Certainly,
1. the climate has been warmer in the past,we live in a relatively cool phase and
2. the higher average temperatures in the past couldn't have been caused by anthropogenic factors.
3.self interested individuals are exploiting concern about climate change,so what?

these are not necessarily arguments against the hypothesis that industrial carbon dioxide emissions are causing warming currently.

Criticisms of computer modelling of climate change are essentially straw man arguments. There are papers published every week by biologists and physical scientists which describe changes in the environment as a result of increased temperatures around the world,no rubbery models are referenced in those cases.
It is precisly the historical record that indicates the catastrophic results of climate change or environmental degredation on ancient civilisations,that is the appropriate lesson of history and archaeology.Since the earth's population is now about 6 billion we can't be sanguine about the possible consequences of global warming.
So, until the experts(climate scientists) change their minds I'll accept the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

I doubt if there's any area of science that is so infested with commentators who really don't know what they don't know.

Too much looking at books and not enough thought.

(1) How about some concrete facts and figures: tell us the following about previous changes: how quickly did they happen? were they worldwide (_global_ climate change) or local (ie, changes in weather patterns rather than in worldwide temperature) ? how many degrees in how many years ?

(2) so what if it has happened before ? Were the societies then as unadaptable as ours is (eg, with cities built by the seaside, with most of the world's suitable land already used to produce food) ? How uncomfortable were those changes to the societies living then ? In short, should we accept that those events be repeated ?

(3) Why on earth does wine-growing in north England then and not now mean it was warmer then ? Isn't wine grown at present in places that are colder than the north of England ? Might not the capability of present day society to transport wine from France and Germany to Leeds have something to do with it ?

Finally it's noteworthy that most of the article isn't on a single topic, but a collection of any action or suggested action in regard to climate change. Eg "Will anti-CO2 legislation deal with oceanic pollution, such as the plastics which destroy marine life en masse and work their way at a bio-molecular level into the food chain? No" Of course not - why should it?

i think the article is a parody. i dearly hope so.

James,
This 'debate' is no longer about the facts. You may as well explain to a fundamentalist Christian that world is more than 6000yrs old as explain to a AGW true-believer that the changes we see in our climate are neither extreme nor unusual as compared to the past.

There are now so many people whose careers and reputations revolve around the AGW faith-system that there is no chance that we can rationally back away from it. We are no more likely to see Gore/Hanson/Garrett break down and declare that they got it wrong than to see Castro grab the mic and opine that communism might not have been the best choice.

All we can do is wait for the climate to do what it is now doing and invalidate the hysteria by actually not warming. Then the high priests of the Gaia will simply slink away (as all the leaders of those lesser mass-hysterias such as SARS and Mad Cow disease etc etc did).

You will find this online recorded lecture by another Western Australian, Jim Buckee very interesting:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cops/events/energycontroversies/natural-causes-of-climate-change.php

It deals with climate change over time from a scientific viewpoint and shows some very interesting data. However, from what I have seen most of the current concern is what has happened with CO2 levels in the last 50 years and how the models can only explain this by incorporating CO2 data. Jim's lecture seems to largely ignore the last 50 years when the data is displayed.

On the temperature and CO2 concentration front, you need to realise that scientists measure temperature from absolute zero and so, in that light, a 2 degree change from our current temperature is not a huge proportional jump - just as the change in CO2 concentration relative to other gases is not great.

Regards,

Michael

Good article again James, we need more of these not more catastrophic, doom laden, fire and brimstone, world is ending rants.

mhaze, totally agree with you - our AGW brethren are in complete denial that we need to accept and adapt, not try to reverse or control.

I'm guessing in the past when the climate changed, they sacrificed whatever was handy, prayed to gods, whatever the substitute for lack of knowledge was then, ignorant fools - of course now we know everything there is to possibly know about climate don't we? (/sarc)

There are a lot of things we can do to improve everyone's lot in life and paying taxes for various governments to decide how to redistribute the wealth is not acceptable to some of us.

Most of the developing world needs cheap energy, not monetary compensation to their governments from wealthy countries. We know where all that good will, CO2 abatement money will go don't we, into rich people's pockets and not into the community.

