"But realistically, who is willing to take such a risk with their children?"

I am, for one.

"And why?"

Because this looks exactly like all the hysterical claims that have been made in the past -- overpopulation, running out of food, nuclear winter, global cooling, the ozone hole, greenhouse gases, acid rain, the Y2K bug, CJD, CRD, bird flu, swine flu, etc, etc, etc, and global warming itself... all of which turned out to be cynical attempts to panic the populace in order to a) sell more newspapers and b) put more power into the hands of self-appointed 'saviours'.

"Yet if there was even one chance in a thousand of the gun firing, should we ignore it?"

One chance in a thousand is about the risk you take of being hit by a car during the next month. Does that mean you should spend the next month indoors? However, as a 'science communicator' should know, pinning a number on the 'probability' of a unique event is mathematically bogus.

Ho hum. Nothing to see here. Wake me up when the clathrates call.

What *is* it about these Baby-Boomer Jeremiahs, that they actually seem to get off on trying to scare people?

This piece is about as sophisticated as telling a bunch of kids that old story about the murderer banging the head on the car roof.

WOW they are pulling out the big guns of fear...based on speculation<<a gun that,potentially,>>>big key word that potent-ally to beat up hysteria

potentially<<can take out the whole of humanity and,possibly>>.possably and potentially wow it just gets better[clearly the scrabbling for this new tax is reaching the heights od despiration[seems there calling on the powers of man to hold back the ocians of methane now

potentially/possably yes the science in in..lol..take out MOST<<most life on Earth...The clathrate gun.>>>strange name..[why no holowcost linkage?..no global warning deniers?

<<Locked in the deep ocean sediments>>LOCKED BEING THE KEY WORD...like locking down the vast ocians of co2...we could say the same for the clean coal solution[single use air locked under the earth[not miles of water and sediment]

<<are an estimated>>>ie presumed by an edicated GUESS

<<three trillion tonnes of methane hydrates - methane gas trapped under immense pressure in water ice.>>under IMENSE presure IN WATER ICE...trapped indead...

<<Methane is a gas with about 70 times the global warming potential of CO2>>>you raise a good point[what of these greenies home-composting THEIR methane direct into our air NOW[them damm greenies want their compost and our carbon taxes too

[tax greenies composting]..thier compost fumes are equal to 5 cars co2 fumes..lol...way to go you green hyprcrites..[stop producing methane in your compost bins of mass destruction

<<and if>>> noting the if's/buts/and maybies and possabilities

<<IF a significant amount of it were to escape>>>it it WERE to escape...lol

<<it>>ie methane greenies are producing from their vego composting excess

<<IT[methane]..could..LOL...COULD trigger runaway global warming, raising Earth’s temperature by 10 degrees or more in a matter of decades.>>>if it did happen it would still take DECADES?

AND here comes the fear..<<If ignited,..the gas could create gigantic explosive airbursts,>>how much oxigen would it take...lol[noting the quaran talks of burning ocians...not burning skies..[where does the sky bbegin??...seems mountain climbers have a shortage of oxigen mearly on top of a mountain...lol giagantic air bursts...lol

STOP ALL HOME COMPOSTING NOW

<<and..'it..;..may...MAY..also toxify vast expanses of the ocean.>>..lol...better stop farting/belching folks

Methane bubbles from sediments in the North Sea are not entirely new – they explain the disappearance of trawlers sitting upright on the seabed east of Aberdeen at what is known as “The Witches Hole”. Observations from the last six months in the arctic sea noted upwellings of methane, previously undetected.
Perhaps we could soon be visited by massive changes.

But why should we worry? Ian Plimer, in an article on OLO (26/7/07), allayed any fears we might have by noting that “life had thrived” through such changes in the geological past.
And, sure enough, the geological record does note the resurgence of life forms after massive extinctions of species during those changes.
Pity about Homo sapiens, one of the species most likely to be displaced by other life forms, as a consequence of such changes: We are currently unable to provide a decent living for the present 6.9 billion under present world environmental circumstances. Worse, our demographics are locked in to 9 billion.
Not only do we need to take climate change seriously, we are faced with just as much urgency in the task of minimizing pressure from human numbers. Expectation of continued economic growth, based on consumption, remains a cargo-cult undiminished by the less than cosy glow from sub-prime activities: “sustainable lifestyles” remain a fashion garment to cover inaction on root causes.
Underdeveloped countries continue to be denied adequate resources in the matter of giving women access, and the right, to limit their own fertility. Without that, they are trapped in continuing poverty – numbers escalating until warfare, migration, disease, starvation winnow them.
Agricultural advisors will continue to be impotent until they accept the necessity for addressing the pressure of numbers as well as agricultural improvement. Gassing on about methane clathrates does deal with a nasty symptom, but not the underlying cause

Sorry I know I posted this in the previous thread as well but it seems even more pertinant to this one.

