Anne, you do understand, don't you, that the globe is not warming, and that the science on this is settled?

Also, how have you figured in the negative consequences of reducing the use of fossil fuels that now supply food, shelter, medicine, transport and communications to billions of people? Since these are now supporting human life, and you advocate a reduction, please show your workings. How many lives do you want to be sacrificed? Ethically, how do you justify killing even one person?

As to the future effects of climate change, show how you have figured the balance of positive as against negative results. Where I live, there is markedly different micro-climate than 3 km down the road. Please show your workings for the entire continents of Eurasia, North America, Africa and South America – or admit your vapid dishonesty.

Carbon is the basis of all life. It is no more a pollutant than is oxygen, or water.

Irrational quasi-religious human-hating neo-fascist state-worship is very fashionable for young arts graduates, I see.

I see that Wing is a true believer in the ideology of scientism or scientific materialism---at least when its suits him.

And like all true believers he is thoroughly intolerant of other points of view. Indeed his various statements on this site are full of the language of binary exclusions---I am right and everybody else is wrong.

A quote re the "culture" produced in the image of scientism.

"Institutionalized scientism is intent upon controlling and managing humankind and the total human world, and even the entire conditionally arising universe itself, on an exclusively non-sacred, and even anti-sacred, and thoroughly godless basis.

The everywhere-and-everything-and-everybody-institutionalizing power of scientism would, if allowed to function at will and unimpeded, control and manage, and thoroughly institutionalize, and, altogether, exoterically limit ALL of the political, social, economic, and cultural conditions and activities of globally-institutionalized humankind.

This power that institutionalized scientism exercises is of an inherently intolerant nature, because it is possessed by a reductionist, and tribalistic, and exclusively exoteric mentality, that cannot accept any non-"orthodox", extra-tribal or extra-institutional, or otherwise esoteric exceptions to its Rule.

continued:

"Exoteric scientism achieves physically effective control over human populations by means of physically based technologies.

Exoteric scientism achieves physically effective mind control over human individuals and collectives by means of physically effective technologies, practical and consumer oriented inventions, power alliances with social and political institutions, the broad scale ritual propagandizing of "scientific" myths, and the broad scale persistent propagandizing of IRREDUCIBLY objectified beliefs in such ideas as "rationality", "materiality", "objective certainty", "progress", "analytical reason" as an exercise superior to ALL other human efforts, the necessary mortality of nature, mind, and being, and both the "authority" and the "ultimate sufficiency" of scientism itself."

Plus this reference which begins with the statement:

"Only one human force is dominant on Earth at the present time. It wants to take over and change the entire world. It wants all human beings to conform to a model of existence. It wants to change the total environment of Earth into a technologically mastered condition."

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/bridge_to_god/index2.html

In the same book the author also points out that the world-process would, and will, inevitably bite back fulfilling its objective---and indeed it is already doing so.

<'Also, how have you figured in the negative consequences of reducing the use of fossil fuels that now supply food, shelter, medicine, transport and communications to billions of people? Since these are now supporting human life”>

Fossil fuels are artificially propping up human greed and gluttony, used in the right way they'd be a life support, but currently, are a fatalistic approach.

<”Ethically, how do you justify killing even one person? “>

How do you justify killing, enslaving and torturing even one animal to satisfy your gluttony.

Wing Ah Ling, the author may not have presented her piece exactly as she wished to express, but she at least tried. It's not one thing like global warming, which is the problem, but the approach to life by ideologically controlled humans of every description. It's a mental disease which seems to create delusional expectations of illusionary hope, we see it in every form of governance, business and cultural society. It's not science, which is at fault, but how it's implemented by humans controlled by vested interests, or ideological desire, both really one and the same thing.

The planets ecology and biodiversity has allowed us to live and evolve to this point, now it's collapsing, irrelevant to global warming or Co2 production. It wouldn't matter if we put no extra Co2 into the atmosphere, we are putting huge amounts of particulates and destabilising gases into it. But the most important thing we've done and almost completely irreversible, we're making extinct the basic requirements supporting our food chains, destroyed most of the planets productive land and ecosystems which supported it. Quasi religion, is all ideology, including your's.

Fossil fuel lobby controlling the debate? Pardon me but where has the author been. The reason the Kyoto accord was not signed initially by Australia was because the agreement was a complete waste of time and effort. Also, unlike all the other countries who did sign, Australia had no easy out (for various reasons, most of the signatories could easily meet their obligations), and would feel obliged to do something about its international commitments. A number did not bother - notably Canada.
As is now widely acknowledged, Kyoto had not the slighest effect on emissions. The world is having another go in December, but it is extremely unlikely that anything useful will result.
Added to all of that if you look at graphs of annual global temperatures constructed by the likes of the Hadley centre it looks worrying (at least worryingly to activists) as if it is coming off a peak. The author's ambulance may be long delayed but the patient may not be as sick as first thought.

"Delaying effective action on global warming for 20 years is not commonly viewed as a crime, and yet it could condemn humanity to oblivion."

and nor should it ever be viewed as a "CRIME".

"Laws" and thus "crimes" should never be based on the ill concieved perceptions and limits of an extremist zealot minority.

The notion that humanity could be "condemned to oblivion" is pure hysteria ...

Someone needs to get a life and deal with some real issues, instead of prancing on about the disputible causes and consequences of "global warming", especially when we note the world is in a constant state of "temperature flux".

These fanciful whims of extremists and hysteria are not the basis and never must be the basis for any criminal or even civil prosecution.

"Last week, on May 27, at 8am we held a banner,"

and last week, on 27 May I was making soup and it is very nice.

"no taxpayer dollars to polluters".

