Emotive!

Sure there is no denying that the climate has changed and the climate has changed, perhaps thousands of times before, on this planet before humans evolved.

Australia as a continent has been drying out for thousands of years, before white man ever found this place.

In another hundred years, I wonder who the joke will be on? The believers or the deniers?

That's your emotional opinion, I disagree.

There is no "denial" grand conspiracy.

How do you know a skeptic is inactive? You have no idea what sustainable or other activities we support? You just assume that if we disagree with your central tenet (doom!), that obviously we disagree with everything you hold dear, must be polluters who hate children and regularly kill poley bears, yes?

Are you feeling helpless and powerless, that's not my fault, you may have deep problems and this is how it is manifesting, who knows.

Maybe it makes you feel better to focus your hatred and scorn of other people.

That's the nice thing about anonymous posting, your rants and attempts to bully, just fall flat.

er, following the 'logic' here, we have climate denialists (I thought they were skeptics) because of people like Mugabe and that WW1 was caused by old men.

Old men,eh? it has been my observation that a great many young men and women are unconscious in relation to climate change and many related environmental,economic and social issues.

Get off the generational blame hobby horse.It will take you nowhere because it is a phantom moke,not even of any use for tilting at windmills.

I would think anyone who dared disagree with this opinionated fruit-bat would be damned from the loftiest heights.

“This is just one more pointer to the fact that we have little option but to take on the old men - otherwise we too will be responsible for killing our society's children.”

What a crock of tish

If this dingle-berry had any clue to what really mattered

He would have realised that it is the children who represent the problem,.

I have not one single issue with individual ones but

The world population explosion is the biggest issue

People in the third world are having more children than they can reasonably support or sustain

Reduce the number of humans on the planet and issues of pollution and sustainability become solvable.

As for “take on the old men”

This old man invites him to come here and try his best but rest assured, I will not stand idle by while he tries to “take” me on

and in the end we will see who prevails, he with his physical might or me with my wisdom based cunning.

This old man will (always) go down defending “democratic reason” over the childishly petulant tirades and tyrannical anarchy of young self-opinionated tossers -

who feel entitled to substitute “reason” with ego and attempts at intimidation.

Amicus “Maybe it makes you feel better to focus your hatred and scorn of other people.”

Yep.. he reads like a well developed sense of chronic low self esteem

Another way of thinking about the perceived generational issue could be that older scientists who no longer need to toe the official line to get funding, tenure and in other ways protect their career's are free to question the official line. It's a more difficult for younger scientists to speak out if they want the prospect of an ongoing career in their chosen fields.

I think that the author has unfairly preyed on stereotypes of older people to undermine what will be in many cases considered opinions.

There will be a mix on this issue, in some cases the authors claims are probably valid, in others it will be a massive slur on people who have taken great care in forming their views in this matter. To dismiss in entirety the abilities and motivations of those with opposing views rarely adds to truth or genuine understanding of an issue. It's a useful tool to rally the troops but that's about it.

R0bert

Amicus, you say "That's the nice thing about anonymous posting, your rants and attempts to bully, just fall flat." I'm not posting anonymously, you are. I'm not afraid of expressing my opinions and attaching my name to them.

Emotive?

This is a factual analysis of the situation I find the world in today. If you think it's wrong, post evidence to the contrary. I read the scientific literature and I find scant evidence to oppose the view that anthropogenic climate change is not real and a significant threat. Cite some papers and let's see if they are any good.

Here's an interesting analysis of the interpersonal networks behind anti-science campaigns, by John Mashey: http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed

The "sceptic" view is increasingly bolstered by hysterical attacks such as the alleged conspiracy exposed in over a thousand stolen emails, in which nothing of substance is revealed. Yet we see a feeding frenzy around the Internet claiming the contrary. An email cache this big couldn't have been faked. What do we find in it? 3 or 4 conversations using intemperate language that the authors wouldn't have used in public. No conspiracy to cook the major data sets, no conspiracy to ensure that the thousands of papers published on the subject all line up neatly, no conspiracy to con the public into a false sense of panic about the science. No conspiracy to set up world government. The one data set on which a lot of attention has been focused is in fact when you dig into the detail the 1998 Mann tree ring reconstruction, aka hockey stick. So this isn't even a new issue, it's another attack on a data set that has been successfully defended in the scientific arena (though the emotive right claim the contrary, and Prof Mann is being exposed to yet another Inquisition-style enquiry), which is but one of many lines of evidence. This is being dishonestly spun as indicating the modern instrument data has been cooked, a data set that is totally unrelated to tree ring reconstructions.

