RPG, apologies for implying you are a Google poster.

However, "Good thing you stopped there before you looked like a complete fool." is an unnecessary comment as I simply included you with all of your fellow travelers as you all "pop up" in any articles relating to climate change.

I also was not specifically suggesting the "science was proven", I was merely referring to the rebuttal techniques you all resort to in addressing why the Victorian Government and indeed all governments are struggling.

I have a personal opinion on AGW based on the following;

...45 years ago I did a Science Degree in Biology, and that does not qualify me to comment on weather, climate or oceanic currents but does give me a view on science practitioners and their broad motives and accordingly I seriously doubt that the great majority ( please note I said majority not the exceptions) are driven by grants, subsidies or any motive outside of determining "what makes the world and its systems tick". I therefore have great difficulty in imagining that for example, the head of the CSIRO or BOM are supporting AGW for personal, political or financial gain.

cont...

cont...

...from a professional perspective I can assure all that the world's diverse species are disappearing at an accelerating rate and most 'exotic" species will be lucky to survive for more than a decade or two. This has absolutely nothing to do with AGW but is directly related to the "human footprint" on the planet; vis a vis destruction of habitat etc. If AGW does result in warming by mid century then we can already see the evidence of unnatural phenomena on the biodiversity of the planet and can reasonably extrapolate dire consequences as a result. Of course no one can predict what the loss of biodiversity might do but there will be global issues with fishing stocks and I suspect general agriculture. CO2 might be good for the plants but a temperature rise of 2+ degrees C will significantly shift arable land distribution. If Australia becomes even more arid which country will allow us to grow our sheep, beef and wheat I wonder? Can't see the Russians inviting us in really.

...we all subscribe to risk management; insuring your house against fire or the occasional falling A330 for example. It is prudent to look at consequences no matter how unlikely. If AGW is a "beat up" but we take certain steps to reduce the likelihood of consequences then surely we are practising global risk management. The current GFC should give us a not so "warm and fuzzy" feeling about letting market forces run unchecked; "BIG" business have the most to lose in short term in AGW minimization and therefore will shout loudest about loss of jobs, ruined economy etc.

So do I believe in AGW? Well its not science, science is the process of understanding what happens in our world and beyond so AGW can never be a science of itself. But on the balance of probability I can accept that AGW is a real threat.
cont...

Well Protogoras when someone is quoting the WWF Australia as their source, its no wonder the words like "evasive","guiltless" and "divinely" guided come to hand.

The home page of the WWF Australia dealing with climate change needs to have fraudulent misrepresentation added to the list.

Peter, not a worry, if you post on OLO you have to expect all manner of comments.

On risk management, I really can't agree with the way it is often applied to AGW. The posters only subscribe to risk management in a particular way. Risk management was "used" to attack Iraq, where they went after the WMDs only to find there weren't any. Did anyone then say, "but it was risk management"? it was and is used politically by the same types who want to use "risk management" on AGW.

E.Sykes used the example of WWII, but didn't respond when I asked him to apply his exact same logic to Iran and North Korea. he seems to have lost interest, probably didn't think that one through I guess.

We can't insure against the sky falling which is what "risk management" of climate is about - the climate changes, it is deemed by insurance companies to be "an act of god", we can't stop it. I don't know of anyone who actually denies that the climate changes, though CJMorgan is certain there are such people, somewhere, keep looking CJ. His confusion has reached the point he no longer addresses the articles but just the posters.

Mind you some people subscribe to Pascals Wager in a form applied to AGW, the problem is it only gives the alternatives - to believe in one solution or not to believe in that solution, just as the original form of Pascal's Wager didn't convince anyone either - it's tricky it's also bounded. What if you want to believe in a different god, Pascal's Wager didn't allow for that.

What if you believe something else beside CO2 is changing the climate? Then the AGW believers form of Pascal's Wager doesn't work.

Bottom line, you can't gamble or wager (risk management is a form of wagering) on climate change, it has no effect on changing the climate, we are impotent when it comes to climate change and that's what all the shrill alarmists can't deal with .. or to use another word, they deny.

It keeps coming up that over the last 10 years we are cooling - which I accept.

It strikes me that it is like saying today is cooler than yesterday we are therefore going to have a cold summer.

Then when I look at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index statistics 1880 to 2008, for the last 10 years the Temperature Anomaly (°C) has increased to 0.49 degrees compared with the previous 10 years of 0.28 degrees. (reference 1880 of -0.25 degrees)

Now that is not cooling.

As I read the statistics the last 10 years were the hottest on record.

It appears that those who say we are cooling are not looking at the trends over the last 128 years and just cherry picking.

Or has NASA got it wrong? or me?

Anyway we have to many people on this planet and that is a more serious problem.

When there is only 1 billion humans then climate will not be an issue as we will move/adapt.

Protogas it was the author of the article who stated that the Arctic ice would disapear in 5-10 years and I responded to that! Perhaps if you spent as much time on comprehension as you did on spelling you would understand more?