I am scared that people have been too stupified by advertising, the media and consumption that there is no hope and easter island here we come. We are in the end only animals and boom and then collapse is quite common in the natural world. It would be a pity. I would like to think us humans were smarter than your average insect but sadly on current evidence it doesnt look too good.

Ho hum, back to living in the moment.

skeptics should have a look at the Vostock ice core data. See:
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years
This data plots temerature and CO2 concentration for the last 400,000 yrs. The key points are that:
1. Temperature and CO2 have roughly risen and fallen in line with each other over this period.
2. The dominant cycle is the 100,000 yr cycle driven by orbit eccentricity.
3. The noticeable point is that the earth slowly cools for approx 85% of the cycle while heating takes place in the remaining 15%! The implication here is that once heating start positive feedback clicks in and increasing temp leads to increasing CO2 which leads to increasing temp etc.
4. Some of the short term variation is caused by shorter orbit, precession etc. driven cycles. Others may have been driven by spurts in greenhouse emissions where large forests, peat bogs and methane deposits dried out or reached some critical temperature.
5. Changes winds and currents may be responsible for some of the other spikes. The 12 deg C spike about 14,000 yrs ago was thought to have been due to changes in wind pattern that resulted when the tropics became more humid. (Google Greenland Ice Cores.)
What worries me is that we don't really know how much extra greenhouse gases will be released as temperature rises. If temperatures rise higher than they have been for a long time we may trigger a run of greenhouse gas release from something that has been acumulating for a long time. We know that methane is trapped in permafrost and shallow clatherates but we don't know how much or what the trigger temeratures are.
My risk assesment says get on with the easy, low cost emissions reduction. For example, electricty accounts for approx. 50% of our emissions and our total per capita is only 10,000kWh/yr including power for exports. Adding 10 cents per kWh adds $1000 per capita - small cheese insurance money.

What bugs me most is how the Libs bag Labor for even thinking environmentally and the Greens bag them for not thinking anywhere near enough

Why is transferring to clean, sustainable, recyclable methods such a threat to so-called 'sceptics'?

What justification is there to continue to pollute and use all our non-renewable resources?

You don't have to accept AGW to realise that to continue as we are, has no foundation in rational thought. Our planet is not a magic pudding, how often do we have circle around in this debate?

Rather than blither on about how AGW is just a scare campaign, offer some solid reasons for continuing as we have been with manufacturing, agriculture, population increase, destruction of forests, over fishing?

Where is the argument FOR Business-As-Usual?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI&feature=email

There is overwhelming argument against BAU.

Clathrates are maintained in their frozen state by a combination of low temperature and high pressure. They are stable at up to zero degrees C at atmospheric pressures but at up to 18 degrees C under the high pressures that prevail under the oceans. The temperature of the oceans below the thermocline is in the range minus 2 to plus 4 degrees. The much reduced mixing of water across the thermocline means that no matter what the increase in sea surface temperature it is inconceivable that 10 or more degrees of this could be transferred to ocean depths. And ocean heat, based on the most recent research from the Argo float program, is decreasing, at least since 2003.

Leakage of methane from natural gas deposits occurs on land and under the sea, and is the origin of at least some clathrate deposits. An event such as a submarine volcanic eruption could conceivably cause a localised sudden release of clathrates but it is also inconceivable that we can do anything to cause it or stop it. So we don’t need to worry about it; to suggest otherwise is just another piece of alarmist nonsense.

Sounds like another "boogey" word

from the hysterical and hyperactive minds of those who are predisposed to believe in "things to support the notion of man-made climate change" ....

and other fairy tales.

The "Brothers Grimm" being replaced by the boringly grimmer.

What are those people (who live long enough) going to think when they find out that no difference will have been made whether we now 'dawdle' on climate change, doing nothing, or spend a hell of a lot of our money on trying to do something because it is better than doing nothing?

Let down is probably putting it mildly.