And you accuse me of being "emotive".

Old men heh. Well isnt that interesting when it is the old retired scientists, who now having the freedom, are coming out and telling it like it is without fear of recriminations etc.

And isnt it a revealing, as well as refreshing.

People like Garth Paltridge, William Kinninmonth, Art Raiche, Walter Starck all highly credentialed and credible as leaders as well as researchers.

These people are heroes adn we need more of them

PhilipM, yes - you are clearly emotional. OK, let's go through it, shall we.

I'm posting anonymously, you're publishing an Opinion Article and thus have to identify yourself.

I post anonymously for several reasons, one of the reasons is to avoid emotional article writers who get upset when there is disagreement. For all I know, you might be the deranged type and why should I be fearful of posting? Surely you write articles to encourage a range of ideas? Otherwise you'd pick a different forum. Or was this meant as a rant where you brook no comment, only agreement?

It's not a factual analysis, it's your opinion - that's all.

Posting references, I'm not going to enter a URL war, what's the point, you're an AGW Believer (cultist), and thus are not skeptical, and disrespect skeptics - you even state there is no reason to go over the whistle blower emails from CRU, if you were objective, you wouldn't term them as "stolen", that's not proved is it?

Whether the data is stolen or was released to the wild by an insider, it's interesting to see the processes - if you think there's nothing in the data, why worry? There's obviously no fuss, since there is nothing there, according to your logic, so what's going on Phil?

"The "sceptic" view is increasingly bolstered by hysterical attacks", right and did you read your own post before you put it up, it's a hysterical attack on me, (does that mean you're a skeptic now?)

Thanks, you rest my case for me, you're emotional and I'm not going to bother with you. Your title says it all, When Old Men kill their Children, that's an appeal to emotion, yes?

Have a cup of tea and maybe a good lie down, you might feel better, leave off the attacks on anyone who disagrees as you'll just end up angry and .. oh. I'm making fun of you, because you are so true to form the hysterical AGW believer, frothing at the mouth at anyone disagreeing.

"...people who cling to the notion that any change is bad."

Gee that's a bit rich. It's the global government brigade who cling to the notion that any change is bad - that's the entire premise of the whole nutty climate change belief system.

This is a just a rant from an extremely rude person who thinks that people are useless and unnecessary after they reach a certain age.

I got a giggle out of his “…let's be polite…”, after he had compared us with Mugabe and “the old men in charge…:” during WW1.

Philip Machanick clearly does not do ‘polite’. I don’t think anyone else has ever contributed such impolite ignorance to OLO. (I’m not including posters).

Most of us, however, have had much more experience than he has, and will just put it down to his inexperience of life and the real world. All the childish climate hysterics resort to abuse in the end.

Machanick seems to have been spurred on by the disgraceful and stupid DVD of the little girl fleeing floods and cracking earth put on by the young, beautiful and always right people at the Copenhagen Conference

Interesting. So many people arguing that being rude, personal and emotive is terrible. Guys, go read the literature by the denial camp. it is full of emotive terminology, accusing climate scientists of starting a religion, committing fraud etc. I seldom write in this style as you can see from my blog http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/ but I am amused that people from a camp that has a long history of personal abuse suddenly claims the moral high ground when they have their tactic thrown back at them. I count the experiment a success.

On the view that older scientists are freer to speak out: a valid hypothesis, and easy to test. Find another discipline where a comparable number of older scientists is signing petitions, writing angry opinion pieces and popular books attacking the mainstream, writing angrily to the media and using the language of personal attack you find in this field. Let's see your results.

Here are a few standards against which to compare. I searched on a couple of well known authors, and found these words:

"Scientific legerdemain", "IPCC delivers even more preposterous advice in ever shriller tones", "alarmist" (many times), "IPCC has never been strong on empirical science", "warming alarmists", "hysterical global warming scare", "no critical due diligence of the science", "17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance", "Global warming has become the secular religion of today" ... and this is a small sampling. I've seen other articles accusing scientists of fraud, and all manner of other forms of dishonesty. People on their side of the debate are "rational". No doubt using heavily emotive language and personal insults is "rational" if you are on the right side of an issue.