No argument from me there... trouble is Krudd and Co are going to consume too many tax payer dollars to fund the interest on his foolish borrowings... imho I would rather see a banner

"no tax payer dollars for a profligate federal government"

....

"I resent the continued influence of the fossil fuel lobby."

and I resent the continued influence of environmental extremists who demand the criminalisation of the fanciful and the curtailment of everyone elses civil rights.

Next.....

I love you Anna O'Brian..but nothing will come of it, as your logic and lack of reason in not accepting the empirical facts presented to refute your self fulfilling profession will alas not support any desired outcomes which would otherwise come to something tangible.

**Ethically, how do you justify killing even one person?

The recent Global Humanitarian Forum report is showing that CC is already responsible for 300,000 deaths/year (http://www.ghf-geneva.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=157) – and this is set to increase. Can you justify this??

**If money is spent on developing and building sustainable energy sources then we will have an answer for the supply of food, shelter, medicine, transport and communications to billions of people.

Look what’s being done in India in 2007 as an example: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11740-affordable-solar-power-brings-light-to-india.html It’s actually opening a whole new world to people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India

**Show your workings for the entire continents of Eurasia, North America, Africa and South America

Try this: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/keyfacts/google.html

It is true that some areas on the planet will benefit from the changes – this is where education and adaption come into play. Others will not be so lucky.

**Carbon is the basis of all life. It is no more a pollutant than is oxygen, or water.

- and what happens if you get too much or too little of a good thing?

**And I’m not really into “Irrational quasi-religious human-hating neo-fascist state-worship”, I’m just an professional working, mother of two trying to leave a good legacy for my children.

**Added to all of that if you look at graphs of annual global temperatures constructed by the likes of the Hadley centre it looks worrying (at least worryingly to activists) as if it is coming off a peak.

Actually, if you look at the Hadley Centre’s graphs, this is what you will see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact2.html

ooo - and they even answer your question for you here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/myth2.html

I don’t understand why people are still so against making these changes that will hardly affect their lives, except having cleaner air to breathe, and a change in outlook. And heck, even if by some small chance they are proven right and climate change doesn’t end up being caused by human activity, we will be living in a more sustainable fashion that will reduce international dependencies and oil wars. And what’s the problem with that? It’s a chance I’m willing to take.

Hysterical rubbish.
Boethius.

If you are serious about the danger of fossil fuels give up your addictions to them.
Some would say we need a cushion at the bottom of this inevitable cliff, so start making one. Wean ourselves of maybe.
Others claim there is no sky falling or lets burn it up and the strong will survive, who really knows which is the best course of action. I am sure our ancestors (if we have any)will have strong words about our selfish actions.
There is no doubt the earth is warming and whether it is human fault or natural cycle is irrelevant. Something needs to be done.
There is no doubt in my mind the earth will survive but will this plague of humans I do not think so.

To quote a great Australian expression, as so eloquently used in "The Castle": "Get yer hand off it, Anne!"

How many Climate social clubs are there in Canberra now, must be dozens?

What's the problem with you all belonging to one group?

Is it because you all want to be the boss cocky telling everyone what to do and how, to be the chief finger wagger?

I'm guessing you would have found a cause whatever age you lived in and I'm guessing it would have been telling everyone else what's wrong and what they should do about it. So at least climate change is keeping you off the streets, except when distracting motorists with banners and asking them to bleat with you.

"I resent the continued influence of the fossil fuel lobby", prepare yourself for lots of disappointment in life, you've barely started.

Not everything is a conspiracy, things are less organized than you think, fossil fuels got big because they enabled people to do so many things. (Not everyone wants to live naked and hungry in a dark cave. Fossil fuels provide plastics, transportation, heat, light, they are not all bad)

What load of extremest and delusional clap trap from a tree hugging arty farty.

What sort of educational system is it that has produces whackos of this type--- and they seem to be in abundance.

If she was even moderately numerate she would be able to work it out that even if we met all our targets at the highest range we would only make 0.00043 C pa difference to the global temperature.

The cost of doing that is that we would have to virtually bankrupt our economy and put thousands out of work. It just has to have the worst cost benefit ratio ever

So many strange responses and so little time...

Sorry! I would love to respond, but am too busy to keep up with everything.

Sadder than the 'twenty lost years' is the fascistic and politically incorrect way that the global climate has obstinately refused to warm up since 1998, thereby radically diminishing the 'evidence' for global warming and making AGW hysterics look like silly panicking children. Obviously this is due to a plot by the military-industrial complex and must be dealt with drastically, by nuclear-bombing volcanoes if necessary. But we cannot just stand idly by while the earth refuses to warm!

A complete waste of time reading this article.

As soon as I read that the Hyatt is a "cosy 100 metres from Parliament House" I knew that the article would be very casual with facts.
There is still much debate about the various theories of what causes change in the climate but there is very little debate about measuring distance.
I measured the 980 metres from the flagpole of Parliament House to the Hyatt by both Google Earth and on the relevant 1:25,000 topo map.
Surely if you are trying to save the world at least you could not exaggerate.
What other facts did you stretch or compress to suit your argument.
And from a Canberra resident! Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

I am so pleased that Senator Fielding has gone to the US to listen to some real science. The most frightening part about this article is that people like Anne might have a say in further indoctrinating our kids with this rubbish.

Anne,
If you are not prepared to even tell the truth about the distance from the Hyatt to Parliament House you have no credibility whatso ever.

Better you stick to growing vegetables, in a window box, and spend your time playing your violin.

If the climate warming advocates ever get some evidence, i am sure we will all hear about it.

Guys - I really wish you would read other posts. Have you even seen the evidence that was provided to you in my earlier post? Perhaps - but you choose to ignore it. Much the same way you are choosing to ignore the facts about climate change.