The focus has been turned into grants, CRPS and various other schemes which sound a lot like "indulgences" from medieval European religions. So today you get to calm your conscience with "offsets", and go on not having to actually think any more about the environment, because you've paid someone to compensate for your guilt.

Copenhagen at the end of the year will produce some feel good press releases, but nothing to change the world, but all the eco types will puff up about how wonderful it all is, rapture is coming! See all the pilgrims dancing to Denmark!

Some folks wonder why some skeptical people liken the AGW believers to a religion but it seems so obvious I can't understand why they can't see it.

Of course we'll get abuse and bullying for being heretical, but that's OK, I can take it but wonder why some AGW believers cannot entertain any questioning of their beliefs, that's not science any more is it?

James - you worry far too much about the criticisms. In this area name calling and bitter accusations are par for the course and it must be said that the AGWers are by far the worst of the two sides. They frequently resort to name calling in place of argument.
The skeptics have responded occasionally in kind, however, and that is to be regretted. That just makes things worse.

Mac - the point about the computer models is that they are being used to forecast but they are completely unverified. they have no history of successful forecasting of any kind. The other proof you cite simply shows that temperatures are high at the moment.
One point you make worthy of note is that scientists have summed all the influences on climate they know off and can only explain recent increases by the concidental increase in CO2 - quite so. Correct as far as it goes. The problem is that they may not know all the influences. That's what the argument has been about. They know there must be other factors that have made climate vary in ancient times, but basically don't know what it is - why does the earth flip in and out of ice ages, why has the current intergalacial been so long - yet they have gone ahead and made forecasts anyway. The whole thing is set for a public policy disaster.

I was as convinced an AGW'er as anybody, until I began to 1) think about the past a bit more reflectively - even my own past: I recall clearly being told by a marine scientist in the early 80s "I have no doubt that we are entering another Ice Age", and 2) look a bit more deeply into exactly how Global Climate Models work.

It has been said here that humans are embarking on an experiment that has not been done before, and cannot be replicated. In a sense, this is true: the only way to verify the predictions of GCWs is to wait and see.

However, we *can* measure our current circumstances against the laboratory of the past. In which case, current climate changes no longer look so extraordinary, nor so overwhelmingly threatening.

This is not to say that GCWs are worthless; on the contrary, they are highly impressive programs. However, when the models - or those relying on the models - are making predictions so wildly at odds with what we *know* (with reasonable certainty) has happened previously, then one must question the validity, not of the models themselves, but of the assumptions and approximations fed into them.

When it also appears that observed data is, as pointed out by Freeman Dyson and John S. Theon, being fudged to better fit the GCWs' predictions, doubts grow.

In all, it appears that over-reliance on GCWs, and what appears to be a degeneration of the peer-review process, has become such that some scientific publications have become little more than an intellectual circle-jerk of a small coterie fervently agreeing with one another.

Finally, when it is also patently obvious that many of the most public faces of the AGW-Alarmist movement are a cavalcade of shonks, shysters and scam-artists who stand to profit handsomely from the alarmism they promote, and who are demading other, poorer, people to make sacrifices they themselves clearly will not, and who openly equate dissent with Nazism, then my bullsh!t meter goes into overdrive.

The problem with being anti AGW or just skeptical , it is very hard to inject "Passion" into arguments . Pilmers book suffers in this respect , it's like reading a dictionary yet it has an enormous amount covered and referenced .

On the other hand supporters of AGW , some only children ease into passion because they see themselves saving a bird , lizard , frog or whatever this feel good thingy becomes a Consensus among generations who simply like doing something like believing eg; God factor .

They might research further when the people who believe "Debt can defeat Debt" AKA "Stimulus" has to be repaid multiplied by Carbon Credits starts to bite their pay packets ; will lack of Enthusiasm burn out Passion ?

Actually, ShazBaz, I think the biggest problem with Plimer's book is that he is probably too passionate about the subject.

Tie that in with Plimer's admitted "take no prisoners" debating style (learned, he said of "Telling lies for God", in outback pubs), and in "Heaven and Earth" we see him, instead of arguing what are reasonable doubts about climate change alarmism, absolutely determined to go the whole misere and demolish AGW wholesale. The result is that what is worthwile in his book is obscured by some truly embaressing clunkers that have only played right into the hands of the AGW faithful.