So they call in a communicator to try another line of BS, that no REAL scientist could afford to have appear under his name.

Really getting desperate now, with the total failure of the climate to match any of their forecasts. These AGW people know that the funding is growing wings, & will soon fly the global warming nest.

I hope they can find some honest work, when it's gone. Perhaps they can get jobs digging ditches, replacing backhoes, & so save some of their beloved CO2 emissions.

Julian - here are the temperature results for the last 11 years from the Hadley site. If you are able to spot the wearming trend you should share it with us.
1998 0.526
1999 0.302
2000 0.277
2001 0.406
2002 0.455
2003 0.465
2004 0.444
2005 0.475
2006 0.421
2007 0.399
2008 0.327
2009 0.365
Until there is a noticeable warming trend we should not speak of warming temperatures, or about release of methane ect. We still have this problem that at the moment temperatures are not going up at all.

John D: you may be looking at a low resolution graph of the ice core stuff. Initial research from those cores helped sparked the global warming scare - researchers could see the CO2 and temperatuers rising together - but later results at better resolution (ie more detailed) showed that CO2 lagged temperature, often by centuries. This is well established now, and thought to be due to warmer oceans releasing more CO2 but a lot of arguement about the mechanism..

Interesting features of John D's link http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years are:

1. The last 10,000 year fluctuations suggest an overall average lower than would be expected by reference to earlier peaks, such that any presently observed increase in temperature is still well within what might be predicted as naturally induced temperature increases based on previous peaks.

2. To my eye at least, higher temperatures seem to slightly precede increased CO2 levels, which is exactly what you would expect if higher temperatures caused increased CO2 levels rather than the other way around.

3. We appear to be only a degree or two short and/or a few parts per million CO2 concentration short of the point at which previously it appears some balancing system has kicked in causing a long but slower cooling trend. This article and others persist in speculating about runaway global warming due to increased CO2 causing increased warming, causing increased CO2, causing increased warming.. etc, as some kind of runaway event, but if our planet did not have some mechanism which causes a correction at some point, then we would not see the consistent up and down pattern visible in these graphs and life would have become extinct on this planet long, long ago the first time C02 levels 'ran away.'

4. The strong upward trend in temperatures and CO2 levels has been going on for 12,000 years or so, long before mans industrialisation or population could conceivably have been a factor and this trend appears typical of previous warming periods as shown on the graph.

Can anyone enlighten us as to why in previous periods, 'runaway global warming' periods, at temperatures and CO2 levels just a little higher than at present, suddenly reversed, and why we should not expect the same to occur this time around?

With this sort of rot it is no wonder young ones are opting out of 'science'.

Curmudgeon, why are all those numbers positive?

Mark Duffett - the reason the temperatures are all positive is that they are measured from a particular baseline which varies between different sites.. If they are above the baseline they are postive. Below the baseline they are negative. It has nothing to do with actual temperature, just the difference from the baseline which is an average temperature over a certain number of years.. As the baselines can vary between sites you can't directly compare the values of differnt sites. Only the trend really matters.. so figures then really seem to be saying that temperatures are still high compared to the baseline but seem to be coming off a paeak - at least that's all you can really say, given the short period.

It is a tragedy that the human influence on our atmosphere has been hijacked by the Cranks like this bloke .
Like religion science can be easily manipulated , I refer to walking on water , turning water into wine etc; pure boon dogghi . While you might expect boon dogghi to wash with a desert peasant 2000 years ago it is astounding that people still believe this crap today ; the fact that they do explains AGW acceptance today . Today we have got mod , who needs a Prophet today we have Professors they are still warm now isn't that the "Ducks Guts" . Aspiring Fame Claimants like Rudd can hire underemployed Dudes like Garnaut to cobble up a program to dull the brains of the people so Rudd can become famous fixing a problem that never was .

Curmudgeon, if you choose the hottest year on record as your start date it is hardly surprising that subsequent years are less hot. Why not show us the figures for a significant period of time, say starting from 1898, or do they argue against you?

