RE; mememine69 ;

God I hope your right , I sure am sick of feeling like a leper , I am a dedicated AGW Denier ; now I can go back and concentrate on being a closet Green conservationist .

The Green movement has crashed ; too many fanatics and cranks .

What is needed now is a new movement based on the Greens pre AGW curriculum so all the rational people can get on with the job ahead .

Me me,
you're acting like the IPCC has predicted the end of the world 25 times over the last 25 years. As far as I know, apart from the Vic bushfires and maybe cyclone Katrina and WHO saying 200 thousand people die annually from global warming, the REAL economic impact hasn't been predicted to hit for another 40 to 60 years yet?

This is about risk mitigation and spelling out scenarios based on actions taken now. It's about drawing up the possibilities, and weighing out various options. It's NOT about crystal ball gazing.

Anyway, we have to get off the coal, oil, and gas sometime soon because they are starting to run out. (There's still enough coal to cook the planet 4 times over.) But our children will live in a post-oil world, and we are currently living at the peak of production. The slippery decline starts soon. We have to live more locally and sustainably soon because oil, the lifeblood of the modern world, is about to go into decline. Less and less each year.

As it is, you've said nothing to disprove the REAL physics behind global warming. Be careful, because if you DO disprove the physics behind global warming, you might just "disprove" our microwave ovens and the internet as well (and then they'll disappear in a puff of logic). You'd basically have to disprove everything we know about Spectrometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrometer
Or try this:
Co2 = "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

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

and the Radiative Forcing Equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

James Hansen of NASA has concluded that we need to get down to 350 ppm CO2E and we are currently at 385ppm). See http://www.350.org for more.

Protagoras, if I owe Q&A an apology It will be offered. I quoted directly from the following Q&A post as follows:

“Like Plimer I am a geologist,”
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:21:38 AM

In a later post Q&A had this to say:

“My field of expertise lies in land/ocean/atmosphere dynamics (I am not a geologist).”
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 14 June 2009 6:12:47 PM

Perhaps Q&A can offer some clarification and indicate whether or not I have misquoted or misinterpreted?

In the meantime Protagoras, since I have now provided the evidence to support my “slippery claim” as you demanded, and indicated where it is in this thread; perhaps you could read it for yourself and then apologize to everyone on this thread for failing to read the posts before you wrongly accuse other of misrepresentation.

Your emotional outbursts fascinate me. If, as you believe, the science in relation to global warming is settled, one would imagine the science would speak for itself. Therefore there would be no need for rude, offensive, aggressive and emotional “hissy fits”. Your disposition is a good example of desperation being experienced by those whose case is rapidly becoming unraveled.

Actually spindoc, I think you had better reread that post by Q&A.

The first quote you are refering to seems to be coming from Professor Malcolm Walter. The quotation marks gave it away.

Hey Spindoc,

any comment on the following (pretty much as I posted above)?

You've said nothing to disprove the REAL physics behind global warming. Be careful, because if you DO disprove the physics behind global warming, you might just "disprove" our microwave ovens and the internet as well (and then they'll disappear in a puff of logic). You'd basically have to disprove everything we know about Spectrometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrometer

Or try this:
Co2 = "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

That is it lets sunlight in, but not out (after it has hit the earth's surface and changed energy form).

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

You'll also need to disprove the Radiative Forcing Equation, which is the 'accounting' side of Global warming. Co2 before Industrial Revolution, Co2 after, count the energy difference = degree of warming. Easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

James Hansen of NASA has concluded that we need to get down to 350 ppm CO2E and we are currently at 385ppm). See http://www.350.org for more.

Spindoc

Protagoras is right. You have taken Professor Malcolm Walter’s concluding remarks (which I block quoted and linked to) and wrongly ascribed them to me.

Having realised your mistake, I clarified by indeed saying;

“My field of expertise lies in land/ocean/atmosphere dynamics (I am not a geologist).”

I would have thought this would be all the clarification you required. It seems not.

So, please be assured ... I am not Malcolm Walter (geologist), I am not a geologist. I don’t do rocks.

My field of expertise lies in things like; ENSO, PDO, NAO, ocean currents, the Walker Circulation and Hadley cells, blah blah blah and all that as applies to; temperatures, evaporation rates, clouds, rain, snow, blah blah blah ... predominantly with respect to the hydro-geological cycle and its relevance to climate change. Nothing that Plimer appears to understand.

I am somewhat disappointed (but not surprised) that you have followed up by accusing the person (who brought your mistake to your attention) of the very thing you have done yourself;

<< failing to read the posts before you wrongly accuse other of misrepresentation. >>

One could be excused for thinking you have thrown a “hissy fit”

<< Your disposition is a good example of desperation being experienced by those whose case is rapidly becoming unraveled. >>

Please, read Professor Malcolm Walter’s remarks again, here (it would help if you read the transcript):

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm

That should be clarification enough.

If not (and to get a better idea from where I am coming from), try this link (again, read the transcript):

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm

Both of these links are on topic.

Professor David Karoly and I have things in common. Go figure.

I don’t expect an apology spindoc; a simple “I made a boo boo Q&A” would have sufficed and we could have moved on.