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.