Mind you, I think what *really* raised the ire of the True Believers was his final chapter, raising the ghosts of Lysenko and Lord Kelvin.

(I missed the topic on "Heaven and Earth" last week, btw, due to an unexpected stay in the local hospital. God bless Public Health, I says)

A good article based on historic evidence. What few seem to realise is that the climate computer models pushed by the IPCC and believed by the gullible masses, have not been validated with actual historic data, and never will be, because they are based on the false assumption that climate change is man-caused. The models failed to predict that there would be a cooling trend since 1998 despite increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and they failed to predict the El Nino and La Nina effects

Sudden pre-historical changes in climate are not news to scientists, and they raise the level of concern that a quick flip to extreme climate could occur soon.

The case for global warming does not rest only on computer models. It rests on a very wide range of science, including the basic physics that Fairbairn so facilely dismisses, just because some numbers look too small to him, and paleo-climatology.

The faults with this article are the dismissal of basic physics and the reliance on only a certain range of evidence. Skeptics need to do much better than this if they are to make a case worth taking seriously.

Geoff Davies - actually the case for global warming is not based on physics at all but depends on an assumption - a big one. The direct warming effects of CO2 are quite limited - no-one disagrees with this - due to a saturation effect (has to do with the absorbtion bands in the gas). But the computer models say that the warming (maybe 0.6 degrees C for a doubling in concentrations) will feedback on the atmospheric system. Most importantly they assume that the relative humidity of the atmosphere will remain the same. RH means water vapour and to keep the same RH at higher temperatues means more water vapour, which is the major greenhouse gas - forget the rest - hence a lot more warming. There is some evidence that the assumption is wrong, but the climate modellers are no simply too committed to their models to admit the error..

It’s amazing that such a mishmash article is published in “on line opinion”. A capable person like James Fairbairn can’t lack the ability to investigate historical and current situation in a more holistic way instead of picking winning arguments. It can’t be due to stupidity or lack of understanding; it can only be a refusal to see things that would challenge his beliefs. On Line Opinion is degrading it self by publishing such nonsense. James hasn’t notice that when the planet was warming in the past the temperature rose first then carbon concentration followed, while the present situation is opposite, the carbon concentration in the atmosphere is leading and causing the temperature to go up. This is extremely dangerous and, James, you should try and understand this for the sake of today’s children

Tena - That's the first I've heard that "while the present situation is opposite, the carbon concentration in the atmosphere is leading and causing the temperature to go up", while I normally disregard link references as you can always find something you like or dislike on line - could you refer me to the source, (is there some proof, at last!), if possible, of this information?

Wonderful news .. we have some factual evidence at last, thanks Tena.

You say it's very dangerous - why is that? Do you think we can't stand an increase in temperature, like people on the tropics live with?

Do you think say Hobart will be unendurable if temperature goes up a little in winter? Or summer?

Are you worried because humans have never endured temperature changes before?

I accept the climate changes, but do not accept its dangerous, because we'll adapt, as we always have.

Geoff - what physics are you citing? The Sun is an energy source that constitutes 99.86% of our solar system's mass, and which is almost entirely the reason we have life on this planet. It gives us our seasons and is the driving force of climate and the weather system. The solar cycle has an enormous and direct impact on Earth's temperatures (A prolonged period of minimal solar activity in the 17th century caused Europe's little ice age) and yet AGW-philes refuse to count this as significant, instead putting the blame on a gas that amounts to less than 0.04 percent of our atmosphere while water vapour (the REAL greenhouse gas) is almost 10 times greater in volume and is responsible for up to 90% of the greenhouse effect we thankfully experience. Is that enough 'physics' for you?

Tena - are you familiar with the relationship between cause and effect? If, in the past, global temperatures rose and CAUSED the C02 to increase, what has happened for the CO2 to be now the CAUSE of rising temperatures? If you can back up your claim, it is simply proof that correlation can be misinterpreted as being CAUSE rather than EFFECT. Unfortunately you can't have it both ways without a damn good explanation!

Collin, you are correct, Solar cycles (and sun spots, and cosmic rays, and magnetic flux, and volcanoes, and Earth's tilt, etc, etc) do play a role (suggest you distinguish between weather and climate though).

