So, here we are in the archives of an old thread thinking Spindoc and Q&A could “slug it out” on our own, seems there remains much interest in this thread.

For those interested in commenting how this thread has evolved, this is the current state of play.

I’ve long held the view that the public debate on GW is flawed. I’ll go further and suggest that there has been no informed debate. IMO there are two key reasons for this.

Firstly, that those who have decided that AGW exists, is caused by human generated atmospheric carbon and that an ETS is the answer, have, by their passionate support, inhibited any open or informed debate.

Secondly, I’ve tried to discover the sources, type and value of the information upon which so many have based their acceptance of AGW.

In order to understand this public phenomenon, we need to eliminate argument by science because it is inconclusive, which has actually caused the current standoff.

In response to a question from Q&A, I’ve posted the results of an analysis of source, type and value of the available information behind this debate. (See post Friday, 29 May 2009 11:31:04 AM). Also mentioned in this post is the nature of the analytical template, its common use and its capacity for dealing with very complex information sets. There are other tools should any OLO’ers prefer to offer one.

All you have to do is look at the template and decide where you, as an individual, sourced the information upon which you made your decision. It is possible that you have a scientific qualification, in which case you are able to form your own scientific conclusion. For the rest of us we have two choices. We can base our opinion upon those offered by the non scientific public domain in levels 4 & 5 (very low value), or have faith/trust in the scientific community because we are not qualified to understand it. Remembering of course that even levels 2 & 3 information is contested science. Hence the origin of the term “consensus science”.

(continued)

"either way mate you conmment barely rates any informed reply"

Tsk tsk UOG - it took three paragraphs to tell me that?

"so mate how do you gain from this new tax?..."

Well UOG, I've already offered an alternative, in writing to the Commonwealth government. I like to do my serious work offline but I do enjoy reading the delusional mumbo jumbo of the divinely guided here who are driven by unrestrained greed - the tyrants who aren't interested in offering any solutions to benefit the common good.

And why are you asking me about the ETS anyway - I'm opposed to it! Duh!

(continued)

Kailin1 you raise some good points but I cannot accept that "science is never conclusive, it’s about probabilities." There is no science in “probabilities” except to the extent that we can model “probabilities” once human imagination has thought them up. Possibilities, probabilities and contingencies are products of imagination not science.

As to whether we are talking “soft” or “hard” science? I can readily accept a continuum where soft science is a “one” and hard science is a “ten”. Then we can evaluate how “hard” the science must be against the magnitude of the problem. I feel this debate has been promoted as “high” magnitude in order to allow “soft” science as acceptable.

I would not like to be the one to explain to the residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki that both bombs went off by fluke as it was only “soft” science.

Protagoras, I mentioned in the first part of this post that those who have already “nailed their AGW colors to the mast” seem to be inhibiting any open or informed debate.

You say; << How condescending and what an insult to the public - particularly to those trained in environmental toxicology. Go to bed spindoc!>>.

My acknowledgement of public determination and effort as posted in this thread Sunday, 24 May 2009 11:08:04 AM reads;

“I have never in my lifetime, seen so much public effort expended in trying to understand and research such a complex scientific topic. The sheer volume of reference web sites, publications and commentary is truly staggering and perhaps reflects the concerns and fears expressed by everyone on OLO.

OLO’ers have reached an almost academic level of understanding which is rewarding in itself and deserves recognition for truly impressive achievements.”

<< Go to bed spindoc!>>.? Perhaps if you “got out of bed” Protagoras you might not keep making such an idiot of yourself.

You could redeem yourself by responding to the ERA source information template I posted?

As “Arnie” says, “C’moan, yoo cun doo eet”

No science though and definitely no more poetry, please.

"I like to do my serious work offline..."

Don't fret, Protagoras. No one could be under the misapprehension that what you write here is meant to be serious.

Protagoras,

I'd be pleased to hear the specific "chemicals of concern" and a little more detail regarding "the ecological desecration caused from the emissions of fossil fuel chemicals" because contrary to what you say the "ecological desecrations" are not well defined and in large part are not, as you say, "proven." Lomborg's book, The skeptical Environmentalist punched awfully big holes in many of the alarmist claims of "ecological descration" and the science behind those claims.

And no, I haven't missed the "sleeper emerging in a crisis between the interplay of hazardous fossil fuel emissions (associated and other industrial pollutants), water, food and all life on the planet" it's just that Lomborg's book and some of my other wider reading have made me realise that the evidence of this "emerging crisis" is much thinner that many would have us believe, puting in doubt its very existence. Please try your luck and explain this "sleeper emerging crisis" with examples.

Clownfish,

Loved your suggestion that a certain generation of scientists take some bex and have a good lie down. Hysterical.

I suspect there is more than a silo of grain of truth in your 'hippy' generational theory.

Norman Myer - Noting your comment on this guy:

A Wikipedia search, which indicates he is a professor of a prestigious Business School, it isn't clear about his actual qualifications beyond his initial BA. It does state "Myers abandoned life as a schoolteacher in order to make his way as a professional photographer of African wildlife, and thence to an additional career as a freelance lecturer on the subject with an increasing interest in environmental matters. He went back to university and obtained a Ph.D from Berkeley in 1973."

In short, it doesn't appear he has formal scientific qualifications. His expertise is presumably based on his extensive travel experiences in places like Africa. Although his beliefs are probably sincere, his knowledge of the environment appears limited to his personal observations. He very likely has encountered real environmental problems in the places he has travelled, but that does not reliable evidence the whole world is in crisis.

Take the example of deforestation. Lomborg's book identified why some of the widely accepted studies showing dramatic global deforestation are in fact flawed because they compare estimates of forest levels many years apart without taking into account fundamentally different definitions of forest land (which were not always available or clear). Indulging in a little fictitious, but illustrative example:

One study in 1950 says the land of OZ is 20% covered in forest.

A second study in 2000 finds the land of Oz is covered by 10% of forest.

On the face of these two studies it would be 'clear' that half the forest land of Oz has been lost in just 50 years.

A close look at the each study may, however, reveal that in fact the first study included savanna lands (where tree cover was only 30% in its definition of forest, and this made up half the 'forest' in that study).

The later study excluded savanna lands from its definition of forest. Suddenly, the calamity of deforestation in the land of Oz is transformed into virtual stability, as forests apart from Savanna 'forests' still provided 10% coverage. This is exactly the kind of error you find in spades whenever you examine the evidence underlying global conclusions which is based on local environmental conditions.

If annecdotal observations appear to support the alarmist global conclusions it is at least in large part because the bad news - the fallen tree/extinct species is so much more visible than the subtle good news - the growing saplings/evolution of new species.
(continued)
Spindoc,

You said: "Possibilities, probabilities and contingencies are products of imagination not science."

Read up on what Einstein had to say about imagination and science. Without imagination there is no science because imagination is required to ask the 'why' questions upon which science is grounded. As I said before your and Q&A's debate about probabilites v proving this is rather semantic.

Now where has Q&A gone?