(whew ... someone should really have a look at your registration process, if you are trying to promote discussion you could make it waaaaay easier I am sure)

ok, thanks for that on the Tragedy of the Commons, I was aware of Hansen's opposition to cap&trade but now I am a bit clearer on the rationale

I have been watching the Copenhagen webcasts and the most discussed subject seems to be diplomatic niceties around making sure to thank everyone effusively for tasks that they are presumably very well paid to undertake (no disrespect intended, Yvo de Boer for one, is a canny fellow and seems to have his heart into it as well)

and Arnold Schwarzenegger's idea of grass roots is all good too - except I do not really think we have time to toilet train all of these governments from the bottom up

I agree with you that Copenhagen is not going to succeed, then what about Al Gore's notion of an additional COP in mid-summer in Mexico to finalize and give legal text to whatever does come out of Copenhagen?

waiting till then seems to me to let the 1.5 degree world slip right on by, too bad Tuvalu but you are expendable, and the intransigence of my own country, Canada, will not change (I don't think) until we have another election to get rid of Harper Mini-Me and God knows watch Alberta leave our confederation ... none of that before the end of 2010 at the earliest

personally, I could sure use some kind of positive plan of any kind, even if it is just to arrange to meet in Brasil and spend a few years having a good time on the beach :-)

be well, and thanks again for your concise and insightful essay.

Copenhagen was never going to get off the ground with any meaningful action.
The simple reason for that is the still preponderant belief in the corridors of power that they can continue BAU.This is quite contrary to what an unbiased and fairly informed observer would conclude.

It will take a crash to have any chance of changing that belief.

Australia should not pursue international agreements in the current circumstances.We should be doing everything possible to build a sustainable nation.Many of these actions would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions anyway.

With a Prime Minister who is at least a global warming sceptic,and probably a denier,with a government and opposition in the same camp by and large,there is no chance of anything constructive being done.The CPRS is just a sop to big business who actually own and run the country.

A political revolution is our only hope.The question is,how do you get a mob of dozy sheep to rebel? - apply painful stimuli.

isn't Australia's prime minister Kevin Rudd? I saw his speech to the Lowy Institute recently ( http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6305 for text & http://www.themonthly.com.au/climate-change-denialism-and-challenges-ahead-kevin-rudd-2141 for videos ) and he did not seem to be a denier then, in fact it looked like an excoriation of deniers ... so I am confused to hear you call him a "global warming sceptic and probably a denier"

?

Of course Copenhagen will be a flop as fare as the climate goes; but it hasn’t stopped Rudd from promising $100 million plus per year of Australian taxpayers’ money for gibbering idiots from the Third World to waste. How about that tyrannical maniac, Chavez, telling everyone the whole process is ‘undemocratic: he doesn’t even know the meaning of democracy.

The authors’ “individual over-use” of the “natural resource” (only one?) dodges the issue of over-population which, if it really is true that humans are the clause of climate change, is the important thing to be looking at. Australia’s per capita ‘footprint’ is nothing to our insignificant overall contribution to the global problem. But, Rudd wants to increase the population, making his boring ear-bashing about climate change hypocritical and totally without meaning.

The reluctance to address the issue of population by the very same people who rabbit on about climate change is one reason why Copenhagen will be a flop. All that is talked about is handing money over to people with the largest populations and without the ability to control their lives now – let alone the ability to handle the billions of dollars they expect to get out of any deal.

Every day of the conference has produced a lot of silly blaming and demanding from the world’s mendicant countries. If the do-gooders haven’t felt guilty about their ‘dreadful Western lifestyles’ yet, they certainly will by the end of the week. The undeveloped countries are using the conference to get as much money as they can from the West, and given the soft-headed luvvies who are running the show, they will get it somehow.

Another reason for the failure of the Copenhagen Conference will be the rambling, boring and meaningless talk that comes out each day, including that from the Prince of Wales and Arnold the Barbarian and the rubbish we can easily predict from the ‘world leaders’ at the end.

David, I for one don't think Kevin Rudd as being a denier or sceptic of global warming. I think he's a man who gained power on the back of our former Prime Minister's defeat and promising all kinds of wonderful things pre election only to find out out that once in power he has little hope of controlling the big business forces that hold Australia and other developed countries by the throat.

This country is no longer the democracy it was when I was growing up. Today, out political parties are all stained with the taint of big business and their mantra of 'growth at all costs.'

Well, it's going to cost us plenty. The earth is warming and resources are depleting rapidly. The "Tragedy of the Commons" is indeed coming home to roost.

Copenhagen as a monumental tragedy of the Commons.

Yep, that’s a good way of putting it!

< Copenhagen will fail to come up with a genuinely workable solution to the crisis of global warming. Rather than a solution, we predict cheap posturing and an agreement that consists of little more than a license [sic] for further negotiations… >

And a licence to continue with business as usual, while being seen to be a little bit greener than previously, but only to the extent of a very thin green veneer.

In fact, coming up with a weak agreement is very dangerous in that it would tie countries into a course of action and make it much harder to develop meaningful targets and harder to organise another urgent meeting or forum for negotiations.

If there is no agreement from Copenhagen, then the ‘playing field’ will be uncluttered by piss-weak agreements, and the urgency to do something meaningful about climate change will remain undiluted.

So I’m inclined to think that the best outcome from Copenhagen would be for the whole thing to collapse and produce absolutely no agreement.

I tend to agree with Ludwig when he writes "So I’m inclined to think that the best outcome from Copenhagen would be for the whole thing to collapse and produce absolutely no agreement". However, there will be some mealy mouthed statement of the sort we are used to from Kevin Rudd and heaps of Dollars for poorer countries to waste or cream off to leaders bank accounts.

But, in reality, a little further down the track we will eventually come to the belief that Carbon Dioxide is not the polutant that is being claimed but a most helpful gas for us and the climate will change as it has done for all the time that the Earth has been in existence. In a way, a lot of people have not progressed much from the "Tower of Babel" days

As several writers have pointed out, there never was any historical 'tragedy of the commons', because the people who held the land in common worked out formal and informal agreements to prevent its being overexploited. The whole concept is based on an implausible myth.

Likewise, if and when it is genuinely necessary to curtail unrestricted access to resources, we are quite capable of doing so -- witness the slow but sure rise of government control over Australian water supplies, for instance.

If a 'tragedy' begins then we will deal with it. Till then, as with so many other apocalyptic 'tragedies' that never actually happened, we can simply get on with our lives.

The real tragedy here is how little common sense is being applied.

First, as the CRU e:mail/code/data revelations are showing, the IPCC scientists have gamed the system in order to enhance concerns about global warming. Al Gore is proven to have not been factual. Rajendra Pachauri arguable has serious conflicts of interest, as for that matter does Al Gore. It may NOT be true that global warming is occurring. On the other hand, there are many examples of disturbing climate related changes at a local and regional level. Most of these are due to land-use factors, such as deforestation, disturbance of natural hydrological systems and the like.