None of this is arguing the science. If it was, there'd be no problem. I'm happy to argue the science with anyone, and would be really ecstatic if there were a convincing alternative theory that explained the climate without subjecting us to the risks associated with rising CO_2 because I see very little probability that we will turn emissions around in time to avoid serious effects.

Old men are the best men, young men are dangerous. Old men do not go to war. Young men do. Who is smarter?

The world is over populated. Kids will be affected either way. Reports out now that emerging nations are claiming devastation to their economies so children will hurt either way. Now or later if it is true. Living in the now at least immediate future looks promising for kids. If you destroy your childs future to save their children it is a bit more of a gamble.

You admit you have deliberately "trolled" for responses by being emotional and provocative, then go on about how rational you are and how irrational others are.

You wanted to goad skeptics and generate traffic for your own blog while expounding your own beliefs.

You've misused and abused the faith of the editors and owners of this site.

You are a dishonest little man, is it any wonder people question your credibility - you even brag about it. How can you call anyone else dishonest?

I'm guessing all the posts on this forum will end up on your blog?

Graham, how about banning this troll?

This guy is a computer person not a climate expert. In addition he is emotionally out of control, attention seeking and deliberately provocative. He also quotes George Monbiot who recently showed his great character by running away from a climate debate with Ian Plimer. Cannot make head nor tail of the allusion to Robert Mugabe. This guy needs some relaxation therapy.

Hey Philip, I'm old and male. I worked hard all my life and I saved for my retirement. Now it appears some fruitcakes think I should share my retirement savings with third world countries.

I can't. Will you promise to contribute my share for me. As well as your own and will you accept the lowering of your standard of living ... to the same as mine.

You know how that Copanhagan thingy now looks?

It looks like a bunch of corrupt countries that haven't taken advantage of western technologies and knowledge to develop the resources of their own environments and who now have their hands stuck out for the benefits my culture and ingenuity have produced.

Now would you explain how a bunch of rational scientists, who produced that tortally discredited hockey stick graph, who are the authors of those imfamous e-mail and who now appear to have lost the raw data that would give credence to the calculations they made to arrive at to support the evidence of global warming? As espoused by another stupid and misrepresentative UN committee, like that human rights commottee, this time one espousing climate change?

I know what I'm asking is complex but gee as you get older you'll come to understand the simplicities held in youth become much more complex. Like I once believed science was totally logical and incorruptable.

"Find another discipline where a comparable number of older scientists is signing petitions, writing angry opinion pieces and popular books attacking the mainstream, writing angrily to the media and using the language of personal attack you find in this field." - I doubt that you will find it. If anything that would support the idea that protest by older scientists is about genuine concerns on their part rather than an artifact of their age. If it was an age issue older scientists should be attacking (on mass) newer theories on all sorts of fronts.

"I am amused that people from a camp that has a long history of personal abuse suddenly claims the moral high ground when they have their tactic thrown back at them."

there seems to be far too much of those tactics from both sides. Given that the AGW camp seems to have the upper hand in the public space their use of the tactics seems less excusable than by those who consider themselves to be fighting a rearguard action (that does not make the other any better).

It's also an unproven assumption that those who have objected to your tactics approve of them when used by some "denialist" spokespersons. I don't know about you but I often find myself in agreement with some of the views of people who express their views in terms which I don't agree with.

It occurs to me that Mugabe is a particularly nasty old man kept in power in part by convincing young men that he will bring changes and having them doing his work for him.

R0bert

Gee Phillip let me share some wisdom.

I once asked a 100 year old when she first felt old.

She replied ' The day I heard someone call my son Granddad'.

Then she got this look of life in her eye and added,
'but it was only for a few seconds!'

We shared a laugh, I understood. I was 30.

One day I hope you have a similar experience and learn a little humility and respect.

You are a bioinformatics Wow not another study. What is this, studying Britney Spears? toe nail clippings?
Because others do not fall for all this guff just means you need to do a little maturing. Try history laddy! You will find all this has been a recurring theme through history, "The end is nigh!" It is a joke don't you get it? More correctly though a fraud.
Look son, look back at the "Hole" in the ozone layer or the "Y2k"over the last 20 years. Lots of my money taken by very cunning crooks and charlatans who sucked people like you in to do their dirty work for them.
You are shameless I do not know why I am bothering.

Emotive, I did think about using the word Sophistry which is perhaps more suitable.

Firstly you point out that there are a few old men who abuse their position of power, and try to link this to the people who are skeptical about humans causing climate change.