It's a matter of risk.

Please explain to me what is the risk of us changing our habits and investing in renewable energy (the technology is already there, we just need to install it), versus the risk of doing nothing and keeping business as usual.

68% of our CO2 emissions come from energy - fuel combustion (source: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/2007/pubs/nggi.pdf). If we change to solar and wind power, image the affect.

It's quite funny reading some of the criticisms of this article!

To invoke 'science' as if it rationalises one's climate-skeptic stance is laughable... :-D

You do realise Wing Ah Ling, do you not, that a hallmark of a true 'scientist' is to keep an open mind! otherwise you might miss a black swan when one floats your way ;-)

Science proceeds by forming hypotheses and testing them. Truth is never quite reached we can only ever say "it is probable, based on the data i have analysed that x is likely".

Wing et conspiritors - i do believe that if you had the patience to conduct a 'systematic review' of the liturature on climate patterns that you would eat your ^^ words. (Assuming, of course, that you wouldn't knowingly omit certian evidence which doesn't conform to your pre-formed conclusion hehe...). The ice caps ARE melting and temperatures in this past decade HAVE been hotter than previous times. This is predicted to accelerate as lower ice means less reflection of heat and greater absorption into the blue ocean.

Eminient scientists have reached consensus that this warming PROBABLY IS due to human activity. You can act like a proud child who cups his hands over his ears and sings stupid songs at the top of his voice ignoring reality all you like but that'd just be plain foolish. And fairly sad for a grown bloke.

Modernidealst, you, too, are talking nonsense.

For the skeptics please explain how permafrost which has never melted in living memory has miraculously disappeared.
I am not asking for a WHY just a basic HOW do you explain this?

modernidealist

OLO is a site where people express their opinions, that is all. Wingbat first came to my attention with this gem:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8421#133075

I no longer bother with his rants.

The important thing to remember is that the people who count are trying, from all around the globe.

People like Boethius, why does s/he bother? Short, sharp snarky snippets with nothing to contribute.

Col,

Next?

Let me guess, "socialism by stealth".

Hi all

If you want me to take you seriously at all, you need to get your heads out of the gutter. I think many of you have been totally disgusting - and discredit your own lame causes.

For those who would like to talk about scientific method, one of my favourite posts on science of all time comes from John Mashey, where in his <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/john_mashey_on_how_to_learn_ab.php"> blog (on science blogs)</a> he compares the scientific method to the Great Wall of China. Each study is a single brick in a huge wall, and reinforces the hypothesis. Climate change is one of the most proven scientific theories after Gravity, and so that wall is pretty strong.

Those hypotheses that have deviated significantly from the scientific consensus of the day and are shown to be correct (through the rigours of the scientific method) go on to win Nobel Prizes. If climate sceptics were correct, and could prove their ideas using the conventional channels, they would have won a Nobel Prize by now.

And in relation to the distance to parliament house, The Hyatt is very close to the front lawns of parliament house. It's near 100 metres.

"Those hypotheses that...are shown to be correct...go on to win Nobel Prizes. If climate sceptics were correct, and could prove their ideas using the conventional channels, they would have won a Nobel Prize by now."

Quite. The same applies to the Intelligent Design spruikers, who are experts at deriding good science through ad hominem and misrepresentation, but spectacular failures at producing any scientific evidence themselves which might prove their case.

The parallels between the two anti-science movements are remarkable - probably because they spring from the same fear of change and uncertainty.

Anne07 (is that to mimic Kevin07, oh please) I think you take yourself too seriously and wear your immaturity on your sleeve, most of us don't care if some self centered brat doesn't take them seriously, you degrade yourself with name calling and quite obviously losing your temper.

Quite a little exhibition you have just given us, so maybe I was correct that your type starts these clubs rather than joining one because you want to be the one telling everyone what to do.

Climate skeptics don't have to prove their point, its the AGW believers who have to prove their point and that's your problem not mine. If you want to run around saying the sky is falling, you have to prove it. (BTW the Nobel prize was awarded to Gore and the IPCC for Peace, not Science, go look it up.)

No one questions that climate changes, that's green industry furphy, what is questioned is whether man is causing the climate to change and what if any the contribution is. Have a read of the OLO forums sometime, this subject is discussed regularly with varying degrees of passion.

Getting all hissy, yelling and insulting to cajole people as your troops have done when you have obviously rounded them up tonight, is not going to convince anyone of anything other than reinforce the belief that you're a self centered bully.

How much evidence do you need, rpg?

If you still doubt that human activity is influencing the climate, then you're effectively announcing that you'll believe whatever the industry lobby tells you, without the slightest query or criticism.

Thanks. Now we have to save the future from you.

I wish I could restrict myself to short, snarky comments which is all this article deserves. Personally, Anne, I've found nothing in the responses as "disgusting" as your suggestion of some form of policy inaction being a crime against humanity. And you have the audacity to refer to Orwell! Take your line to its logical extension and we are all guilty of crimes against humanity, so why bother prosecuting Nazi murderers? Pol Pot? Indeed, fundamentalist environmentalism has found its Original Sin: breathing. To live and breathe out CO2 is to poison the air. Should I take myself to The Hague now, or will you come for me in the night? Oh yes, we are all sinners in Anna's eyes, condemned not to Hell but to hell on earth. Forgive me if I don't think it's a sin to be alive. Oh, that noble PETA woman who aborted her child because it would be immoral to bring a child into the world. When a child is seen not as a blessing but as a sin, we have sacrificed more than an unborn baby, but something at the core of our humanity. To echo Chesterton on secularists and atheists, enviro-fundamentalists, out of hatred only of the other, are so determined to convince us of hell to come, they sacrifice humanity on an empty altar, and make as darn sure as they can that nobody has a particularly jolly time now.

