It is painfully obvious that it is impossible in a democracy to take any meaningful action on reduction of carbon emission and the current point scoring by our new leader of the opposition simply confirms this fact. Unfortunately it seems equally impossible for an oligarchy or autocracy to take any action either (vide China). This sort of leads to the inevitable conclusion that as a species, or at least one living as opposed to surviving we are – to put it technically BU*GER*D.

I noted the sentence 'Science reveals that climate is close to tipping points'. Could I be directed to any scientific papers that demonstrate (i) that there are such tipping points in respect of climate, (ii) what causes them, and (iii) the data or evidence that support their existence.

Hell! Canberra really is full of then, isn't it?

The worst thing is that this one is not in parliament, where we could vote him out in a few years. He probably even has tenure, so we've got him for life.

It indicates how little some of them really know, when you see that some of them actually do believe in this rubbish. Like the Argo buoys. They expected they would show increasing ocean temperature. Of course, when they didn't, we got miles of bullsh1t "corrections', to try to cover their error.

Blogger Hasbeen demonstrates the point I was trying to make in my previous blog- another display of unpleasant vituperation and bald assertions. what are Hasbeen's motives?

Consider the following quote from the Argo buoy website (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html)

"The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 5-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo's greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes."

You can't get more upfront than that. Obviously they are keen to squeeze meaningful analysis out of their data, but acknowledge that science is the business of weighing probabilities.

It's an intrinsically uncertain world and assessment by analysis of probabilities is all we have to guide our actions, other than craven obedience borne out of blind faith.

Jedimaster
"in one group are about 100,000 scientists trying to exercise their craft of evidence-based logical positivism- that is, presenting observations in a way that is open to support or refutation."

But into which group fall the scientists that falsified data, suppressed data, excluded data, destroyed data, manipulated data to exclude inconvenient truths, and stifled dissent, themselves blocking peer review while decrying dissenting views as unqualified because not peer reviewed?

Come to that, where is the EVIDENCE of catastrophic man-made global warming? No, Jedimaster, I don't mean computer models. Oh by the way, how did you average the whole world's temperature and get a single figure? And the cooler-than-earth atmosphere transmits heat to the earth, does it?

The UN itself agrees that 280 of the past 300 years cannot be put down to man-made causes; and of the last 20, 10 have been cooling.

The persistence of the warmist camp can only be attributed to blatant dishonesty, cynical snout-in-the-trough self-interest, or arrant and hysterical stupidity.

Well said jedimaster.
For these deniers to continue to "freeride' on the fruits of scientific endeavor and achievement while at the same time decrying anything to do with climate science is just breathtaking in its brazenness and mystifying as to why so many seemingly intelligent people have fallen for the oilmen and the other vested interests propaganda.

If you think the thousands of scientists supporting AGW are wrong then why dont you think the thousands of scientists working on health, drugs, genetics, technology, IT et al are wrong and why do you still trust their products? Why/how can you trust your medicine, doctor, computer, electric gadgets etc etc if scientists are all part of some global conspiracy?

Either science is worthwhile, productive and trustworthy or our whole society falls apart. You cant pick and choose which science you like and which doesn't suit you