Yes and no. The climate changers would say that the skeptics use exaclty the same tactics.

One point that needs to be made is that skepticism has a proud philosphical lineage. It's good to be skeptical - especially about politicians - but this doesn't mean there should not be action.

I'm in favour of carbon reduction as a precautionary principle. I'm not in favour of losing 20,000 jobs to an unfair impost on business. But I can see the greater picture from a skeptics point of view. Even though the IPCC has revised it's projections down about sea levels and global warming, there's enough good science done to act.

Quite right Rudd has wedged the Coalition and he could only do that if there was enough pro-climate change sentiment in the electorate. How deep that is will be tested at the next election.

I find it very amusing. It is no different from evolutionist who insist 'the science is settled. Mr Rudd looks very silly indeed on this issue. Barnaby Joyce is a voice of reason. Strange though that no one in the Labour party has got the guts to own up to being found out about the silly little man made warming theories. Failed prediction after failed prediction by the prophets of this religion has not made an inch of difference to the gullible. A lot has been made of Scientology of late. The deceit, the fraud and lies of Scientology is nothing compared to the gw scam. What people will do to make a name for themselves. You would think Gore and Flannery would be hiding by now, then again the self righteousness produced by this environmental religion completely blinds them of their own hypocrisy.

The ‘vested interests’ are all in the man-made theory of climate change gang: the ones who stand to make billions out of taxing Australians via an ETS which will have no effect on climate change.

These are the same sorts of people who brought us the global financial crash. The difference this time is that, thanks to our mad PM, Australia will suffer most as the only country silly enough to de-industrialise itself and actually commit economic suicide while the rest of the world goes its own merry way. The USA will go to Copenhagen without any particular plan but, little big-man Rudd wants to strut the stage and show how splendidly he will ‘solve’ the climate change problem. The man’s arrogance is mind boggling.

Rudd’s lunatic carbon tax scheme has nothing to do with climate change; it has to do with Rudd’s own massive ego and megalomania; in his drive to be a ‘world leader’, he is using and abusing Australia for his own ends. He has come so far with his nonsensical, dangerous and useless ‘solution’ for climate change – which most sensible people now see as nothing more than a crippling taxation scheme – that he cannot back down: hence the abuse of anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

There is little political opposition to this madman, thanks to the totally ineffective Malcolm Turnbull, whose best effort is to weakly offer amendments to a totally wrong scheme which needs scrapping completely for the good of Australians and their country. We have to look to a few Liberal senators the National Party to protect our country from sheer madness.

Even scientists who do hold the CO2 theory of climate change have spoken out against the little dictator’s ETS; they have offered much more Australia-friendly options. But, Rudd seems determined to undermine Australia, and transfer our wealth to others who will do nothing

While believing firmly in AGW I agree that carbon trading may be largely parasitic. Trading in 'debits' not so much but 'credits' a great many of which are exaggerated or illusory. The PM is himself in another category of climate change quibbler by professing to want action but in practice doing little but blame others. I have a suspicion that the penny dropped when he opened the large wind farm this week. It barely stirred and hardly seems like an alternative to coal on a 24/7 basis.

A saving grace of carbon mitigation is that over a 10 or 20 year time frame it may be 'low regret'. If we move away from coal a.s.a.p. then find it was cosmic radiation not CO2 that was warming the planet we can always go back to coal. Oil not so much as it has already peaked. However tomato growers tend to use greenhouses not cosmic rays so my money is on CO2.

It is refreshing to read an article that seeks to highlight the facts rather than denigrate those who question the views of the IPCC.

What has been on show in Australia is that, apart from a few good souls like Joanne, the journalists and people in the media generally, have taken the IPCC UN view without question and join in the denigration of those who do not. Fortunately this is not the case in the US where there is a gealthy debate going on and it is "on the cards" that legislation for an ETS will not get through both houses. I certainly hope so.

In Australia it is being left to a group of Liberal and National politicians to stand up to the Government and let's hope they are successful.

Joanne Nova: "Rudd needs to apologise for baseless attacks on all the scientists"

Says she, in her enthusiastic attack on Rudd.

To me this looks like another a shot in the Global Warming political war. May the fight be fair, may it be true, and may the one who throws most mud that sticks win.

Joanne Nova: "At the bottom of all this is the false idea that science is consensus."

True, but irrelevant. We are not talking about the scientific arena here. You are discussion in this article how the political arena comes to a decision.

So how do you suggest the pollies choose between all these competing theories? Surely you are not suggesting they spend months wading through the mounds of data, papers and publications and then proclaim they have a good an understanding as the the scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the same thing? No, of course not.

What they do look fairly reasonable to me - they ask the scientists as a group to give us their considered opinion. In fact we do over and over again it appears - the IPCC, the chief Australian Scientist, CSIRO, Advisory Panels. And they all give the same answer.

You apparently don't like the answer. But instead of working within the traditional scientific framework to get a different answer, you lambaste everyone that disagrees with you from your blog. Well fair enough - I am doing a similar thing here. But it is no more "science" than seeking a consensus is.

"if you ask for scientific evidence, you’re called names "

Without having read Rudd's speech, I am nonetheless confident that this is complete nonsense.

Certainly, the deniers who deserve to be called names are the ones who don't go and look at the evidence. Anyone who wants the evidence can find it easily enough. The ones who pretend to want the evidence but don't get it because Kevin Rudd hasn't sent them a personal copy, and complain about that, deserve to be called names.

That is to say, no-one can seriously complain about not having evidence. If they evaluate it differently, or find opposing evidence they think is stronger, then that's another matter. (I just wish they'd write that up in a scientific research paper. The denialists I've got into email conversations with don't know what a serious scientific research paper looks like).

Another US Republican hack, backed up on here by the usual right wing suspects,runner, Leigh et al,is there anything that Rudd, Labour or Obama and the Democrats can say or do that would make these people happy,I don't think so.
They want to go back to the days of Howard the Liar and Bush the war criminal who incidentally has done more damage to the US than a lot realize,and the near crazy right wing loons on Faux News.
To bad boys the world has changed and as I assume none of you are climate scientists I think I tend to go with them rather than a bunch of so called skeptics.
Who seem to include people like Bolt,Ackerman and co,News Ltd and its leader Murdock,none of whom I either trust or take much notice of

wow..we just gathered enough evidence to say conclusively that the world is round.

"the world is flat".

no it isn't..here some evidence that conclusively proves its round.

"all you do is insult me because i don't agree with you".

no, here you go, have a look at the evidence.

"all you do is insult me because i don't agree with you".

no, come on...have a look at it all.

"all you do is insult me because i don't agree with you"

ok..now you are just being a stupid person on purpose.

"see, see that...all you do is insult me because i don't agree with you"

fine, you go ahead and live in a flat world then while the rest of us get on with dealing with the round one.

"see see, there, see, seee...all you do is insult me because i don't agree with you

What rstuart said.

Nova appears to be little more than an American version of Jennifer Marohasy - similar weasel words, similarly hypocritical bluster from a similarly junior science PhD in the service of the 'business as usual' crew.

Also, what Cheryl said - there's clearly enough scientific evidence to suggest strongly that carbon emissions be reduced as a precautionary measure.

Just to do a little balancing of some of Joanne's assertions -

The reason CO2 rose *after* temperature during the ice ages is understood. The ice ages were triggered by changes in solar heating, and CO2 then magnified the effect. CO2 can also cause warming on its own. It happened during the Eocene era. To see more detail, look here:
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/co2-lag-during-ice-ages/

The hockey-stick graph was an honest attempt at a difficult task, and has undergone normal scientific sceptical examination. Improvements are being offered, reportedly with similar results. It is not appropriate to offer shrill denunciations like "inept, dishonest, and fatally flawed" just because you don't like the answer.

The science of greenhouse gases has been understood for over a century. The climate has been pretty much following the course predicted by James Hanson and others up to three decades ago, except now it's changing faster than expected. That is evidence the theory is correct. It is nonsense to claim "there is no evidence" or "it is unproven".

Yes, *science* is about scepticism, not consensus. But we need to act before all the effects of CO2 emissions take hold, or it will be too late. That means politicians need the collective best judgement of climate scientists, which is what IPCC and other bodies provide, as rstuart notes. A discussion of these issues is at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/for-global-warming-sceptics/

You can also see reputable recent evidence that global warming has continued after 1998, and that sea level is rising faster than ever at http://betternature.wordpress.com/ .

Much of the 'evidence' for AGW has come from data supplied by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in the UK. It is interesting, therefore, to see that a whistleblower has recently leaked many megabytes of what appears to be their internal documents and emails. If this information is true it puts a very different perspective on the so-called 'consensus' of 'reliable' 'scientists' -- sorry, I'm running out of incredulity quotes, but you can find coverage here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

If true this is not merely a smoking gun but a loaded howitzer with fingerprints on.

Joanna,

Logic girl, aren't you doing exactly the same thing? I'm a little perplexed as to what the point of the article is?
Proving Rudd is a politician honouring his mandate? What else would you expect?

That the A in AGW doesn't exist? You didn't prove that case scientifically either. In stead you gave us a lot of irrelevancies.
You know as well as I do that the validity of the retired 'scientists' opinion is in their competence, currency of their knowledge and expertise (discipline). Need I remind you that Darwin was raled against by some of the greatest 'scientists' of his day, perhaps one of his greatest critics was an Astronomer.