A fool, a fool! I met a fool i' the forest,
A motley fool; a miserable world!
As I do live by food, I met a fool
Who laid him down and bask'd him in the sun,
And rail'd on Lady Fortune in good terms,
In good set terms and yet a motley fool.
As You Like It,
Act II, Scene 7

I'm curious to know which of the following the climate sceptics disagree with or consider questionable:

* there is a greenhouse effect
* carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
* adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can be expected to cause a warming
* atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen since 1880
* that global warming is anthropological
* global mean temperature has risen since 1880
* a significant fraction of that rise (greater than 50%) over the past 50 years, is due to human activity

The denialists are out in force again. All they seem to be good at is throwing insults. Never a shred of evidence is offered - certainly not on this thread and there are a number of outright lies and concoctions scattered throughout their posts.

One such concoction is the claim that there has been global cooling since 1998. As that was the hottest year ever recorded since civilization began, all years subsequent to it have obviously been cooler. The fact that 1998 was merely the hottest of the 6 or 7 (I forget exactly how many) hottest years on record is conveniently omitted.

Can someone please remind me and the denialists of exactly how many years since the magical 1998 were the hottest on record?

Denialists why not check out the actual science before rushing to conclusions?

* there is a greenhouse effect

False -- see http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/on-the-first-principles-of-heat-transfer-a-note-from-alan-siddons/

* carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

If there is no greenhouse effect then there can be no greenhouse gases.

* adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can be expected to cause a warming

Expected by whom? Not by me, or by most of the respondents here. What you 'expect' depends on what your models say. And the pro-warming models have been wrong for eleven years in succession.

* atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen since 1880

Finally, a fact!

* that global warming is anthropological

Says who? See http://www.sitnews.us/0509news/052809/052809_ak_science.html for instance.

* global mean temperature has risen since 1880

Yes, and fallen since 1066. So what?

* a significant fraction of that rise (greater than 50%) over the past 50 years, is due to human activity

You said this before. It is a mere assertion.

If global temperature rises with CO2, then you need to explain why it hasn't gone up since 1998. 'There must be something else stopping it." OK, what? Until you can identify this Factor X then we know precisely nothing about whether the temperature will go up or down next year, next decade or next century.

My apologies I was wrong its not 0.0043 pa difference but
0.000043C pa difference.

The variables orginally used by Johnathan Lowe on his web site "Gust of Hot Air", were that we in Australian only emit 1.2% of the worlds G/h gases, and if we assume 100% of all warming is caused by these gases, with the world increasing at the rate of 0.6c per 100 years, and we cut or emissions by 60% by 2050,then we would cool the globe by ummeasurable 0.000043c pa.

Of, if you like 0.0043 in 100 years

For this piddling amount the leftists would have us put thousands out of work, and screw up the economy even further.

Only academics and the loony left would ever propose such an idiotic scheme

Dear readers,
I knew Anne during her time at The University of Sydney in my capacity as a chaplain to the university from 1998-2003. We had many discussions on issues of faith, social justice, the environment, politics, ethics, philosophy, social thought, and so on.
I always found Anne to be an original, clear, highly intelligent and a compassionate thinker. Compassionate in trying to really understand others, she was always ready to disspassionately and genuinely consider all points of view, even the ones she sometimes profoundly dissagreed with, before deciding her own mind.
Consequently I think the personal attacks against Anne in a number of the responses above to her article are unwarranted, misguided and unfair. I hold Anne in the highest regard. I would urge all contributors to cease personal attacks and in an effort to respond seriously to an excellent article make reasoned arguments for or against, backing up their assertions with mutually agreed evidence.

Dear Brad

Perhaps you could add to Anne's sterling resume, which you seem to be touting, "does not handle criticism well", and "tends to fly off the handle and start insulting critics".

An example of Anne's behaviour might be included:
"If you want me to take you seriously at all", insulting and condescending,

"you need to get your heads out of the gutter." more insults, prissy attack.

"I think many of you have been totally disgusting", not coping well and negative feedback -

"and discredit your own lame causes." more insults and personal attacks.

So what is it you were saying?

Here's some free advice, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. When you publicly challange and insult people who don't agree with you, be prepared for some knockbacks"

"toughen up princess" - I'm amazed she needs someone to mount his charger and race to her rescue, doesn't bode well for a life as an eco warrier does it?

Not everyone agrees with the AGW belief, it's interesting that you say she was a chaplain, her behaviour makes perfect sense now, thanks.

Modernidealist “Eminient scientists have reached consensus that this warming PROBABLY IS due to human activity.”

I ignore anything claimed as “probably”, unless accompanied by a qualifier of “probability”.

I could Claim Pluto is probably made of Green Cheese.

However, most folk would consider such a claim as having a very low statistical “probability”.

These days, with so much grant money hanging out there for grabs, many eminent scientists are prepared to “sell their souls for a sound bite” and the trappings of instant recognition.

Anne07 “So many strange responses and so little time...

Sorry! I would love to respond, but am too busy to keep up with everything.”

So tending lettuce is more important than defending your opinion?

If your opinion is, for yourself, so discardable, what credence should someone else ever bother to place in it?
,

I see Q&A is back making his/her own “Short, sharp snarky snippets with nothing to contribute.”

Ah I see Anne is back… defending her view …. No

Just lecturing us on how “I think many of you have been totally disgusting - and discredit your own lame causes.”

Yes Ann.. but I am not a third grade primary school student… so lift your game before you try to admonish me… maybe interject some logic and reason into your comments instead of a piffling stream of self-righteous indignation.