There is a saying I think is very appropriate and that is if someone is not a liberal when they are 20 have no heart, and by the age of 40 is if they are not conservative, they have no brains.

Old men have seen and perhaps experienced where the emotions control the brain, and bad decisions are made, base on an emotional response.

Should climate change prove to be a natural cycle of this planet, no amount of effort on the part of us mere mortals is going to change it. So in effect a small number of people get very rich, with the help of all us suckers.

Dear Col,
Obviously you don't know much. ALL of my children are a blessing and are hear because they were planed wanted and apreciated and loved not an accident and definately not the problem. What have you done to help educate 3rd world brothers. My wife comes from a third world country and I have helped our nephews and nieces get an education so as a result I have a door to their heart and I give them a talking to on the facts of life. Love is not Blind, Religiom is not christianity, Jesus is our guide through a living relationship with the Holy Spirit, Plan your future so you have choices and as a result none have more children than they can look after. Lack of knowledge, fear and slavish obebience to their culture of ancestry worship or pagenism is the real problem which is works of the flesh and the west has chosen foolishly to reject God the Holy Spirit and chase after gratification of the flesh and knowledge, truth and right thinking are the casualty as we reep the fruit of lusts of the flesh. So Col whether you like it or not the road that most are following leads to destruction for narrow is the way that leads to life and Jesus is the way.

Philip may have overstated his case somewhat, but I think his central point is sound.

It seems to me that there is a preponderance of cantankerous, mostly male, codgers who bleat on obstinately and ignorantly in denial of the obvious weight of evidence in support of AGW.

One of the reasons that I'm an environmentalist is that I want my children and grandchildren to live in an environment that will sustain them and their own grandkids.

From my perspective, any slowing down of the global economy has to be good in strictly environmental terms. I also think that is the most likely scenario in the long term. It will be painful, but sure as eggs it'll happen.

As an increasingly old man, I'm very happy that my kids and grandkids generally agree with me, and have formed those opinions themselves. Unfortunately, I don't see them often enough to take credit for their ecological nous.

Richie10 “Obviously you don't know much.”

Since you do not know me, have no knowledge of my professional credentials, the circles of influence in which I meander nor the honorary “chair” in which I sit, I would only say

I know a lot more than you know, certainly about what I know and probably a lot more than you in general

but I choose not to brag.

So before you start making small-mind judgments of anyone, I suggest you try to check out their credentials, post-nominals, affliliations, memberships and practical experience first

“What have you done to help educate 3rd world brothers.

Again my sense of modesty compels me to decline commenting

My wife comes from a third world country and I have helped our nephews and nieces”

If you simply want a “who has the biggest d*ck” competition…

look elsewhere, shorty

re “…..reject God the Holy Spirit and chase after gratification of the flesh and knowledge, truth and right thinking are the casualty as we reep the fruit of lusts of the flesh”

Richie, you were on a roll there for a minute but …

going by the spelling and grammar,

it looks like “the wheel has fallen off your barrow”…again!

CJMoron “It seems to me that there is a preponderance of cantankerous, mostly male, codgers who bleat on obstinately and ignorantly in denial of the obvious weight of evidence in support of AGW.”:

That confirms it.. .

if our resident moron thinks it is so…

it must be wrong




in fact overnight events / leaked documents would suggest Copenahgen is turning into a real "tish-fest"….

What a total waste of resources.. all those environmentalists flying around the world… clocking up their loyalty reward miles whilst they expect the rest of us to pay more for everything… hypocrites

"Col Rouge", when you vacate your honorary chair, don't forget to flush.

I remain underwhelmed by fierce ad hominem attack by anonymous cowards.

Meanwhile, here's a transcript of James Hansen on Lateline: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm

Just for the record, this is among the most vile and scary pieces of hate literature I've read in a long time.

Having just sat through a 7 (not in order)of a series of 23 University lectures on the known global warming science it is clear to me that most deniers/sceptics simple don't understand what's being spoken about.
e.g. outputs:
- Volcanoes put out on average: .1 giga tonne of CO2 per year
- Industry : 7.0 G/T p.a.
- Deforestation : 2.0 G/T p.a.

Natural absorption
- Trees : 2.5 G/T p.a.
- Seas : 2.5 G/T p.a.

It is clear we're producing more CO2 than is naturally absorbed.

From Ice cores science is able to determine the CO2 levels in the air in history, specifically they have determined that these levels were relatively constant for a period of 1000 years untill the 1700s at about 280 parts per million. Today its almost 350 ppm.