Second. It is NOT proven that rising CO2 levels will lead to global warming. It is not contested that there is an effect - doubling of CO2 levels could lead to an increase in Global Mean Temperature of around 1 deg C - but the system becomes saturated with the effect that additional CO2 has an ever-reducing impact.

Third. It is impossible for the world to reduce CO2 emissions. And if we did it very likely would have no impact on climate. Certainly the projections are not encouraging, even if we were able to reduce CO2 emissions.

Fourth. We are not being told the cost of all this to Australia's families. Solar, wind, geothermal are all undeveloped systems with massive problems. Rising demand, plus no more coal fired power stations is bound to lead to electricity prices doubling or more. For what?

I am afraid that the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by CO2 hypothesis is unfounded and unproven. It will, in time, become a chapter in "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".

The good news is that you can relax about the consequences of failure in Copenhagen.

It does look like Mitchen was right in saying Australia should first wait to see what happens in Copenhagen first before passing into law an irreversible and costly ETS.

*If a 'tragedy' begins then we will deal with *

So you claim Jon J, but the reality is quite different and
the fishing industry is an example.

There are all sorts of agreements in place, but of course
people cheat, so we wander off and plunder another species,
when one species is basically buggered.

Look what happened with bluefin tuna recently. Stocks are
down to critical levels, for despite all those agreements,
the Japanese, hardly a poor or stupid nation, were cheating
for years.

One of the jobs of the Ocean Viking, before she got caught
up with refugees, was discovering 150km of trawl nets in
our Southern Ocean, seemingly set by a couple of Spanish
boats. There are good reasons why the Spanish sail all
the way here for fish. They have basically stuffed their
on fishing grounds with overfishing.

So the tragedy of the commons is alive and well for all to
see.

The tragedy is that subject of climate change has been taken and twisted into propaganda for an emissions trading scheme to take hard earned money from people who earned it. Scheme is the key word, that's for sure.

There is already a shortage of money at the bottom of the economy where ordinary generally people can no longer live from available wild game or low cost fish. Under-developed countries without social security are hit hardest.

Stimulating the lenders and big business is not the sole solution. Consumers/customers/buyers should get stimulus through adequate income and less taxes. Less company tax would allow increased wages.

Government should get on with developing new productive industry to generate revenue. More reafforestation and new whole of ocean ecosystem and fishery regeneration industry to sustain water and climate quality and world protein food supply, would be a beginning.

One day there will be a wake up how sewage nutrient-fed algae in the ocean is impacting climate, dead algae producing methane that on contact with oxygen forms increased C02. If COP 15 had been about genuine solutions to climate change there would have been success.

There is too much politics and gagging of science and innovation.

The climate is changing, quick, throw another virgin into the volcano!

The globe is cooling while CO2 levels are rising. To the extent there was a scientific consensus that the globe is warming, that consensus was wrong. It was based on computer models, all of which were wrong. If the science were settled, there would be one model, and it would have correctly predicted the cooling. Where is the EVIDENCE of catastrophic man-made global warming? Governments have spent over $50 billion dollars looking for it and failed, which is why all those government-funded scientists have been suppressing evidence, falsifying records and stifling dissent. All they have come up with is a massive and corrupt scheme for vested interest in politicised handouts, surprise surprise. Oh and perhaps if we keep trying socialism it will work eventually? Rather than fretting about a non-problem, it would be more to the point to abolish government funding of science, of which this entire scam is an artefact.

Only deliberate dishonesty, or astounding idiocy, can now explain the adherence of the warmists to their nonsense on stilts.

The gathering at Copenhagen is nothing but a festival of anti-human hypocrites and parasites. They belong in prison - after they walk home!

Peter-O-Peter-O-Tool. You still haven't a clue, and you still rant like a screaming banshee.

1. "The globe is cooling while CO2 levels are rising."

Please, learn something about signal and noise, weather and climate, natural variability and the enhanced greenhouse effect

2 "To the extent there was a scientific consensus that the globe is warming, that consensus was wrong."

Wrong.

3. "It was based on computer models"

No, it wasn't.

4. "all of which were wrong."

Wrong.

5. "If the science were settled".

Science can't ever give you 100% certainty.

6. "there would be one model"

Bollocks.

7. "and it would have correctly predicted the cooling."

It is impossible to predict the future, any dumb-nut knows that.

8. "Where is the EVIDENCE of catastrophic man-made global warming?"

There isn't any, how can you have evidence of something that hasn't happened yet?

9. "(ALL) Governments have spent over $50 billion ... suppressing evidence, falsifying records and stifling dissent ... massive and corrupt scheme for vested interest in politicised handouts ... socialism ... non-problem ... it would be more to the point to abolish government funding of science, of which this entire scam is an artefact."

Phew! So, it's all about politics. Just as I thought, the science is sound.

10. "Only deliberate dishonesty, or astounding idiocy, can now explain the adherence of the warmists to their nonsense on stilts."

Go seek help, seriously.

11. "The gathering at Copenhagen is nothing but a festival of anti-human hypocrites and parasites. They belong in prison - after they walk home!"

Yep, you're definitely off with the pixies.

No, Q&A, it's Copenhagan where you'll find the pixies, that is except for the smarties, who are using the pixies, like you, to make themselves rich.

You are like 2 of the monkies. Hands over ears, & eyes, so as not to see what you know is there, but want to ignore, with the mouth uncovered, to keep prattling.

Everyone, who thought about it, has known for years, what a con was going on, but some hate the thought, so pretend it's not happening, & some want to hitch onto it, & grab a quid. To be kind, I think you may be the former.

I do approve of the standards enforced in this forum ... there is no automated cure for 'astounding idiocy' of course, and who would have guessed that a reader of Thomas Pynchon would find a niche with the deniers?

it would be easy to digress, following the paranoia motif in Pynchon, which a Canadian critic, Northrop Frye, correlated with the subject/object split, and which so easily leads my wandering mind (by a commodius vicus of recirculation) to something like Charles Taylor's 'A Secular Age' and other such speculations that the nature of knowing itself has shifted beneath our feet in the last decades

and that digression might not be entirely a waste of time either - as I read the comments here I am struck by the stupidity of course, but stupidity packaged by a sensibility which can recognize a pretty sentence when it sees one, viz.: "Only deliberate dishonesty, or astounding idiocy, can now explain the adherence of the warmists to their nonsense on stilts."

there is a symmetry I think between this partly-educated ranting, and the kind of statements you used to hear in bar room conversation around homosexuality, grounded in ignorance and fear and overly-eager to prove disalliegance, what greater fear for those with any sensitivity whatsoever than looming human extinction?

comparing global responses to the financial crisis and global warming gives me a clue - when Hardin used the word 'commons' in 1968 there was still a physical commons in existence, or at least it was there in living memory, but I wonder if the immediate ante of several trillions of dollars to save the banks doesn't indicate that the concept of 'commons' has migrated completely into the abstract?

uh oh, coming up on 350 words ... so ... it will be a decade, maybe two or three, before the crises arrive and that most effective part of human consciousness which can only respond to sabre toothed tigers kicks in - in the meantime why not indulge in idle speculation? I think we passed the point of no return this week in Copenhagen anyway ...