Modernidealist “I'm curious to know which of the following the climate sceptics disagree with or consider questionable:”

I am curious to understand how scientists can discount the history of the planet and explain the cycle of ice-ages which occurred before humans populations grew to any significance?

Ultimately we have two things to consider
1 is global warming actually happening… when the models claing so have discounted as complete frauds
2 Even if global warming is happening… is it due to human activity or natural cycles.

When some real probability of occurance has been established, we should respond.

We should not react like children because some feint hearted greenies supposedly see a boogey man to be frightened of.

I'm curious to know which of the following the climate sceptics disagree with or consider questionable asks modernidealist (Wednesday, 3 June 2009 1:45:46 AM). Modernidealist, I will answer your questions. Anne07, you may wish to take note.

* there is a greenhouse effect
Yes, natural atmospheric gases, including CO2, raise the Earth’s temperature to an estimated global average during the current epoch to something like 14 degrees Celsius. Whether the term Greenhouse is the best description for this process is debateable.
* carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
Yes, it is an important one too: from 0ppm to around 50ppm it raises atmospheric temperatures by around 20 degrees; between 50ppm and 200ppm it contributes about 4 degrees; between about 200ppm and 800ppm it contributes less than one degree. IOW its effect declines logarithmically with increasing atmospheric temperature.
* adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can be expected to cause a warming
Again yes, but only by an extremely small amount; a doubling from the current 380ppm to 760ppm would be barely half a degree and anything from 60% to 90% of this increase is due to natural CO2 outgassing from, primarily, the oceans – that is up to 90% of the increase we humans can do nothing about, which begs the question: what difference will the implementation of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) have? Anne07, could you please explain this conundrum?
* atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen since 1880
This is debateable as it is based on ice core records that are inexact and the statistical smoothing involved in the blending of CO2 graphs derived from different sources. CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere: 600ppm have been recorded on some days in the recent past and there are higher individual levels recorded prior to 1880. (Continued)

* global mean temperature has risen since 1880
Again debateable. An analysis of weather records from long-sited Grade 1 weather stations in remote areas unaffected by deforestation and urbanisation show an oscillation of around plus or minus 1 degree Celsius that approximates to variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and ENSO events with long-term trends showing no increase in average temperatures, ie no global warming temperature signal. A comparison with increasingly urbanised sites show an increase of up to 4 degrees Celsius. IWO the increase in global mean temperature is mostly due to urbanisation (urban heat island, as well as deforestation and resultant declines in atmospheric humidity and soil moisture) rather than increasing CO2 from whatever source.
* a significant fraction of that rise (greater than 50%) over the past 50 years, is due to human activity
Again, probably true – see last sentence above.

Anne07, as a geography honours graduate you should be well aware of what I have outlined above, especially the logarithmic decay of CO2 against atmospheric temperatures and the effects that deforestation has on soil moisture and consequently ground surface temperatures. To do otherwise is to mislead your readership, especially as you seek to position yourself as an advocate for change. If you are not aware of what is really basic physics and physical geographical knowledge then you need to inform yourself before making accusations about crimes against humanity. Basing your advocacy on scientific ignorance will always engender a strong reaction. Now, if you can honestly answer the conundrum I posed above then I will tell you why the world is getting an ETS even though it will make no difference whatsoever. A deal?

Modernidealist and Anne O’Brien

I suggest you read Raredog’s comments again. Slowly.

<< (there is a greenhouse effect)
“Yes, natural atmospheric gases, including CO2, raise the Earth’s temperature to an estimated global average during the current epoch to something like 14 degrees Celsius ...”

<< (carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas)
“Yes, it is an important one too: from 0ppm to around 50ppm it raises atmospheric temperatures by around 20 degrees; between 50ppm and 200ppm it contributes about 4 degrees; between about 200ppm and 800ppm it contributes less than one degree ...” >>

<< (adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can be expected to cause a warming)
“Again yes, but only by an extremely small amount; a doubling from the current 380ppm to 760ppm would be barely half a degree ... >>

Check his arithmetic against his assertions (they contain, umm ... errors). And do some homework on ‘climate sensitivity’

<< ... and anything from 60% to 90% of this increase is due to natural CO2 outgassing from, primarily, the oceans – that is up to 90% of the increase we humans can do nothing about, which begs the question: what difference will the implementation of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) have? Anne07, could you please explain this conundrum?” >>

The oceans warm for a reason. Adjusting to maintain equilibrium, they release CO2 - ever wonder where the extra lot came from?

What really gives the game away is the typical circular argument (as has been said before):

<< which begs the question >>

Example: An expert provides a ‘simplified’ explanation of 'whatever'.

An antagonist in rebuttal states “this begs the question" (insert your own).

The expert explains why the rebuttal is incorrect and provides a more detailed explanation of 'whatever'.

The antagonist argues the science is too complex to understand.

The scientist attempts to provide a ‘simplified’ explanation to the ‘antagonist’s rebuttal to 'whatever' ... and around and around it goes.

Cont’d

Cont’d

<< atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen since 1880 >>

“This is debateable as it is based on ice core records that are inexact and the statistical smoothing involved in the blending of CO2 graphs derived from different sources. CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere: 600ppm have been recorded on some days in the recent past and there are higher individual levels recorded prior to 1880.”

Raredog is not ignorant; he is deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what we know from carbon auditing and isotope studies.

<< global mean temperature has risen since 1880 >>

“Again debateable. An analysis of ... (whatever noise might confuse the uninformed)

No matter which data set is used, time series analysis shows an increasing rise in temperatures since the industrial revolution.