The science to this point is incontestable except around the irrelevant, extreme edges.

From there the chemistry and mechanism of natural uptake is also well known and largely undisputed.

This happen in three stages
-Ocean Invasion (sea absorption): 75% of airborne CO2 will be absorbed in about 1000 years .
- next the Calcium Carbonate cycle: will absorb another 15% over 2-10000 years.
- The final stage "the weathering thermostat" will take 500000 years to absorb the last 10% i.e. to 1700 levels.

Also known is what is called is the band saturation effect which means that the temperature will not decrease at the same rate as the CO2.
There will be a large blimp before the long tail.

As I understand it not much of the above is in dispute at all.
What is less sure is the rate of change. What generally accepted is that the IPCC report was on the low side of change. However recent results have suggested a faster rate.

Given the *known science* as outlined above coupled with multiple sources for raw data, the tinkering by EAU CRU is a blip in an otherwise unequivocal scientific conclusion

Oops posted to the wrong topic, sorry, but what the heck.

News flash, Phil, Who is Inigo Owen Jones?

CJ Morgan - your observation that the global economy must slow down is sound. Western economies not only live to consume, but also waste much of what they and developing nations produce.

It's interesting to note the sheer volume of information available to the average OLO poster. We have so much information available to us - perhaps that is our problem - we humans are too clever by half.

Evolutionary Biologist, Ernst Mayr, on the subject of biological success, refuted the idea that it was better for an organism to be smart than to be stupid. He claimed that beetles and bacteria were infinitely more successful than humans in terms of survival.

He observed:
"We are entering a period of human history that may provide an answer to the question of whether it is better to be smart than stupid. The most hopeful prospect is that the question will "not" be answered: if it receives a definite answer, that answer can only be that humans were a kind of "biological error", using their allotted 100,000 years to destroy themselves and, in the process, much else.
The species has surely developed the capacity to do just that, and a hypothetical extraterrestrial observer might well conclude that humans have demonstrated that capacity throughout their history, dramatically in the last few hundred years, with an assault on the environment that sustains life, on the diversity of more complex organisms, and with cold and calculated savagery, on each other as well".

Dear Col,
What is the definition of a fool and what do you get when you educate a fool. I am not calling you a fool as you say i don't know you. I am seeing where your answer comes from
Regards Richie

philipM “Col Rouge", when you vacate your honorary chair, don't forget to flush.

I remain underwhelmed by fierce ad hominem attack by anonymous cowards.”

It is because of that “chair” that I separate my personal view from what we might regard as my “professional” view.

Plus previous threats made by skanky, low-life, leftwing and anarchist swill, maybe from among your closest colleagues,

who feel entitled too use intimidation and violence; as we see at every G8 leader summit (those who throw darts and balloons full of urine at the police),

that I deliberately elect to post anonymously.

If I relayed who I am, I could find a bunch of your “mates” on my doorstep, there to "persuade" me against expressing my " view".


That’s the sort of strategy your type of narcissism endorses,


as expressed in your original article ("fact that we have little option but to take on the old men”


So, it is reasonable for me to protect myself, since I can reasonably assume you intend to "take me on" at all and every level, including violence, to ensure "our society's children are not killed" and to repress opposition to your own “god-entitled” view at all costs.

and ensure your

"EGO" prevails.


Whereas, my libertarian values support your right to free expression, using either your own name

or a pseudonym -

like

“PhilipM”

Who may or may not be “Philip Machanick”

(now is that the smell of “hypocrite” that I detect).


Richie10 ” Dear Col, What is the definition of a fool and what do you get when you educate a fool. I am not calling you a fool as you say i don't know you. I am seeing where your answer comes from”

I would suggest it is pointlessly foolish to ask questions when you can do nothing with the answer.

It is a bit like trying to teach a pig to sing -

All you do is waste your time and annoy the pig.

(I trust that tells you where the answer you seek is coming from).

PS oink

Col, I would have thought that it was self evident from context that PhilipM = Philip Machanick.

As to your assertions that I will send a gang of thugs to your doorstep, that's a pretty amazing stretch from the fact that I do not shy from robust debate. If I were not a free speech advocate, I would have you banned from the forum for such absurdly defamatory comments, but that's not my style. I am more than happy to have your rantings here in plain view where they discredit your point of view.