Fractelle: The notion that humans are animals that evolved on a dynamic world is anathema to the religious types that assume God wouldn't allow something this messy to occur, or if He did it would only happen the 'sinners'. (Oh the irony!) The blunting of intellect effectively makes them fatalists: God will be done, party until He gets you.
Malrob: Glad to see some educated commentary! Some of the clathrates are more marginal than you mentioned and might be a problem. As you say, volcanism is probably necessary to start any sort of disaster. I would be more concerned about the permafrost melting as we are getting a Methane spike now, and this is just the beginning.
Curmudgion: 12 data points vs the millions used in real science. As Candide pointed out: your dataset is biassed.
I don't expect the "uber-skeptics" (I consider myself a skeptic) to change their minds until the science becomes so blatantly obvious that it isn't science anymore, but here is a few things to think about: Biologists are reporting *many* changes throughout the world that are consistent with GW. Things like migrations, insect pests, flowering plants, etc. Atmospheric measurements are consistent with CO2 generated changes, as are ocean pH, temperature and other minerals. Ice cover is retreating world wide except for very few exceptions, which of course are paraded as "proof" of NGW. The models predicted much worse fires in Victoria due to more extreme weather events. These are being seen all around the world and are reflected in old age deaths...consistent with GW. All these different disciples are seeing a very strong pattern. The only "evidence" to the contrary is politically manufactured doubt or "god of the gaps" type stuff.
So you take a gas with excellent heat retention properties and you double it's concentration in a blink of an eye (geologically speaking): How can this *not* change things!

Candide - you raise an important issue. I did admit that temperatues have been high, but the cruicial point is that they seem to be coming off that peak. There has been no warming for more than a decade. Where has it gone? Why has nothing happened in the past decade? These questions have not been answered. But even more embarrasingly for the green house lobby, it was around the beginning of that decade that IPCC first seriously started forecasting that temperatues would increase. One report was issues in 1995 (not sure of that date) another in 2001 and another in 2007, all forecasting the warming seen between 1975 and 1998 would continue, and accelerate. Instead it seems to have stopped. Why? Leave it with you.

Curmudgeon

10 years of weather does not indicate a significant TREND in climate change.

Climatologists have been following world wide CLIMATE records since the 1880's.

The following video which includes data from NASA explains climate patterns far better than I can and has the evidence to go with the theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&feature=related

I see that not a single faux-sceptic has even tried to attempt to justify business-as-usual.

Why?

Ozandy, there are some faux-sceptics on these pages who aren't devoutly religious, but apparently lack the ability to provide reasons to continue the cycle of consumption that is depleting our planet's resources and altering its environment.

Fractelle - sorry but the 10 years mentioned is crucial, precisely because scientists tried to forecast it.. the period before the forecast is irrelevent, as models can be fitted to past data too easily.. now the trend isn't definite yet but if it continues for the next two years or so there are going to be some seriously embarrassed scientists. They forecast one thing and the physical system went and did precisely the opposite. Difficult to argue.

As for trend pack to 1880 - you may be confusing climate and weather.. they have climate data in very broad brush terms back thousands of years with lots of peaks and troughs which simply cannot be explained in terms of carbon-based models. they aren't even quite sure why the earth flips in and out of ice ages.. the sun must be the driver but what is the mechanism or link? No-one really knows..

Fractelle: Too true. I just couldn't resist after runner's anti-science comments. The faux-sceptics are not faux-ignorant in a lot of cases.
I know it seems trollish, but the lack of understanding of science is being actively encouraged by religion, and the lack of any religion to take a moral stand on this is telling. Given that they are actively campaigning towards authority as opposed to knowledge, I feel a drive to balance the arguments.

Ozandy

I rarely read any of runner's posts. I value my well-being too much.

However, I do take your point that the big 3 Middle Eastern religions are failing to take a strong stand on protecting the environment. nor do they do much about animal welfare. All of which stems from their 'human-centric' religious foundation. Which doesn't surprise me.

What does concern me is the self-interest that appears to be the reason for apparently intelligent people arguing against sustainable, clean practices.

No one has yet provided any argument in favour of business-as-usual.

Hi Fractelle - Don't you love it when our resident denialist continues to truncate the temperature records from the Hadley site and fails to provide the combined global land and sea temperature anomalies (Degrees C). Why does he do that? Here they are for 130 years, free from any manipulation of figures too. Cheers