I've seen opinions from retired scientists who couldn't distinguish between laws of gravity and those of thermodynamics, basic stuff.

As I understand the issue, it isn't about CO2 per se but more the excess of it and the consequences there of, specifically the remaining flexibility in the natural systems to absorb the same.
A bit like the old joke 'we don't have sharks here the salt water crocks keep them under control'...a moot point.

You are clearly guilty of the mirror image of Rudd's alleged crimes.

AGW aside it is irrational rubbish to assume we can continue 'business as usual' with an world wide economic system that is built on a fallacy unlimited growth/consumption/waste/pollution in a finite world.

Here we once again have an uneducated (in climate science) denier saying that there is no debate. THERE IS A DEBATE. IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. AMONGST SCIENTISTS THAT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You denialists are trying to spin, delay and muddy the debate. Not contribute to it. You are devoid of reason, sense and any skill at debating. One of the most important points in a debate is to understand your opponents argument which you lot patently dont.

Listen to the scientists and not the shills with the money in their pockets. This is all about the rich elites scared they might lose some of their power and influence and maybe some of their riches if climate change is addressed. The foolish thing is they will lose a lot more when our whole society goes tits up from rising seas, droughts, famine and disease.

>> Instead of politely explaining the evidence ...

yes, shame on rudd for not just summarising the work of a few thousand scientists.

joanne oughta learn the difference between skepticism and denialism. and well done rudd, for heaping the appropriate scorn on these denialist loons.

"It’s not hard to get labelled a climate change “denier”. You don’t even have to deny that climate change is real, man-made and a problem. As Bjørn Lomborg, climatologist Patrick Michaels and political scientist Professor Roger Pielke Jr have discovered, you merely have to challenge the orthodox political policy responses. Or, like Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre, dare to scrutinise the statistical workings behind influential climate research papers. If you stray from agreeing with the political prescription, you're an immoral person." - Stuart Blackman, The Register

Let me tell you a true story.

In the 60's a woman started an organization to clothe animals. Her reason was that you could see their "private parts" & as "Private parts" were obscene they should be covered, even on animals. She traveled around America for a year & started many groups who held demonstrations & even a march on Washington. 10 of thousands attended. One Zoo even went so far as to comply & dressed their animals. Clothing companies got into the act & made & sold clothes for peoples dog & cats. It turns out that the woman was doing her Majors in Psychology on Brainwashing the Masses. I remember the article in the paper & on the News. & so it goes on.

Global Warming is a bigger scam than the Nigerian scam. It's all a World wide Governments revenue raising scheme.

It is all very depressing rstuart and other like–minded folks. I have made photocopies of Peter Doherty's article in the current issue of "The Monthly". Since Doherty can put his points much more clearly than you or I and, further, has credibility in Spades, I merely now hand out his article to people with the comment "This is all you need to know about the climate change argument. I speak with the authority of a silly old man who once did have some scientific reputation but alas it was in the long long ago !

Exactly Jayb

Wonder why our illustrious lying PM won't tell the people how much it's going to cost us? 8 billion a year I heard
Why is anyone asking the simple questions being labeled dangerous denier instead of offering real proof?
Why hasn't the contents of the Copenhagen treaty been thrashed out in parliament?
Why hasn't even our lamestream media spoken about the effects or cost of the ETS to the Australian people? Instead all we get is abuse and more lies!
Why haven't the PM and our spineless opposition even read the damned paper?

So many unanswered questions and yet we are just supposed to accept the facts presented without question, from a man (is he one?) with the spine of a jelly fish.

It's time to bring back the gallows, oil them up and hang all the traitors that would sellout the Australian people with such a huge scam!

Ruddley Do Right is on the brink of a political abyss.This is why he reverts to being a bully,since logic and credibilty is fast becoming a fleeting illusion.

Always look on the bright side of life,
When you're chewing on the politcal gristle,
Don't grumble
Just give a whistle,
And this will help things turn out for the best.

If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten'
And that's to smile and be honest to the serfs,

For life is quite absurd ,
Political death is not the final word,
Just remember to be true those you cursed.

Always look on the bright side of life...

Quite so, Gorufus.

Those who have an ADSL or equivalent connection can view his address on the same subject to the Festival of Ideas at Melbourne Uni in June this year on Slow TV at http://tiny.cc/GDN7y .

I'm tired of arguing with tendentious twats and those who are willingly sucked in by them about AGW and have decided to simply point people in the direction of reliable data and good analysis, interpretation and explication of that data by real scientists who know what they're talking about.

Enjoy... or perhaps more likely, appreciate what Prof Doherty has to say about AGW and how we should collectively address it.

What rubbish! Yet again the Crazy Right just does not get it and will not listen.
You want to wait 'till the methane melts and displaces the breathable gasses? Go on, Google "frozen Methane" and do some home work for a change.
READ THE BLEEDING CSIRO RESEARCH, READ THE PROF. GARNAUT REPORT, READ THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEER REVIEWED RESEARCHED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS THAT ARE OUT THERE.
When it all goes up the spout and your children and your grand-children are gasping for breath reflect quietly on your stupidity.

Why do I bother with you fools!

By the way, it is SCEPTIC!, not skeptic.
All these clever RIGHT WINGER Nut Jobs cannot spell their own language.
Of course that's a real surprise. (Not)

TYPING IN ALL CAPS SHOWS FLAWLESS LOGIC! ;)

Oh, and someone had better tell the Australian SKeptics they're spelling their name wrong, there.

Gee, even dictionary.com got it wrong. So did Macquarie! Well I never.

This concept has changed from being one of pre-election consesus to a opportunistic political tool as seen by the re-posturing of Abbott and Minchin.

I suspect this is positioning for a leadership attack on Turnbull before the end of the next parliamentary recess.

The rantings of that publicity whore, Barnaby are to be expected but I suspect he has his eyes on a leadership job too.

To those who believe in climate change being affected by human activities but are against the ETS, please suggest another option.

To those who don't please explain who the vested interests are that are going to make "billions"?

I would like to question Kruds motives for wanting to 'rush through' an ETS while the world’s larger produces of CO2 are postponing their schemes until after the world climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Of cause he uses his threat of a ‘double dissolution vote’ in an effort to scare those opposite. But why?

Too bad this has been brought into the light of day:

"The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet."

"CRU director admits hacked files genuine "

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

Many links to the story there.

Time to return those tickets for Copenhagen to the travel agency.

renysol,

Following the posts here are you? Particularly the bit where Jon J posted the same thing, with pretty much the same breathless comments.

Take a deep breath, both of you. Yes, there has been a leak. Hopefully that leak includes what should have be public data all along. As far as I can tell it was collected using equipment funded by public money, by people paid using public money, to publish public papers which can't be validated without the data. I agree not releasing such data is bordering on a scandal. Quite apart from there being no ethical, scientific or comercial case for not releasing it, such behaviour leaves them open to wild conspiracy theories about what they trying to hide.

However, there is 62Mb of it, and it has been out for all of 3 days or so. It will take months for the likes of Stephen McIntyre to crunch it all and see if he can find any smoking guns.

In the mean time there is nothing much to say, except perhaps it would be nice if you two stopped blowing a lot of hot air - we have far too much of that already.

renysol,

No doubt in the view of being 'balanced' the worshippers of the High Priests of gw at the ABC/SBS will be reporting on this. Don't hold your breath. And to think some here on OLO call GrahamY unbalanced. Ms Wong and Mr Rudd should say sorry to the Australian public for passing on lies.

The "Climate change" scare is obviously a plot by those World Government conspirators at the UN to steal our precious liberties and interfere with our money making schemes. Don't worry capitalists no government will really take effective action to reduce greenhouse gases,if the political elites were actually serious they'd tax greenhouse emissions,the ETS is just slight of hand.Relax,your wallets are safe. Any of us who are still around by 2050,will know the truth,or not,of global warming.

Does the author really claim the approx. 30,000 scientists whose specialty is not climatology are equally qualifed to pass judgement on the hypothesis?
This sounds like the "argument from authority" fallacy to me.

Curious that the link provided by Jon J alleges sources of corruption from the heart of the AGW scientific engine room, The Hadley Centre, Climate Research Unit. This has hit the New York Times, the UK’s The Telegraph, Fox News and the BBC. There has been 600 comments overnight on this site and yet, nothing in the Australian media. Fascinating?

Rudd/Wong must have even more influence that I thought possible. Could it be that it might be a delicate time for the CPRS bill and the media has also been bullied into submission?

SUBJECT: Nations to seek billions in 'climate debt'

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26380589-23109,00.html

CENTRAL American nations will DEMAND $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) from industrialised countries(SUCH AS AUSTRALIA) for DAMAGES caused by global warming, the region's representatives say.
Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala overnight to discuss the so-called "ecological debt" owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month.

Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate said the $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) price tag was "an estimate" of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.

Ferrate minister said the region "had never faced" so much drought, aridity, flooding, and precarious food security.

A formal proposal will be presented in Denmark, officials said.

His Nicaraguan counterpart Juana Arguenal said that Central America would press industrialised countries to reach concrete decisions to reduce "greenhouse" gases at Copenhagen.

"We hope for a deal that is ethical and moral," she said.

What a SICK TWISTED JOKE on the world. Third world countries can destroy their own environment through deforestation and poor enviromental practices, yet they expect Australians and others to pay them to fix these problems that they themselves have caused!
Am I the only one that has a problem with this logic(or lack of it)!

