefore being unethical and un-'environmental' by posting here, Protagoras, presumably using electricity and a PC that has components derived from mining. Good to know we shan't be hearing from you again.

Protagoras, did you have a great fondness for pantos, as a kid? I ask merely, because you're doing all but hold up the "Boo! Hiss!" signs when you mention Prof. Plimer's name.

Flannery: "environmentally friendly", "ethical", "international significance" and "international acclaim".

Plimer: "Dracula", "avaricious", "rock doctor", "slaughtered", "contaminate", "threaten", "atrocities", "deaths", "greedy" and "suck the life blood from this nation".

Funny how I've never noticed Plimer's (Boo!) horns before, nor the fluffy bilbys hopping around Flannery's (Yay!) feet while twittering birds droop garlands of wildflowers on his shoulders (carefully avoiding his halo, of course).

When lovingly reciting Tim's (Yay!) CV, you might also have mentioned that Ian Plimer (Boo!) is a Fellow of the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, twice Eureka Prize winner, Daley Prize winner, Fellow of the AusIMM, Fellow Geological Society, winner of the Centenary Medal, Clarke Medal, Leopod von Buch Plakette, Sir Willis Connolly Medal, Member of the Royal Society of South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria and Australian Humanist of the Year 1995

You also dodged the point. The point was not whether Flannery (Yay!) or Plimer's (Boo!) money-making activities are ethically acceptable to Protagoras; the point was that Flannery stands to profit from climate change alarmism every bit as much as Plimer profits from the evil, planet-killing mining industry.

But ultimately, we've also completely lost the point of the actual article we're meant to be discussing.

Gad, this is like debating Creationists: getting bogged down in pointless side-arguments.

“Do you have a source for the 16,000 extinct WA native species?”

Thanks for detecting the error Ratty which should have read 16,000 native “animals:”

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/commit.nsf/(Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID)/6F072B9AF0DE627AC825734E000ADCDB/$file/COMPLETE+REPORT.FINAL.PT1.pdf (Page xxiii)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/03/23/1071910.htm

The author advised: “The need for a more rigorous response to climate change in Australia is urgent”

Clownfish, you exclaimed: "you cannot be serious!” Huh?

I prefer dealing with facts and a growing number of today's crimes against humanity are in fact environmental. As mining pushes into more and more regions and ecosystems, people all over the world are seeing their basic rights compromised; they are losing their livelihoods, their traditional culture, and even their lives. Mining has contaminated rivers, forests, soil, crops and health.

A typical example of the hundreds of human rights and environmental abuses within the mining industry (not least from Australian based companies) include the case against Californian based oil and gas company, Unocal which involved not only the destruction of tropical forests, wetlands, and mangrove swamps in territories inhabited by the Karen, Mon, and Tavoy peoples in Burma, but also human-rights abuses ranging from forced relocation to rape, torture, and murder.
On 1/4/09 Australia’s National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) released data indicating that Xstrata's Mt Isa Mines is one of Australia’s biggest polluters. The group surveyed 4,116 facilities across the country which were found to produce varying levels of 87 toxic substances. Australia's largest mining and processing operation topped the list in six types of pollutants.

On 2/4/09 WA’s Mines and Petroleum Minister Norman Moore advised that BHP Billiton had received 12 prohibition notices in 2 weeks (of course no real regulatory enforcement for breaches - typical!) 5 people have died at BHP’s minesites this financial year.

It’s not surprising that the most vociferous deniers of climate change are connected to mining.

“But ultimately, we've also completely lost the point of the actual article we're meant to be discussing.”

Of course Clownfish. I had already anticipated that the connection between global warming, climate change and the mining of coal, oil, metals, bauxite etc, by self-regulated companies, operating with impunity, would be lost on you.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/monitorissues_1/2009/02/monitorissue2120/?pa=B56F3A15

http://www.protestbarrick.net/article.php?id=293

Nice try, Protagoras, but you're still dodging the point.

Do some people in the climate alarmist camp stand to gain financially by influencing government policy or not?

But, once again, this is a sideshow; let's keep to the point.

As interesting as the diversions you keep introducing are, how about steering this back to what the article was about: "Australia’s 2007 national election, which saw the Progressive Party" (ho ho ho, 'tis to laugh) "come to power, was the first national election in the country’s history in which a scientific issue - climate change - played a decisive role."

I say again, you cannot be serious.

Clownfish, I cannot help but think you are accusing Protagoras of the very thing you are engaging in yourself. Some would think that is hypocritical.

The point Keith Schneider was making is summed up under the Article topic:

"With record-setting heat waves, bush fires and drought, Australians are increasingly convinced they are facing the early impacts of global warming."

Cherry pick or move the goal posts all you want (it happens in online forums about climate-change all the time). Nevertheless, Schneider's point still stands - Australians are increasingly convinced they are facing the early impacts of global warming.

