Hi Peter, given your climate-sceptical tone, I'm not sure what it is you don't want to do on the basis of a 90% forecast. Change our economy, in ways that would also take care of the many other problems we are creating on the planet? Or risk our industrial civilisation, by doing nothing?

There seem to be two issues in your comment. One is reliability of short-term versus long-term forecasts. In chaotic systems like the weather, detailed short-term behaviour can be difficult to forecast. Nevertheless the fluctuations average out and long-term trends are more predictable. This may seem surprising , but it's well established, both in observing the weather and in more basic understanding of chaotic systems.

The other issue is whether we should reduce our CO2 emissions, even if we're not sure they're a problem. Well, if the great majority of professional climate scientists are right, the effects of global warming could disrupt global food production and bring down our fragile global industrial civilisation. On the other hand the costs of reducing emissions is a minor reduction in economic "growth", a shift in the mix of industries and jobs, and a shift in our attitude to the natural world, on which we are totally dependent.

Personally I think the insurance payment is well worth it. Especially as my personal assessment is that the chances of catastrophic global warming are now somewhere above 50%, even if we act urgently.

I think if climate sceptics would rationally address the cost of emission reductions, and also take account of the other global crises - soil loss and degradation, fresh water, chemical pollutants, forests, biodiversity and ecological stability, to name several others that will also soon bring our system down - then they might stop being so noisy about global warming.

If Rudd signs the Copenhagen Treaty, he will be destroying freedom that now exists in Australia. This Treaty is a means to achieve World Government - see Lord Monckton at St.Paul speech now on UTube. Kevin Rudd should get down from his ivory tower and instigate a referendum that will advise voters as to what the Copenhagen Treaty will entail as far as giving away our rights. The Emissions Trading Scam will take money out of Australia and hand it out to other Countries. Along the way many people will dip in and take out their share. Australia will suffer by becoming a dictatorship. Signing this treaty will make sure that we are definately a dictatorship. There are many people who are opposed to this Treaty and want to see Australia remain a democracy.
Have a good look at the countries that currently do not have a democracy and ask yourself why would we want to give up a system that has seen this country remain free to be part of a socialist system that will control our Country and take away our freedoms under the guise of environmental betterment. Wake Up and protest to your politicians that we do not want to be controlled by the United Nations.

Geoff, from your post I can only assume your income comes from the taxpayer. I find it hard to believe that anyone dependant on industry could so quickly dismiss "a shift in the mix of industries & jobs".

Those few words, so easily, & should I say glibly, rolled out mean the destruction of the lives of tens, or more likely hundreds of thousands of Ozies.

I don't know how anyone can still hold your views, if they have followed the debate. The now shrill, & ridicules stuff comming out of our academics, speaks for the growing fear of the collapase of the whole catastrophe. It doesn't bear thinking of does it? All those research dollars, gone.

Still, there would be an opening for courses retraining now excess climate scientists

The ravings of a marine "scientist", from yet another Copenhagen conference, on the ABC this morning, is just another nail in the coffin, as only the dim witted could believe this twit. Raving that they must start a freezing project to save corals this year, or it will be too late.

What cr4p. Even IPCC authors have admitted there has been no warming for over 10 years. Some have now predicted another 10, or even 20 years of cooling. The ARGO project has only found cooling oceans, throughout the length of the study, & yet we have a "scientist" foaming at the mouth, on our ABC. It is getting harder for these people to sound even slightly credable

I suppose the foaming is at the thought of all those research dollars.

There is obviously too much evidence now refuting the whole CO2 thing, for us to rush in. There is even enough evidence to start to believe that more CO2 would be better for all, biodiversity included.

Yes Geoff, if you are genuine, go back & have another look. The incredible rush of AGW properganda smells of panic. The rush to shore up a failing levy bank, before total failure washes the whole edifice down the same drain as the Y2K bug, before it.

Peter McCloy,
Re your opening remarks on the boat people.
Both politicians and it seems the government members seem to be unaware
that the people picked up by the Oceanic Viking are not covered by
the UN Refugee organisation treaty.
They were picked up as a result of a distress call and are covered by
the Safety Of Life At Sea Treaty. As they were in the Indonesian
search and rescue zone they are the responsibility of Indonesia no
matter what the nationality of the ship that picked them up.
From what the Australian Foreign Minister said their rescue was as
a result of a request by Indonesia as the Australian ship was the closest.

