CJ, I too desperately hope that the denialists are right.

NOTHING of any substance can come out of Copenhagen.

Check out what NASA climate scientist, Dr James Hansen, had to say about the magnitude of the issue that we are up against and the hopelessness of the Copenhagen meeting, on Monday’s Lateline program.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/ Go to the segment titled; Climate scientist discusses Copenhagen summit. You only need to listen to about the first five minutes to get the picture.

Or read the transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm

----

I tried to post this post 14 hours ago but got brickwalled by the 2-posts-in-24-hours rule. Aaarrggh!!

That is enormously restrictive when you want to comment on new article threads that are hot–to-trot about current and very important topics! );>{

See my general thread on this complant! http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3272

CJ Morgan, I presume there are more who read these articles than comment on them. I write for them and for those who might be interested in some constructive discussion.

Regarding the latter, there have been some good questions raised in these comments (among the many assertions). But why do many here seem to just assume scientists haven’t thought of these questions already, and looked into them? Also, have those who are so sure there’s no proof, or it’s all been fudged, actually looked into the scientific literature, or just taken a cue from some website?

An example of a good question: if they can’t forecast next week’s weather, how can they forecast the climate in fifty years? Well, there are many systems that fluctuate erratically around a slowly-changing mean. The fluctuations are hard to predict, though the mean can be inferred from a longer-term average. Weather is the fluctuation, climate is the slowly changing mean. Climate can be predicted relatively well, compared with weather, paradoxical as that may seem at first.

Some other points raised in the comments have already been covered, as you would see from a more careful reading of the article and links. For example, of course there is still scientific debate, even some who question basic findings. This doesn’t automatically mean the science should be dismissed out of hand. The IPCC has determined that the great majority of scientists think humans are *contributing substantially* to global warming (to use properly careful phrasing). This is not proof, and isn’t presented as proof. It’s the profession’s best collective judgement, which is what is required by policy makers.

One more point. Yes climate fluctuates naturally. However it has been rather stable for the 10,000 years in which civilisation developed. Big changes are likely to disrupt and degrade the present global industrial system, with consequent falling living standards, poverty, death etc. I’m not willing to be as sanguine about that as some who comment here. When you talk about changes, the time scale is important, as well as the magnitude.

Come om Geoff, pull the other one mate. Stable for 10,000 years. A strange kind of stable.

A wine grape industry in northern England, & cows grazing Greenland during the medieval warm period. A fair bit hotter than today, say +3C.

Then how about fairs held on the ice on the thames during the little ice age. How much colder was that? How about -3C.

The kind of rubbish, pushed by you lot is exactly what makes it impossible for any thinking person to believe all the garbage you spin.

If you have anything like real evidence, put it on the table,

If some of it is a bit each way, try the truth, [I know that would feel strange to you], you could find a ready audience, once we can turn off our bull sh1t detectors.

Anyone who can believe your above post, either wants to believe, or is a simpleton.

“Climate scientists, enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame, have let the glare of the spotlights blind and befuddle their thinking.”

Couldn’t be further from the truth.

“Climate scientists are hell bent on threatening us all with the consequences of ignoring their prophecies of doom”.

Such a stupid statement, Col. But I'll defend your right to make them.

“However, they are very silent on the benefits to us all of implementing their strategies.”

Actually, it is the politicians, economists and captains of industry that will be implementing strategies. But some people, Col, have got their head so firmly buried in the mud (or stuck up their butt) that it is impossible for them to see that.

“So we lower some theoretical measure of supposed pollution? What are the anticipated benefits? Where are the “Cost : Benefit” analyses? What is the added value of all this hysteria?”

You really haven’t been paying attention, Col.

“If, setting up a ETS ... means that a seal colony will survive in Greenland and the Moose will continue to migrate from an icy wilderness ... will Canada once again see a return of the fabled "northern penguin ... will it all be worth it?”

Stop smoking the stuff Col, you always distort the big picture.

“Will it be worth a brass razzo when the supposed pollution limits are either exempted or ignored by the nations who represent 75% the world population and 100% the world population growth?”

Be part of the solution Col – surely you have gained some skills in your accountancy career that is not so narcissistic.

“It sounds more and more like just a plan of self abuse of the developed world ... Now, we all know the only outcome of self-abuse is to go blind ... And with the tattered reputation for ethicacy of the so-called “science" of climate change ... I cannot help thinking that would just be another example of the blind leading the blind.”

Col, as has been said before ... you are the one stroking it, and you are as misguided as ever.

Hasbeen: "A wine grape industry in northern England, & cows grazing Greenland during the medieval warm period. A fair bit hotter than today, say +3C."

Geoff didn't give any sources, and neither did you. So I went looking and found this: http://j.mp/5z0vTh

That graph plots 8 different proxies for world temperature over the last 12,000 years. None show world wide variations of the sort you claim. In fact Geoff's characterisation of "Stable for 10,000 years" seems pretty good.

Perhaps you are cherry picking the data, using temperatures in a particular location rather than the world average we are discussing here?

Q&A “Actually, it is the politicians, economists and captains of industry that will be implementing strategies. But some people, Col, have got their head so firmly buried in the mud (or stuck up their butt) that it is impossible for them to see that.”

That in no way absolves even so called "scientists" from btheir duty to report what they anticipate to be the BENEFITS of the measures they would see imposed on the rest of us.

Of course, that assumes they can find any.

Being a humble accountant, in my professionally developed "sceptical" training and my own extensive practical experience of the ways of the world, especially when dealing with those who hanker after big lumps of other peoples money, -


I have found the primary reason why someone avoids promoting the BENEFITS of their own ideas / pet fetish / personal obsession is very simple


They make little issue of the BENEFITS because


There are absolutely NO BENEFITS to be gained.


the whole "Climate Change Circus" is worse than the fabled "Ponzi" scheme promoted by the Bernard Madoffs of the world

the only difference -

the so-called "scientists" of Climate Change, lacking the "silver tongue" of the professional conman, fall back on the intimidatory methods preferred by kidnappers and blackmailers, to extort their ill gotten gains.


So Q&A, postulate all you like where my mind might be,

all that does is confirm,

your own scientific endeavour and dedication is so spartan that your PERSONAL contribution is likley to be even less than most indolent "climate scientist", in short you are

A waste of good breathable air whose net contribution is measuable in negative contributory terms.

By the way are you still aspiring to emeritus ?

I love it when folk "don the mantle" of their aspirations.. .the sign of a first class fraud, pretending you are more than the sum of all your actual credentials

Q&A – is must be short for “Quaint & Antiquated”

or maybe "Questionable and Artificial"

either way, Q&A certainly represents nothing worth remembering