Q&A

You sick 'im sir, sick 'im ! I'm sick of arguing with the willfully ignorant.

Fingers in ears and la la isn't scepticism, its anti intellectual prejudice plain and simple.

I didn't notice any of these characters trying to correct the science with science on the 'general' posting.

I wonder how many of them actually understand the science? my guess is none. Clearly they view science and scientists a bunch pagan shaman and as useful. A bunch so dilettante as to be a waste space and money solely interested in thinking up ways to get their share of the pie. Not realizing that if they get it wrong 15-20 years or more goes down the drain.
_____________
All

The mind boggles at how some of you choose a medical practitioner if we follow your logic. A GP for brain surgery, a Optometrist for dentistry, perhaps. (certainly cheaper...but...) well, their all health professionals.

Then there's the back room punch ups between competing specialists groups of medical researchers...so, shall we ignore their research? How about the drug because it has some faults or side effects?
Yet their control mechanisms are narrower, involving less disciplines and all subject to profit motive.
Shall we talk about the manipulation of the market by their unions end Big Pharma? nah they're capitalists, that's makes the difference, obviously.

Climate science involves a plethora of discreet disciplines, each with their own critical peer competitive, peer examination processes.
Also less inclined to be controlled by the profit margin. Can you imagine trying to sell a kilo of climate?

Careers in science are bloody hard to build and very easy to destroy, more than in the commercial field. You blow a business you can start another one, in science, good luck.

examinator

You are probably right, they are willfully ignorant. As far as trying to "correct" the science in the forum ... better left elsewhere, a lot of noise there (but good intentions) - I note GrahamY has bailed out, despite his initial hubris.

I agree, "fingers in ears and la la isn't scepticism, its anti intellectual prejudice plain and simple."

I would go a bit further though:

AGW 'denial' (like that shown by Hasbeen, Peter Hume and Co) is a defense mechanism.

They are faced with a few facts that are too uncomfortable for them to accept. So they reject these facts, insisting that they are not true, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'Deniers' deny the reality of unpleasant facts altogether (simple denial), or they admit the facts but deny their seriousness (minimisation), or they admit both the facts and seriousness, but deny responsibility (transference).

You know examinator, what is really worrying is that 'deniers' usually deny their denial, and it culminates in them accusing their antagonists of the very things that they are culpable of themselves - see Hasbeen's above post.

What I find so extraordinary is that, while the leaders of all the political, economic and religious ideologies of the world are meeting in Copenhagen right now to negotiate a strategy to adapt to climate change and mitigate GHG's, you have dumb-nuts trying to say the science is all wrong, or that it is some kind of conspiracy between all these opposing ideologies.

At COP15, they are not arguing the science (they all accept it). They are having a real bun-fight on how to adapt to a warmer and wetter world, when to do it, how it should be done, who's going to pay and how to live in a more sustainable way - nothing to do with the science.

And what do the the 'hasbeens' of this world do? They blind themselves, clamp their ears and chant some conspiracy mantra. Worst of all, they close their minds to what can be done - talk about a retrograde mindset. Simply astounding.

I used to subscribe to the theory that bull sh1t baffles brains, but with you two, I now see it baffles the brainwashed, even better. I am of course, giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you don't have a vested interest here, just an ego investment.

If either of you two massive intellects can give me one single bit of proof, after billions spent looking for any proof, that CO2 is heating the globe, I'll surrender.

You did both believe the Y2K scam, didn't you?

It's interesting that the polar regions seem to be diminishing at an alarming rate...surely an unusual side-effect of global "cooling".

A massive iceberg is at present floating in the Southern Ocean and being carried by currents towards the W.A. coast. It is 1700 kms south of Western Australia at the moment - although it is expected to break up as it reaches warmer waters. It is 19 kms long and 80 kms wide and it broke off the Ross ice shelf a decade ago.

New Zealand has also found itself inundated with icebergs of late, and has put out shipping warnings to warn mariners of potential hazards.

When you get pieces of Antarctica floating up to visit you, it's probably time to start taking your head out of the sand.

I see the Resident Climate Scientologist continues to talk in circles while attempting to qualify those he berates.

I say Climate Scientologists because its turning out to be less than a science and more a belief system with underlying "science" doctored to suit the prophets .. "hide the decline", indeed. Adjust this bit, add that bit to fit the narrative, you couldn't predict BS as thick as this could you? Well, clearly the Climate Scientologists can!.

Climate is too complex for current methods .. as much as they all try to BS the rest of us that they understand it, it's becoming clear that the reason temperature charts are doctored.

Nothing meaningful has come out of COP15, as expected. (Skeptics rule again)

Now we'll be able to see if all the doom prophets are correct or not, I suspect it will all just fade away as we adapt to a warmer world, and not stupidly destroy our future on the folly of attempting climate control.

Find you I expect the finding will go on for those happy few in the Climate Scientology world. Possibly the public may be less easy to fool in future, after the CRU outing. Maybe we'll see other whistleblowers out other own dabblers in the dark arts.

Q&A, Settle down. Just sit back, relax and watch the US Legal System and their Senate deal with AGW matters. You can stop "selling".

Remember what I said to you last week..... stage one "Anger/Denial. Deal with it. It was both predictable and expected. Stop proving us right and leave us some work to do.

Spindoc

Yes, I remember. You said;

<< Q&A, I feel your pain, you have every right to be angry and you have invested much. The first stage is anger/denial. Without your acceptance of being “had” you are at risk of getting “stuck” within the trauma cycle never to emerge. >>

I replied:

"No Spindoc, I am not in any pain (so I can't imagine what your feeling) - nor am I angry."

You did not reply so I assumed you were ok with that.

Now, you seem to think I am selling something and are still rabbeting on about anger/denial. What is your problem, really?

As to the US, thanks for your advice, notwithstanding I have always taken an interest in what they do (so too China).

Sounds to me like the tragedy of the commons is alive and well.

The Chinese refuse to sign anything, where they can't cheat.

The developing world wants 100 billion$ a year given to them,
which no doubt would be used to buy cars, buy electrical goods
and live it up like the West, increasing the problem still further.