But when you say;

"A prolonged period of minimal solar activity in the 17th century caused Europe's little ice age"

then, you've lost me.

Europe's little ice age caused by minimal solar activity - sheesh!

If you want to pretend to be a "climate scientist", I suggest you refrain from parroting 'denialosphere' white-noise and complete an appropriate course at university, starting with (but not limited to) the radiative transfer properties of ALL the GHG's, including water vapour.

Oh, you are obviously not familiar with climate dynamics either. High CO2 levels can precede global warming AND stem from global warming, depending on the drivers.

Q&A - one thing I can do very well, regardless of my level of scientific knowledge, is research and read.

I did distinguish between climate and weather - I mentioned them both in the same sentence. Did you want more detail to show I knew the difference? They are different, but inarguably inextricably inseparable. We cannot have one without the other.

As for the linkage between the Maunder Minimum and "little ice age", while it cannot be proven (as with any hypothesis, it can only be disproved - same as AGW) it, nonetheless a solid hypothesis (or theory, depending on one's perspective). How else do you explain the little ice age?

Was I pretending to be a climate scientist? Are you? Who are you, anyway? does it matter? lol

FYI your statement "High CO2 levels can precede global warming AND stem from global warming, depending on the drivers." is incorrect.

it should read: "High CO2 levels can precede global warming AND <follow> global warming, depending on the drivers."

Therein lies the heart of the debate ... knowing the difference between cause and effect. As it stands, we do not know! We merely have a hypothesis (or theory) that is yet to be disproved.

I'm still rolling on the floor Collin ... "Europe's little ice age" - classic.

The Maunder Minimum (which I am well aware of, thanks) is not Europe.

Research and read all you want Collin. That in and of itself doesn't mean you understand, as you have so poignantly demonstrated.

Q&A Why are you rolling on the floor? Collin reported one of the well known hypotheses about the cause of the Little Ice Age! Anyone in climate science would be aware of that. Your comment about the Maunder Minimum "not being Europe"? What is that all about, its not a bear or a fridge either.

In relation to the article itself, I commend the author for a rational approach to the topic. He has found one part of history which is yet to be rewritten by the new Left.

We are in the process of proving just that, by using the planet, it may take many decades and by that time we may have uncontroversial proof that the emission of CO2 and methane is on its path to heating our planet to an unliveable state or not. I suggest we should sacrifice certainty for the cautionary principle. But we definitely know that the concentration of CO2 preindustrial revolution was 278ppm and today its 380ppm and we also know where the carbon came from. Unfortunately the increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has a hysteresis effect on the temperature due to the thermal inertia of water.
There's a terrific amount of methane as hydrate in the seas that could be realist into the air with catastrophic consequences if the sea warms up. The effect of an insulating layer of gas will mean less difference of temperature between equator and poles resulting in reduced ocean currents, this could have devastating results.
The other aspect of concern is the acidification of the oceans and the effect it has on life in the ocean.
The changes are more rapid than the past and it's a new situation as I had explain before any new condition is a cause for some caution at least I would refer you to James Hansen

Atman

You exclaim << Collin reported one of the well known hypotheses about the cause of the Little Ice Age! >>

No, he did not.

He said; "A prolonged period of minimal solar activity in the 17th century caused Europe's little ice age"

I am quite aware what he meant, Atman ... as "anyone in climate science would".

The fact remains, if Collin wants to give the impression he knows what he is talking about, he should not have said such a stupid statement ... "Europe's little ice age". I presume even you know that "ice ages" don't occur, um ... regionally.

Collin didn't stop there though, Atman. He proceeded to give Dr Geoff Davies (geophysicist at the Australian National University) a short course culminating in asking if that is enough "physics" for Geoff (yes, I'm still bemused, Atman).

Wait, there's more. Collin asks me who I am , whether I'm pretending to be a climate scientist, and implied even if I was it wouldn't matter anyway. No, Atman, I'm not pretending - but it doesn't matter anyway.

The following link to an interview between Chris Mooney and Leigh Sales last night sort of puts things into perspective.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200909/r437848_2107485.asx

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2689429.htm

The former a video, the latter a transcript.