Making a virtue of scepticism is fine. Recognising that most great science emerges from rejecting the prevailing paradigm is correct. Yet in order to squeeze climate denialists into those particular realities requires some interesting feats of contortion. The problem with the argument is that it simply requires that you accept reductio ad absurdio as a standard of science. It ain't. Because scepticism in science is necessary, therefore climate scepticism is good is crap logic and it characterises the entire argument...Well, most - the rest is comprised of intimations of conspiracy and financial benefit. The notion that this is a conspiracy defies any logic - except the logic of the paranoid and insane. None of this means that I support Rudd - in some ways he is worse than a sceptic. He claims he is doing something but the modelling of his own government makes it clear the CPRS will not reduce Australia's emissions and will provide windfalls to the very polluters it is supposed to be phasing out.
The problem that the denialists have is that they are ignoring a vast body of evidence (and most of it is suggesting that the IPCC report was way too conservative) and in doing so are prepared to risk incredible long term problems in order to protect a fossil fuel based economy that we CAN transition out of. This is where I agree with Rudd - that kind of response is dangerous, stupid and in my view criminal...

Next,

Ah, now we're getting somewhere - disagreeing with AGW is denialist, like Irving denying the Holocaust. Skeptics/sceptics are just as bad, dangerous and CRIMINAL. What next ? That if skeptics had their evil way, doubting, disagreeing, they would be worse than al Qaida ? Governments should have emergency powers to arrest and jail doubters, with no recourse to trial ?

Perhaps we can put a prohibition on skepticism and doubt in a Bill of Rights ?

As it happens, I agree that there is global warming, probably brought on by rising levels of CO2 and other gases, which has been probably caused by human activity and the over-use of fossil fuels. I wish that pretty much all energy will be generated by renewable means within a couple of generations. But people are entitled to raise questions, to expect ample and convincing evidence, without this sort of hysteria.

And it doesn't do the anti-AGW case any good by extravagant claims of catastrophic sea-level rise, or that we will run out of food, water and air, that hundreds of millions are going to die, mostly in violent wars over resources. Sure, if we do nothing, these things could happen in a few hundred years, but since the logic of capitalism is to find ways to make a buck out of everything, don't you think its agents aren't already planning the transformation of the economy in this direction, in a thousand ways, and within the next generation ? Not out of the goodness of their hearts, no, but with their eyes on the main chance, as always.

Joe

Loundmouth and co,

There is a difference between a sceptic and denialist. however the ground available for sceptics is bloody thin and poorly populated by anybody who is really in the position to know. As I said earlier 30,000
scientists (in what? what is their competence) when it comes to seriously working scientists in the field there are minor detail differences but 99% agree on the basic objectively arrived at conclusions.
Like in the link clearly shows http://tiny.cc/GDN7y. (Thanks CJ)
The vast majority of claimed 'sceptics' are neither competent or qualified to comment at the depth that really makes a difference.

In reality most are emotional denialists.

The latest *observations* are incontrovertible.

My dear Examinator,

The thing about an on-line site like this is that you can't stand over anybody. We are all out here in cyberspace, with our legitimate opinions. We can't be bullied, you can't reach through the computer and grab someone by the throat and force you opinion on anybody. You have to talk nice and reasonable to us, and vice versa.

So what is the point of labels ? If we can ever rise above this primary school level - 'Well anyway, you're just a denialist !' 'No, I'm not, you're an alarmist !' No, I'm not, and anyway, my daddy's a policeman and he'll put you in jail.' - and attend to what people are saying, then our arguments, our cases, can be progressed civilly, and actually much more convincingly. Try it sometime. It just means that you have to really know what you are talking about, which surely is a good thing ?

Joe Lane
Adelaide

One of the biggest problems in this whole debate does not centre on the sceptics versus believers dilemma, it is whether or not the current ETS will actually have any effect on reversing or halting the consequences of climate change.

There is no point in two angry mobs berating each other from the sidelines and throwing the science around willy nilly, if the proposed solutions are flawed regardless of what anyone might believe about AGW.

The contribution Australia might make at a global level is miniscule if the developing world and others are to continue emitting carbon at the same or greater rates. The fact is the emissions will be greater overall even if Australia commits to a higher carbon emission reduction.

I cannot see how burdening the Australian economy and particularly agriculture will reduce emissions, in fact it will increase if we are pushed to importing most of our food products (and other products) from overseas. What is the point of our farmers (the ones that remain) sequestering carbon if these benefits are cancelled out by enormous food miles to bring in ‘cheaper food’. How is this scenario going to reduce carbon emissions?

Forcing industry and agriculture offshore is not going to benefit Australia or the world if we are just moving carbon emissions around the globe to another locale.

Greater investments and incentives for renewables, carbon sequestration projects and forestation will do far more than the hyperbole about ETS.

Rudd makes the same mistake as John Howard if he ignores arguments that oppose his Government's stance on this debate.

I personally think we have to act on reducing pollution and other environmental/ecological damage including emissions but a flawed ETS is not the answer. We don’t need any more symbols we need actual real investment in proven and practical schemes.

I see that many of those in these forums who used to laugh at the 911 conspiracy merchants because their claims were so fanciful and unfeasible are now the very same ones claiming some sort of global conspiracy behind AGW and scurrying after "leaks".

I think I'll go out into the paddock and (harmlessly) burn a few tractor tyres to celebrate.

Joe
It isn’t doubt that is the problem. The problem is that this isn’t an academic problem but one where the consequences of failure to act could be catastrophic. I disagree that the impacts are only going to be seen in several hundred years. We are already seeing deaths associated with predicted patterns of extreme weather and increased food shortages. The US Dept of Defense isn’t the only agency that has said quite clearly that geo-political stability and security is clearly at risks as a result of AGW. Actually, the science is clear that emissions must peak within a decade – that means acting now.
Interestingly, in our captitalist culture an individual whose negligence leads to immediately attributable death can be held culpable for homicide, while a tobacco executive who allows his product to result in millions of deaths is allowed to operate with impunity. This is neither consistent nor just…
So, if we know the potential severity of the impacts of AGW– including widespread deaths; if we know in a broad sense the steps that must be taken; should we hold our decision-makers (not just politicians) responsible for their decisions? Or their failure to act? Would we actually see them behaving as citizens and not idiots if such a system existed? Would they actually base their decisions on the best science that we have?
Finally, capitalism can’t possibly solve the problem it has been in part responsible for creating. If, for example, you look at food production, we are seeing a global trend of wealthy countries buying very large amounts of land in regions like Africa. The food they want to produce will not be for the starving of Africa but an attempt to ensure the food security of their own countries – a recipe for conflict if I ever heard one. The gap between the have’s and have nots will only grow deeper and wider as the impacts of AGW becomes more severe

It is a shame if this debate ends in sceptic verses believer. We are facing possible severe climate change and we need to start thinking about new ways of thinking for the 21 century and beyong. I have no doubt that man can influence his environment.

The readers should have a look at recent ice samples that indicates servere climate change can happen very rapidly

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm

Australia needs to make big investments in solar thermal and hot ponds technologies both for electric and desal applications.

I am a big advocate of man made salt water lakes sited in the arid regions of the world.

Joanne I hope having read the responses to your article you have the context of "debate" in Australia, and your reference to bullies is apt.

Both radical, extreme sides of this debate are wrong.

If co2 is a problem, an ETS/CPRS is the worst possible solution.

The loony left forget to mention that Malcolm Turnbull used to work for Goldman Sachs. Wall Street invented Carbon Trading so that the rich could steal from the poor. The ETS, (Economic Treason Scheme) & CPRS (Create Poverty Ruthlessly Scheme) have been fiendishly designed to steal from ALL of you & give to the mega rich international bankers.

In the short term co2 emissions will actually increase, and the next GFC, following the next boom will be worse than the current GFC, which has, in America already surpassed the Great Depression. Australia will be uniquely positioned to end up worse than Iceland is now, when GFC2 arrives and your children will be working for Chinese owned mines, as quarrying will be the only industry left in Australia, other than tourism. Those of our children not mining will have the privilege of serving coffee to those international bankers, here to see whats left of the Barrier Reef, IF, the AGW doomsdayer's are correct.

Whats the bet that these same bankers, donate some of their ill gotten gains to red/green/left NGOs, tax deductible of course, and retiring politicians like Bob Brown, Penny Wong & Peter Garrett end up on the board of these well funded, NGOs with fat pay and perks, piously preaching their new religion like television evangelists, to following fools like C J Morgan.

Back to the science. Am i the only Australian to remember GD or Global Dimming. The very same activities that increase CO2, also add smog to the atmosphere, or dust, soot, particulate matter, little microscopic lumps of carbon, etc. This acts like shade cloth, reducing the amount of sunlight entering our atmosphere in the first place, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight which can bounce back or cause the Greenhouse effect.

Back to the economics. Malcolm Turnbull, the responsible minister in Howard's Govt announced the ONLY CO2 reduction so far, the phase out of incandescent light bulbs and all done without an ETS or CPRS.

The name calling continues.
Hands up - who would like some facts ? Bueller ?

I am not interested whether you are one camp or another. All of you have some explaining to do.
The choice boils down to :
Do you deny facts or deny models ?
What's it going to be ?