Those in the West most favourable of an ETS are the bankers and
traders, who can see fortunes to be made by all this trading,
already carbon trade derivatives are being discussed as a great
way to make a quid.

Sounds to me that my old theory is about right, mother nature
will sort it all out in the end, even if the hard way. There
is just no point in stressing about it.

Q&A,
<<"No Spindoc, I am not in any pain (so I can't imagine what your feeling) - nor am I angry." You did not reply so I assumed you were ok with that.>>

First, never assume. Secondly, if you are not in pain you are, a) kidding yourself or b) you soon will be.

Q&A, AGW is over, finito, busted, rug pulled. You and so many others have been had.

I feel sorry for those who have/are studying any form of environmental science, which saw the market dry up overnight. What will our Uni’s teach now?

I don’t feel sorry for those who will lose their money on carbon credits but I do feel sorry for those who have or will lose their jobs.

Most of all I feel sorry for my grandkids that have systematically been frightened to death by the AGW bogymen. Child Alienation Syndrome is a domestic violence crime in Australia and if I could find some way of retribution against those who have given my grandkids nightmares I would pursue it to the full.

If there is ever a class action in Australia, I will join it.

spindoc: << AGW is over, finito, busted, rug pulled. You and so many others have been had. >>

Er, no spindoc. What's happened is what many of us predicted - human selfishness and tribal self-interest trumps collective action for the greater good of all. As a species we really aren't as evolved as we think we are.

Most of all I feel sorry for my and your grandkids who are going to have live with the mess that we've created, knowing full well that their grandparents' generation didn't act to reduce global warming when they had the opportunity to do so.

You're right spindoc, I should never assume. I once assumed you were an "AGW agnostic" sitting on the fence.

<< AGW is over, finito, busted, rug pulled. You and so many others have been had. >>

Yep, you "had" me alright. You agnostic? Nope, that was just a lie.

It was/is always going to be difficult to get 190+ countries with differing stages of development, economies, political and religious stance, to agree on how and when, how much, by who, etc.

But guess what, not one of those countries or their representatives think AGW is "over, finito, busted or rug pulled" - not even Saudi.

I think addressing the issues surrounding a warmer and wetter world is a very real conundrum - but we must.

Am I angry? No.
Am I optimistic? If your response is typical - no, I am not.

I don't feel sorry for your grand-kids spindoc, nor mine - I fear for them. Their grand-kids will be inheriting an impoverished world if it is left up to people like you.

Q&A
Amen.
________________

Spindoc.

Popularism doesn't = science.

As I have said before if they stop teaching environmental science do you include physics, chemistry, etc too? Well they are the basis of environmental science.

I also note you have said that there needs to be a debate on the science. I gave you a response and asked questions. You didn't respond.
Now you say the science is bogus, it's all over red rover.
Have I misinterpreted you?

Evidence suggest that you are a denier not an agnostic. To be an agnostic one must have reasoning and science to back that position.
Say what you will about me, but I always try to explain my position and why, now, where's the *science* that proves (A)GW is wrong.

Ultimately our nation negotiates to get an agreement that does the least we can get away with rather than the most we are capable of - on the basis that we shouldn't do more than the least anyone else does.

Our export coal and coal industries meanwhile are being expanded as far and as fast as possible. As the world's biggest coal exporter we are already a major player and when it comes to supplying those raw materials of climate change our true position, with it's green facade washed away, is to increase that supply.

I suppose as our agricultural exports are hurt by climate change we'll be even more dependent on the revenue from fossil fuel exports and our governments will fight harder to prevent international action that could impact them.

Make no mistake, the rest of the world can see Australia's hypocrisy clearly.

Well, nice try...…to get Nations together again after Geneva and the war to end all wars in 1918, then the U.N.after another war to end all wars in 1945 but history has clearly shown that there is no such thing as obtuse Nations doing anything together for the common good least of all in good faith. More so when rising populations with rising affluence become consumers of manufactured goods from polluting processes. The U.N. says another 2.9 billion by 2040, an increase of one third.....one third. Therein lies the problem of trying to create a new World Order.

If the causes of climate change, are indeed man made, then the answer is unclear and requires the sacrifice of vested interests on the altar of political theatre. Legislating an Emissions Trading Scheme is Australia’s tax on that assumption. But if it is the forever changing elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun then the answer is clear..adapt to it as all other life on Earth has adapted to climate change over past millenniums. The melting of the Ice Caps raising the sea levels before they begin to freeze again creates a problem for some of the Pacific Nations.This is the area to prepare for a different future on higher ground….. in rented space?. In the meantime it appears that Copenhagen is/was all about money and not intended to reach a scientific consensus for none of Australia's contingent of 114 delegates was a scientist. Europe and the U.S., one week later are in the grip of a great freeze and the Eurotunnel has broken down due to the cold. Global warming ? or a start of the next cooling?

Q&A/examinator, you did not need to assume that I was an AGW agnostic as that was my declared position, being one that was unconvinced by the current evidence but prepared to accept that new evidence might convince me one way or the other.

So what has changed?

Well the first thing that has changed is that there is no global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise.

The hockey stick has gone, tree ring proxies are gone, the NZ, Canadian and Russian data has been tampered with, the US instrument measurements were artificially “pre-loaded” by +0.5 degree C, the MWP has been “smoothed out” along with the LIA, the CRU’s database is described by one of their own programmers as “garbage”, the IPCC forecast errors were 7.7 times greater than the no-change modeling with 12.6 times less relative accuracy over longer term forecasts and their modeling does not correlate with actual measurements. The CRU systems are not ISO 9000 certified or audited. Of the evidence-based forecasting principles relevant to the IPCC scenarios, the IPCC violated 72 out of 89.

The computers used to “model” seem to be Linux based operating systems running formula based FORTRAN however; these are not “native FORTRAN compliers”, they run in “translator mode”. There is much duplicated source code, data access paths are suspect and outputs unreliable. The CRU programmers own “HARRY-READ-ME” files included in the released files point to a classic “garbage in-garbage out” system with extensive input data manipulation.

The peer review process has been violated and manipulated, consensus is none existent, even within the small band of those “scientists” authoring for the IPCC. On the wider front, in addition to the 30,000 plus dissenting scientists, 9,000 with PhD’s, we now have two open letters to de Boer from a further 8,000 dissenting scientists.

Phil Jones at CRU has now admitted that he has deleted some of the raw data upon which their forecasts were based; fortunately some countries still have theirs. No data, no case, because we can no longer validate or replicate their results, nice one Phil.

Continued:

Continued;

Hacking?
The released files contained some 12 years of emails, source code, graphs, data, reports and programmer notes. Firstly no system keeps 12 years of emails on-line, they are in archived files along with data backups, and hackers cannot access source code.