Q&A - when he got to "I'm a fan of Al Gore", I stopped watching.

I guess you hear what you want to hear don't you - and he's one of the "science is settled" types, no debate and can't understand why there is one going on.

I love the talk of a denier "problem". Is he selling a book? Gosh better talk it up then, is it pro AGW? Oh well, I guess it's only people like Plimer whose motives are questioned when they write a book.

So it's the same voice is it that are the lone voices against everything .. what utter rubbish.

Still it wouldn't be a week if there wasn't someone or something to sneer at eh Q&A.

I repeat that there may be factors unknown and that CO2 only seems ot fit because there is a absence of any KNOWN other culprit, yet CO2 doesn't seem to behave and the world is not warming as the models predict. So is CO2 to blame, are the models or is something else causing the warming/ I don't know, you sure don't, so we stay on this rollicking ride observing what happens.

Of course dissent is labeled as ignorance, wingba .. but of course you remember your litigy of insults so no need to repeat them, unless there are some new ones?

You stopped watching rpg and thereby give credence to Chris Mooney's claims.

A real sceptic critically analyses ALL arguments.

You on the other hand refuse to take off your political blinkers, typical.

Hi James, I appreciate your use of a quote from my response to a previous article on OLO; I called it denialist drivel and, although you may feel that was harsh, I still believe it was a fair assessment of what you'd written.
I think anyone who believes that every leading institution that studies climate, and every serious report commissioned on climate change is wrong needs much better arguments than you have provided - which have amounted to little more than vague claims that alternative opinions are suppressed. Any arguments that the world's scientists are wrong needs to pass the same level of scrutiny as the arguments that support the current understanding of climate. None of your arguments pass even passing scrutiny by non-scientists and only prefixed disbelief based on deep ignorance of real science can support them.
The chances that science has the fundamentals of this seriously wrong are next to zero, but people with opinions like yours are holding back efforts to face this huge, developing crisis with eyes open. That is endangering the lives and livelihoods of my children and future generations. You are entitled to your opinions and have been given full opportunity to express them but I think any future policy based on them will be disastrous.

Q&A

<< A real sceptic critically analyses ALL arguments. >>

Does this mean I HAVE to read all of UOG's posts?

:(

RPG

Does your attention span run to at least 30 minutes? Then please consider the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdrBwZpRYSs

Thank you

Ken et al. Again the real point has been missed. That climate has changed frequently and rapidly in man's past and we have adapted, survived and often thrived is not denied by anyone, scientists, zealots, historians or 'deniers'.

The REAL DANGER IS NOT CLIMATE but our society's virtual ignoring of the very real and very fundamental environmental destruction that our so called civilisation is inflicting on this planet. And irrespective of whether or not climate change legislation is going to massively enrich banks, it will NOT deal with the vast majority of environmental problems that we are causing.

To give just one topical example, currently there is an oil slick off today the Australian coast that is 1500sq km's in size and it is getting larger by the day. Now examine how much press coverage that is getting compared to climate change.

I urge you to read the Environment archive at Open Your Eyes News. Ignore the climate articles we reference if you wish, but please don't ignore everything else.
http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/category/environment/

Sorry a correction to my last comment. The oil slick off Australia's NW is actually 15,000sq km's (fifteen thousand) in size at last count, not the 1,500 I quoted.

Q&A
Your response was:

["You exclaim << Collin reported one of the well known hypotheses about the cause of the Little Ice Age! >>

No, he did not.

He said; "A prolonged period of minimal solar activity in the 17th century caused Europe's little ice age"]

Your response makes no sense,Q&A, a prolonged period of reduced Solar activity IS one of the hypotheses of the cause of the little Ice Age.

Q&A, Fractelle, clearly you both have found a hero in this author and his spiel fits your world view very well I suppose. I found the ABC interview was just too swimmingly, so immediately suspected the message was going to be well in line with ABC thought, that is, anti conservative, and got it in spades - the line about being a fan of Al Gore was enough for me.

Q&A scorns of course but that's nothing new, the desire to prove people wrong, not address the article at all is typical of his posts. (typical of many scientists is the inferiority complex which forces them to argue to prove they are correct then to keep an open mind to the opportunity to learn.)