Facts tend to be very inconvenient sometimes. Which fact are you more likely to respond to ? A confirmed observation, or the fact that a scientist expresses their theory ? Early in the 20th century many scientists supported eugenics, and some politicians tried to apply the theory. Fortunately WW2 resolved the 'debate' in the negative.

Are facts only facts when they are peer reviewed ? On that basis many scientific discoveries would still be waiting.....
Clearly recent climate observations have some way to go to gain traction and destroy/modify existing theories. This is par for the course in science.

On the political front, clearly Rudd is comfortable with hurling a bunch of abuse and then nicking off out the country, yet the so called deniers are the cowards ? The Lowy speech would have to mark an all time low in political discourse coming from a PM. I thought Rudd was going to "govern for all Australians". Nice thought, but I think most would agree it needs a little more application ! Rudd's tirade is not something I would expect in a leader (but maybe in a hightly frustrated/desperate one).

Another question ? Why can't the issue be debated in the open ? Why is it that both sides cannot be put in the same TV studio at the same time, and we'll see which "side" makes more sense ? This has never been done, yet we've been subjected to 10 years of crisis projections without confirmation that the modeling is robust.

Many commenters here are fully supportive of government action on this issue, and seem ready to adopt the governments plan. I have a couple of questions -
1. If you sincerely believe in AGW, what's stopping you from taking your own action on the issue ? Why are you waiting for government to force you ? Must be a pretty weak belief. Maybe you think they'll be something in it for you. Fair enough, but where does that something come from ?

2. Have you read the governments plan ? If it's a plan, does it have an objective ? Does it have a means of measuring progress towards achieving the objective ? Does it have an exit strategy ? ie. when the plan suceeds, there must be a means to deactivate the plan, as success would make the plan redundant.
The silence is deafening on these aspects

Until this data is analysed there should be NO VOTING on any ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax System) by the Senate.
Additionally, there should be no negotiation at COPENHAGEN until the veracity of the claims made in the data are verified.
It would be HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE of the Labor Federal Government to do otherwise given the gravity of the implications of what is at stake for the future of Australia in implementing an ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax System).
Potentially this may be the Smoking Gun which proves that the population has been conned by all the man made global warming fanaticism.
Remember "The opposite of sceptical is gullible.” The scientific process should always remain open to investigation, which means, “to criticism”.
The Earth's climate is tremendously complex and far from thoroughly understood.

The data I refer to in my previous post is of course the leaked data from a leading climate change research centre in Britain on Friday 20/11/2009.

Read about it here:-

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/its_spreading/desc/

Sorry for the confusion.

The climate is always changing. Global warming is likely linked to loss of arable land where ancient civilizations once lived with ample food. Right now it is human sewage nutrient pollution feeding algae that is smothering and damaging coral on the Great Barrier Reef. Science can not dispprove such reality.

An ETS/CPRS will not save the GBR, proper sewage management will.

Claim that CO2 linked global warming is damaging the GBR provides example of the lies being told.

The Uni of East Anglia has confirmed that it is their emails being
circulated on the internet.
That they have been leaked is obviously illegal, but it is like
someone leaked info on the holocaust.
Is the illegality important.

There does seem to be a prima fascia case to be answered.
The legislation about to go through Parliament must be suspended and
realistically the Copenhagen conference should be postponed.
They were not going to get an agreement there anyway .
It won't happen of course, but it will give them something to talk
about and who would get in the way of a politician or public servant
and such a junket ?

BTW, did you hear about the IPCC & Finnish scientists that did tests
on a lake bed. The data showed a falling temperature ?
The IPCC published the graph upside down !
You couldn't make it up !

Like the abortion debate, the debate over climate change has become totally poisoned, divided into two armed camps hurling insults and accusations at one another, and unfortunately the loudest-mouthed extremists on each side are increasingly the only voices heard. Positions have been firmly entrenched and no-one seems to want to be seen as giving succour to the enemy.

The stridently pro-AGW side seems unable to deal in anything less than the sort of apocalyptic scenarios that would make even Roland Emmerich blush, while the rabid anti-AGW'ers seem unable to accept that their enemies might be even just a little bit right.

And heaven help those who dare so much as set a toe in No-Man's-Land. "It’s not hard to get labelled a climate change 'denier'. You don’t even have to deny that climate change is real, man-made and a problem," lamented Stuart Blackman recently. "If you stray from agreeing with the political prescription, you're an immoral person."

The unfortunate result of such partisanship is that every scrap of evidence ends up being examined only in the light of proving your case - whichever particular way you lean.

With regard to the Hadley leak, the pro-AGWers are determinedly pooh-poohing the whole thing and self-righteously deploring the "illegal" actions of the unknown whistleblower, whilst the anti-AGWers are just as determined that it will finally be proof of their nuttier conspiracy theories.

My two cent's worth? The Hadley leak doesn't blow open any "conspiracy", but it does highlight some extremely questionable practices, especially the absolute determination to own the debate and to avoid public scrutiny, and what appears to be some tendentious research.

Oh, and Bazz, a slight correction: the IPCC did not publish the Tiljander graph upside down; what Michael Mann did do, while technically correct, still couldn't be described as anything less than incredibly dodgy: the axes of the graph were inverted, so that while the data was still the same, to a less-than scrupulous eye the picture appeared to be telling a completely opposite story.

Let me repeat my original post.
In the 60's a woman started an organization to clothe animals. Her reason was that you could see their "private parts" & as "Private parts" were obscene they should be covered, even on animals. She traveled around America for a year & started many groups who held demonstrations & even a march on Washington. 10 of thousands attended. One Zoo even went so far as to comply & dressed their animals. Clothing companies got into the act & made & sold clothes for peoples dog & cats. It turns out that the woman was doing her Majors in Psychology on Brainwashing the Masses. I remember the article in the paper & on the News. & so it goes on.

Global Warming is a bigger scam than the Nigerian scam. It's all a World wide Governments revenue raising scheme.

To add some.

I was sitting in a doctors office the other day & I picked up an old Readers Digest "Scientific Facts" Circa 1974. In that there was a large chapter written by a number of eminent scientists of the day, They claimed that the world, by the year 2000, would be experiencing a Nuclear Winter because of all the pollution in the atmosphere. I guess that didn't happen so, Oh well, it must be the other way. We'll try that. I even remember an extended Documentary about Nuclear Winter that went to air about 1976 & a Mini Series on another channel about the same subject.

The whole thing is a bit dicy for my liking. I do agree though that the world need to find & use all methods of alternate energy. Even if it's just to wrest control of the Worlds energy away from the Oil & Coal Barons.

In light of the recent CRU email releases, I believe we should at least postpone our government's pellmell race to an ETS.

Clearly there have been some dodgy practices in obtaining the position of "consensus" and the IPCC data is now suspect and tainted.

If it's all well and good, then we'll have lost very little time anyway, since Australia is on its own going down this particular rabbit hole. The rest of the world will meet again every year now the UN says, till they get the $ they want, or the whole thing goes away.

The rest of the world is not going the Aussie way and it seems clear from PM Rudd's outburst that personal pride is his driver, after all he has been awarded the position of prefect, sorry, special friend of the chair.

Both sides of the debate are winding up pressure and as Clownfish says, can be hysterical.

Some thing really doesn't smell right here. You do remember that one of own most revered scientists, Dr William McBride, who discovered Thalidomide caused birth defects, was later caught out falsifying research data for his own ends, positional power and grants - if it can happen to him, it could happen to any, or many.

I was at a meeting recently and mentioned that I had my doubts about AGW,
and that I thought they were worrying about the wrong problem.
The IPCC computer models it is said assume the historic growth in
fossil fuel use will continue.
This is not true. Oil use has already declining and by 2050 will be
very much lower than at present.

When I explained this I was accused of being a peak oil nut and didn't
know what I was talking about.
Now that may be true, but I didn't call them AGW nuts that expected
the earth to burst into flame at any moment.
I was quite surprised at their attitude to me which changed dramatically.

It is said never to talk about politics or religion a dinner parties.

Since both subjects draw strong emotional beliefs and you will never convince either party of anything, nor will they convince you.

We need to either admit the AGW belief is a religion, or add to the first sentence, or AGW.

To E.Sykes, I would offer in jest "wow..we just gathered enough evidence to say conclusively" And after a bit of tweaking and shutting down of any opposition and hiding our flimsy evidence from any kind of objective review - CRU. So all the wonderful bulletproof data may be dressed up statistics, like Mann's upside down clever visual, not wrong mind you, but tricky imagery.

I do believe the world is warming and has been since the last ice age, also that the ice caps may melt. That activity is well understood by the scientific community and with a little tweaking of the facts for the layman, it has become a gravy train.

The climate changes, yes it does, and will our government's action actually do anything to slow it down stop or reverse it? Not a chance, that money is going towards the next election of the ALP and the PM's election to the UN, see if I'm wrong.

Bazz: "I thought they were worrying about the wrong problem."

Have you considered you might be worrying about the wrong problem? I know that is a bit difficult as there are so many excellent problems to worry about, but if you are looking at the next 20 years yours might indeed be the wrong one?

Try to envisage what will happen in a few years if oil ring production really has peaked in 2008. At some point, that tribe of monkeys in Canberra is going to wake up to the fact that we have a really, really serious problem. As in so serious it might get them chucked out of office. What are they going to do then? They can't just electrify every car on the road, they can't suddenly wave a magic wand and make public transport work, they can't fix every tractor and truck, they can't reorganise our cities, abandon plastics and forego fertilisers. As you full well know, flipping a switch on our infrastructure like that is just impossible. So they will be desperately grasping for solution that doesn't require infrastructure change - even if works for just for a short while.

