I wish they'd make up their minds. Global warming, Global Freezing.

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

It all evens out in the end.

I wonder why they're still building those Islands communities in Dubai. Do they know something? Most of the Middle East is less than 3 meters above Sea Level.

I am wary of predictions of substantial sea level rises over the next 100 years. The National Tidal Centre data shows a period between about 1935 and 1950 during which the results are similar to the results since the early nineties. The information can be examined by reading section 3.2.2 at the site below and consideration of the accompanying PDO chart for the period 1900-2008.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2009.pdf
We shouldn't be wasting fossil carbon. It is too important for the living standards of our children and grandchildren.
Humans had burned plenty of carbon by 1950 but the chart above shows low sea levels between 1950 to 1970.

Believe in what I say and put your money in the collection plate or you'll burn in hell for eternity.

Believe in what we say and hand over tax-payer billions or your children will suffer droughts, floods and famines.

Sounds like religion to me.

“This is not a political issue, or a scientific issue or a psychological issue – it’s a moral issue.
If anything it’s actually a spiritual issue.” Al Gore

Even Uncle Al thinks it's a religion.

Is the increasing shrillness and urgency designed to obscure climategate and set the political-economic future in stone before the punters catch on?

The same scientists who “estimated” the extent of global warming are now “estimating’ that it is worse than they thought.

No proof – just estimates.

It is obvious that, this close to Copenhagen, the more frenzied will be the alarmist’s shrieks.

In the meantime, the scientists who disagree with such things as the rise in sea levels have not dramatised their findings to keep up with the hysterics.

One wonders what a “tipping point” is: the end of the world as we know it, or just another scare-mongering exaggeration from a bunch of drama queens.

It is noticed that the ‘cast of thousands’ who keep coming up with more dramatic warnings has now slumped to 26.

As for some unknown Canadian saying that the abandonment of a binding treaty at Copenhagen is ‘unacceptable’, perhaps world leaders like more and more of the people they are supposed to be leading, want proof of the efficacy of some of the you beaut plans, such as the one Rudd tried to perpetrate on the Australian people. Not all countries have ego- maniacs for PM’s and Presidents. The unknown Weaver used the same “You know what?” expression as Adolf Rudd continually uses.

Democracy has prevailed in Australia; the US has decided not to go to Copenhagen with a plan, and the “promises” of Korea and Brazil cannot be kept without the ruination of their economies.

A lot more discussion and less secretive ‘we know best’ from people merely claiming things is needed before anyone can do anything.

It seems crazy to note that the real world observations don't fit the current theory of climate change (which is expressed through the models) and then resolve to push even harder with the current theory.

The current climate models obviously do not have all the correct variables and equations to predict what is really happening with the climate.

One example of a theory needing more consideration is that of changes in regional climate due to anthropic changes in land use. These include massive deforestation, especially of tropical rainforests and the continuing urbanisation of the planet's population on every continent. The reduced capacity of these regions to absorb heat energy results in the surplus heat energy being redirected to the cooler areas of the planet and the ice melts.

The IPCC are losing credibility because they appear blinkered to any explanations other than greenhouse gas accumulations; a dog with a “greenhouse gas” bone, unwilling to give it up for something even better.

Common sense demands the IPCC let go of their preconceived ideas and have a “back to basics” rethink of the issue. They should stop forging ahead with current ideas and policy recommendations to governments. The more time the IPCC, Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong spend travelling down the wrong path, the less time we will have to effectively deal with the real problems our planet is facing.

In the Australian on the 18th April 2009 and on the ABC website April 20th 2009 had stories reporting Ian Allison, head of the Australian Antarctic Division, saying that Antarctic ice cover was stable if not increasing in East Antarctica.
It is really becoming a game of trumps at the moment.
I noticed that the Copenhagen Consensus included Stefan Ramsdorf that well know colleague of Profs Jones and Mann.
Even some of his emails made it into the CRU data download.
Surely there are more than just 24 glaciologist in the world, hopefully not beholden to the IPCC.

Here are 31,000 scientists who don't receive climate warming grants:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

More alarmist nonsense from all the usual suspects. Thank goodness Tony Abbott has prevailed!
Simple question for all the climate whatever they call themselves, what about the Ice Age? Sea levels rose withing 50 years to make the North Sea, The Channel and the Bass Strait resulting in the birth of civilisation. Let the climate whatits start telling us about that and stop trying to pick my pocket.
Nothing sensible from the Greens of course! Best thing I have seen was on Wilson Tuckey MP's web page with some very interesting and practical suggestions. The media revile Mr. Tuckey but at least he is having a go! A real go with a sensible plan.

