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 :)