I am betting someone will wave the Coal to Liquids, or Gas to Liquids wand in their face, and say "give us money and we will fix it". And you know what - it is even a realistic promise. In a few years a country with huge coal reserves like Australia could indeed make the problem go away, locally at least. We could probably even export the solution. What a winner!

There is only one fly in the ointment. If they do that our CO2 emissions won't go down. Because the FT process is so inefficient, they will double, triple or worse if we export. If that is how is plays out you had better hope and pray that most climate scientists are dead wrong. Otherwise a major chunk of the planets population is going to end up just plain dead in a few hundred years.

Global warming/ Nuclear winter. It's all bulls#!T. The world goes through natural phases. It's what the world does.

http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/

This article mentions 'ice cores'. These are the c.1980 Arctic and 1998 Antartic (Vostok) cores indicating temperature/Co2 changes over the last 400,000 years.
I saw the first in 1987 studying environmental archaeology, and was fascinated by the 100,000 year regularity of the 4 Ice Age cycles, AND the virtually identical temperature change profile of each. This temperature chart is on display at The Museum for London.
If you look at the 3 preceding Ice Age temperature change profiles and where we are on the fourth and present one- we're at the end, the critical point preceding the fifth Ice Age. The change from interglacial to ice age is invariably 'catastrophic' ie temperature goes up very fast immediately before an ice age, then drops drastically into it.
The only problem with this evidence is the timescale. It works over 100,000 year cycles. That we are going into an Ice Age is undeniable. The next phase of climate development is a drastic temperature drop as we are presently very close to the peak of the temperature increase seen in 3 previous Ice Ages.
The Museum of London chart is worth seeing in its context- human artifacts from the last 10,000 years. The catastrophic temperature rise expected at the end of an Ice age presumably coincides with this phase- the Post Holocene. So as the temperature has gone up, so has all advanced human activity. Apparently we are dependent on temperature for increased activity like any other chemical reaction; which means that one should expect human activity to decrease significantly with the forthcoming Ice Age. When it will happen is unfortunately unpredictable- on a time scale of centuries, but any significant decades long earth wide cooling phase is very contrary to the catastrophic warming phase profile we are probably [just] still in. When that happens, we've just moved from one 100,000 year temperature cycle to the next!
It's fairly likely that 2000AD will be seen in the future as the geological date. The 1998 Vostok expedition may come to be regarded as the most uncomfortably significant scientific human achievement ever.

The following web site gives some further investigation
into understanding climate change. For example, the water
vapour in the upper atmosphere is increasing and has the
effect of reflecting heat back to earth.

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/SAGE3.html

I'm sure none of this science is any where near being completed yet.

I don't understand why Rudd doesn't abuse the IPCC and CRU scientists. The released emails clearly show that there is no consensus, the modeling don't work, the data don't match, peer reviews have been bastardised, geoengineering is hopeless because they can't measure it, real measurements have been hidden and other results "invented".

We will no doubt be told that this is just an acedemic storm in a teacup.

Examinator, you say <<when it comes to seriously working scientists in the field there are minor detail differences but 99% agree on the basic objectively arrived at conclusions.>>

Woops! Check the emails from CRU, you're not even close to reality. By their own words they said not even 90%, all they would comit to was "likely". You can't support your position with links any more, we have the "horses mouth" to turn to. Don't keep hammering IPCC "scientists", it now apears they only "review and assess", they don't do their own research.

The polar ice cores evidence of four 100,000 year Ice Ages to date was produced from 2 sets of consistent incremental and stratigraphic depositional deposits over 400,000 years each.
To any body that can understand statistical magnitudes, this gives a predictive certainty to their being a fifth Ice Age, and our present position- about to step into it, way beyond the majority of scientific certitudes that most people and scientists regard as absolute.

Have fun with your 'debate' kids.

Brought to you courtesay of the London branch of:
'Big History'- Australia's finest export yet!

spindoc: "I don't understand why Rudd doesn't abuse the IPCC and CRU scientists."

Possibly because emails isn't were the game of hard core science is played. Its played on the pages of peer reviewed journals. The papers in those journals are the basis of the IPCC conclusions, not the emails.

If it can be shown some of those published papers were based on deliberately mangled data, the IPCC report will look shaky to extent it cited the papers in question. If so it should be a good show, as some scientists careers will end in spectacularly when their betrayed peers turn on them. But if the publish papers continue to look sound, the careers will continue to flourish and IPCC report stands firm.

Rhoops: "Brought to you courtesay of the London branch"

Actually, you don't have to go to London. You can find those graphs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png You can be absolutely sure every climate scientist is very aware of them, and has taken them into consideration.

If I was to make a wild arsed guess about why they think something odd is going on, I'd say it has to do with what has happened after the most recent temperature rise. You see how in every proceeding cycle the temperature peaks then drops off immediately. There is no flat bit around the high point. If you look closely, this time we are in a flat bit following a peak.

When I was a kid, everyone had a fair idea what the climate had done over the past 400k years, and so everyone thought we were headed into another ice age. And then some climate scientist looked at the rising CO2 levels, and made a prediction about temperatures rising when clearly any idiot could see with "predictive certainty" they had to start dropping real soon now. The poor sod had obviously consigned himself to the dustbin of history. But no - the temperatures did what he predicted. This has spooked all and sundry, particularly some guy called Al Gore who was sitting in his class room at the time.

SUBJECT: “water vapour positive feedback”

This TRICK has been used in all the IPCC models.
I small a BIG RAT!

Read this:-

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!

HERE IS A LIST OF SOME LIBERAL SENATORS EMAIL ADDRESSES I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND.
EMAIL THEM AND LET THEM KNOW YOU DO NOT WANT THEM TO VOTE FOR THIS TREASONOUS ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax System)!

senator.humphries@aph.gov.au;Bronwyn.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au;joanna.gash@aph.gov.au;joe@joehockey.com;scott.morrison.mp@aph.gov.au;alby.schultz.mp@aph.gov.au;
senator.coonan@aph.gov.au;senator.fierravanti-wells@aph.gov.au;Michael.Johnson.MP@aph.gov.au;Stuart.robert.mp@aph.gov.au;Peter.Slipper.MP@aph.gov.au;
Alex.Somlyay.MP@aph.gov.au;
online@sueboyce.com.au;senator.brandis@aph.gov.au;senator.ian.macdonald@aph.gov.au;senator.mason@aph.gov.au;c.pyne.mp@aph.gov.au;senator.ferguson@aph.gov.au;
Senator.Bushby@aph.gov.au;senator.colbeck@aph.gov.au;kevin.andrews.mp@aph.gov.au;Russell.Broadbent.MP@aph.gov.au;David.Hawker.MP@aph.gov.au;
jason.wood.mp@aph.gov.au;senator.mcgauran@aph.gov.au;Nola.Marino.MP@aph.gov.au;J.Moylan.MP@aph.gov.au;mal.washer.mp@aph.gov.au;Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au

If this ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax Scheme) is introduced due to the COMPLICITY OF THE TRAITOUS TURNCOAT, then Australians must have "DEMOCRACY IS DEAD" day, to mourn the passing of DEMOCRACY in Australia!

How can such a day be organized?
Anybody have any ideas?

Australians should show how ANGRY they are on this day!
They should take to the STREETS and SHOUT OUT their frustration!
Everybody should take the day off from work!

Look at the WORKCHOICES protests! Let's learn a lesson from that!

THE ETS IS BASED ON A FRAUD - YOU DO NOT NEGOTIATE FRAUD.
Finally we have a government that is bought and paid for by the lobbyists, the banksters and the UN. Goodbye Australia - Hello New World Order hell.
Our money wont reduce pollution one tiny spec - what a scam.
The opposition has been hijacked by a bankster.

TURNBULL WORKS FOR GOLDMAN SACHS NOT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE
TURNBULL WORKS FOR GOLDMAN SACHS NOT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE
TURNBULL WORKS FOR GOLDMAN SACHS NOT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE
TURNBULL WORKS FOR GOLDMAN SACHS NOT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE
TURNBULL WORKS FOR GOLDMAN SACHS NOT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE
TURNBULL WORKS FOR GOLDMAN SACHS NOT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE
TURNBULL WORKS FOR GOLDMAN SACHS NOT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE
TURNBULL WORKS FOR GOLDMAN SACHS NOT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE
TURNBULL WORKS FOR GOLDMAN SACHS NOT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE

It seems as if the usual white knight defenders of AGW have gone to ground all of a sudden. Given Tim Flannery's embarrassingly bad attempt at damage control, I'm not really surprised.

That said, I do wish angry (of Mayfair?) would stop shouting ...

Angry, indeed everybody, who is concerned about anything, i have found a protest, about anything, solution for you. We also have a "shortage of water" problem, as well as the ETS, Evil Torture System. Conserve water by not using the toilet. Go to BabyCo or any retailer selling baby stuff. Buy a good quality nappy bucket. Not too big or cumbersome to carry around. The good ones have a lid, which seals well, similar to tupperware, which could also do the trick, if you want a more petite sized container. Every day do your number 1's & 2's in it.

Everyday, on your way to or from, work, shopping, etc, seek out politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, femanazis, etc, & introduce them to the contents of your container. If we can all do this, every day for perhaps a year or so, they might begin to understand how appreciative we are of their efforts so far.