So all the song and dance about what Indonesia is to do with them is
non of our business.

LMAO
Did the author say the same when johhny boy wedged labor with the Tampa?
Just because your side cant get its act together you want to infect labor with your disloyalty disease.
You all praised Johhny coward for his ruthless hold over the party in recent years (although the way I saw it was more as weak yes men complex than howards "toughness").
No one can blame politicians for playing politics and at the moment Ruddy and co are wiping the floor with Turdbull and his mob.
One of the reasons why the tories are a laughing stock at the moment is too much "debate" by idiots who are about as far from scientists as one could be but continue to embarrass themselves by talking about things they obviously have no idea about.

The "debate" is best undertaken by those with the training to do so. Indeed that "debate" has been going on in scientific circles for 30 years or more and the outcome is overwhelmingly in support of the premise that "human releases of Co2 and other gasses can, will and have changed the earths climate".

The "debate" you deniers want to have is nothing more than a continuation of your long practiced delaying tactics for your own greedy and self serving ends and nothing to do with reason and resolution of the problem. It is typical of you types that you write crap like this while hiding your real intents and never revealing your real belief or nonbelief in climate change.

No one will sell you flood insurance when your house is under water.
I think the author should take a long hard look why he has a 20,000 year plan for his farm, the rest of us are a little more action orientated and climate change needs action not debate.
The way the right has tried to politicise science is shameful, they cut their teeth on asbestos and smoking and they are trying to use the same technics on global warming, AIDS, and evolution. Shame, shame shame.

The right was always able to find a scientist that would say smoking wasn’t bad for you, in fact they still do in the US, The fact that they can find a few to say global warming isn’t happening, shouldn’t come as a surprise

Hi Peter, I can see the political class have cooked up this scare campaign because they know it is going to get cooler and more people will want to move to warmer living areas (boat people first signs of panic). So if cooler can deliver more rain and extra Co2 delivers a higher return on crops and vegetation growth rates are higher, a new environmentally sustainable agricultural era might usurp the collective thought bubbles of the lazy lefts social engineering and modeling programs. When cooling increases and the global warmers "read, the lost new hippies" might find a new Nimbin or Cedar bay only in their high density ghettos within inner city squats which could be very cold, day and night. What then, more Australian made woolen blankets? Or dare I say, heaps of unsustainable synthetic undergarments.

Politicians, having been elected to positions of great responsibility should not be so irresponsible as to wilfully ignore the scientific advice at their disposal and base policy and their parliamentary votes on what the polls are saying. On taxation, on defence, on every issue of importance including climate change I want them to act responsibly - deliberately ignoring all the science that comes directly from ours (and the world's) scientific institutions in favour of selected sources that say the opposite is dangerously irresponsible. Doing so because an uninformed or misinformed voting public make the irresponsible a short term vote winner is not what I want from our politicians.
The author would see us still debating this well past the point where worst case consequences can be avoided. As the world's biggest coal exporter and highest per capita emitters we are not inconsequential on this issue.

finally the fantasy of gw is being exposed from many different angles. There are a growing number of scientist demanding some evidence (even though the 'science is settled') Mr Rudd, Garrett and Ms Wong must have a very empty feeling inside knowing they are sucking up to the international community on the basis of lies. Barnaby, Steve Fielding and Wilson Tuckey have more credibility on this issue than the whole of the inept Labour party and perverse Greens put together. The number of 'true believers' is diminishing but unfortunately the number still holding to the blind faith continues as their funding and acceptability from the lying high priests depend on it. Inward corruption has bred this self righteous display of piety. Just look at the hypocrisy of the high priest burning up the carbon in their private jets. That way they even get to avoid the silly little option Qantas give you to pay extra. For Mr Rudd to sell out to these lies is despicable.

For those who might want to see reputable evidence that the Earth has NOT been cooling since 1998 (contrary to Hasbeen and Dallas' claims), you can look at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/global-cooling-since-1998/

Hasbeen - Keating, Costello, Howard and friends have been demolishing Australian industries and jobs, urban and rural, for decades, and for no better reason than ideology. We ought certainly to support those displaced, and better than they are supported under current arrangements.

Hi Peter you can't have it both ways you must have arguing politition's to have debate. Better than shooting each other .One of the reasons that NSW has been badly served is the lack of good debates and exchanges between the members of parliment.

