Peter King, really you had dinner with a really really important business man and he was so stupid whereas you are so smart. Get a grip King Peter. He was so important however that he soon shut you up and you gave up. why on earth was such a smart person as you so spineless?.
Andrew Bolt says that the world is cooling. Senator Field has asked for proof it is still warming and for all the ranting and raving no one including Penny Wong has disproved these two men. I have been told that of the last ten years nine were the hottest on record but where and how was this conclusion arrived at? This should be easily sorted out.
15,000 years ago the ice age climate with five kilometres of ice over Northern England changed (warmed) and in 50 years it was all gone and there was the North Sea and the Channel.
So what is your science on that King Peter?

Godo,
Well put it seems that some on this site hold the view that there are two opinions their's and the wrong one but they're very generous about it everyone has the right to be wrong and abused by them.

I must admit that I wonder what the point of the profs piece was....it seems to me if the topic is so complex and interconnected as he indicates why then and by what reasoning can simplistic refutation (denial) make any more sense.

It seems to me that the prof had it right with his bat analogy if we have multiple evidence of the systemic failures as one poster indicate by what logic does business as usual make sense?
One wonders what scenario does the prof offer for the list 124C4U offers. Is he suggesting that we should ignore them until we find an exact SINGULAR culprit?

It seems clear to me that there are multiple interrelated issues going on here.

Logic dictates we attack all the issues rather than behave like the man falling off the empire state building heard saying, "where's the problem? so far so good."

Sancho - I don't know where you got the idea that anti-AGWers also believe in intelligent design together. In fact, if pro intelligent design people think anything at all about global warming they would go for the orthodoxy.. true sceptics are opposed to both..

As for proving one case or another, true the debate is polorised but the problem the AGW people have is that the physical system is just not paying attention to the doomsaying. Even on the most charitable interpretation of the sites that follow global temperatures nothing is happening, and nothing has happened for a decade. Temperatures may currently be high but they have been higher before. There is growing evidence that they were higher in the medieval warming period, and it is now widely accepted that past natural variations have been substantial. To try and work out whether humans have added perhaps a few tenths of a degree (that is what the debate is about) to current temperatures is nearly impossible. But emissions have been increasingly sharply in the past decade, with nothing much happening and there is no explanation for this lack of activity. The AGWers need to find a convincing explanation of this lack of activity before anything else happens.

Hello another member of Dads’ Army and recent guest of honour at the Lavoisier launch of the Professor’s book, “Climate Capers,” where mining baron, Hugh Morgan kindly did the introduction.

Naturally, as one has witnessed in the past with climate sceptic spin, the biodiversity crisis takes a back seat. Naturally with stark, empirical evidence it would be far more difficult to spin the science on biodiversity, the impacts nowhere more evident than in Australia.

Rivers on life support – a result of industrial pollution, threatened species and habitat destruction, fish and bird kills, zoonoses on the loose worldwide, freshwater supplies contaminated with carcinogens and the creeping white death engulfing the equivalent of 19 footie fields a day and that’s just in WA.

Let’s not forget the Professor’s buddies either, the mining and oil corporations, slaughtering wildlife during their operations and continuing on rampage worldwide, plundering and poisoning the planet and trashing the ecologies and livelihoods of defenceless poor nations.

Ah but that’s a mere peccadillo for the good Professor and other planet rapists!

“All recent discussion on nuclear power seems to avoid discussing the French successes.” Well I was endeavouring to be polite Foyle and avoid speaking about the French in the nuclear debate.

You see, the French who are trying to flog their nuclear technology to the world, have' recently had two very embarrassing nuclear incidents. What's more, by 2002, France had already stored 978,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste. In 2020, the annual amount is expected to be 1.9 million cubic metres, so for poor old France, so dependent on nuclear, keeping the lights on means the radioactive waste just keeps growing and growing …………and…growing…....and.......!

As has been noted elsewhere, temperatures measured at the Mauna Loa laboratory that provides the standard measurements of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 show no correlation with the level of atmospheric CO2. For reasons yet to be explained by James Hansen's GISS, it like the NOAA and HadleyCRUT relies on temperature readings at Honolulu Airport (obviously heavily influenced by the ever growing volume of air traffic since 1960) and at Hilo, a fast growing town at the foot of the Mauna Loa mountain, but refuse to acknowledge the existence of the flat trend temperature readings at the Mauna Loa lab. itself. Why would that be?

When there is a hypothesis that it is the atmospheric concetration of CO2 that is "95% responsible for global warming", but no warming at all is evident where the CO2 is measured, the hypothesis is demonstrably false.

This is not to say there is no anthropogenic warming, for indeed there is wherever there are large numbers of people using energy on a large scale as at Hoolulu Airport and all other such, and indeed in all urban areas not excluding modern farming areas. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics says use of energy creates heat, the 2nd law says that failure to keep maintain energy use leads inevitably to increasing entropy and ultimate death of all living matter.

Replacing coal fired electricity etc with wind etc will do nothing to reduce warming arising from humans' energy-based activity except to the extent that it reduces such activity - and that is of course the hidden agenda of all too many Greens and their fellow travellers. CO2 is a trivial by-product of fossil fuel energy. None of the IPCC's dubious formulae for guessing at the radiative forcing of CO2 show that the CO2 generated at coalfired power stations has a fraction of the heat potential of the energy produced by the power station itself.

Unlike many others who claim to "know" the truth, I'm prepared to admit that I'm not qualified to make an independent scientific assessment.

However, if I go to 5 doctors and 4 tell me that I have a disease and must start treatment immediately but the other says that the other four are wrong, I would tend to go with the majority - if only out of self interest.

Furthermore if the single doctor adds the claim that the other four are basing their false diagnoses on the fact that they are all in the pay of pharmaceutical companies but conveniently ignores the fact that the organisation backing him also claims that smoking is harmless, it doesn't add much credence to his claim does it?

Meanwhile the obvious melting of the Arctic ice, Russian tundra and several glaciers seems to be following and reinforcing scientific predictions - just as the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer were analysed and reduced some time ago.

Just as there are people who insist that the holocaust never happened, the moon landings were faked, there is a secret society guiding humanity behind the scenes and the myriad of other conspiratorial theories around us, there's no point trying to convince people who have already created their own version of reality and happy to live in it.

Whatever the outcome, we're all going to experience it together and either side saying "I told you so" won't mean much in the end.