In addition, the BBC has now admitted that they received the files some five weeks before they were made public. It seems clear that the CRU is telling great big “porkies”, Phil Jones would have known five weeks earlier that these files had been lifted.

If Phil Jones deleted on-line data he would also have to destroy the backup files in archive. The source code can only have been “lifted” and then packaged, along with all other released data and files prior to that whole “zipped” file being stolen.

As for the much vaunted scientist, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007. He is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all. Not to mention his astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

So why did Copenhagen fail? I have to speculate that every politician attending is very intelligent and that their advisers keep them well informed. They would be fully aware that in spite of much media censorship, that their electorates back home were seeing the corruption of AGW science. Not one of them was prepared to return to their countries with a Turkey for Christmas.

There are 26 well documented analogies of “impending disaster” scenarios between 1798 and 2008. All of them wrong. Economies have been damaged, societies disrupted and in the case of the “DDT Causes Cancer” fraud, some 2 million Africans died of malaria. Oh, I forgot to mention the name of a US Senator that, amongst other agencies, endorsed the forced withdrawal of DDT in Africa, Senator Al Gore!

AGW Agnostic? Not any more. You bought into it, you live with it.

Well said spindoc .. it needs to be said as often as possible now to the sheep of MSM we have in Australia and all the gullible fools who will not believe they have been hoaxed.

I expect the gullible ones who believed this foolish story of doom, will now be in "denial" that it is all fabricated. Now we'll see the true application of that word, how appropriate.

Fabricated by groups to get funding, like Patchauri from various organisations, like CRU (and organizations even in Australia) for grants, like some people like Al Gore to get people to invest in his schemes. Some of the foolish went along with this scientific fraud to be fashionable, like the organizations who have nothing to do with climate but got behind the "consensus".

In the end all the accusations have been pointed at "Big Oil" and all along it has been "Big Green" getting the benefits, nice misdirection there.

It will take time to completely unravel, but who could ever trust a climate scientist again? No one will want to study or be in the field will they, and those in it will be trying to spin the situation as respect and funding starts to ebb away, and suspicion turns on them. Cue Q&A.

Ok spindoc, apparently it’s my cue.

You say “there is no global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise”

Could you please explain what you mean or define as global warming? For example, how many years of data do we have to have before we can say whether it’s warming or cooling?

You say “the hockey stick has gone”

Which hockey stick are you talking about?

• O2005 - Oerlemans

• PS2004 – Pollack & Smerdon

• JBB-1998 – Jones et al

• ECS2002 – Esper et al

• MBH1999 – Mann et al

• RMO-2005 – Rutherford et al

• BOS-2001 – Briffa

• MSH-2005 – Moberg et al

• MJ2003 – Mann & Jones

• DWJ2006 – D’Arrigo

• B2000 – Briffa

• HCA – 2006

Or do you mean them all?

You also say “tree ring proxies are gone”

Which tree ring proxy are you referring to?

What about other proxy reconstructions – corals, stalagmites, ice cores, sediments, micro-flora, soil bore-logs, etc – are they gone too?

Ok spindoc, you go on to say “the NZ, Canadian and Russian data has been tampered with”

I know about New Zealand. You (or someone) base this claim on a ‘scoop’ from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (fancy name) – a group of global warming sceptics who themselves got caught tampering with the data for NZ.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Spindoc, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the NZ warming trend ‘go away’. They did this by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site (stupid, dumb and fraudulent). They also claim that New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research wouldn’t explain how they adjust the data for site changes. That is simply untrue, another lie. It's all there for anyone to see – did you check yourself, spindoc? Or are you just parroting the ‘denialosphere’ again?

I also know about the Russian data-set spindoc. Like that from NZ, it appears you are referring to another ‘denialosphere’ story (touted by the UK novelist/journalist James Delingpole). This one based on a right-wing Moscow think tank (Institute of Economic Analysis) ‘revelation’. The IEA were trying to make a claim against AGW before Copenhagen (like the NZCSC) and it was they themselves who tampered with the data-set.

You have said that you prefer to look at the data yourself spindoc. Why didn’t you check the Russian or the New Zealand data-sets before repeating guff that is posted all over the ‘denialosphere’?

I don’t know anything about Canadian tampering of climate data. Please, can you point or link me to your source of this information? Don’t bother if it’s from a ‘denialist’ blog site or media shock-jock.

You say Phil Jones “admitted that he has deleted some of the raw data upon which their forecasts were based”. This is also untrue (or did you too take this out of context) – raw data cannot be deleted, it is archived and backed up.

Actually spindoc, most of what you are saying does appear to be ‘lifted’ from anti-AGW blog sites. If you ever were a real sceptic (or genuine agnostic) you would have checked the facts yourself, from primary sources – you obviously haven’t. If you had, you would know that you have been had.

Q&A, this is possibly your worst post yet. You failed to address any of the key criticisms; you “nibbled” round the edges before resorting to trashing sources as “denialosphere”.

Let’s try another approach.

Firstly, you are probably the best informed on this topic, you have better access to research, you study this topic and you are supported by like minded academics.

Secondly, the criticisms leveled at the IPCC, CRU, Met Office, Pen State and the IPCC processes and predictions, are NOT my criticisms. I am simply tabling concerns that have been reported in the international public domain over the past few weeks.

You are already fully aware of all these criticisms, so why play dumb and bash the messenger?

These criticisms are yet to be proved however, they do paint a dramatically different picture of what we have been led to believe is good, clean and robust science.

You have a splendid opportunity to use your skills, knowledge and research to refute these criticisms. You also have a clean slate since the pre-Copenhagen/Climategate scenario is gone.

Could I suggest that you start with such topics as Consensus, Peer Review Process, Transparency, Data Integrity, Modeling Methodology and Scientific Credentials.

After that we can discuss how you propose validating the IPCC’s warming claims? That should be good.

If you can’t answer the questions, that’s OK, the pointy heads in the US are already crawling over the data, code, notes and reports. The US DOE has issued a “Litigation Hold Notice” and the Lawyers, Congressional Hearings and Grand Juries can be expected to answer ALL outstanding scientific questions for us, that’s because the US has invested $millions and they now want a business case for their investment.

say you were about to cross a busy street and 100 people were watching, and 99 of them shouted, "look out, there's a bus coming!" and the other one shouted, "nah, that's no bus, that's just a hound!"

