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 ?