I don't have time to listen to 30 minutes of self effacing banter on a weekend, wish I could. In my role as an executive I have to often make quick decisions based on a small sampling, I'm successful because I'm more often correct in my analysis. In this case it was easy, as the interview dripped chummy, liberal, leftist, welcome to the ABC dear fellow traveler overtones. Watch what happens on the ABC if a conservative is in the seat, it is open cutting hostility and adversarial attacks.

I did look up some reviews though, and you both seem very keen on reviews when they reflect your views, so here's one from about.com: physics.

"The major failing of the book is that it doesn't provide much detail on how to fix the situation and, though it attempts to speak to a broad audience, the clear liberal bend of the authors will make it hard for many conservative readers to accept the politically neutral claims that are at the core of the book."

That's basically what I summed up in a few minutes of watching the ABC, and I picked it correctly - I don't need to listen to more of the "message".

Do either of you intend to comment on the article by James, or are you just going to snipe from the bleachers?

Typical!

James, you think I'm missing the point? I think the relevant point is you deny there's a problem when the people who study climate clearly say there's a very serious one developing. Even after 2 decades of intense scientific and community interest in getting this right, during which any fundamental flaws would have come to light), the main change is towards concluding the impacts will be more damaging, more imminent and more permanent.

The productivity of agriculture and economically important ecosystems are at risk from something with a long lead time and long term persistent effects. That's important James - life and death important - especially to our descendents who will bear the brunt.

We ignore what’s known about climate at our peril. I believe the scientists at CSIRO's Marine and Atmospheric Research division, for example, know more than I do and definitely more than you do about climate. I don't think they are incompetent or could actually be so lacking in ethics as to fit their results to suit an agenda if that were even possible without outright fraud (if the entire world's climate scientists could ever agree to anything such thing)! Nonsense.

You think my criticisms are unfair? You appear willing to brand a world of hardworking scientists as incompetent (deeply insulting) and want to bet the future of the world they are all wrong.

Anthropogenic climate change is our new reality and we'd better act like it matters because it's impacts are going to world changing.

Hi Ken, As RPG pertinently commented please feel free at any time to dispute:

- The historical facts in my article
- The fact that the banks are about to become $2-3 trillion richer thanks to climate change
- That the climate change warned about is based on computer modelling
- That there are considerable man-made environmental issues that climate change legislation won't address and which are largely being ignored by the press, corporations and politicians.

As I said earlier if people want to believe or disbelieve the computer modelling that is up to them as luckily we still live in a free society where dissent is not silenced (yet). However we have only ourselves to blame if as a result we end up not dealing the very real environmental problems that we are very definitely creating.

PS: As scientific advance is based on the questioning of received wisdom I'm sure the scientists you feel I have "deeply insulted" will eventually get over my comments

James, in your current article you said (quote);

<< A few weeks ago I wrote an article entitled “the Importance of being informed”...

The article itself drew a fair amount of comment on various forums, of which some, no doubt heartfelt, was particularly strong criticism of the article. One wrote “It disturbs me that distortions (intentional or otherwise) like this create even more confusion for people who just don't know ... >> End quote.

Yes, I was the ‘one’.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9280#148284

Ken, you have taken my comment out of context (intentional or otherwise) and seem to think I was criticising your article – I was responding to Daviy’s comment. If the shoe fits ... you certainly are wearing it.

You say you are a historian and humanist (and co-Founder and editor of ‘openyoureyesnews.com’ ... prior to immigrating to Australia where you were a parliamentary candidate for the Conservative Party in the UK 2005 General Election). You openly admit to NOT being a ‘climate scientist’ but are so sure they have it wrong.

Likewise, the other co-Founder of your blog, Collin Mullane (responsible for Social Media and Marketing) claims to be a “truth activist, polemic, agnostic, sceptic and part time writer” and NOT a ‘climate scientist’ – yet he dictates ‘physics’ to Dr Geoff Davies (geophysicist) – simply astounding!

There is a contradiction in terms, duplicity – for both yourself and Collin.

Chris Mooney is on the button, we have an ‘unscientific Australia’ too, as you and others on this thread have so aptly demonstrated. My advice dittos Geoff Davies’ advice, follow your own advice and get informed – 8,000 million tonnes (8Gt) of a gas we are spewing into the environment every year, and it will get worse. Start with radiative transfer properties of CO2.