I wonder if you would step out?

as for these proofs you are pretending to ask for, they are everywhere, on the subject of "is it really still warming or not?" there have been some good scientific articles quoted recently at Real Climate ( http://www.realclimate.org/ ) and these are articles from scientists not directly associated with Real Climate, I know that won't satisfy your paranoid delusion but it is the most I am prepared to do, and that only because I had the link handy

reminds me of the Stones years ago singing, "would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya ..."

the punch line (just in case for some fundamental or constitutional reason you did not get it) is, "yeah, it was just a hound, a Greyhound."

just in case anyone is interested in what a real statesman has to say about it, here's Lula da Silva from Brazil:
each of these is about 9 minutes and has subtitles in english:
part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQzVjDp5WA8
part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGx8Ku08L_c

of course he never graduated from high-school so I guess he doesn't qualify as a scientist :-)

and if the Stones reference happened to go over your head (like I said for fundamental or constitutional reasons), here they are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJkBKrd-Gs

be well.

David Wilson - so you're advocating gambling, so if something remotely looks like happening we should address it?

This is the precautionary principle yes? I don't agree with it as it is just all too convenient and dismisses real science for religious group think, lot's of people agree with this, so it must be true?

Even if CO2 is not directly linked to climate change, you surmise based on flimsy evidence it must be so? (can you link to any site that has a proven link from CO2 to temperature change? Not just hysterical AGW believer sites, the believosphere, I mean, real science?)

Then let's bomb the crap out if Iran now because it sure looks like they are going to develop a Nuclear weapon and they have already stated Israel should not exist - so let's stop what is 90% certain will happen, they will bomb Israel with a nuke the moment they get one.

Or does your theory only subscribe to AGW and your cherry picked situations?

Come, join me in insisting in the free world bombing Iran .. now!

Because we need to give the benefit of the doubt to Israel don't we or else we'd look stupid insisting the benefit of the doubt be given to AGW, yes?

David Wilson, your analogy is invalid because you imply that 99% support the science (bus vs. no bus). Naughty, naughty, assumption close methinks.

Firstly, there is only ONE international franchise for AGW that is the IPCC.

Secondly there are thousands of Universities, researchers and scientists round the world producing research and opinions. For every one of these that supports AGW, there is another that refutes it. Just adding up the petitions and the two recent open letters to the UN, there would appear to be in excess of 30,000 scientific voices of dissent.

Of all these multitudes of scientists who produce research and opinion, only those selected by the IPCC have their voices heard. If it isn’t good enough for the IPCC, we can howl as much as we like but we have to accept that they are just unofficial opinions.

So, IMHO, we have to let the vast “pro” and “anti” lobbies cancel each other out and focus on the remaining and only authorized International scientific body, the IPCC.

Quite how the current investigations into the IPCC, Hadley, CRU, EAU, Pen State and UK Met. Office will pan out, we don’t know. Given that they are investigating themselves poses some interesting challenges, particularly if the US Senate Hearings come up with differing conclusions?

Enjoy your Christmas Pud.

my mistake folks, I found this quite interesting article here and thought ... hmmm, maybe there will be some interesting chitter chatter, but the joke's on me, and happily, I like jokes

maybe y'all should just cut to the chase and take on that very biggest and most baddest of all conspiracies - cause & effect?

I'll leave you to it, Merry Christmas, be well.

I think David is advocating the Penny Wong type spin, lets have an ETS as a risk management tool. If the data looks even a little like CO2 is messing with the world, lets tax every one so that it doesn't happen. Does anyone really believe a tax is good risk management or will do any good at all even if we do believe there is global warming? I don't and I will be buggered if I want to see the likes of Al Gore or Tim Flannery getting rich on this spin.

rpg: << Because we need to give the benefit of the doubt to Israel don't we or else we'd look stupid insisting the benefit of the doubt be given to AGW, yes? >>

No. That's just bizarre - in philosophy, it's known as the 'invalid analogy' logical fallacy. spindoc also has it wrong, as he so often does. David Wilson's analogy is hyperbolic, but it would work for AGW if the percentages were changed a bit. It's still apples and apples.

Have happy Saturnalia anyway, and hopefully a less delusional new year.

RaeBee is merely expressing the notion that may well drown out the spin supporting an ETS. While watching the Pt. Lincoln fires on TV this evening and reflecting on the huge acreage of fodder fencing and forest lost to the Victorian fires. The thousands of tonnes of CO2 consumed every year of growth is discharged back into the atmosphere in as many hours. The spin ignores the CO2 of these fires and concentrates on energy and industry and the source of money. The official line from Wong is that half of the 3.6 million middle income earners will get $x p.a. to compensate for rising costs and pensioners will get $x plus p.a. from the Emissions Tax Scheme to be imposed on industry who, quote," will be forced to pay"for the amount of CO2 they emit, hardly "Trading". I have not yet seen any data that emissions are reduced by the tax when Nature does a great deal more from such bushfires. As an amateur plantsman, if there is so much CO2 in the atmosphere causing global warming instead of the close trajectory of Earth around our Sun at the present time, then my tomatoes should be the size of footballs. Bottled CO2 flow into a sealed glass house is well known as a growth accelerator. What difference is that mini environment to the atmospheric mantle covering the Earth?

CJ, no, you're wrong.

Anyone who wants to change the entire world order because something might be true, is in the region of absurdia. It is gambling and based on probability - I'm not a philosopher, I'm an engineer - which is why I like others in my field demand facts - climate science, (or more accurately, Climate Scientology) seems to make huge leaps of faith, has statistical tricks all over the place and really does not stand up to scrutiny as a senior science.

After the CRU revelations, I'm sure now we'll see other interesting tricks as we turn over rocks to bring light of day to the "science"

Paranoid David,I think not, let's see what comes out of this fraudulent supposed science. Wanting a consensus is not science. Demanding everyone read reams of trivial papers which supposedly support the AGW theory is arrogant and meaningless - if it were true what you say, then the papers would link CO2 to temperature and there would be no need for tricks or fiddling with data - it's the last one that is the real problem, they actually then tried to justify it and of course their colleagues, who want grants as well, lapped it up. So much for peer review in that field!

So it's just as reasonable to demand that if you want to gamble and go down a particular path because of a highly probable outcome in AGW, so it is reasonable to go down a similar route, based on probability, and bomb the crap out of Iran.

Equally absurd, which is the point I clearly failed to make earlier and I do apologize for being obtuse - an engineer would "get it" I assure you.

Happy Christmas however you choose to celebrate, or not, if you don't.

rpg has nailed it, the thousands of elusive scientific wisps, the smoke and mirrors of a science of probability. I too, an engineer and during 22 years in Asia often propelled into the unknown to unravel the threads of very high risk to project insurers that the environment is always ready to illuminate. Copenhagen was touted as a consensus of environmental science, a consensus to guide the heads of state but the science fell over from within and became as it started out, just elusive scientific wisps that ignored the Sun as the most likely suspect for the occasional warming and cooling.