____________

Raredog

You should be well aware of what I have outlined above. To do otherwise is to mislead your readership, especially as you seek to position yourself as an advocate for ‘deny-n-delay’.

You deliberately distort and misrepresent basic physics and chemistry to justify your own ideological reasoning. Basing your advocacy on scientific ignorance will always engender a strong reaction, from those working at the coal face.

I am but a mere scientist who knows something about coupled atmosphere/ocean/land climate systems, particularly as they relate to things water. I don’t know jack-sh!t about ETS or carbon taxes – that belongs in the realm of politicians and economists. I am willing to put my toes in, if it helps.

Your last statement: “I will tell you why the world is getting an ETS even though it will make no difference whatsoever” is the only thing that remotely interests me (notwithstanding its condescending overtones). What you have preceded that with is just gas-bagging for your own ideological ends.

So, first part is how we know that CO2 has indeed risen since 1880. Second question is what caused that rise.

First, our knowledge of past CO2 levels comes from ice cores (now extending back 800,000 years) and direct measurement (since 1950s).

The two complement each other as the ice cores don't answer well the most recent events, while the direct measurement (Keeling curve) answers for recent events extremely well.

As snow is compressed to ice, it traps air bubbles. When we core ice sheets and sample those bubbles, we get a sample of the ancient air. For the modern sampling, we take a flask of air exposed to the free atmosphere.

The ice core sampling shows that there is a glacial to interglacial swing of about 80 ppm in CO2, associated with the 5 K global warming/cooling. The interglacial level is about 280 ppm while glacial is about 200. See the Vostok core papers from the mid 1980s. The time scale for this swing is a few centuries. We had been around the 280 ppm for the last several thousand years prior to industrialization.

Since direct measurement started in the 1950s, atmospheric CO2 has risen from 315 ppm to about 385 now. So 70 ppm in 50 years.This as compared to 80 in a few centuries recorded by ice cores. Both the magnitude and the rate are well above anything recorded for the previous 800,000 years.

When you sit down and try to make the total carbon level change as observed and the isotopic levels change as observed, you see the magnitude of human activity and wiggles in the CO2 curve e.g pointing to the 1973-4 oil embargo, for instance.

modernidealist .. so what?

Are you saying that all the change in climate, (which no one denies the climate changes yes it does), are caused soley by CO2 rises.

Sorry that just sounds a little too convenient, when we have no idea what causes even clouds or weather, you're trying to convince us that CO2 is the sole agent now of the climate changing more than it should?

So if you take away your supposed human influence, how much would it have changed? If you don't know, then how can you measure any influence at all?

Back in the Victorian era, the accepted, indeed consensual, methodology for dealing with human ills was bleeding them. All the scientist and medical experts of the day agreed, to disagree was to be called an idiot, and of course, a sceptic.

So it is now, some people have decided that out of the huge complex system that is the planet's climate, you can disgregard everything else except CO2 .. if you look at it holistically, instead of just nit picking little bits of it - you can see that yes, it is convenient to blame CO2, but it is unlikely, as is proving to be the case, to be the culprit.

Sceientists have done themselves immeasurable damage over the years wuth various scares and hysteria which turned out to be incorrect - so do not be surprised when people do not instandtly subscribe to everything they say now - why even today, they disagree.

It is unlikely they are correct, the ones who claim CO2 is causing additional climate changes that is, in all likelihood they are wrong again, time will tell and in the meantime their egos drive them to dig in and not see the forests for all the trees, and to attack anyone who questions their fallible logic.

Scepticism is healthy.

Raredog,

You say "between about 200ppm and 800ppm it contributes less than one degree." From which scientific paper did you glean this information?

Just because you state this as a fact does not make it one, nor does it make it a possibility even let alone a probability. Sounds like another concoction/lie to me.

Hi modernidealist, I assume you are responding to my earlier post so thanks for the polite reply. I am aware of the CO2 arguments, as you have presented them. A query that arose in my mind is that as air is trapped in the ice some of it is squeezed out of the bubbles and is mixed within the ice itself. I forget the name of the paper that discusses this (sorry, just too busy to locate at the moment) but if correct it would raise the ancient CO2 trapped in the ice core (the bubbles and ice itself) by about 50ppm. This would raise the glacial levels to 250ppm and, by default, the interglacial levels to 330ppm. This later figure approximates closely to what was the international standard of 314ppm of atmospheric CO2, derived from chemical means prior to 1950.

Furthermore, the ice core samples are indicative of long time scales and the finer details of variations of CO2 levels on a decadal or century basis are not apparent so at best, while we can make assumptions about CO2 levels never having been so high, we cannot state that with certainty. Given that higher individual CO2 measurements dating back to the mid-19th century have been documented and given that the Keeling curve you mentioned is a smoothed trend that also hides wide fluctuations (up to 600ppm have been recorded at Mauna Loa, the Hawaii recording location that forms the basis of the Keeling curves), and that we only have 60 years of direct continuous measurement, we cannot really say anything more than that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that a part of it is anthropogenically derived. This is still a long way from saying that CO2 is driving our climate and will lead to runaway climate change with all the dire projections that are assumed.

Q&A (Thursday, 4 June 2009 12:01:28 AM), you mention checking my arithmetic against my assertions, presumably in connection with climate sensitivity. You are no doubt aware that there are a number of peer-reviewed papers suggesting that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 forcing on climate sensitivity is exaggerated by an order of magnitude. Also, you say you are a scientist yet you are very dismissive of the analysis of weather records from long-sited Grade 1 weather stations in remote areas unaffected by deforestation and urbanisation ( . . noise, you called it). As a scientist I would have thought you would welcome alternative views and studies. Therefore, as you are presumably speaking as an advocate then surely it would be an idea to at least have some knowledge of what an ETS might do, especially its impact on individuals. Googling up carbon credits/global currency will give you a start. Be careful what you wish for; the solution may be a whole lot worse than the disease.