_________

Atman

I know this is difficult for you, but the “Little Ice Age” (comprising the Maunder Minimum) DID NOT JUST OCCUR IN EUROPE as Collin Mullane (the author’s blog colleague) states.

Fractelle

<< Does this mean I HAVE to read all of UOG's posts? >>

I don’t, but I’m only a sceptic in the scientific sense :)

_________

rpg

You quote:

"The major failing of the book is that it doesn't provide much detail on how to fix the situation and, though it attempts to speak to a broad audience, the clear liberal bend of the authors will make it hard for many conservative readers to accept the politically neutral claims that are at the core of the book."

You are obviously very politically conservative and don’t accept the politically neutral claims that are at the core of the book.

Can you suggest a way to make political ideologues more scientifically literate?

I'm politically neutral, btw.

michael_in_adelaide: "You will find this online recorded lecture by another Western Australian, Jim Buckee very interesting."

This is just a thank you.

It was very interesting; a climate model I could actually understand. Well not quite, but I should have a good grasp of it on the second time through. Unlike most of the noise I get to see here (this article included), it was a genuine scientific contribution. I guess we will know whether he is right in the next decade or so.

What I must do is go and find the article by a computer modeling expert
who used the IPCCs model but had doubts about its operation.
He asked for the source code so he could have a look at how it works.
He was told that the source code is not available.

Now there just possibly could be commercial reasons for this.
However considering the amount of money that is going to be spent on CO2
suppression, I think the UN should buy the source code and make it
publically available. Buy the whole company that owns it if necessary.
No matter how much it costs it will be cheaper than making a big blunder !
It really is improper that for such an important program whose output
is going to cause enormous expenditure to be not accessible for audit.

I wonder how many $Trillions have been spent already ?

Sorry, a correction to my comment to James Fairbairn yesterday. Of course, where I said Ken, I meant James.

Bazz,
You seem to be implying there is only one IPCC model. There are a few climate models that the IPCC look at (not to be confused with the SRES). Which one are you concerned about? Does this 'one' particular model negate the others? Why?

Do you really think that any climate model is not scrutinised to the nth degree given the global importance of them?

Moreover, do you really think all the governments (from all political persuasions) around the globe are arguing the nuances of the science? From what I am experiencing, they are having a bun-fight about how and when to tackle the problems of climate change, not the science behind it (real scientists can do that well enough).

Q&A,

you talk about the volume of co2, 2 questions what proportion of co2 is natural and what proportion from human influences?

what is the relative contribution of water vapour to global warming as opposed to co2?

James, how can you suggest that climate science hasn't been looking at past natural climate changes? It's a whole discipline in itself - paleoclimatology - and crucial to understanding climate. Or not know that Britain has a successful wine industry, or that the medieval warm period was a natural regional occurrence that doesn’t invalidate the impacts of GHG's on climate. Or imagine that government taxes and expenditures aren't more closely scrutinised than any IPCC report? Or dismiss climate modelling outright without mention of evaluation and validation? The questions you ask reveal deep bias combined with profound ignorance of actual climate science. If you really care about the future - ours and our environment's - find out what climate science really actually says about climate from actual institutions that study it.

Hello again Ken. As I mentioned in a post a couple of days back:

please feel free at any time to dispute:

- The historical facts in my article
- The fact that the banks are about to become $2-3 trillion a year richer thanks to climate change
- That the climate change warned about is based on computer modelling
- That there are considerable man-made environmental issues that climate change legislation won't address and which are largely being ignored by the press, corporations and politicians
(eg: an oil slick 15,000sq km's in size off Australia's coast that has had no worldwide press coverage at all TODAY).

Why do True Believers avoid answering straight questions and just go on the offensive trying to stifle debate by accusing others of being ignorant? Goebbels would be so proud of such tactics.

As I said please feel free to address any of the questions listed above directly

slasher
The answers to your questions can be easily sourced. I am perplexed as to why you ask them here.

Anyway, you should check out the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre’s web site (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/). If their FAQ section isn’t good enough or you want a more detailed response (that is too technical to be explained in 350 words) you can contact them by email.

