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?