Are they all flying to Copenhagen?

Hypocrites.

"The Copenhagen summit next week will generate vast quantities of hot air. It will see 16,500 people coming in from 192 countries. That amounts to 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006." - The Times

The usual unsubstantiated assumptions in a propaganda burst pre-Copenhagen. Transparently manipulative.

Given climategate, here are some suggestions for governments:
1. Forget climate models and stop pretending they are worth anything, except as scare generators. Go back to telling small children stories about bogey men instead
2. Validate the surface record and eliminate any sites adversely influenced by urban development
3. Conduct and publish independent audits of all grants for climate research so that we know who got how much and what they've achieved, though I suspect they've achieved nothing but improved grant application skills
4. Abolish the CRU at University of East Anglia
5. Abolish James Hansen's program at GISS
6. Encourage people to check climate by looking out the window - it's cheaper and more accurate than setting up dodgy research centres.

As Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out, if sea levels really are rising then we can build seawalls; we have been doing it successfully for generations and there is no reason why we should have to stop now. Likewise, if global warming does come about, then my great-grandchildren can move a few degrees south. Maybe my grandchildren will retire to northern NSW instead of Queensland, and their US cousins to the Carolinas instead of Florida. So what? Why is this supposed to be a terrible disaster that I have to pay thousands of dollars a year to prevent?

But given the recent revelations about the reliability of global climate data, we should all be very sceptical about this conveniently-timed 'discovery'.

Ridicule is all you deserve from all the posters so far for yet more doom rubbish.

Ice caps melting, the artic see being ice free have been flung aorund for over 100 years, it's not new doom, just recycled doom.

I note the usual AGW believers are somewhat quieter with their normal hysterics of "you have to believe the scientists, they know!, yes and we kno wnow that like anyone else, they will lie for personal benefit as well.

tTis scare will go the way of previous scares and just die away.

Our government is totally irritated, there goes a chance to bring ina big old tax on us.

Liz, do you really think governments collecting money has any relationship to the planet cooling or warming?

If they really, really believed what they say, would they fly all over the place having talkfests about it?

Why are you suing a computer anyway, or are you in denial that might have any effect .. naughty naughty! (well you behave like a child, might as well address you as one)

Alas I fear the boys who cried wolf now have the wolf in the room. The problem as prior astute posters have noted is that the climate changers keep moving the goal posts so that the mums and dads don't have the foggiest idea what is going on. Does anyone really know how an ETS works? It's harder than Chinese maths to explain.

The wolf in the room in this case is the catastrophists who say we're all gunna die of tidal waves, hurricanes, rising sea levels, etc. They are loosing people.

Thank you Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and Iron bar. Ever since our warped media became committed to certain 'consensus' rather than truth we have been fed lie on lie. The unbalanced ABC has been pitiful in its information to those funding it (the tax payer). It should not surprise us however. The same dishonest tactics have been used by the pseudo scientists pushing the evolution dogma. It is quite amusing to see the gw alarmist using the same tactics against the likes of Plimer as he has used against creationist. Just don't let a bit of good science get in the way of funding.

This article in the Wall Street Journal sums up exactly what has made me uneasy about climate science for a long time, and why climategate has ramifications far more troubling than the spurious idea that it completely debunks Global Warming (it undermines the doomsaying, but certainly doesn't debunk the theory wholesale):

"Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science ... this isn't only about the credibility of global warming ... because 'science' said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost."

"Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as 'the precautionary principle.' As defined by one official version: 'When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically' ...this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory."

"If the new ethos is that 'close-enough' science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html

A very similar article appeared on reason.com yesterday: http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/01/the-scientific-tragedy-of-clim

Clownfish.
" One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory."
Actually, this is precisely what has happened in the great USA. If you cast your mind back to the bridges collapse of about six months ago. It has caused a bit of a flap because many of the bridges built to provide a national highway after the world war also have the same design parameters.

David

The 'Precautionary Principle' seems to be dying the death, and about time too, given the kind of nonsense it evokes:

Alarmist 1: "There might be a terrible gas leak inside your house any second! You should open all the windows and run outside!"

Sceptic: "Do you have any reason to think this will actually happen?"

Alarmist 1: "No, but you can't prove it won't, and if it did the consequences would be terrible. So run away!"