Heck, you could even try Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

At the risk of over-simplification and being taken out of context/distorted, intentionally or otherwise :)

1. Since 1850, about 70% can be attributed to human influence.
2. Water vapour about 35 - 75%, CO2 about 10 - 25%

Remember though, the residence time of water in the atmosphere (before it condenses out as rain or snow) is about 10 days. Whereas 90% of the CO2 emitted today will still be there in a hundred years.

Bazz
Any luck with identifying the particular GCM you were concerned about?

James
I see you won’t acknowledge taking my comments out of context, intentionally or otherwise. I guess historians do have a propensity to redefine history, even in their silence. And your mate Collin (truth activist), where did he disappear to?

Rpg
Can you suggest a way to make more people scientifically literate?

Hi Q&A
I'm sorry that you feel that I have taken you out of context at some point (I have just re-read all the comments here but couldn't find your original reference to it). If I have I do apologise, certainly not an intention, and certainly I do not intend on re-writing history (though i am always very willing to hear if any of the history I have quoted in my articles, and cross referenced, is incorrect)

Re Collin he is currently not available.

If the Melbourne Age is to be believed perhaps all this too'ing and fro'ing is pointless anyway. To quote:
"There is not, now, much value in arguing about the science of climate change. Even if it’s wrong, enough people now believe it that it may as well be right.“

http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/hey-kids-it-aint-easy-being-green-20090919-fw1p.html

But where would be the challenge be in that?

Historian

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9439#151189

Then in my post a day later:

Sorry, a correction to my comment to James Fairbairn yesterday. Of course, where I said Ken, I meant James.

Aside: post limits got me again, otherwise it would have been corrected straight away.

It now appears you have fixated on an OpEd by Michael Coulter:

"Even if it’s (science of climate change) wrong, enough people now believe it that it may as well be right."

"May as well be right"? Another stupid comment ... and people wonder why scientists get so peed off with the mainstream media.

James, can you suggest a way to make more people (like The Sunday Age's production editor) scientifically literate? And please, don't point me to your blog site.

Hi Q&A, you have an interesting use of the vernacular! The word "fixated" is a strong word to use when someone just references, tongue in cheek, one newspaper article. I'm sure we could trade "respected reporters" names until the cows come home, however what would that achieve for anyone still looking at this forum?

I'm confused as to why you would be upset for me referencing a negative comment you made about a previous article but as I said before if it caused you any offence I sincerely apologise.

Likewise I'm confused by your comment "And please, don't point me to your blog site." as all I was suggesting was people(not directed at you)look at the (only) mainstream news articles referenced on my website. So not to sure why that would be offensive to you, but I'm sure you have your reasons, and please do not feel obliged to visit the website.

Anyway I'm signing off from this particular forum now, not least as the article was posted a week ago now and in between family, paid work, and lobbying regarding the ongoing, largely unreported, Australian ecological disaster that is the Montara Oil Spill, there are not enough minutes in the day.

Kind Regards (& no doubt until the next time)

James
http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/category/environment/

Q&A

see http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

link suggests that human activity is responsible for 0.28% of increases in greenhouse gases taken water vapour into account, curious to see if there is validity to claims or can they be refuted

slasher

Whoever wrote that piece you linked to doesn't understand the difference between a "feedback" and a "forcing" ... or is deliberately distorting climate science. Either way, the piece has the potential to contribute to the white noise flying around the blogosphere.

If anyone really wants to contribute to a public discussion on climate science then they should make themselves familiar with the fundamentals; radiative transfer properties of green-house gases (including water vapour) is a good place to start.

However, as I have said before, most rabid critics of climate science or human induced global warming don't give credence to what scientists or scientific academies say ... you have to ask, why not?

James, if you were informed about climate science at all...
As far as I can tell all you know about climate science has been pre-filtered through sources that have an 'agw isn't happening' agenda. Maybe that enhances it's truthiness or something.
BTW, I didn't "simply say" your previous article denialist drivel - I gave plenty of reasons. I welcome readers to have a look at our exchange.

Ultimately, “History” will record how the computer based climate models of the late 20th and early 21st century were more the constructs of personal hubris than science

and how they lead the feeble minded along the path to

Socialism by Stealth.