Now that Obama is not going to Copenhagen, because the Democrat controlled Senate cannot agree on climate change action, and since China and India are revealing they intend to do as little as possible to reduce emissions (Both intend to increase emissions) what likely validity has any agreement from Copenhagen?

Oh that's right the Europeans, who ignore usually Kevvy or pat him on his head, will dominate the debate.

I shudder at that consequence for Australia.

Those people who claim that Australia has little effect on the world's CO2 emissions should also have a look at the amount of coal that we export to other countries to burn and include that in their calculations. It is no wonder Tuckey and his mates don't want to slow that down. It will effect their pockets.

The attendees at Copenhagen will all come back with a warm and fuzzy feeling about having done something and then it will be business as usual. What else ever happens at these gabfests. Economics is what drives the political agendas, not the environment and ultimately it will be at a huge cost to all those remaining.

Geoff Davies, you can put all the irrefutable evidence in front of the masses, but they don't understand trend lines and five year averages, so they are baffled by the BS from the Lavoisier Group who are also driven by the almighty dollar.

David

Sorry Geoff Davies - runner does not believe in the facts so the link you showed and the data there in is fantasy neither does he read the science, just comes out with ‘there are a growing number of scientist demanding some evidence’ without saying who they are, were the are asking or references to reputable peer review documents. The scientist probably have no connection with climate research or may be even economist and we see what they have achieved.

And he would not believe that scientist from NOAA report that ‘The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August’ as he knows better than the experts on http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html

runner is probably being paid by big business to spout the rubbish he does so has no credibility.

Peter,
we already have "unanimity among our politicians"; they have a hard time finding anything to fight over, the common currency they clamour for being votes. If only politicians weren't such "ham" actors, and the media such appalling critics, it might be entertaining; but they accurately reflect, together, middle class duplicity.
Being apparently separate entities, these organs of democracy provide a comforting illusion that deliberation is taking place: snort snort, oink oink.

"Time to settle back and take a long hard look at our definition of democracy."
This is sacrilege! Our democracy is running perfectly! It's "Suilline Rule", as I've had occasion to say elsewhere.

Definition of "democracy": sanctified rule by stereotype or norm. parochial, ungainly, blinkered, stupid, predictable.

Dear Kenny,
Shame shame shame the way the left has politicized fear to stifle debate on hiv, evolution, carbon taxes, energy price hikes, water shortages which have been solved by rain not wealth transfer and coming food shortages.Attack the man never never answer the "WHY"
Then I guess every thing is the result of an accident without the benefit of an inteligent thought. After all it is all a big bang in progress with the main product Hot Air.

Peter McCloy

The first rule of any discussion if it is to be fruitful is to understand the problem. Sadly I don't think climate sceptics do and denialist definitely aren't.

Denialists do so out of ignorance wilful ( pride, fear, self interest etc.) or lack of competence. It is this group who are often motivated by or for industry. The argument about economics and jobs is so banal as to not worth further comment.

Sceptic's aren't all necessarily negatively obstructionist , actually it implies a still looking attitude . Rather than a quasi -denialist frame PROVE it to ME.

In general the sceptics argument has fatal flaws By way of erogenous base assumptions.

Over simplification. The argument style commonly called reduction to the ridiculous.

Their argument is presented in terms discredit the absolute causality of the carbon link and you discredit the whole Global catastrophe of what is called AGW.

On one hand they demand irrefutable proof for a single causal factor. Then counter with a myriad of stand alone explanations.

In reality there isn't absolutely one cause, but the combination of many, that has created an environment where CO2 has become the apparent causal factor.

It is undeniable that Anthropomorphic intervention has caused a myriad ultimately terminal events, ranging from the retreat of land locked glaciers, ice sheets to desertification of arable land, change in sea acidity to innumerable others.

The sceptics argument has a secondary pillar based on the somewhat fallacious assertion that all these all event occur in isolation to all others. Time and time again science is uncovering that this is not the case and it's far more complex and integrated.

While there is some intrinsic resilience in the system of interrelationships it is by no mean static or immutable.

In conclusion there is little point in armchair scientists or experts in unrelated and discrete disciplines second guessing those that are ofey with the complexity of the specific science involved.

Any more than consulting climate sceptics et al for advice on how to do complex brain surgery on your self or build an interplanetary rocket.