GD, Global Dimming, the "shade cloth effect", in the 70's, greenies were talking about "smog", soot, "particulate matter". The burning of fossil fuels puts smog into the atmosphere as well as co2. This reduces the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere and getting the chance to bounce around or cause the "greenhouse effect".

Action on climate change may clean up the smog, faster than the co2, causing catastrophic warming, as well as, economic armageddon. 90% of the baby killers & molesters, i have encountered were from the loony, left, red/green, labour conspiracy, heaven help our children, if these recalcitrant, recidivist, criminal thugs are not removed at the next election, in all states & territories as well as federally.

Formersnag is going to be disappointed for quite some time
With Barnaby at the front line, that doesn't say much for Abbott's decision making does it.
Johnny was ousted for a reason, but Abbott didn't get it, he reverts back to the same.
The earth needs a good clean up, pollution was never a part of nature.
We need to work on a non polluting fuel to replace oil. Maybe a co2 filter on existing vehicles. The clean up starts with the individual, this will allow industry time to clean up their act.
If the populous does not get on board, and leaves it all up to industry, we may be doomed.

Philip Machanick, Who is Inigo Owen Jones?

Dallas, Inigo Owen Jones is a dead meteorologist.

Bugsy congratulations, you got that one right, a meteorologist. And, this is the big one bugsy, He forecast this warming period over 50 years ago!

Did he indeed? How about backing that up with some sauce?

Got a list of Jones' forecasts lying around have you?

Dallas, didn't he try to predict sunspot cycles? In which case there's something quite bizarrely wrong if his prediction was warming based on that variable, because the sunspot cycle has not intensified. On the contrary, we are currently at the deepest low since 1913.

Philip Machanick,
Don't you mean white old men?

Phillip, He did predict.

Dallas, you answers are a tad cryptic. I haven't been able to find a detailed exposition of this theory, other than a vague reference to predicting sunspots. If that's all it is, it's dead wrong, because sunspots have not been on the increase. Let's hear more. I'm always interested in new ideas even if they're 50 years old.

HermanYutic: when I last checked, Robert Mugabe was not particularly keen on being lumped in with "white old men". Let's be clear here: I am not accusing all elderly people of this mindset. Rather, I am singling out the peculiar phenomenon of people who should be able to lead opinion by virtue of their experience, who get stuck in an old paradigm that no longer applies. Contrast Mugabe with Mandela. Mandela used his vast experience and personal following to pull South Africa away from disaster, then stepped aside when he felt he'd done his part.

Actually Dallas, he didn't predict the current warming at all. Not even close.

I happen to have handy access to both his biography:

Inigo Jones- the weather prophet by Tim Sherrat
Metarch papers No. 16 Feb 2007 published by the Bureau of Meteorology.

and one of his officialy published papers on weather forecasting:

Inigo Jones (1944) Long Range Weather Forecasting . Queeensland Geopgraphical Journal, published in Brisbane by the Royal Geographical Society of Asutraliasia (Queensland).

His exposition on the cyclical effects of the motion of the solar system, especially the outer planets Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune, combined with sunspot activity affecting the climate in particular cycles makes for interesting reading. I say interesting, but the fact that it's garbage doesn't make it easy.

There's no doubt he was enthusiastic about his subject, but completely wrong about it, that much is obvious. Today, if he had access to the internet, noone would give him a second thought.

Dallas, if you have a good reference to show that he did accurately predict the current climate, now would be the time to speak up. If you don't, then stop spamming the threads.

PhilipM, C J Morgan, Desmond, Bugsy, Examinator, etc, Firstly i am an old conservationist and anti nuke campaigner from way back. Secondly i still am deeply concerned about the environment, we are leaving for my children & grandchildren.

But none of the current crop of AGW loony, left, wing nuts (including you) is debating the climate science of GD, Global Dimming, "the shade cloth effect". If there is any truth to it at all, then AGW action may trigger catastrophic warming, simultaneously with economic armageddon. How will making the obscenely wealthy even richer with an ETS help anybodies children? The money will be stolen from all of us and given to Goldman Sachs. Who will no doubt make tax deductible donations to green, left NGOs.

BTW, my cousin is a world renowned atmospheric scientist and any idiot can google "global dimming".

Philip M, Inigo Jones did forecast this warming (greatest drought in Australia's recorded history)and was published widely over 50 years ago.

And Bugsy, You will have to wait a while for Inigo Jones's RIP documented forecast you request as proof of his ability to produce accurate results.

