"According to conservative climate change science..."

Nothing conservative about manipulating figures and making stuff up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236513/Met-Office-manipulated-climate-change-figures-say-Russian-think-tank.html

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/ghcn-antarctic-warming-eight-times-actual/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

I would describe that as a fairly radical approach to science, wouldn't you?

<<if governments can’t deliver, people can.>>
Pity the worlds full of sheeple!

David, you lost me emotionally when I read “strategy to pull humankind back from the brink of a dire future” and “triggering a cascading set of irreversible tipping points.” Yuck!

I don’t know where you have been recently however, you seem to have missed all the facts that have emerged in the past couple of months.

The entire team of “hockey sticks” is gone, the MWP and the LIA have been restored, the missing tree ring proxies have been “found”, the original (unmodified) instrument readings from NZ and Canada have emerged, and the missing Russian station readings are now available.

The good news is, and sorry you missed it, is that we are no longer in the warmest period since records began, the oceans are not rising, there is no warming and there is no link between atmospheric carbon and temperatures. Isn’t that wonderful?

Look, we know you make money writing books about carbon and without the carbon boogeyman you’re stuffed. You will just have to write about something else.

If you can’t agree or wish to take the matter up with some higher authority, just contact the IPCC.

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
“Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
Kevin

Please try to keep up to date in future.

David is a book salesman and a pseudo cult leader.

A carpetbagger preying on the concerns of the gullible.

Nice article, but unfortunately we will need a 'carrot and stick' approach by governments if we are to have any hope at all of reducing greenhouse emissions to sustainable levels. Mikk excepted, the comments thus far in this thread - and indeed the increasingly shrill and stupidly triumphalist denialists on virtually every climate-related discussion at OLO - are clear evidence that some coercion is necessary.

While we can agree with the author that “…passing a law that commands us to adopt new behaviours, and then penalises us if we don’t, is not politically feasible” the likes of our current Prime Minister can still irrevocably ruin Australia’s industry and our standard of living, and get away with it. Feasibility doesn’t come into the thinking of self-serving maniacs like Rudd and others of his ilk, who are interested only in the short-term to launch their real ambitions. What ever the ruin they cause after they have gone is of no interest to them.

Rudd still has the chance of getting his ETS through parliament this year. He has the advantages of leading a party whose members do not have the right of a free vote against an opposition whose members do have a right to vote as they think fit. Tony Abbott, unlike Rudd, does not have the power to tell his minions how to vote. Two senators crossed the floor and voted for Rudd’s ETS, and there is every chance that Malcolm Turnbull (who has already said that he will cross the floor) will talk other Liberals around.

Abbott is leader by one vote only! We can’t assume that his small victory will be enough to knock out the bill again.

Gershon is correct in saying that “…there is no credible scenario by which they (new, low-carbon technologies) can be brought to scale in the ten-year window within which our scientists tell us we must make major carbon reductions.” But, nor is his dream of common man “…empower(ing) ourselves to voluntarily adopt new behaviours that help us, our community, our organisation and our planet (to) operate at a higher level of social value” have much credibility.

How many of us have heard of David Gershon his “three decades of empowerment research” before today? How many people have been touched by his work, and how many people does he really think would be amenable to his ideas in the future?

.....

.....Using the mere fact that 75% of Americans (or any other peoples) owning up to ‘causing’ climate-change, and another 81% saying that it’s up to them to do something about when asked by pollsters as encouraging figures to ginger people up to thinking about changing their lifestyles is whimsical. People say what they think they ‘should’ say, as many who use polls find to their disappointment. And even the ‘honest’ ones can’t be trusted to carry through on their beliefs.

Apart from connecting with the climate-hoaxer and big personal carbon footprint man, Al Gore, the most interesting thing about this article is that Gershon does not provide proof that participants in his project are “achieving on average 25% carbon footprint reduction”, or that they have lost “5,000 pounds in 30 days”.

No, we are more and more subjected to top down control from politicians with agendas concerning their own aggrandisement, and not the good of the planet or its people. We have accepted being dictated to, and it’s too late for individuals to be heard on anything.

The externalised costs of dirty energy, including the costs of conversion to low-emissions energy, need to be part of the cost structure now, but voluntary and local efforts are indicative of the growing acceptance that AGW is real.

To believe the criticism and accusations of bloggers over the published work of the world's leading scientific institutions is to choose to put future prosperity and security of our kids and grandkids in peril. Putting the future of our planet's climate into the hands of the losers of the climate science debates is dangerously irresponsible.

In some ways I think David makes an important point.

Individuals will change the effects of the pollution they are pouring into the earths atmosphere by changing their behaviours.

But it will be up to them. They won't be dictated to by governments or standover merchants. They will reject manipulation of science. They will respond to truth positively and to falsehood and intrigue negatively.

It is time the warmist alarmists accepted the fact people respond better to positives than negatives, embrace truth wholeheartedy and disdain lies and liars.

I personally think we do abuse our environment and we need to clean up our act. I think major corporations, who are indeed the driving forces of environmental damage, will react to the choices I make.

I reject totally the now obviously evident bs of the warmist alarmists and it's supporting UN committee, acting as UN committees mostly act... at odds with reality.

I am in sympathy with a great many of individual greens but reject as nonsense their tacit demand to be green means total support for and belief in global warming.

If the green movement was reclaimed, by well meaning and earthy individuals, from the likes of David Gersham, Al Gore, and that Australian 'whale saving' musician we'd all have a better chance of affecting the things that are generally negatively impacting on our environment.

If the global warmists have done anything good, which I am loathe to admit, it is that we are all much much more aware of the things affecting our environment ... well ... at least we in the developed world are anyway. Industrially and technologically we will lead the way for the developing and third world ... as we always have.