Examinator, you may be right about climate change and as I remember it you have some professional qualifications in that domain. As such you have little, if any, justification for the abuse and vilification of those who do not agree with you.

Your references to denialists and skeptics for failing to understand the question, ignorance, lack of competence, negatively obstructionist, over simplification, and ridiculous may be correct. That is because, as you said yourself; we are “armchair scientists”, empowered by search engines and on-line information, that’s it.

So why do you and so many others, get so rude and angry at those who remain unconvinced? If you accept there is no possibility of us understanding the science, because we are not scientists, why should you expect the impossible and then abuse us for our failure? What is it you actually wish us to do? How may we avoid the abuse?

Do you need our support? a pat on the back? March the streets? Write to our MP’s? switch off our lights? Could it be that all you actually need is for us to “agree” with you unconditionally?

I am concerned, and I’m sure many others are too, that in order to have us agree with your beliefs, you use precisely the same line of argument as those who do not support religion, you proselytize. What you really want is “converts”. Now that is a worry.

I would be much happier to see the all carbon tax go into an insurance fund, rather than into government coffers. Then those who actually suffer in Australia can claim.

Claims might include “I lost my job and can’t get a green one”, “my front yard is gone due to rising sea levels”, “my cattle have no feed due to drought” or I can’t get cheap Tofu due to lost world food production”

My point is, lots of things “might” happen so insure against those risks. Don’t speculate that all the risks global warming might bring will eventuate because that is religion, not science.

One of the great things about writing for OLO is viewing the Forum which follows!

I'd love some of the contributors to actually specify exactly what they believe. What, precisely is a climate sceptic? What exactly does a non-sceptic believe? I'd like to know, because apparently I might be both.

I rather thought that my article was about the necessity of rigorous debate on issues that are going to effect our future, and that this was the essence of my article. Certainly I acknowledged that I was one of the largest group of Australians, who don't agree with the CPRS, and that I was sceptical, but my argument was for debate, not that particular cause.

But the first contribution labels me a sceptic, and says nothing about the need for debate. The majority of comment seems to follow the same line. Might I suggest that those who expressed this opinion are not sceptics, but disagree with the thought that debate is necessary? That is, they deny the scientific method, and are essentially non-scientific. If not, why get upset about tossing a few ideas around?

My thanks to those few who seem to have understood the tenor of the article, and honour me by discussing it accordingly.

To which I might add - 4freedom is spot on, whether you agree with the threat of losing our freedom at Copenhagen or not. If you don't know what s/he's talking about, go to http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/

Why aren't we having a real all-out argument about that? Why are Rudd and Turnbull in almost total agreement, when one of the very real issues goes virtually unacknowledged?

Anamele (Peter? You write as though you're the author, but without identification.)

I didn't mean to label you a sceptic at the beginning of my comment, I simply wasn't sure. At the end, my comment about sceptics was not aimed at you necessarily.

The rest of my comment is, I think, some constructive debate about some of the issues.

I understand it's frustrating for non-scientists, or non-specialists, to be told that most scientists agree with the conclusion that we are most likely causing dangerous global warming. But the fact is there has been for decades, and continues to be, a great deal of scientific debate and arduous work on ALL of the questions raised by sceptics. If anyone ventures in with their own assessment based on a passing familiarity with some of the science, or based on an overtly sceptical/denialist web site or book, then they risk being corrected and requested/told to get themselves better informed.

Peter, the debates are happening all the time, but don't look for them in national politics, that's not about rational debate it's about petty point scoring and paying off the big end of town. Look, for example, in New Scientist.

It is extremely frustrating, not to mention despair-inducing, for scientists to be treated by politicians as just another interest group pushing a barrow, and for there to be a sustained and professional campaign aimed at creating exactly that perception. So if some scientists show their frustration with the steady stream of ill-informed instant experts who infest this and other sites, you might understand why. That is not to accuse all correspondents here by any means, but there are certainly some to whom I would apply that description.

