Michael 2, we are well aware of biochar and its potential, its not
yet being done on a commercial scale, but there are lots of trials
going on. At the end of the day, it has to be commercially viable.

There is certainly potential there.

As to organic carbon, even if its storage life is limited, if its
replaced by more organic carbon as it breaks down, when you add
it all up, that is still a huge amount of extra carbon stored in
millions of Ha of agricultural soils. About the only ones
cultivating soil to death now to kill weeds, would be so called
organic farmers, as they have no other method, given that they
refuse to use things like Roundup.

cornonacob

"CO2 is a green house gas, without it we would not be here." Yes, agreed, on both counts. So what?
"CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically in the last 200 hundred years." Yes they have risen, compared to 200 years ago. I don't know about dramatically we have no measurements before 200 years ago and recently after the change to the measurement basis, the two systems have never been resolved against each other. CO2 has risen before, we have ice core records and we don't know why it happened back then, several times. So what?
"Man is the reason the CO2 levels have risen." That's an assumption, maybe it's valid maybe not, why did CO2 rise in the past?. Again, so what?

Join the dots .. OK, hmmm so CO2, in your opinion, has risen? Is that it? So what?

Did you mean to put in somewhere that CO2 rise = temperature rise? An unproven hypothesis. Many scientists have tried to prove this, the best they can do is model, but their models are not accurate enough and discard factors they do not understand or make them linear, like clouds. If models were accurate you could tell us the climate next year, or in 10 years, why do they become accurate in 50 years? They don't. Weather is a subset of climate. Or as our government says, a "hot day = AGW proof, it's all around you on a hot day" It's poorly understood at best.

That's the biggie for skeptics, people keep saying it on these forums, but the AGW believers just keep pouring scorn with no proof, pointing to all the science - most of which is grant money based, on effects of AGW, not why is the climate getting warmer.

The bottom line is mankind does not understand climate well enough to forecast anything better than a random coin throw would, but to get $ you have to pony up with better than that, hence all the Climate Scientology which is about what it is, isn't it? Certainly not a science like medicine or engineering is it?

examinator, you have reached a major milestone in your journey when you grudgingly accept the contrary words of a key IPCC author. You then start to make excuses and mitigate on behalf of their scientists. My goodness, do they need all the excuses and mitigation they can get.

Try to mitigate this one examinator.

(IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch10, p. 493) "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

IPCC’s quoted source paragraph for this report? A non peer reviewed WWF Project. Oopps!

WWF’s source? The International Commission on Snow and Ice (ICSI) and Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) “the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 is very high” (Syed Hasnain, Jawaharlal Nehru University)

Report further quoted by: New Scientist 1999 and India Environment Portal (IEP).

So what’s wrong with that? Well provenance for a start, no checking of sources, no checking of facts and no peer review. Ooops!

It gets worse, the original report by glaciologist V. M. Kotlyakov has been “found” by the IEP. His assessment is, given that if the IPCC’s “predicted” warming continues, there will be 80% glacial loss by “2350” (not 2035?). Oopps!

The IPCC makes yet another blunder in the AR4 report, the Table 10.9 to which they refer shows a retreat rate of 134 m/yr but the actual rate was 23 m/yr, this is because of a small error. The IPCC divided the timeframe quoted by 21 years instead of 121 years! Oopps again!. V.M. Kotlyakov is not happy.

Half the planet is being terrified by the IPCC’s “predictions” and the vulnerable still believe them.

It is time the IPCC’s incompetence and bastardry were terminated. Given the huge sums of money that Uncle Sam has poured into this rubbish, perhaps we will see proportional penitentiary time as that given to Madoff

Col I think there is a misunderstanding here. I hate "the state" just as much as I hate capitalists and godbotherers. Anyone who dominates and subjugates another is an evil beast in my book.

I believe that no human being should dominate another. Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, social breakdown, hate and violence.

Col the right is focused on power, wealth and subjugation of the majority. The right uses its wealth and power to continue and intensify this inequity. The right uses fear, racism, homophobia, "family values" and propaganda to divide and oppress the mass of people and keep them fighting amongst themselves. The right has always hated democracy and anything that gives the common people influence or power. Thats why they hate unions and try so hard to destroy them.

The right NEEDS the state far more than the left. Without property law and the mercenary cops that enforce it people would help themselves to the resources they need to live and the capitalists would be unable to repel them.

The state is nothing more than the enforcers of capitalism and it surprises me so many rightists are so anti government. I think it is part of their delusionary faith and plain greed and selfish lack of empathy that leads them to see capitalism as "fair and efficient" and never mind the reality.

Funny how these fools critisise climate science modeling when they possess the most fanciful and unconnected to reality models ever seen in their economic theories. Especially the neoliberal or "austrian" schools of rightist fascism. Theories that take inequality and poverty as necessary and indeed beneficial to their mad system of exploitation and domination. Theories that fall down utterly when tested against reality.

(continued)

(continued)

Rightists are nothing more than bullies who believe that power over others means you are better than them and that they deserve to suffer while you feed off them as a lazy parasite. "The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief."

I dont know about "all the left" but I want people to succeed to be the best people they can be and have every opportunity to fulfill their potential. That every human person is a unique individual means an infinite amount of difference and diverse ideas and wants and people should have the freedom to satisfy them all. As long as it does not hurt anyone else then it is free for people to do whatever it may be that makes them happy and fulfilled.

You say "The collectivism is the enemy of the individual" but this is simply not true. Humans are social animals and need other humans around us. Without it we suffer severe mental anguish and breakdown. Look for research on solitary confinement and loneliness if you dont believe me. Collectivism is being part of a larger group which is vital to humanity. You cannot escape what is hard wired into your soul Col. People need people, the very essence of "Collectivism" so your statement that "collectivism is the enemy of the individual" could not be more wrong nor logically invalid.

“When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.” Lenin was right. When there is freedom there will also be no capitalism. No preists, no politicians, no bosses, no gods, no masters.

Col I wont be a slave to the state or capitalism. My point is that slavery is wrong and I state again no human being should dominate another. Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes ONLY from personal autonomy.

Spindoc,

Sorry old bean but you are a long way from my stance.I suspect that you are trying to confine the discussion to a line by line contradiction with the intention therefore, discredit the whole. This approach is in this case is flawed on many levels.
Firstly as I indicated AWG is based on the preponderance of the measurable facts and the science available.
*The IPCC report show ranges of of possible/probable consequences*.
I have not changed my view on the existence of AGW nor am I contradicting the chief author of the report.

As I have said before the precision to gain a the accuracy you are assuming is only now coming on line.

I see little point in your analytic modus operandi, I can only repeat the broader more flexible approach and as such no point in my continuing. with the conclusion we should agree to disagree