Dallas, Inigo Jones was only ever published specifically, rather than widely, i.e. specifically in Queensland.

I don't see why I should have to wait, you obviously know where the prediction was published, or at least you should since you seem so sure of it. You don't have to quote it, just tell me where it is, i.e. where and when it was published, and I'll go and have a look myself.

Formersnag, I bet your cousin is so proud. Oh dear, trigger catastrophic warming and cause economic armageddon, oh dear oh dear. Well that's it, I'm off to protest doing anything against curbing emissions, the future of the planet of the planet is at stake! I am with you, we are the new AGW-GD alarmist-denialists. Or should that be denialist-alarmists?

Bugsy you are besmirching Inigo Jones but seem suprisingly reluctant to give any details? I will also search this out as I heard he predicted this current "Drought" and said it would end in 2008. Now that could be the case as we have had usual rain this year. When we have the next customary deluge you blokes will have better got your tax in place because no one will stomach it after that.
I was told by the Melbourne metrological bureau in 1989 that temperatures were not getting colder but had been within the normal range?
Rudd says hottest 10 years in the planet's history, well where exactly was this? Sounds like a rolling prediction you go there its over there etc etc.

What do you mean 'surprisingly reluctant to give details'? What sort of details do you want? What I want is details on his predictions of the current era. The latest one that I was able to source was that some sort of cycle was supposed to repeat just over every 35 years, so that whatever happened in 1930 was supposed to happen in 1965 and 2001. He gave no details as to what was supposed to happen, or where exactly, I guessing somewhere in Queensland, as nearly all is data was focussed on Qld. There were no real specifics, just the cycles. There were a bunch of other cycles too, coinciding with the orbit of Jupiter, Saturn etc. He also thought that Neptune controlled one cycle, but since its orbit was 165 years he couldn't tell what it was for Australia, because there weren't enough records. He was completely convinced that the orbit of the planets controlled our weather in definite cycles and amount of rainfall. He even thought that because the orbit of the planets were "more northerly" to the Earth, this caused Antarctica to have more land mass, and be bigger than the Arctic.

If you want more details, what sort of details do you want JBowyer? I can quote from one of his papers if you like. I have referenced it previously.

What I want is anything to back up the idea that he made a prediction, any kind of prediction, about 'this current warming period'. Put up or shut up.

Inigo Jones, from reading his biography, I am sure was nice decent man, and likely a great guy to know, and greatly immersed in his theories, but not a genius and completely wrong.

Bugsy, and what i want is for you to google "Global Dimming" review all that science, the TV docos, including the one that ran on 4Corners several years ago. Or is that what "climategate" is all about.

"Please explain" how those scientists got it wrong, or didn't. Why are economists saying the most likely outcome of an ETS is more corrupt trading of fake securities like "carbon default swaps"? Are they wrong too? How does any of this loony left BS, have anything to do with replacing electric hot water systems, with solar?

Thank you Bugsy could you let me have the reference of his papers and I will be pleased to do my own work. I am still unsure of what you are saying anyway apart from Jones was wrong.

I was struck by this comment from 'themissus'.
"Old men are the best men, young men are dangerous. Old men do not go to war. Young men do. Who is smarter?"
It's true old men don't fight and die on the front line. They just cause and declare the wars, and let children die in their stead.
The defensive and righteously indignant posts from so many clearly 'older' people tend to reinforce the notion that many people would rather cause -or at least allow- pain and misery for others rather than admit they may have been part of the problem.
Overpopulation is undeniably an issue in regard to global warming, but not nearly as much as first world waste and overconsumption, consumerism, planned obsolescence, fashion fetishes and all the other absurdities that make up modern 'civilisation'.
I believe we have been heading in the wrong direction since the end of WW2, when the military industrial complex was redirected into creating consumerist 'wealth'; making shopping the new social paradigm.
Do we have to wait for the navigators to die, before we choose a new heading?
Sadly, it seems we have taught our children too well. The current generation of homemakers appear more inclined to go into more debt for the sake of the Jones's, than even we were.

Bugsy, Inigo Jones was published widely, regularly in the Albury "Border Morning Mail" among others. Rural producers and their communities read and knew of his forecasts, some even subscribing to his forecasting services. Lennox Walker RIP was taken under his wing and his son Haydon Walker follows in his fathers footsteps! For your information Busgsy, Inigo Jones RIP forecasts were not for the sole use or non use of government.