Contra some recent comments, I would argue that the "global" (cerebral) issue of warming is precisely a topic for armchair scientists, and even the scientifically illiterate, to contemplate. Underwriting the warming trend, which is a symptom, are myriad systemic causes including many, no doubt, we're not aware of. "Science" has never been so specialised as it is now, and no scientist can claim to be up to speed on the diversity of scientific data. Perhaps armchair scientists have an advantage in our global perspective, especially if we seek to emulate the scientific ideal: objectivity. Among the scientific community, some of the comparatively few sceptics are no doubt modestly withholding judgement due to their lack of expertise in crucial fields. Others, as Chomsky said the other day, are in the pay of vested interests such as oil companies. The few remaining scientific sceptics are just like the popular denialists; they unsubscribe for base or prejudicial reasons. They rebel against the prospect of compromised living standards; they believe God will take care of things ("God's will be done" What a copout!); or they are too proud to join the great unwashed in their undignified hysterics---think of those aristocrats in the movie, "Titanic", the Clifton Webb version. These are extraordinary times---"endtimes", some "Paptist" acquaintances assure me, with relish---and many people think it's "science fiction", or a "conspiracy".
But the armchair scientist will ponder all this, and reflect on her own prejudices, while analysing the manifold evidence. If she is impartial, she can only conclude that the evidence is overwhelming. Whatever doubts she has will be reconciled by the sheer brute fact of human depredation. How can anyone reason that we can just go on decimating the flora and exterminating the fauna in a sealed greenhouse that we simultaneously choke with poisons?
And if our armchair scientist still hesitates, she need only ponder the ethics of it all. Suppose the world is tenacious enough to endure our onslaught, or suppose humanity can survive, even prosper, on a dead planet---as on Asimov's "Trantor", entombed in a metal shell---what of the ethics of this wanton viciousness?

Spindoc,

I note your view with some interest and will attempt adjustment in presentation.

I made three points in my response

1. I clearly stated that it's beholden on the 'author of an article' to research their issue and present objective evidence to show they understand the issues first and then argue their case. In this instance it is clear the author doesn't. At best he has cobbled together a series of dubious facts from people who are neither qualified to give an authoritative in context conclusions or their opinions are so scientifically myopic that their contributions invokes the principal of GIGO. He focused a report out of context.
( I consistently the same criteria to all authors of all articles) given they are written to influence opinion, add to the sum total of knowledge.

2. I differentiated between a fact, opinion and plain prejudice.
fact= validated(able) evidence.
opinion= a conclusion based on fact and other relevant information
prejudice= has none of the above. Often hotly asserted with personal abuse and an unwillingness to listen change their opinion.

NB there is a difference between a strongly put argument and plain obfuscatious bluster.

I sometime err on the strongly put side.Don't mistake this for a genuine willingness to learn.

3. I differentiated between deniers and skeptics. I stated that I believe that deniers fall into the latter skeptics are still LOOKING.

My sole objective to write is to learn and contribute.

BTW I have no qualification in AGW but have done/do data collection and some programming etc for related research projects. I research like crazy in other than the flawed news papers and denialist blogs. I have a daughter who is currently gaining extra qualification and currently lives at home (you can imagine the wars).
PS I hope these links help
http://www.e360.yale.edu/,
http://www.postcarbon.org/,
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.chrismartenson.com economic reasoning

Examinator, your points noted but all relate to the case for AGW. I think we do owe Peter McCloy (or is it Anamele?) a debate. With your indulgence and in the interests of moving to discuss a solution to AGW, I’ll accept the AGW proposition.

That leaves us with the “what to do about it?” My perspectives on this are that we appear to be saying that broad based trading of carbon will allow market forces to “force” (because of the cost of penalties) carbon emitters to reduce their output and allow more carbon friendly industries to develop and emerge.

The funds drawn from the market will go into government general revenue and be “disbursed” at their discretion to those “hurt” by the scheme and those who deserve financial encouragement.

If $10Bn per annum goes into government coffers, what is our “bang for buck” projection?

Normally government income, less what it costs is their “profit”. Costs for this scheme appear to be the infrastructure to measure carbon, administer (collect/pay) and the new bureaucracy to support it. If we sign up for Copenhagen there seems to be our contribution to the $160Bn the UN wishes to collect and disburse for “adaption” for poorer nations.

My questions are: How much of what the government collects will go to actual carbon mitigation? (as a %). Is that residual enough have any impact on carbon reduction at all? Why are discussions quoting gross income of $10bn when the net (after costs and disbursements) don’t appear to have been determined? What will Australia’s contributions to the UN Copenhagen Treaty be?

I just posted a longer discussion of what comprises useful debate about global warming at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/for-global-warming-sceptics/