Meanwhile Mt. Mayon has erupted and like Mt. Pinatubo a few years back that blotted out the sun for weeks,spewing its pyroclastics high into the atmosphere where the winds will do the distribution. Together with bushfires,one is forgiven for being quite cynical to the point of anger that 114 Ruddites in Copenhagen, and none of them scientists, have already decreed that the proposed ETS will lead the World to reduce atmospheric CO2 because "industry will be forced to pay for its carbon emissions" Does anyone really believe that with bushfires and erupting volcanoes the CO2 will be reduced by the ETS?

CJ, <<David Wilson's analogy is hyperbolic, but it would work for AGW if the percentages were changed a bit. It's still apples and apples. >>

I agree with you, if the percentages were changed the analogy would work. David offered 99%, which is his “degree of certainty”.

So what percentage will you offer and how would you arrive at that figure?

Hi spindoc. 80% would work for me - that's about the lowest figure I can find for climate scientists who support AGW. It would also work for the bus analogy too.

On the 'precautionary principle', I think it's a trade-off between the consequences of not acting to reduce greenhouse emissions and the probability that 80% of climate scientists are wrong (ditto with the bus example, it's a trade off between rejecting the advice of 80 out 100 onlookers and that of staying safely on the kerb). In either case, the consequences of rejecting the advice of 80% of 'experts' are far more dire than taking heed of them.

Of course, I'm an environmentalist anyway, so I'd be quite happy for deforestation to stop and for all industrial emissions to be drastically reduced anyway.

I've noticed that engineers and other 'business as usual' types think somewhat differently.

Have a great holiday :)

Have a great holiday all, seems like we might be inundated with rain this Christmas! So there's that pesky weather doing what it shouldn't, and buggering up the BBQ on Christmas Day.

When we all pay this ETS to stop GW I think we should write letters of protest to the politicians and complain; telling them they need to stop climate change or change the climate or something. After all they will be getting paid for it and they are the ones who know all about it, so they say.

I hope some common sense prevails next year, if not the Labour Government is in trouble towing this line.

Happy whatever it is you and your families. Enjoy

CJ, <<80% would work for me - that's about the lowest figure I can find for climate scientists who support AGW. >>

80% is as good number as any I suppose. The problem is you said “lowest figure I can find”. So may we ask where you found it?

Given that if we include the two recent open letters from scientists to the UN, and the petition opposing AGW, which includes 9,000 with PhD’s, it is evident at least 30,000 scientists do not agree and have documented their opposition.

So if you wish to stick with your 80%, you need to find another 266,000 supporting scientists. If you have indeed found some figures and the lowest in 80%, can you please direct us to your source? Otherwise we will have to assume the you have simply invented it.

I couldn't find anything about 80% of scientists agreeing with AGW either Spindoc.
According to this article in New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html

"In fact, a recent poll found that 97.4% of active climatologists agree that human activity is warming the planet."

One can only wonder what the 9000 had Phd's in.

"Climatologists say human activity is warming the planet" ignores the Sun and the regular elliptical orbit of Earth that has for the past many years been bringing Earth closer to the heat and for the next many years further away. The NASA Earth satellite currently orbiting the poles has detected huge snow deposition at the North Pole which might be so if the current weather in the North is an indication. Rising affluence of the poorer nations, and demands on the World resources from the extra 2.8 billion souls in the next 40 years ( U.N. figures), an increase of one third, will have a much greater impact,the potential of which has yet to be imagined.As an engineering thinker and amateur plantsman, increasing the CO2 in a closed environment rapidly increases plant growth. What difference is this mini environment to the atmospheric mantle protecting the Earth? If scientists and climatologists have shown that atmospheric CO2 has reached such alarming levels ( but have they?) then my tomatoes should be size of footballs.

Hi spindoc. Among other sources, my figure was derived from this survey:

<< The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. >>

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

And also this one:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

<< Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. >>

My nomination of 80% was therefore conservative, but well grounded.

I note that you didn't provide a source for your 'open letters', nor the petition you cite. Shall we assume that you made them up?

CJ, Thanks for the links. Interesting things, numbers I mean. You know what they say, “there are statistics, statistics and damn lies.”

Your link says that in 2004, 3,146 “scientists” were polled; you forgot to mention that only 30.7% responded. Of the remaining 30.7%, 77 were climatologists and that 75 of these “agreed” with the “consensus”.

47% of the American public “thinks” that scientists are in agreement. Well jolly hockey sticks; you are still 120,000 scientists short.

You say <<I note that you didn't provide a source for your 'open letters', nor the petition you cite. Shall we assume that you made them up?>>

To which some might be tempted to say, you can assume what you like, the links for these have been posted many times on OLO, therefore, unlike skeptics, you seem to avoid going where contrary information might conflict with ignorance and ideology. This is your problem, stop being so lazy.

I have to wonder why someone else’s opinion which happens to support yours is such an obstacle to learning.

So you weren't being honest, spindoc? If it wasn't already, your pseudonym seems particlularly apposite after your last post. Are you actually some kind of shill IRL?

You said:

<< I agree with you, if the percentages were changed the analogy would work. David offered 99%, which is his “degree of certainty”.

So what percentage will you offer and how would you arrive at that figure? >>

I responded with a figure of 80%, and told you how I arrived at that figure. You demanded the basis for my calculation, which I provided. On the precautionary principle, my reasoning is sound - which you know, but you've decided to change the subject by attacking my sources.

What is particularly laughable is your reliance on the widely discredited petition 'petition' of 'scientists', while refusing to source your claim to authority. I could provide many links that expose the fraudulent nature of that supposed petition, but your behaviour here doesn't elicit such courtesy. It doesn't really matter, because anybody who's familiar with that Internet fraud (including you) knows exactly what I'm talking about anyway.

"spindoc" by pseudonym and spin doctor by vocation, I think. Shill.

Now that we've established that, I won't be feeding you any more.

Having established that, you two, you both forgot the Sun and my tomatoes and failed to establish the CO2 levels at ground zero and at 1000 meters to support the degradation of the atmospheric mantle theory by human activity as the primary cause of global warming. You are both forgiven because neither has anyone else

SpinDoc I hope you realise you will never win with CJ. I am on your side but he won't give up with his facts cherry picked from here and there. I wonder if in another life he is really a politician?

However, this thread is getting to the end and it is hoped that it is realised that Copenhagen was a complete farce and nothing but an expensive talk fest and we all paid for over 100 people to go there.

This nonsense has to stop. The politicians in this country need to take care of this country and the people. We pay them for this and only this, our country, our infrastructure.

Why should we put up with collection of our taxes to be distributed to other countries and used by them, some of them run by despots, for their well being.

This whole Copehagen thing was not about CO2 emmissions, it was about taxing people in devloped countries. Fortunately it came right at the crunch of the economic meltdown.