Hey CJ Morgan "I'm tired of arguing with tendentious twats and those who are willingly sucked in by them about AGW and have decided to simply point people in the direction of reliable data and good analysis, interpretation and explication of that data by real scientists who know what they're talking about."

So where do you point them now? Who do you trust now?

Now you know how we all feel ..about all those pompous, sneering twats willingly and whole heartedly sucked in by devious scientists just lining themselves up for financial and positional rewards. Maybe you should have actually read up on the science yourself, instead of just the conclusions! Big Oil got nothing on the criminal acts of this industry.

How do you feel now putting on a pedestal those who collude to peer review each others papers, who gang up on anyone who criticizes, who rejoice at the death of a doubter, who are clearly in it for the money. Who create "models" that in reality just produce the required graphs for funding submissions.

If you behaved the way the CRU people did in the financial industry you would be jailed for insider trading.

As it is the whole "science" of AGW is now in doubt, brought down by a bunch of greedy individuals, and well deserved it is too.

Shades of all the bankers in the GFC eh? This mob are no different.

Great article Joanne, our PM's all hot air based on false premises as are all the AGW believers whose church has now been shown to be based on false prophets.

Too late for us anyway, since our PM requires us to be sacrificed to his ego and career, anyway, he can just blame the scientists, and he will.

odo, the word you are clearly grasping for is, Cartel.

I am finding the attempts to silence the critics very concerning. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-price-of-dissent/story-e6frg7b6-1111118127677

I've tended to think that we need to take the AGW claims seriously and act (although I have not accepted that a new tax is the answer) but the approach taken to silencing critics continues to nag.

AGW does have all the markings of a left wing dream come true with the opportunities to impose yet more government controls over peoples lives and choices. The opportunities to impose new and expanded taxes. The opportunities to dole out compensation to favoured groups. The opportunities to punish industry in ways that will be passed down to hurt the wage earners (and keep them feeling oppressed).

R0bert

R0bert, a number of our best and most senior climate scientists and scientists in related fields got eased out of CSIRO by the Howard regime. Howard very actively silenced critics, and not just in climate science.

Regarding the David Bellamy article you linked to, he repeats the claim that the world has cooled since 1998. This is a quite elementary error of interpretation, or of selective misrepresentation of data. See
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/global-cooling-since-1998/
I've added a bit there about Senator Fielding, who makes the same claim. It shows that if you look at the full data set, not just the last few years, the upward trend is clear.

Angry, John Reid states the following

Water vapour positive feedback is only an assumption; but, importantly for the modellers, it is an assumption which makes the models work. There is little experimental evidence that it is true, and radiometer data collected by NASA scientist Roy Spencer and others indicate that it is not true.

AT the NASA website SAGE 3 (the same NASA), which I mentioned earlier they state

Atmospheric water vapor plays an important part in the Earth’s energy balance, in many chemical cycles and in tracing the exchange of air between the upper and lower atmosphere. Water vapor is the most abundant, naturally occurring greenhouse gas and traps outgoing energy in the atmosphere that is radiated from the Earth. Precise measurements of water vapor by SAGE III will provide important contributions to understanding how this process warms the Earth’s atmosphere. Evidence also indicates that water vapor in the upper atmosphere is increasing. This increase is not well understood, but it could affect climate, alter circulation patterns and allow ozone loss in the Arctic to occur more easily. Measurements by SAGE III will provide a crucial new understanding of how water vapor is circulated in the atmosphere and how it is increasing with time.

It seems reasonable to me that along with water vapour, CO2, methane, aerosols, volcanic eruptions and ozone all play a part in climate change.

Gosh, Geoff, you'd better tell Tim "The Weather Makers" Flannery that he 's wrong about the cooling trend he talked about just yesterday ...

... oh, I forgot, he's not a climate scientist, is he? I guess he'd better just shut his trap like the rest of us ignoramuses, while Phil Jones & Mike Mann put their headers together and decide what to tell us to think.

Geoff Davies, This is Tim Flannery on ABC on Monday evening

"When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modeling. So when the computer modeling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend."

Isn't that interesting?

So who should we believe?

You see why folks are skeptical, you all don't have a consistent story - this is one of the people our government listens to.

Do they call on you as well? What do you tell them?

(Yes yes we all know that for you and your kind, it's PM John Howard's fault, we all recognize your pain, sheesh get over it already. We (the skeptical ones) now know it's dodgy science for funding that's to blame, but do maintain the rage and all that)

Yes RPG, and let us not forget that without evidence of substance Australia even participated in attacking another nation.

Joanne, almost everything you say about climate and climate science is wrong. "Denier" is actually very mild for people who are prepared to sacrifice the prosperity and security of our kids and grandkids for the sake of their mistaken ideology and delusions of conspiracy.
As for the ETS, it's a dud, but not for taking the actual scientific advice - the advice from people and organisations that actually study climate - seriously but for failing to take it seriously. The "concessions" are almost certainly the kind of weakening of already pathetically weak climate policy the ALP actually want; blaming the Liberals and Nationals is just political maneuvering to try and stem the flow of votes from people who do take the warnings from mainstream science seriously way from the ALP to the Greens

Clownfish and rpg it would help if you gave your sources. I have found this:
Flannery: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2751492.htm

For anyone here who's interested in a serious discussion, here is my take.
I'm not responsible for Flannery or anyone else. However I understand him to be saying something like this. Scientists spend their time being sceptical. The bits that are not understood are what they focus on and argue about. We disagree all the time, and if we prove someone wrong our career is boosted. That makes your conspiracy theory pretty implausible. All the arguing does not mean the main conclusions are not agreed upon. The IPCC and other scientific bodies go to a great deal of effort to set down what most climate scientists *can* agree upon, despite the continuing debates. See
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/for-global-warming-sceptics/

The hackers have unearthed, and selectively released out of context, some of the normal scientific debate, which in private is often loose and impolite, as in most human affairs. (Like you, Clownfish and rpg, who choose anonymity.)

You can indulge in wild conspiracy theories, and few will believe you. As I keep asking, what about ExxonMobil et al., who have trillions at stake? What are their motives? Are they actively fostering doubt in gullible minds for their own financial advantage? We know they are, it's documented, here and overseas. So why is it that you choose to believe the noisy minority of dissenters? Are you really interested in understanding the science, and how the scientific process works, as a true sceptic would?

And can you make the judgement as to when the evidence is sufficient and the risk high enough that we ought to act anyway? Remember, the effects of today's emissions may not be felt for another 20 years. What if you're wrong? What will you tell your grandchildren? Especially as it really is not that hard or expensive to start reducing our emissions right now. In fact if we go about it the right way we can simultaneously deal with the several other global crises that are also upon us. See
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/

Geoff Davies: What if you're wrong? What will you tell your grandchildren?

Well I had to tell them I was wrong when in the 1970's they predicted Global Freezing by 2000.

Did anyone look at the Sahul Chart by Monash? Would someone like to comment on that?

Does it really matter if the sea does rise & the weather get hotter? A quick look at the benifits. In the Northern Hemisphere, the sea lanes will open across the Artic. More exploration above the Artic Circle. Sibera/Canada will open up vast more lands to Agriculture. I the Southern Hemisphere The northern Rainforests will expand & more rainfall will turn the inland of Australia green. Antartica will lose it Ice & it vast lands will be able to be exploited for the wealth there. The Great Barrier Reef will move southwards towards Brisbane & boon for tourism.

Sure some people will have to adapt, that may mean moving but that is what humans do. Adapt & move. Humans have been doing that for 4 million years. It's not a new thing. What is everybody worried about? The process will take hundreds of years anyway.

Geoff, you seem to have missed my point: you've repeatedly hosed down skeptics referring to the cooling (or plateau) trend of last decade, and yet here is one of the most ardent alarmists conceding exactly that. My other point was that you also repeatedly dismiss skeptical scientists because they are not *climate* scientists, yet there seems to be a pattern of non-climate-scientist alarmists given free kicks.

This is one of the most pertinent features of "climategate" (bourbon shots to someone - *anyone* - who can make a better name stick! I loathe this lazy habit of attaching "gate" to scandals): a clear pattern of "groupthink", with any and every dissenting voice purposefully locked out of the "allowed" discussion.

I'll repeat (you may have missed my earlier post): I've never believed in, nor do I yet see, any evidence of "conspiracy", but what is clear is that, like Blondlot and his N-Ray acolytes, a small but very powerful clique have determinedly pushed an agenda, along the way engaging in highly unethical and quite probably illegal behaviour.

Yes, the hacked material was obtained illegally. So were the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate leaks. Getting on your high horse on that point is simply hypocritical. Of all people, George Monbiot has at least had the honesty to admit that "it's no use pretending ... there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request."

In fact, it's been more disappointing than anything to see the oft-cited top scientists in this field resort to unconvincing displays of high dudgeon, weak "the dog ate my homework" excuses and shoddy attempts to dismiss very real criticisms.

Disappointing, because it's the name of, and public faith in science generally that is being dragged through the mud by these gentlemen.

Oh, and don't try the "what did you do in the War, Daddy?" emotional blackmail for Cthulhu's sake, it's cheap and hollow.

Jayb: "What if you're wrong? What will you tell your grandchildren?"