You treat me as a denialist but I am only sceptical of the model-produced projections that anthropogenic-derived CO2 may lead to runaway or catastrophic climate change. We have numerous environmental problems that are impacting the world’s climates, notably deforestation, altered albedos and particulate pollution. A globally-applied regulatory ETS to reduce anthropogenic CO2 output will make little difference to these real-world problems.

All you people who want to argue the toss about the science and what is valid or not, all miss the essential message that any common sensical person would look at first,and that is the cost benefit.

Why would any sanely managed country sell out its workers and its economy to achieve a contribution by us of only 0.000043C to what may,and there is no certainty about that either,be a global problem.

But then we are dealing with environmental extremists and political opportunists, as well as basically a corrupt scientific elite who are more interested in the guarantee of further funding, than rational outcomes that are in the public interest.

Wake up Australia we are being conned.

Yes Raredog, I am aware of some of the papers you have only alluded to – one being by Dick Lindzen (whom I admire, but with whom I have had strident professional disagreement). They are championed by the likes of the inimitable Lord Monckton of Brenchley (fronting for the Science and Public Policy Institute) and cheered on by the likes of the Heartland Institute, most recently this last week. Indeed, these few papers are quite often promulgated in the so called ‘denialosphere’ as another “nail in the coffin of AGW”. Nevertheless, there is fierce research into climate sensitivity and attribution studies, as there should.

Raredog, I am a sceptic ... in the true scientific sense (I welcome “alternative views and studies”). The main reason I'm here on OLO is because I can't stand to see scepticism brandished by close-minded propagandists, who don’t even read primary source material. They have adopted an opinion based on what they want to believe and sourced from their own favourite media shock jock or ‘sceptical’ blog site. These people 'believe' AGW is a hoax, is a lie, or is a big conspiracy. But not one of these so called ‘sceptics’ questions their own assertions, as a real sceptic is required to do. Having said that, it does go both ways – the world isn’t going to end anytime soon. The caveat of course is that a 2 degrees rise or an 80 cm sea-level rise within a 100 yrs (say) is bad enough.

Please don’t presume anything about me Raredog, you don’t know me. I have not aligned myself to either an ETS, a carbon tax, whatever. What I do understand is that the price of energy must rise, and that we (humanity) must find a better way to ‘grow and develop’.

I am also sceptical of the “model-produced projections”, but probably for different reasons to what you are. They are based on various scenarios (SRES) with major component input from economists ... so I have my doubts. Nevertheless, the projections are tracking eerily high. And who said the planet’s time stops at 2100?

Cont’d

Raredog (and others)

The vast majority of real scientists do not believe the planet is about to enter into a catastrophic or runaway climate change, despite the insinuations of what the ‘denialists’ spruik.

What these scientists do suggest is that AGW is significant enough to justify remedial action through both adaptation and developing in a more sustainable way. It is up to others how best to do this – that is what the bun-fights are about, not the science.

Q&A, I'm pleased to find something we can agree on: "AGW is significant enough to justify remedial action through both adaptation and developing in a more sustainable way."

Well, almost: substitute "climate change" for "AGW", and I'd happily agree with that sentence.

Of course, we'd no doubt still disagree about the significance of the threat and the necessary action.

I have to take issue with your first sentence, though:

"The vast majority of real scientists do not believe the planet is about to enter into a catastrophic or runaway climate change, despite the insinuations of what the ‘denialists’ spruik."

Not about the scientists, but about laying the blame for alarmism on "denialists". I would argue that the worst spruikers in this debate are the "true believers", those fervent acolytes of Al Gore who fervently believe that humanity is racing pel-mel towards extinction, and dragging the rest of the planet down with it.

You only have to look at the deceitful ads run by Greenpeace on this very forum: outright lies that would make the Dodgy Brothers blush.

Such egregious idiocy contributes nothing useful to the debate, and is as foolish as the genuine "denialists" (as opposed to plain skeptics).

Please don’t presume anything about me Raredog, you don’t know me
– ditto, Q&A.

I am also sceptical of the “model-produced projections”, but probably for different reasons to what you are
– see your point above.

I have not aligned myself to either an ETS, a carbon tax, whatever. What I do understand is that the price of energy must rise
– I think scientists adhering to a (controversial) line have a social responsibility about the impact of their studies - not just, as you say in your post, leaving it up to others.

The vast majority of real [?] scientists do not believe the planet is about to enter into a catastrophic or runaway climate change, despite the insinuations of what the ‘denialists’ spruik
– Q&A, the notion of catastrophic and runaway climate change is continually spruiked by some scientists, as well as by the media, economists, etc. Very few if any denialists suggest the planet is about to enter into a catastrophic or runaway climate change.

You say you are on OLO because you cannot stand close-minded propagandists (about which you make a number of unsubstantiated assumptions) yet you never seem speak out about climate alarmism at all, even though you state the vast majority of real scientists do not believe the planet is about to enter catastrophic climate change – this is hypocritical.

I suspect that many you deride as deniers are in fact people wishing to be informed of the science as well as its impacts but who do not accept that the science is settled. Your use of the term denialist is as offensive as was the use of the term crimes against humanity by the author of this blog as, in both cases, it applies to those who you or this blog’s author disagree with, the vast majority, I suspect, who just wish to know what the story is without the hype. Continued

Despite the insinuations of what the ‘denialists’ spruik
– you might want to rethink this: it was the IPCC Summary for Policymakers that (mostly) spruiked the associated alarmism with runaway climate change, assisted by the media, the Stern and Gaunaut reports, and those who came to climate science via computer studies, economics, environmentalism, politics or the humanities rather than physical geography, climatology, meteorology or atmospheric physics. There is very good science in the IPCC reports; there is some very bad policy-making behind the Summary for Policymakers. Good science requires that those who disagree can speak out without being abused (or the ridiculous suggestions that denialists be imprisoned or are committing crimes against humanity); bad science results from those scientists unable or afraid to speak out when doubts arise.