Alarmist 2: "No! Stay inside! Any minute now there might be a terrible burst of cosmic rays from the sun, and anyone outside will be cooked!"

Sceptic: "Do YOU have any reason...?"

Alarmist 2: "Who needs reasons for something this important? Stay inside!"

Etcetera, etcetera...

Jon J ,That is a "Straw Man" argument if ever I have heard one.

David

Australia is in the most vonrabel position for any whether change.
We will have to do something other than using air conditioners during extreme conditions, they are the most power hungry pieces of equipment we have.
Serious thought has got to be given to a cool place, maybe a self contained underground room.
With temperatures around 45%. The power system just would not cope with the exrta drag on supply. Thats 7% above body temp;
There has got to be cut off days when you do not venture to work, for some.
Elderly people will be most exposed. Not from heat alone, the hotter the air the thinner the air. Because of the thin air vehicles burn more fuel.
There needs to be some thought put in to account for your particular situation.

dia-gnosis?...lol...impleas a symptom...of what?...climate>..i live in a subtropical climate...lol

please note i live in a sub troppical climate...i chose my sea/sonaL climate..change...see...

ASK YOUR SELF WHAT CLIMATE AREA YOUR IN..
THE INSANITY IS WHAT IS...CLI-MATE?..

please explain how your climatic condition..[geographical..climatic type/.. location ..has changed

sobering...lol...meaning your all drunk?

hey desmont...thanks for giving us evidence..to sustain the fear...lol..
[air con]..<<..We will have to do something other than using air conditioners..during extreme conditions,>>>

better to use them.. when we dont need em?

you know of course...your turning off your air/con...
only makes..more voltage..go through mine...[ok i dont own one...but..

see mate the power company dosnt say desi..has turned off his power..
.reduce the power by 6000/amps...mate the voltage simply increases...in the others..still having a connection

think of it as like water presure...your open tap shares the available presure...so those selling water...realised..if they can up the presure..more would come though..in your two min shower..

didnt you notice the water pipes bursting...
they need you..to get as much of their product..
as they can squeeze..via your meter..in the time..you do use it

about two years ago..they did it with power...
and blew a lot of electric stuff up..[including surge protectors....

google why we need surge protectors..its nutters
thinking their making some differance...flicking their power on/off

yes i agree..<<There needs to be some thought..
put in to account..for your particular situation.>>

but by the same notion..you allready replied that...

<<Australia is in the most vonrabel position

...for any whether change.>>>

as our weather changes..just like it allways has...
but our cli-mate..stays the same

All I can say is that the scientists are doing a difficult job very well. Being conservative is now seen as suspicious by the know-nothing, do-nothings, yet if they weren't they would be "fear mongering".
The politicians are doing a difficult job very poorly. They should be guided by the science, not the ignorance of their lobby paymasters.

As the twits who think that *science* is a conspiracy...back to the dark ages with you! You take the medicine, transport, drugs, extended lifetime, etc that science has provided for you...and just ignore it when it gets inconvenient.
I can handle ignorance...but accusing hard-working honest people of dishonesty while pandering to Right wing politicians and Bankers...that I find mind bogglingly stupid, evil even. Tribal allegiances are one thing...but trashing knowledge to hold up the team ignorance is pretty low.
If record temperatures and ice losses don't convince you...but a Right Wing blogger can...frankly you deserve what you getting.
Meanwhile some of us might actually move forward. Please don't be surprised if we treat conservatives a little harshly, after all, you only succeeded in preventing action and stalling progress for a decade and making the situation much worse. Us "greenies" (as you will probebly call us) may have to get a bit more "assertive" in coming times. I'd suggest you respect that!

Ozandy writes

'Us "greenies" (as you will probebly call us) may have to get a bit more "assertive" in coming times. I'd suggest you respect that!'

Ozandy violence is always the outcome of rebellion. It certainly won't be anything new to see the ferals acting like animals in the name of their Green dogma. Who r u trying to kid? Many green supporters seem to revel violence. They justify it by their self righteousness.

runner.
You have only seen the radical loony fringe so far.
All in all I'd say their "violence" is pretty trivial compared to what has been done for oil lately!
Wait until the non-ferals start realising they have been screwed by greed and the "sceptics" were actually profiteers. I am not talking about street violence, I'm talking about recognising parts of society for what they really are: parasites. This includes most churches (Any word from God on CC?) and "institutes" of the wealthy.

Ozandy, we are only casting pearls (of wisdom that is) before swine. Better that we do something more constructive with our time.

Have a good one,

David