Until people accept that they have to adapt to a changing climate and live in a more sustainable way, then humanity (and all that relies on it) will suffer.

Of course there will be 'winners and losers', there always has been and there always will be. However, the smart ones ('progressive' for want of a better term) are planning ahead - they don't want to be caught stuck in the mud.

Wrong again Clownfish. The difference between Flannery and the mining barons is the need for mining barons to launder their ill-gotten gains. In addition they remain guilty of complicity by their silence over the industry’s professed policy of “sustainable development” which continues to be one that drives growth regardless of the impact it is having on what remains of the natural environment.

Most perplexing are your accusations when from all the issues I have raised, you are incapable of acknowledging one.

And with debate over climate change emerges the framework of the new "greenwash" push of transnationals and their parasitic shareholders. Now Australia’s Rio Tinto is eagerly trying to prove the unprovable: that mining Madagascar’s unique biodiversity is sustainable for the environment and the people.

However today in Madagascar, the giant lemurs are extinct and many native forests, vanished. Most large trees that you see are introduced species of pine and eucalyptus, very useful for making charcoal and building furniture, but as they are not native to Madagascar, they provide few resources for the island’s animal species.

Coastal erosion has not been addressed by the mining company even though it presents considerable risks to communities living near coastlines and could still result from the deforestation for sand mineral extraction.

Alas, what generally follows with land grabs by foreign multi-nationals, who deprive impoverished people of their fertile lands is unrest. While many Malagasies believe that mining will lift them from poverty, that remains to be seen:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLU447313

And while you obviously believe that the expansion of mining is healthy for the environment, you may just dig a hole for yourself since that will save you the effort when this nation is inundated with the arrival of thousands of uninvited environmental refugees who mistakenly believe that the drought stricken and desecrated lands of Australia will have something better to offer. Only then shall we understand that “what goes ‘round comes ‘round” for all things are bound together! I sincerely trust that our fourth world thinking leader, Mr Five Percent, understands that too!

Here we go again, merrily down the garden path of irrelevance with Protagoras ...

Um, when did I once "obviously" say that the expansion of mining is healthy for the environment? What has your diatribe about wicked mining companies to do with this article anyway?

Please address the topic, hm?

At least Q&A tried: "Australians are increasingly convinced they are facing the early impacts of global warming." A quick skim over some surveys indicates that most Australians accept that the climate is changing. But that doesn’t mean the assertions Schneider makes are even remotely true.

Deeper in, the statistics becomes muddier. The numbers vary by age and gender, but overall only slightly more than half believe humans are mainly responsible for climate change. When it comes to taking action, the numbers are even less happy for Keith Schneider.

But Schneider wasn’t content to just claim that “Australians are increasingly convinced, etc.”, instead he went on to make a raft of risible claims that may have played well to an American readership, no-one in Australia should fall for.

He shouldn't confuse the 2007 Australian election with the 2008 US election. As I said, Australians did not vote for “change”. Much as he would like to be, Kevin Rudd was not Barrack Obama.

“...the first national election in the country’s history in which a scientific issue - climate change - played a decisive role”? Did it b*ll*cks!

If the 2007 election was fought on any issue, it was Workchoices.

Schneider also insinuates that the national water policy was some sort of magic brainchild of the “progressive party” (a howler itself). Srly?

Schneider should also stop pretending that the money Rudd committed to the network was anything other than an expedient political bribe, to buy some much-needed votes in the Senate.

As for the Black Saturday bushfires: Again, it may be expedient for certain politicians to cry “climate change!” and try to curtail embarrassing scrutiny of their role in contributing to the scale of the disaster, but that doesn’t mean it’s not b*llsh*t.

‘“...the first national election in the country’s history in which a scientific issue - climate change - played a decisive role”? Did it b*ll*cks!’

You know Clownfish, I do like your pseudonym – it really suits you!

I take it you're going to keep dodging the issue, then?

More than dodging the issue, Protagoras will throw up any hilarious distraction s/he can. Er, climate change, global warming, mining, er, bacteria on my dish rag, giant lemurs?!? These are believed to have become extinct some 500 years ago. What has this got to with global warming? Of course, nothing, so you respond with an insult. Well played clownfish.

Thank you Fungochumley – you got that bit right since the most recent radiocarbon-dated bones of giant lemurs reveals that lemurs survived human occupation in Madagascar by at least 1500 years. In addition, anthropologists from the University of Massachusetts have found definitive evidence of butchery resulting in their extinction “most probably associated with hunting, of giant extinct lemurs by early human settlers in Madagascar:”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16225904

Which brings me to the issue of mining in unique and rare biodiversities. Whilst agriculture is held responsible for the principal cause of habitat destruction, equally destructive causes of habitat destruction include mining, logging, invasive species, geological processes, urban sprawl, smuggling, industrial pollution and global warming.