The problem as I see it Q&A is that many good scientists, as well as most environmentalists, have been suckered into an ETS financial game now being run by politicians, economists and bureaucrats, based on the most exaggerated modelled scenarios produced by scientists of your ilk who appear blind to alternative theories or other possibilities, or too afraid to speak out. If the ETS fails (and it certainly will not reduce CO2 by anything more than several ppm - so why bother?) it will be the scientists (and environmentalists) who will be blamed.

My readings of primary source material would indicate the climate variability we are witnessing is a response, largely in part, to the massive deforestation and land clearances that have occurred over the past 50 years altering temperatures and influencing moisture regimes, as well as natural climate cycles. We can do something about the first and nothing but adapt to the second. As a scientist who knows something about coupled atmosphere/ocean/land climate systems you would already know this. Try running your models without CO2 forcings, like Compo and Sardeshmukh (Climate Dynamics, 2008) have done. It may be that the CO2 forcings on climate sensitivity are exaggerated after all, which begs the question: what role does increasing CO2 actually play on AGW or climate change.

Well said Raredog, and you've arrived at the same position as most of the questioners on the OLO forums .. questioning whether CO2 makes any contribution at all.

A lot of AGW believers want to argue the little bits and pieces (Google and URL wars) as if you can deal with something as complex as climate with a few or even hundreds of scientific papers, it may take millions of papers before we understand climate, we may never understand it - we certainly don't now. (why and how do clouds form, can it be predicted?)

(Then you get the idiotic ramblings of politicians about "carbon pollution", as if the sky is black with soot. Or worse, an Australian paid, gossip website with "Carbon Poison", they lost me on that one and I have never been back, Crikey!)

All the alarm in the world is not going to change the facts, the sky is not falling, nor will it be bullied or cajoled into doing so, and that is what the increasingly shrill hysteria is about, trying to coerce everyone into silly financial bargaining (gambling, wagering) agreements, which just redistribute wealth with no effect on climate at all, before it becomes even more obvious.

As if you can change climate by rearranging the worlds finances, what folly.

“Blessed is anyone with a vested interest in the status quo”.

It is evident that Planet Earth cannot sustain the per capita levels of resource consumption of the developed world. It would take several planets to sustain a world population at the current levels of consumption of food, water, energy and goods and the accompanying waste production, of the average Australian. Our ecological footprint is far too big.

A new vision of what constitutes ‘the good life’ is needed, one which moves away from consumption as a primary activity and acquisition as a life goal. The very act of reducing household and national consumption will result in a reduction in the level of carbon emissions.

My problem with the CPRS is that numerous industry spokespeople are calling for their sectors to be either compensated for any costs involved in reducing carbon emissions or to be exempt from the scheme altogether. Any scheme which seeks to reduce carbon emissions will rely on using ‘price signals’ (ie price increases) to influence consumption patterns. This applies across industries, households and
individuals. Any mechanism for off-setting those price signals through compensation reduces their effectiveness. This is an unpalatable reality. No-one willingly pays more than necessary
for goods or services.

The incumbent and previous commonwealth governments have made statements to the effect that any action taken on reducing carbon emissions must be done in such a way that there is no negative impact on the Australian economy. The difficulty with such a commitment is that ‘economy’ is little more than code for ‘consumption’, whether the
consumption occurs within Australia or elsewhere (as a result of exports of Australian resources).

To reduce carbon emissions it is essential to reduce consumption, of resources, goods and energy. The contribution to economic growth of service industries also rests on growth in consumption, in goods, energy and – hence – resources.

Thanks Anne, for a great article.
It's impressive for its passionate and lucid descriptions of what is happening.

Well done! Readers let us rejoice that this young leader has such a beautiful spirit of generosity! In living authentically as an environmental campaigner, Anne O'Brien is like "Mahatma" (Great Soul) Gandhi.

Gandhi's political genius was to win popular support for being truly human, humble and without conceit or vice. Thereby he made a mockery of the 'civilising' British Raj. This was the spear which toppled the last excuse to perpetuate colonial rule in the Indian Subcontinent.

In 1930 Mohandas Gandhi led hundreds of local Indian people on the Salt March, concluding at the sea and making salt in a deliberate act of civil disobedience. The unreasonable reaction to this act by the British police there at the beach at Dandi, was to take him and other salt-makers into custody. We may have never heard of this injustice.
However Gandhi had ensured the presence of the world's media. Their cameras and pens meant that the world could observe and draw their own conclusions. And they concluded the said prohibition was the most ridiculous example of the injustices of colonial rule, wherein the ordinary folk had to buy expensive things which they once had been free to make for themselves.

Anne O'Brien pronounces war on the tyranny of toxic polluting, and good on her. Her reasoning is propelled by emotion, just as Gandhi's asceticism drove his political action.
And Gandhi, like Anne was emphatic on the point that all human beings have responsibilities to each other and to our world. We and future generations deserve to be free from oppressive, 'civilising' colonialist and rich establishment people.
Let us walk to Dandi with Anne.

Oh, brother. The flower children have dropped by.

The original thread of this topic to put it briefly is
There are healthier ways of doing things so why not do them.

The false economics of coal based electricity production will be paid for by our grandchildren, there are better ways of doing things so why not embrace them.