Andy plays the game : Do as I say, not as I do.

This is Andy1 quoting Senator John Kerry (I have capitalised key words ):
“ Frankly, those who look for any excuse to continue challenging the science have a fundamental responsibility … PROVE US WRONG or stand down. PROVE that the pollution we put in the atmosphere is not having the harmful effect we know it is. TELL US WHERE the gases go and what they do. Pony up one single, cogent, legitimate, scholarly analysis. PROVE that the ocean isn’t actually rising; prove that the ice caps aren’t melting, that deserts aren’t expanding. And PROVE that human beings have nothing to do with any of it. ”

This is Andy1 quoting Professor Will Steffen, "Warming of the climate system is UNEQUIVOCAL.”[ No room for doubt there!]

This is Andy being his certain self [confirming it's all man-made]: “Climate change is a direct result of the emission of more than 320 billion tons of carbon (BtC) as CO2 since the 18th century”

But this is Andy1 when John Kerry’s challenge is reversed:
“Many of the comments reflect a misunderstanding as to how science works, incorrectly assuming that … Scientists NEED TO BE ABLE TO PREDICT THE FUTURE WITH ACCURACY , WHICH IS IMPOSSOBLE , since this ‘experiment’ which Homo sapiens is conducting with the atmosphere/ocean system… has not been done before”

No Andy, no one is suggesting that “scientists” must be perfect. But one does expect those ‘scientists” who believe in AGW ( & , as others have pointed out to you, they do not represent ALL scientists) be able to answer inconsistencies in their theory.

This is especially so when they are asking us to fund programs based on their theory to the tune of trillions of dollar—and it seems necessary to remind you Andy1 that there are “vested interests” on both sides of the debate!

I would have thought that real “ misunderstanding as to how science works” is exhibited more by those who think they can make prognostications–in the name of science-- and be above questioning.

Andy1; you are guilty of the same as you accuse others.
There are numerous papers that throw doubt on global warming.
I can't be bothered do ing the search again, but if you care so much
you will prove that you are not one eyed by searching your self.
There is a Swedish scientist who has done a study for multiple decades
on sea levels. He says that the IPCC recognised studies resolved
discrepancies by selecting Hong Kong harbour as standard and adjusting
all other tide gauges to suit.
He maintains that the Islands are not sinking but have raised the
water table by drawing off more than they should have and the sea has
come up under the land. They are coral atolls and thats what happens with coral atolls.
According to him, the sea level has only risen a small amount nothing
like is being claimed.

So go and find his writings, I doubt if you will find his papers
at the IPCC, probably been screened out like the other non-believers.

Bazz,

Morner et al.'s claims of some 30 cm decline in sea level around the Maldives over the last 50 years have been refuted by all other oceanographers, as below:

Church et al. 2006, state: “We find no evidence for the fall in sea level at the Maldives as postulated by Mörner et al. (2004). Our best estimate of relative sea-level rise at Funafuti, Tuvalu is 2 +/- 1 mm/year over the period 1950 to 2001. The analysis clearly indicates that sea-level in this region is rising“

Nerem et al. 2006 state: “We feel compelled to respond to the recent article by Mörner (2004) because he makes several major errors in his analysis, and as a result completely misinterprets the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satellite altimeter mission. One major criticism we have with the paper is that Mörner does not include a single reference to any altimeter study, all of which refute his claim that there is no apparent change in global mean sea level (GMSL) [see Cazenave and Nerem, (2004) for a summary].”

A rise of sea level is documented in several papers, including 1. Church et al 2006, indicating a rise of about 40 mm between 1992-2001; Rahmstorf et al. 2009, indicating a rise of about 20 cm and the rate rising from about 0.7 to 3.7 mm/year between 1880-2008 (Oxford Conference “Beyond 4 degrees C”, September, 2009)

Joe Lane & Andy1;
Joe said> So why the almost exclusive focus on CO2 ?

Well it is simple, it is the only parameter they can control.
As someone said it is like being in a runaway car and you only have
the gear lever to control the car, no steering, no brakes etc.

Bit of a waste of time really.

Andy1; You have it wrong, as you are promoting that a change is
happening, the AGW proponents have to prove their case.
My understanding is that they have not yet actually proved that humans
are causing global warming and they should also put a figure on how
much of the warming is cause by human CO2 emissions.

It would be nice if it could be proved that humans are not causing
warming, but that is proving a negative, not always easy.

Horus is correct to raise ehe credibility issue of both sides, and it is an issue the seeds of which are well sown in the email exchanges that preceded Copenhagen made public, the existence of which has never been denied. But if Andy1 is anywhere near the mark,it is impossibe to measure in the same sense that much of the scientific consensus is impossible to measure. So the debate from concerned scientific citizens goes around, and around in the ether. Perhaps it can be brought to earth with the knowledge that another 2.9 billion souls will add to the consumption of what resources remain in the next 40 years ( U.N.figures.)

Give some credit to the vegetation, the forests, to balance the CO2. If Andy1's huge tonnages had not been balanced by the natural order of things ,we would be extinct, as would every other creature needing oxygen to exist. It does not need a scientific consensus to explain that if one takes a deep breath and thinks about it for a moment, we might give the millions to the coal mine shareholders to curb the mining of coal while a better use is found for it instead of to corrupt despot regimes in the Third World to buy up more yachts in Monaco or estates in Europe.

At the same time, we might start the nuclear power system to compensate for the coal emissions and then it makes sense to produce the fuel in Australia while slowing down the export of uranium ores to produce the fuel somewhere else - What difference would it make? It is fatuous to think that we are isolated from the rest of the World to such an extent that we can hide behind an ETS

Thanks, shmuel,

I agree. Solar activity is the only explanation of global climate variation that is required. It's good to know there are still dissidents at the ANU.

In another place, dear old Andy argues that the earth and its atmosphere are directly analagous to human lungs. Really. No mention of the function of human physiology, though, so muscular forcing is conveniently ignored in his earth/atmosphere model.

Still, you have to admire his determination to speak ex cathedra.