Well the Sheraton on the Park event by C Monckton was not well organised.I rang the Sheration and they said the doors would be open at 5.15 pm.We got there at 4:50 pm and were turned away because they already had 1000 inside with a capacity for 800. A week before I contacted many people trying to buy tickets but no one knew if it was turn up and pay or pre-purchase.

It was very poorly organised.They could have charged $50.00 per ticket instead of $20 and if not sold, announce a turn up at a cheaper price.About 200-300 people were turned away.

Don't worry Arjay

I saw him at lunchtime. Reminded me of another Scotsman- Shakespeare's Macbeth:

"And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death... a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." - (Act V, Scene V).

GrahamY: "I'd be interested to see the computer model that accurately reproduces climate for the last one million years."

So would I. David Archer in his "Global Warming: Understanding the forecast" lecture series they exist. I can't find which lecture it was now, but he said the models did a reasonable job of showing how the climate behaved over the last few ice ages when the trigger for changes was the earths orbit. This included CO2 levels trailing temperature rises. The 1M was my invention. He implied the models went over a few ice ages which I thought would span approx 1M years, but looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png it is probably closer to 0.5M.

Archer said the data from those models was freely downloadable from the IPCC web site. Despite spending some hours looking, I could not find it. They are certainly references to Paleoclimatology and Paleoclimate models there, and there are words in the IPCC reports implying they did a reasonable job, but I for the life of me could not find any model that had CO2 in it. However, in the lecture series Archer made a point of only saying things that could reasonably be derived from the facts available, so I'll take his word for it.

That I have to just take his word for it pisses me off no end. What is it with these people? Can't they see that if the basis to their claims is "we can model the climate", then surely it is patently obvious they must show us the models, explain their basis even if only in simple terms, give us their output, so everyone can see they do what they say? If they can indeed successfully model the climate over 100's of thousands of years, surely it is a lay down misère.

There is no way to defend this state of affairs. It is not just climate science, either. It looks to me like science in general hasn't managed the transition from pencil and paper calculations to computer ones (ie "models") at all well. I'd lay odds that given the published information even a climate scientist could not reproduce the "experiments" - ie create a model that spat out the same data. This is because unlike the pencil and paper calculations they don't publish the source code. All the source code, and all the raw data fed to it necessary to produce the results should be mandatory attachments to every published paper.

I hope the scientists take a step back, look at the controversies that swirl around AGW and realise their own poor practices are a root cause of it. And I don't mean their practices in engaging the press, or working the politics. I mean because they have not done the science properly. They've skimmed on the boring bit - the paper work. Clean up the source code, clean up the data, put it online so other people could in principle do what they did if they had the computing power. Among those others are the people who do engage the press and politicians well.

Jedimaster: Being sarcastic is the poorest form of humor. He must have impressed you some how. Sorry arjay you couldn't get in. But did anyone
on the blog go, and can give a reasonable report whatever you are
for AGW or questioners of the science? Was Mr Rudd there, for example.

By the way, depending on where you live there are storm warnings for
some parts of NSW. No not climate change, just the norm. Been rather
warmer than normal so what do you expect? LOL

Here, here rstuart !

However I think the whole AGW thing is going to die a quiet death after the Mexico meeting.

The latest info I have read on peak coal and the depletion rate of
existing oil fields together with the high cost of oil from the new
finds in Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico sets a new regime.
It means that the price in ten years time when they come on line will
be so high that demand will be suppressed and the CO2 released will
be less than the proposed ETS levels anyway.
Until then we will have high prices set by tight supplies and some
shortages if not actual rationing.

The widespread acceptance of these simple facts will undermine any
concern about GW or AGW and will get us back to worrying about the
real problem we face.

Coal's peak date however is about 2025 so while it will get more
expensive it should be in good supply till then.
China and India might throw a spanner in the works because they both
have power shortages and need to build many more power stations.
Coal has already started getting much more expensive because the
quality is falling so that more is needed for the same BTUs output.
I heard today that China is buying Victorian brown coal.
Interesting does that mean less CO2 when China burns it ?
Remember what the Chinese PM said ?
"We will burn all our coal and then burn yours !"