Dear grandchildren,

I went along with the scientific consensus, thought that AGW was real, and wholeheartedly supported efforts to mitigate it. Its odd how things turn out, because even though AGW was wrong the things we did in response - putting in high speed electrified rail lines between cities, developing renewable energy sources, investing huge amounts of money in getting "clean" fast breeder nuclear plants working, de-centralising the electric grid, investing in energy storage solutions like dams and compressed air, turned out to be really good things to do anyway.

Dear grandchildren,

Its all lies. It was never AGW - this is all part of a natural cycle. Besides, what is your problem with most of the Polynesians moving in. They are the only reason we are winning at Rugby again. And isn't it good to have our northern border secure now that most of Indonesia is under water. That is where it belongs if you ask me. And for gods sake stop your pathetic whining about the heat in Cooktown. Yes, it is a dammed sight hotter than Adelaide but Adelaide is just a ghost town in the desert and has been for years. Get over it. Be glad my generation kept those coal fired power plants running so you at least have air conditioning.

Editor's Note: this letter is published as the last request of the grandmother, who died of malaria last week. It was returned to the sender as the grandchildren and their parents didn't survive the Category 6 cyclone that hit Cooktown that June. The grandfather that same year from heatstroke. He refused to conceded it was hot despite having no air conditioning. The summer load sheding that had just started at the time and he was intent of writing a letter to the premier, pointing out the huge refugee intake was pushing the states infrastructure to breaking point.

What if you're wrong etc

Do you write letters of apology to your grandchildren for the world wars? For the massacres in various places, for the holocaust?

Of course not, it's a sentimental and emotional hand wringing play at gaining sympathy for those with no valid reason other than, "we're really right you know"

That's not good enough.

You tell your kids and grandkids that life is tough, don't expect everyone else to chip in to make your life better, some people have better lives than others (ever been to Orissa state in India, now those people have a hard life).

This silly business that we have to share, because we are the haves, with the have nots, because they don't have is ridiculous - that's survival of the fittest, harsh, sure is but so is life.

Why did we bother trying to better ourselves, it's so we can pass on a better way of life to our children, not share it all with people who are not successful. Oh they didn't have the chances we have, so what?

Why is it our job to make it all better and everyone equal - what rubbish, when people in Australians realize that's the upshot of the climate socialist state, they will reject it - at the moment it's seen as a mild charity that was going to cost us each a dollar a week (PM Rudd last election), now it's up to $2 per day, and climbing.

Re: What if you’re wrong –

The point is not to induce guilt, it’s to focus on *risk*. If the consequence is catastrophic, even if you think the probability is small, the prudent course is to avoid increasing the probability. Climate scientists think the probability is well beyond 1% of some very nasty consequences, including a great deal of disruption and possibly millions of deaths. Most people wouldn’t get on a plane with that level of risk.

If the (sensible) remedy is not expensive (as distinct from Rudd's "remedy"), and it is beneficial in other ways (thanks rstuart), why would you wait? Why would you wait? Why all this outrage and name-calling?

Jayb –
You really ought to get informed on consequences.

Clownfish –
1. There is no network/conspiracy of scientists agreeing what we’re going to say. Do you think because Flannery allegedly says something I have to agree? 2. I think you misunderstand what Flannery was saying (verbally – words are not as carefully chosen as when writing). 3. Look at the graphs. There are some short-term drops, but the longer-term trend is clear. Yes the past 2-3 years have been cooler, but that does not negate the trend.

I have not dismisssed scientists because they are not climate scientists, keep your comments relevant. I’m not one either, but I know how to interpret data series.

Why do you automatically believe those who make accusations based on cherry-picked, out of context, informal communications? Where’s your scepticism? Isn’t it possible they’re pushing an agenda?

If some scientists push a message, perhaps that’s what they think the evidence demands. If the news is alarming, the messenger is not an alarmist.

Geoff Davies: Jayb,You really ought to get informed on consequences.

Please inform me of your idea of consequences. I beg of you. Have you had a look at the Sahull graphic? Does that say anything to you?

rstuart: Editor's Note: this letter is published as the last request of the grandmother, who died of malaria last week. It was returned to the sender as the grandchildren and their parents didn't survive the Category 6 cyclone that hit Cooktown that June. The grandfather that same year from heatstroke. He refused to conceded it was hot despite having no air conditioning. The summer load sheding that had just started at the time and he was intent of writing a letter to the premier, pointing out the huge refugee intake was pushing the states infrastructure to breaking point.

I have lived in the the Australian Tropics most of my life. Ayr & above. I've spent a few years in Sth East Asia. I haven't died from Malaria/Ross River/Dengue. I've had the last two. I've lived through almost all the cyclones, bar 4, in the past 60 years. I'm still here. By the way, those wild storms through Melbourne/Sydney & Sth East Qld... much worst than a cyclone. The floods through Grafton... much worse than through Tully/Innisfail. People in North live in a hot humid envirnoment & West of Australia they live in a hot dry environment. It's no problem to them, you'll aclimatize. People have been living up here quite safely for 150 years.

You have frightened yourself for nothing. They have got to you. What you are frightened of is change. Unfortunately the Earth changes. Change is enevatable. Embrace the change. Work with it & you will survive. Remember; Panic & you'll die.

Jayb: "You have frightened yourself for nothing."

My reply was joke with a serious side - to highlight what the comparative downsides are. (I hark from North Queensland too, as it happens.) If the proposed ETS or whatever is done is a big a mess as it opponents make out and causes a lot of pain, we will just change it and the pain will go away. Besides if peak oil is right we have to go through some of that pain anyway, and like AWG the sooner start the better off we will be. So it is no big deal really. Don't frighten yourself about it.

But if the predictions of AGW are real and we ignore it, the downsides are pretty bad and these is no quick fix, no escape.

So it is as exactly Geoff Davies said - a choice between a low risk path and a high risk path.

PS, what is the Sahull graphic?

OK Jayb, I’ll treat your request as serious.

Preface: there is a serious danger that a shift to much higher temperatures (4-7C) could become unstoppable if tipping points are crossed, such as vast amounts of methane and CO2 being released from melting Arctic permafrost. There are around 10 such potential feedbacks that could take it out of our control. Therefore we need to consider a large climate shift.

Start with loss of much of the productivity in the Murray-Darling basin. You can think of it in terms of livelihoods and towns lost, Australia having barely enough food to feed itself, lost export income, whatever.

The GB Reef would certainly go, and may anyway, whatever we do now.

Loss of much of the SE forests in catastrophic fires. A couple of big burns and the whole ecology changes, as it did after 1939 in many areas, maybe just scrubland.

Ecosystems are highly integrated. If it warms some large animals could migrate, but little ones and trees can’t. Ecosystems are torn apart and thrown out of balance. That means some species go extinct and others go rampant, yielding plagues and epidemics.

One third to one half of all species on the planet are at risk, even given current rates of extinction due to all our other assaults. That would rank as a major extinction event on the planet. See above regarding ecosystems, only planet-wide.

Sea level rises of 1-15 meters, if not this century then next. Most major ports out of action, Bangladesh and many other places flooded. Most major cities in deep trouble.

Our global financial/industrial system nearly collapses under its own internal dysfunctions. It’s extremely doubtful it could survive even the mild end of these external shocks. That means potentially massive poverty, starvation, major loss of human life, wars, who knows what, until we localise economies again.

Remember there’s also peak oil, peak soil, peak fresh water, globally disruptive pollution, destruction of forests, etc., whether there’s global warming or not. We have to change the way we live on the planet. It’s not infinite.

Well, that’s a start.

Just for you, again, rstuart. http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/ How many times do I have to write this?

Geoff: such as vast amounts of methane and CO2 being released from melting Arctic permafrost.

Hmmm... Methane. A potential source of minable energy. CO2 stop drinking & Manufacturing fizzy dirink & making CO2 fire extingushiers.

Therefore we need to consider a large climate shift.

I choose to see a potential blessing in disguise, not disaster.

Start with loss of much of the productivity in the Murray-Darling basin. You can think of it in terms of livelihoods and towns lost, Australia having barely enough food to feed itself, lost export income, whatever.

Just think about this a bit. where does the water come from that feeds the MD basin. Nth Qld. With all that extra rain that will fall in the nth the MD basin will become a bread basket again

The GB Reef would certainly go, and may anyway, whatever we do now.

No. It will move Sth. The northern section may go but the greater debth will make the Eastern Aust. coast more navigable to bigger ships.

Loss of much of the SE forests in catastrophic fires. A couple of big burns and the whole ecology changes, as it did after 1939 in many areas, maybe just scrubland.

It's Victoria. Who gives a s#!t ;-)

Ecosystems are highly integrated. If it warms some large animals could migrate, but little ones and trees can’t. Ecosystems are torn apart and thrown out of balance. That means some species go extinct and others go rampant, yielding plagues and epidemics.

Yep. That's natures way for millions of years, accept it.

One third to one half of all species on the planet are at risk, even given current rates of extinction due to all our other assaults. That would rank as a major extinction event on the planet. See above regarding ecosystems, only planet-wide.

Ditto

"Remember there’s also peak oil, peak soil, peak fresh water, globally disruptive pollution, destruction of forests, etc., whether there’s global warming or not. We have to change the way we live on the planet. It’s not infinite" - that really is the issue.

rstewart " If the proposed ETS or whatever is done is a big a mess as it opponents make out and causes a lot of pain, we will just change it and the pain will go away." what pollie will give it up once it's in regardless of how much it hurts?