1880 -0.1467
1881 -0.0896
1882 -0.1182
1883 -0.1607
1884 -0.2056
1885 -0.1720
1886 -0.1456
1887 -0.2147
1888 -0.1424
1889 -0.1012
1890 -0.2468
1891 -0.1992
1892 -0.2631
1893 -0.2878
1894 -0.2482
1895 -0.1747
1896 -0.0578
1897 -0.0925
1898 -0.1997
1899 -0.0967
1900 -0.0282
1901 -0.0975
1902 -0.1736
1903 -0.2930
1904 -0.3286
1905 -0.2160
1906 -0.1799
1907 -0.3468
1908 -0.3769
1909 -0.3806
1910 -0.3657
1911 -0.3622
1912 -0.3038
1913 -0.2861
1914 -0.1134
1915 -0.0559
1916 -0.2710
1917 -0.3265
1918 -0.2099
1919 -0.2072
1920 -0.1675
1921 -0.1226
1922 -0.2144
1923 -0.1906
1924 -0.1850
1925 -0.1145
1926 -0.0214
1927 -0.0994
1928 -0.0980
1929 -0.2246
1930 -0.0252
1931 -0.0036
1932 -0.0271
1933 -0.1606
1934 -0.0243
1935 -0.0497
1936 -0.0179
1937 0.0827
1938 0.0979
1939 0.0748
1940 0.1162
1941 0.1378
1942 0.1240
1943 0.1177
1944 0.2132
1945 0.0665
1946 -0.0289
1947 -0.0305
1948 -0.0415
1949 -0.0682
1950 -0.1556
1951 -0.0119
1952 0.0337
1953 0.1128
1954 -0.1117
1955 -0.1315
1956 -0.1879
1957 0.0488
1958 0.0992
1959 0.0528
1960 0.0047
1961 0.0744
1962 0.0977
1963 0.1271
1964 -0.1401
1965 -0.0734
1966 -0.0299
1967 -0.0143
1968 -0.0213
1969 0.0785
1970 0.0322
1971 -0.0645
1972 0.0177
1973 0.1428
1974 -0.1048
1975 -0.0320
1976 -0.1108
1977 0.1281
1978 0.0502
1979 0.1405
1980 0.1885
1981 0.2292
1982 0.1132
1983 0.2714
1984 0.0796
1985 0.0624
1986 0.1491
1987 0.2866
1988 0.2886
1989 0.2088
1990 0.3701
1991 0.3240
1992 0.1898
1993 0.2226
1994 0.2817
1995 0.3991
1996 0.2587
1997 0.4629
1998 0.5775
1999 0.3970
2000 0.3671
2001 0.4952
2002 0.5591
2003 0.5583
2004 0.5352
2005 0.6061
2006 0.5563
2007 0.5480
2008 0.4871
2009 -999.0000

Protagoras

I can understand those with vested interests in fossil fuel being in denial, but aren't they the minority?

Terrific program for all who doubt at following link:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2592909.htm

Recommended listening to all.

Thanks for the interesting link Fractelle. I agree those with vested interests are the minority; however, a minority can inflict much damage.

The majority of multi-national pollutant industries tell us that they are addressing the ecological and economical ramifications of polluting the planet.

An example of “good corporate citizenship” is a lawsuit lodged in a US court last Friday, where 250 Western Australian plaintiffs accuse Alcoa of knowingly and negligently poisoning surrounding communities with toxic emissions from its alumina facility 125km south of Perth.

Illnesses suffered by residents, including various cancers, heart complications, sinus and skin problems and even death, are cited in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs lived within 9km of the Wagerup refinery.

Under the heading ``Reckless Conduct and Disregard of Safety'' the lawsuit states: ``Alcoa is liable to plaintiffs for its reckless, wilful and wanton misconduct in knowingly and intentionally exposing plaintiffs and others in the surrounding communities, to toxic compounds and chemicals; intentionally concealing and misrepresenting the levels and dangerous characteristics of the various toxic chemicals and compounds it caused to be emitted in to the environment.''

The WA Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) have always denied these allegations in defence of Alcoa who continues plundering the unique jarrah forests of WA to extract bauxite.

Why is it after 25 years of pleas, complaints and official appeals, submitted to the DEC (and ignored), 250 Australians have had to resort to the US courts when every state in Australia has a Department of Environment, Health, Mining and Resources to “protect” the environment, public health and employees?

Recently, to cover their own backsides, the WA Department of Environment and Conservation finally charged Alcoa with pollution and criminal negligence but this was only after citizens commenced litigation with Erin Brockovich at the helm.

I am in agreement with Paul Gilding’s recommendations for a sustainable future, however, I do not share his optimism that the big polluters in this nation will soon operate within ecological limits. Many will resist (and encouraged to do so) until our ecosystems finally collapse along with our economy.