Ask youselves, what was Copenhagen all about? I know one thing it was not about climate change or so called global warming. IT WAS ABOUT MONEY. It was a CON...

you say, "this thread is getting to the end," and I see that was exactly your objective, nothing you have said is backed up with the merest tissue of fact but you have managed to spoil it with your braying ... bor-ring, so it goes

you've all heard the elementary school joke about which organ rules the body right?

I'll leave that with you ... be well.

I agree RaeBee, however, I’m much more interested in cause than effect. Why do so many “adopt” the opinions of others rather than take on a broad spectrum of input?

Rationalists tend to absorb information on any given topic, from wide ranging and often opposing views. This means reality stays in balance, if there is no conclusive evidence either way, realists are able to continue absorbing information until or unless there is sufficient evidence for their own conclusions.

Those who leap to the conclusions of others are left with resisting challenges to the orthodoxy of others. Because the opinion is someone else’s, they are utterly incapable of defending it.

For example, CJ quotes a link amongst many, that support the “adopted” view, a link that seeks to justify that 80% of science says AGW is true. It is the 80% that is latched on to. In fact that link basically says that 80% of 30.7% of 0.7% agree that scientists agree there is “consensus”. An utterly futile link.

The response by CJ is that I’m not just questioning the source; I’m “attacking” it, thus confirming the futility of the link.

Next, having refused to provide a link that I know CJ already has, but refuses to admit to, we have confirmation that not only was CJ fully aware of that link, we hear that CJ already has <<many links that expose the fraudulent nature of that supposed petition>>.

Then we get, my “behavior” is bad, it’s “internet fraud”, a bit of silliness poked at my pseudonym and the ultimate taking home of ones wickets with << I won’t be feeding you any more>>

CJ is a classic case of trying to defend and justify the adoption of someone else’s conclusions, when challenged, it simply crumbles. Facinating.

Quite so, SpinDoc, it seems some posters are quite ignorant and show their rudeness by putting down those who do not agree with their thinking.

Just for the record I have, over the last few years, looked at both sides of the global warming/climate change issue and have read extensively. I felt it was in my best interests to do so for the sake of my children and grand children. I don't need to post links backing my opinion as some seem to think should happen. It is my opinion and I came by it by legitimate, authenticated means.

I think the global warming alarmists are starting to lose ground and are becoming quite nasty about the situation. What is their gain or loss I wonder? Or are they just used to winning the arguement by scare tactics? It is not working any more. People are studying the facts and are making up their owns minds.

The bottom line is, if these taxes are going to degrade their lifestyle with nothing to show for it in the long run, they will not agree to an ETS and Mr. Rudd can go whistle in the wind.

This link provides a list of individual scientists and scientific organisations that concur with mainstream thinking on AGW.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

I particularly like this quote from Dr James Baker:
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".

The most common complaint made by climate sceptics is that "money rides on academics toeing the line"; yet the oil companies are the only ones openly offering bounties ($10,000) for scientists prepared to speak out against AGW.
As to climatologists ignoring the effect of the sun on climate, that makes as much sense as claiming a barber would ignore the effect of baldness of his customers on his occupation. In controlled environments, the amount of CO2 introduced to significantly affect plant growth needs to be such that plantsmen must limit their time in the environment, due to breathing problems.

Grim, I think you confirmed my point quite nicely. For every link and quote that you provide someone else will provide an equally valid but opposing scientific view.

I really am puzzled by this. Let me put it to you this way, and maybe you can help. There is only one franchise on the planet for AGW, the IPCC. There are only five “lead” authors. So whatever scientific opinion is made public and there are thousands of them, only that which is selected, channeled and included in the IPCC assessments is official. The rest is simply unofficial scientific interpretation of the available research.

After that we have several more layers of opinion, political, academic, intellectual and media commentary. Tagging off the bottom of all these opinions is public opinion.

So why would so many in the public domain, without any scientific qualifications, choose to support one particular group of opinions?

Scientific “consensus” is often quoted. There is no such thing as scientific consensus; the very word consensus recognizes conflicting scientific opinion. We now know that even the lead authors to the IPCC can’t agree, let alone the thousands of scientists who have put their opposition in writing.

Grim, can you please explain your basis for adopting the views of only one set of scientific opinions?

Spindoc, you obviously didn't bother to follow the link. The IPCC is not the only 'franchise' on the planet for AGW. There has never been greater consensus in scientific circles than there is now for AGW.
Darwin certainly didn't enjoy the degree of consensus AGW currently enjoys.
What are you, a creationist?
The evidence is overwhelming. Just consider the millions of tonnes of fossil fuels burnt -turned into atmospheric pollution- every single day.
Look at the number of trees that have been cut down, not just this or last century, but over the last 5,000 years.
To suggest that 'puny' humans cannot affect climate is absolute stupidity.
A bloody dam can affect climate (locally).
Humans are 'local' all over the whole planet.

Grim, looking at the link and I usually don't puddle around looking at other people's favorite cookies, it is all for the IPCC climate change alarmists.

If you are serious about common discussion, post some of the opposing scientific links or don't you look at those.

Seems like a one sided arguement from the IPCC perhaps. The one thing I do agree with you on is, the IPCC is not the only "FRANCHISE" pushing global warming. How right you are. People deserve better than a one sided argument.

Anyway most people in this country are not going to be "TOLD" any longer. They want "PROOF" and the IPCC quite simply are not giving that. They are not playing fair, why? Perhaps too many interested franchises? You said it.

Grim, << The IPCC is not the only 'franchise' on the planet for AGW.>>

Really? And the others are?

Academia class Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Academié des Sciences,
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Royal Society, United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change.  The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico 
New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States

Individual societies and organisations which accept the reality of AGW
Union of Concerned Scientists
Woods Hole Research Center
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
National Research Council (USA)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
American Geophysical Union
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
The Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society

Grim, you should know about 'bait and switch'.

See comments again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9844#158759

The operative word is 'franchise'.

The list you provide (which is most definitley incomplete) is NOT a list of 'franchises' - although some may like to think otherwise.

Indeed, the list you provide is commonly used to exemplify scientific bodies that are engaged not only in scientific fraud, but a world-wide conspiracy.

And the thousands of scientists contributing research to the latest assessment? Complete bunkem, they obviously don't stack up to independent peer review by the 'petition'.

It is apparent that 'anti-science' is rearing its ugly head and is manifested (for example) by inaction on 'climate change'.

Happy New Year guys:
"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Peer Review?
" In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.

We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

Grim, many thanks for your great list. Now tell me which of these “scientific opinions” made it into the IPCC assessment?

Q&A, you should be able to help Grim with this one?

Just in passing Q&A, do you wish to restate the credibility of the IPCC? If I remember rightly these were based upon “Consensus”, “Peer Review”, “Data Integrity”, Modeling” “Scientific Qualifications” and “Evidence Based Forecasting”?

When you’re ready.