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.