Alas Fungochumley, since you function on a lower vibrational plane to the more evolved homosapiens here this information is not for your benefit. The more enlightened will connect the dots between biodiversity, ecosystems, the Sixth Extinction and global warming.

“In broad usage, the current Sixth Extinction event includes the notable disappearance of large mammals, known as megafauna, starting 10,000 years ago as humans developed and spread.

"In the course of a couple of generations, one species — ours — has managed to raise the temperature of an entire planet, changing its most basic systems. The majority of biologists agree that the world's ecosystems have been plunged into chaos. Not even the vast oceans remain untouched by human presence.

“At closer scrutiny it is clear that during the last few centuries what has looked like progress for humans has amounted to crisis for mother nature. As our industry and technology has escalated, in most cases, so has the level of devastation.

“Much of that indifference has been fanned by a small but determined group of skeptics who have devoted countless resources to the cause of undermining climate science. I often tell people that I work in a town where everyone likes to say they’re for science-based decision making, until the overwhelming scientific consensus leads to a politically inconvenient conclusion. Then they want to go to plan B.”

http://thesixthextinction.org/

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

Protagorus

Thankyou.

Protogas have you ever thought of human development as evolution? The Earth has been evolving and although we are a recent addition we are just rolling along doing the best we can. Species liked dinosaurs lived for millions of years but could not adapt. We had considerable ice-ages and the last one only ended about 15,000 years ago. Most people think it was millions of years of course.
You dear Protogas are just part of the rich tapestry of humanity. The majority of us progress, adapt and learn. You seem to want to rule us but in a totally negative way, like all greenies. You have nothing to say but no, you cannot do that or hold on awhile. Do not worry you will die but the world will go on.

Protagoras, since your "16,000 extinct WA native species" remark (since corrected to "16,000 native animals"), we must regard your contributions as suspect. You will make any claim - irrespective of its validity - to further your position. I challenge you to prove the amended claim.

Peter Garrett employs the same tactics:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
"Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise."

We've been hearing the "experts predicted" stories for over twenty years.

BTW, that link is to a page where the headline says "Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away", exposing more lies.

My dear JBowyer

You will need to seek higher counsel for I am but passing through. Whenever I refer to Nature, it is from my limited human viewpoint - perhaps the reason I ask if man's technological advances have overtaken Nature's evolutionary processes to render evolution obsolete? As such, Nature seems to be the unforgiving, wiser of the two.

Should you require empirical evidence of homo sapiens devolution, I suggest you prepare your repast of freshly slaughtered rabbit; dress in your finest pelt and lunch in the gallery of our House of Representatives.

There you will see a process taking place before your eyes where day by day, from upright homo sapiens, the members of the House are showing a marked preference for walking on their knuckles, preparatory to climbing back up trees, in order to live in the branches and throw faeces at each other.

Grunts for now

Ah Protagoras,

You remind me of my old friend dickie. Go into any psychiatric ward in the country and you will find people who believe they are operating on a higher "vibrational plane" than the rest of humanity, and are very good at joining all sorts of "dots" into a non-sensical fantasy.

I thought we were talking about 20th century industrial CO2 emissions and pecuniary interests. But your posts, while avoiding every question directed at you, now seem to have spread into a sweeping critique of post-renaissance humankind. If you don't want those things given from your forebears, all that agriculture and stuff, by all means go back to the Stone Age, throw away your PC, don't use the word 'science', go live in a mud hut, and eat, well, I dunno, oxygen or something. But when Nature does show you who's boss, don't come banging on my door.

Your 16,000 species/16,000 animals mistake, though appropriately acknowledged, really does show that you haven't a clue and will just swallow whatever nonsense people sell you. The kind of consumer who will fall for catchy titles like The Sixth Extinction. ooooh! You should also check out Police Academy 2: The First Assignment.

“BTW, that link is to a page where the headline says "Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away", exposing more lies.”

Who are these lying scoundrels Ratty or have the climate recalcitrants been feeding the troll? I think you’ve been set up old chap, particularly when the troll doesn’t know east from west.

Nevertheless, as you say: “we must regard your contributions as suspect. You will make any claim - irrespective of its validity - to further your position. I challenge you to prove the amended claim.” You are forthwith challenged Ratty. Name the "liars."

All previous scientific papers have reported a thickening of ice in east Antarctica and continue to do so. The Wilkins shelf is in west Antarctica – whoops – feeling mortified Ratty?

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=579&ArticleID=6121&l=en

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N24/EDIT.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4565935.stm

The catatonic Fungochumley informs us that he and his psychotic buddy are in and out of psychiatric wards. Why not join them?

The problem with speed reading, Protagoras, is that you sometimes miss things, like this from the article I listed:

"Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. "

You've mis-read again, just like to 16,000 error.