Loudmouth: "Yes, Mr Squeers, the trouble with democracy - as with genuine science - is that it does not depend on faith, in rulers, in authority generally, or with the Word, but is healthily sceptical. Not cynical, or denialist, but quite properly sceptical. Read your Popper."

Genuine science puts its faith in empirical foundationalism, but yes it is rigorously sceptical.
Do you really argue that our decadent democracies are "healthily" or "properly sceptical"?
Democracy in any ideal sense is extinct--like the Unicorn or the Griffin. Our modern democracies are rule by orchestrated popular opinion; there is nothing rigorous about it. Our worst drives are the yardstick of polity, hence so-called democracy represents the tyranny of our sins--an oligarchy of the seven deadly sins--much as I hate dragging religion into it). This is fine in a boundless and amoral world, but in a closed system (with professed humanitarian ideals) it eventually poses a few problems.
Mice plagues are comparable to modern democracies; there is of course a small percentage (of humans) who can use their heads and see beyond the manic drive for glut (etc.), but of course in a democracy they are overruled by the majority.

Genuine science constantly questions and tests both its premises and its conclusions
Are our western democracies predicated on this kind of aspiration?

Now Andy1,

1) Compare the two:
Your source: “Corinne Le Quéré et al”
“Between 1959 and 2008, 43% of each year’s CO2 emissions remained in the atmosphere on average… In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has LIKELY INCREASED”

With Herman’s source: Science Daily--Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol
“No RISE of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction IN PAST 160 YEARS”
Both cannot be right!



2) Consider the implications:
If there has been "No RISE of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years”
“Yet fossil fuel emissions INCREASED by 29% between 2000 and 2008”
Where is your smoking gun?
Where is your correlation between atmospheric CO2 & increased emissions?
And indeed, where is your case for urgent CO2 cuts?

3) And, lets get our bearings right :
You mischievously try to bluff with large numbers –“high means, 45 PERCENT OF THE >1170 BILLION TONS OF CO2” --Sounds frightfully impressive!
BUT , 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from non-anthropogenic sources.
I’ll say it again, 97% Comes from non-human sources.
So however large and threatening YOUR figure, it is only a tiny fraction of all CO2 emissions.

4) AND mull a little over the following admissionS in “Corinne Le Quéré et al” submission:
i) "Progress has been made in monitoring the trends in the carbon cycle and understanding their drivers. However, major gaps remain, particularly in our ability to link anthropogenic CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 concentration on a year-to-year basis..."
ii) "If the model response to recent changes in climate is correct, this would lend support to the positive feedback between climate and the carbon cycle ...However, these models DO NOT YET INCLUDE many processes and reservoirs that may be important, such as peat, buried carbon in permafrost soils, wild fires, ocean eddies and the response of marine ecosystems to ocean acidification."

No Herman you didn’t get it wrong –me thinks Andy1 is trying to give us all a bum steer

Horus,

You are mistaken regarding the carbon cycle.

Whereas a vast amount of CO2 (over 100 GtC) is exchanged each year between the various reservoirs (ocean, biosphere, atmosphere), the NET ADDITION since the 18th century is due to the more than 320 billion tons of carbon emitted by human industry, transport and land clearing, which resulted in an increase in atmospheric Carbon from 540 GtC to 750 GtC.

For detailed information read the Global Carbon Project reports (by CSIRO and other): http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Raupach.CarbonCycle.V01.pdf and other reports by the GDP. http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/

for the rise in atmospheric CO2 (280 to 388 ppm since the 18th century) look at: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

For a review of the effects of CO2 on global climate look at:http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

For the most recent update regarding climate change look at:
1. Steffen's Report to the Department of Climate Change "Climate Change Science - faster change and more serious risks" http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/publications/science/faster-change-more-risk.aspx

2. Oxford conference "Beyond 4 degrees C" October, 2009 http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/

Those who believe they have credible data and arguments which contradict a relation between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, ought to formulate it in quantitative terms and publish it in detail through the scientific literature or other venues.

What a relief this would be.

Excellent article - couldn't be clearer. But where does OLO find these mad climate change deniers and believers in the great scientific hoax/conspiracy? Does it pay desperate people to spew such nonsense just for the sake of getting a dialogue going?

Andrew, your panic is palpable. Your personal and professional credibility is going down the proverbial plug hole. This article accelerates that progress.

In a recent audit and analysis of the IPCC’s “evidence based forecasting principles” (see Kesten C. Green Uni of S.A. and J.Scott Armstrong, Uni of Pensilvania), the IPCC were found to have violated 72 of 89 relevant principles.

Add to this the fundamental questions of “Consensus”, “Peer Review”, “Data Integrity”, Modeling” and “Scientific Qualifications” and you begin to get a picture of the extent of which you have been let down by some members of the scientific community. Get over it and move on.

This academic nit wit has the gall to say that " there is a massive campaign of denial by a coalition of contrarians supported by fossil fuel intersts and is holding the world to ransom" completely oblivious the fact that the Chairman of his precious IPCC has just pulled all almighty con, courtesy of his many conflicts of interst, which he is permitted to engage in by the venal UN.

The last para on its own should cast major doubts over this Chairmans motives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6890839/The-questions-Dr-Pachauri-still-has-to-answer.html

Like I said a fish rots from head down and it doenst get any more rotten than this.

..and there is more .