If any of the income stream from it becomes part of consolidated revenue or an asset for electoral pork-barreling they won't be able to afford to give it up.

If every cent of the income stream goes directly to combatting AGW or research in that field (with some safeguards to reduce the risks of that being part of the pork-balleling) then it may be a different thing.

R0bert

Jayb: "Just for you, again, rstuart. http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/"

Ta.

There are some things about it you probably don't realise.

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, so it shows only the last 0.01% of Earth's history. If you were looking at just that you might be forgiven for thinking the sea level is at a maximum. Actually, it is lowish by geological standards. If all the ice melted, it would be around 80 meters higher. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ and we would look like this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hpUJPjLjGlc/SnJCb_ZLrII/AAAAAAAAAGM/GNHDidxFh1o/s1600-h/80m+Austl+01.png However, as I understand if that isn't going to happen anytime soon. 7 meters might though, and 7 meters is higher that any time shown in your link. Look here: http://flood.firetree.net/

The second thing you don't seem to realise is "natural variation" include various extinction events. The biggie was the Permian–Triassic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event 99.5% of all individual organisms on the planet died in that one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian You know how we joke about only the roaches would survive a nuclear war? Well they didn't survive the Permian–Triassic. It took out most of the insects as well. The extinctions were caused by some sort of CO2 / thermal run away, of the sort Geoff is fretting about. We don't really have a clue what caused it.

So when you see people like Bob Carter say CO2 levels were higher in the past, his isn't lying, but he isn't telling you the whole truth either. If particular he doesn't mention bit about us all being about to die if this was the end of the Permian.

Right now, it seems to me this run-away is unlikely. (Bear in mind I would not trust my understanding of climate science as far as I could kick it.) If you look at the figures just prior to the Permian–Triassic we are nowhere near them. Yet. We would not be too far off if we burnt all the coal in the ground over the next few centuries.

Jayb: "How many times do I have to write this?"

Just once. But you have to spell it correctly when you refer to it.

Jayb, I can only urge you again to get informed. Those responses are flippant and not based on any serious knowledge. I won't waste my time offering you any more information except to correct one point about the GB Reef.

The GB Reef is being threatened by a rise in ocean acidity, as well as a rise in ocean temperature. So going south won't save it, even if it could migrate. How long do you think it took to build the largest reef structure in the world, three weeks?

rstuart,

The end of Permian extinction coincides with a "flood basalt" eruption in Siberia that poured out a few million cubic kilometers of lava and probably a lot of acidifying gas including CO2, so a plausible cause is known. The end of Cretaceous extinction, on the other hand, was plausibly due to a large meteorite impact. The imminent extinction is not likely to be on the scale of either of those though.

The GBR is being threatened by dumbed down people listening to CO2 ETS propaganda while not reducing sewage nutrient pollution that is feeding algae that is smothering coral.

The GBR and world coral is already seriously impacted by nutrient pollution.

Why waste time with propaganda? How can all the water in ocean become acidic, where is the data?

The problem in the ocean including fish devastation and stocks not recovering is due is too many nutrients dumped daily by over 7 billion humans into the water ecosystem of this planet.

Perhaps the real problem is gagging of science and debate.

Was the site out over the week end? I'd run out of posts. Most annoying.

But wait there's more.

Sea level rises of 1-15 meters, if not this century then next. Most major ports out of action, Bangladesh and many other places flooded. Most major cities in deep trouble.

That's, Ports, at present. These would have to be replaced in 50 years anyway. The new ones would accomodate the higher coast line.

Our global financial/industrial system nearly collapses under its own internal dysfunctions. It’s extremely doubtful it could survive even the mild end of these external shocks. That means potentially massive poverty, starvation, major loss of human life, wars, who knows what, until we localise economies again.

So what's so different from now? The more things change the more they stay the same.

Remember there’s also peak oil, peak soil, peak fresh water, globally disruptive pollution, destruction of forests, etc., whether there’s global warming or not. We have to change the way we live on the planet. It’s not infinite.

Oh My God! you'll have to change the way YOU live. Sob! Sob!

Well, that’s a start. Ditto

going south won't save it, even if it could migrate.

I is migrating now. Newly formed reefs have been found at Gladstone. I've been through, dirty warter, Ag. runnoff polution, Crown of Thorns, cyclones, etc, etc. It's still there.

How long do you think it took to build the largest reef structure in the world, three weeks? No, but It'll still be here in one form or another when Humans have gone extinct & some other form of life has taken over from us.

And still they come...

rstuart: Actually, it is lowish by geological standards. If all the ice melted, it would be around 80 meters higher.

It's been there before. Ever been to the Whitsundays. you can see the highwater mark on the rocks. About 80 meters up. So what?

But you have to spell it correctly when you refer to it.

Sorry, I did the first 2 times. You should have looked then.

RObert: If any of the income stream from it becomes part of consolidated revenue or an asset for electoral pork-barreling they won't be able to afford to give it up.

Therein lies the crux of the whole matter. Money. ETS, It sounds like another, "Tulip scam" to me.

Geoff Davies: "so a plausible cause is known"

Yes. Several in fact. But from the Wikipedia no primary cause can explain what happened on its own. For example, the "flood basalt" activity in the north can't explain what happened south of the equator. To get the full impact observed various feedback loops triggered by that primary cause are added. Some of them (eg, Methane hydrate gasification, algae blooms) would to do more damage than the original cause. This means the flood basalt or whatever primary cause you favour is reduced to a trigger, rather like the rising CO2 levels we have now.

JF Aus: "How can all the water in ocean become acidic, where is the data?"

It is not that hard to find, assuming you are in the slightest bit interested in going looking. For example, the second sentence of the the Wikipedia entry on the subject gives two sources of data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Jayb: "So what?"
Jayb: "Did anyone look at the Sahul Chart by Monash? Would someone like to comment on that?"

It was a comment on that chart. If doesn't even show the levels we are going to hit the century, never mind the levels we could hit in the next few. I am not sure you were hoping I would see in the chart, but whatever it was I missed it.

Jayb: "So what's so different from now? The more things change the more they stay the same."

Most people, if told we had to move most our major cities in this next century would not take it as sanguinely as you do. It took us 2 centuries to build them in the first place. With respect to sahultime, a 15M rise in two centuries appears to be 4 times faster than any point shown on it. It would be quite a shock, given in the last 2 millennia we have operated under the assumption the sea level remains constant.

Oh dear, the government will go ahead no matter what comes to light
from "The Emails" and the attached data.
It seems that even though the CRU people have acknowledged their
fiddling, it is being simply ignored.
At the very least everything should be put on hold until it is all
sorted out.
It is not just the data fiddling, they fiddled the computer program
also produce the desired results.
It is not just that either, they censored papers from authors of whom
they did not approve.
They put pressure on scientific publication to not publish "deniers".
They pressured government officers to ignore FOI requests from persons
who they did not approve.

They were the gatekeepers for the IPCC publishing of documents.
Other scientists are now examining the data to try and sort out what
is real and which is suspect. It will take some time for all this to be done.

In these circumstances the call for resignations seems the very
least that is acceptable.
They also should be prosecuted for interfering with the function
of public servants in the FOI office.

The UK government should institute a Royal Commission enquiry.
An enquiry is needed because of the international implications.

Bazz: "It seems that even though the CRU people have acknowledged their fiddling"

If there really is some official acknowledgement from CRU that they deliberately distorted the data, I'd like to see it. Got a link? If not, this is just a repeat of the breathless announcement of the CRU leak above.

You are right in saying someone else should independently look at the data, and you are right in saying this will take a long while. Short of an official admission of fiddling, this is what it will take to reveal what (if anything) is wrong with the papers they published based on it.

Assuming the data has been fiddled, it would nice to know how heavily the IPCC conclusions are based on it. That was we could get a feel for what sort of impact the fiddling has had on the IPCC report. I don't have a clue. Do you? If so, some links would be nice.

rstuart, yes you are right they did not acknowledge the fiddling.
They said it was legitimate fiddling.
They did admit it was all their own work.
No matter what, the situation is so bad and important and has the
wealth of the world hanging on it, they should not be given the benefit
of the doubt.
I really can't see what they are going to talk about at Copenhagen.

Talk at Copenhagen should include estimates of the degree of inflation that will result from ETS costs. ETS inflation impacting under developed nations must be considered.

Gees, with the election of Abbott this discussion came to a crashing halt.

The ETS is a fradulent scam anyway. Good riddance.

It looks like Global Warming has been outed anyway. Now we will have a Global Freeze. Check this out. ;-)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/ns/technology_and_science-science/

SUBJECT: New World Order/So Called Man Made Global Warming

Hello,

I recently heard about a Documentary mentioned on a talk back radio show here titled “Fall Of The Republic” by Alex Jones.

I managed to download a copy for myself using Bittorrent. It was around 1.3GB

It deals with President Obama, what is happening in the United States regarding new world order and global warming.

It is extremely enlightening and parallels can be drawn with our current politics in Australia in relation to our Labor government's policies and Mr Turnbull(opposition Liberal Leader).

Let me tell you it reveals highly disturbing and frightening events which seem to be taking place on a global scale!

I would urge you to download a copy for yourself and watch it ASAP!

Alex Jones has a website:-

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fall-of-the-republic-exposes-how-brand-obama-is-destroying-america.html

As I say very alarming and certainly something which people should be made aware of ASAP.

Regards