"As much as you'd like them to be, physics and chemistry aren't political."

I am the one denying it remember? No political conclusions follow from them.

"Stick with the peer-reviewed mob and you'll get some good intel."

No political conclusions follow from them.

"Your rants about time frames are meaningless twaddle and semantics to ignore the fact that the "cooling since 1998" argument is cherrypicking idiocy on the grandest of scales."

The choice of *any* time frame is cherrypicking, because the positive data do not supply the value judgments.

The relevance of the "cooling since 1998" argument is that it contradicts the predictions of the global warming brigade who claimed the globe is warming so much and so clearly that there is a planet-wide emergency.

"When you write: "Even if the globe is warming, so what? Isn’t the bloody temperature allowed to vary any more?" I can only guess that you haven't bothered checking the actual peer reviewed climate data.

You seem to be under the false impression that the data supply the value judgments. They don't.

"You've made up your mind, and no science is going to determine otherwise. You will not investigate how many people depend on glacial melt-water, you will not admit to the possibility of various 'bad things' happening under BAU."

Under the mind-reading and personal argumentation, your argument presupposes that you have privileged knowledge of the climatological, ecological and economic outcomes for every relevant person in the world both for the government intervention, and the non government intervention scenarios; and have the superior ethical competence to decide on their behalf.

You don't. Under the fantasy of total knowledge, total control, and moral superiority is a superstitious belief in the magic of government that has no basis in reality.

Bugsy, everyone in the climate debate knows that there are mechanisms that are poorly understood, or not understood at all. I've brought attention to that myself in the past http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003405.html.

I doubt whether they are "catastrophic" because the history of the earth for the last few million years suggests that life under much higher concentrations of CO2 will flourish on earth.

As for more funding, I think there should be. I've argued in the past that there should be much more funding for more diverse views on AGW. The problem with the debate is that the "partisan hacks" who see an opportunity in greenhouse to push a whole range of agendas ensure that it is difficult to get funding for projects that don't pay lipservice to their view of the world.

When you have people like Krugman and Hansen arguing that "dissenters", whatever the hell that poorly defined term really means, are criminals it shows the level of hysteria and malevolence around. What scientist is going to put a career at risk by running foul of people like that. Look at the abuse served up to Plimer, who is a senior and respectable scientist, because he dares to question the views of people like Karoly and Lambeck in Australia.

Bushbasher, if you don't understand the science enough to argue about it, then you have no place in the argument. You're not even qualified enough to work out which "experts" to believe. Ditto Eclipse.

So how about you guys get back to the substance of Mark's article rather than trying to throw a blizzard of rhetorical sand in everyone's eyes?

If you really believe that there should be more funding for climate research Graham, then I expect you to enunciate that clearly in future, rather than remaining quiet when many of your other correspondents accuse scientists of just "riding the gravy train". If you truly want a change in direction of what those funds go on, why don't you clearly argue for that without giving the funding bodies ample reason to merely ignore you?

There is a disconnect between the first and second paragraphs in your last posting Graham, that highlights the fuzziness in your thinking. The first is obviously not talking about CO2, and that mechanisms are unknown or poorly understood, and the second paragraph arguing that CO2 is well enough understood that it is 'unlikely' to be catastrophic. Either you believe that the current warming trends are caused by CO2 or they are not and are caused by mechanisms hitherto unknown, which is it? If they are not CO2 based, on what evidence do you base your 'non-catastrophic' risk assessments on then?

The last few million years have seen the Australian continent change from being covered in rainforest to being covered in desert and open dry eucalypt forests, so I guess it really depends on what 'flourish' means to you and who will be the winners and who the losers out of the rearrangement of the environment that you envision.

>>Bushbasher, if you don't understand the science enough to argue about it, then you have no place in the argument.

wrong. it's a meta-argument.

>> You're not even qualified enough to work out which "experts" to believe

a) yes i am
b) the "experts" are overwhelmingly saying we gotta problem.

by the way, nice use of quotes, you "hack".

GrahamY: "Look at the abuse served up to Plimer, who is a senior and respectable scientist, because he dares to question the views of people like Karoly and Lambeck in Australia"

This sentence demonstrates that you simply haven't read the material.

The criticism of Plimer is *not* because he has tried to challenge the consensus view (he completely failed to make any substantial argument against it, but that's beside the point). The criticism has been that he has used spectacularly dishonest and unscientific methods.

How he continues to hold an academic position, after what he's been caught doing, is beyond me.

The fact that all the contrarians can come up with at this point is conspiracy theories should be telling you something.

**Peter Hume**
The peer reviewed science is saying we need to lower Co2 emissions or the temperature is going up up up.

"The relevance of the "cooling since 1998" argument is that it contradicts the predictions of the global warming brigade who claimed the globe is warming so much and so clearly that there is a planet-wide emergency."
So when a fellow climate sceptic warns that the earth is NOT cooling since 1998, what do you make of that? When he says you're going to kill climate scepticism if you stick with that argument, what do you make of that?

Here's one of your fellow climate sceptics stating that when El Nino returns we could have even WARMER years than 1998 (which NASA says 2007 was anyway).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

Now we get to the real twaddle.
"Under the mind-reading and personal argumentation, your argument presupposes that you have privileged knowledge of the climatological, ecological and economic outcomes for every relevant person in the world... etc"

Under this rationale you wouldn't have ANY form of insurance because you demand omniscient, prescient information about exactly WHEN your house is going to burn down before you'll take any action to insure it.

Indeed, this weird philosophy of yours excludes ANY risk management behaviours like monitoring statistics for occupation health and safety outcomes, medical outcomes, etc. General statistics are not good enough. You want total detailed knowledge for every specific individual. No Government policy ever has or ever can function under that requirement.

The science is clear, Co2 traps heat, and depending on the amount of heat this could be various degrees of bad, really bad, and downright scary. The loonies deny this, but the peer review process is showing what they really are, dishonest loonies.

Your demands are irrational and childish. "I want to know EXACTLY what is going to happen before I'll do ANYTHING!" Grow up.