“Q&A up to his usual sloppy tendentious worst again I see ...”

Attack me all you want Graham, it doesn’t change the fact that the climate is changing before our very eyes and that humanity is complicit.

As Professor Henderson-Sellers clearly states (thanks for your latest link):

“It is clear that climate change will remain a risk management problem for the foreseeable future ... The cleverer we are in the design of relevant and deliverable climate change results, the sooner we constrain the potential for some really "dangerous" outcomes that cannot currently be ruled out at less than a 10% chance.”

Obviously, some are prepared to take that risk.

Btw, I am quite familiar with the role of clouds (amongst other things, Graham) in the “debate” – and I really hope Roy Spencer is on to something, but alas ...

______

Horus

May I suggest, don’t quote Dr Joanne Simpson out of context. This is what she said:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain sceptical.”

I too am a scientist, and I too am a sceptic – but the weight of evidence (for AGW) is very robust. Besides, paraphrasing Professor Henderson-Sellers; there is a 90% chance for some really dangerous outcomes if we don’t adopt risk management measures.

It would be great if everybody puts their ideological differences aside to work together in living in a more sustainable way. It ain't going to happen - there is too much vested interest in maintaining power and control over the masses.

qanda, you and Q&A are the same person I assume? You might like to give me an explanation as to why the dual personalities or I am going to delete one of you. I'll also continue to call you on your bullying and villification, and that does not constitute "attack". If you are going to do those things you should get used to it being pointed out.

And you might also acknowledge that in the quote from Henderson she lists a great number of problems with the models, including ones to do with the hydrological cycle, in which you claim to be an expert. That was what the argument was about.

I know she is one of the hysterics. I don't take everything that she says seriously. But she does provide a valuable inside view of the reliability of the models.

If you are familiar with the role of clouds then why do you distract from that with your explanations on water vapour forcings?

All this talk about risks occurs in a vacuum. At current levels there is nothing to suggest any risk from the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We've been well above this level many times in the past. But even if there were a risk, what about the risk of an ice age? I'd put that at an 100% certainty at current levels of CO2 sometime in the future.

In which case even if I thought there was a greater than zero risk from CO2, I'd be happy to weigh that against a 100% risk from global cooling and go with the warming. As there is zero risk from the warming, I'm even happier to go with that. It's a win-win situation.

Risk means very little unless it is in a matrix of risks. There is generally no absolutely safe course, but there are always relatively safer courses.

>In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC

You must be kidding !

I deleted the Q&A account myself, Graham ... before I registered under 'qanda'. Unlike Mark, curmudgeon (at home or otherwise), I am quite happy to post under one account.

Yes, Professor Henderson-Sellers does list some issues identified by contributors to the IPCC process. I for one would expect that after any comprehensive report or method of inquiry, a review is held to see how it can be improved.

Graham, the process is not perfect, neither are the (numerous) models or indeed the science. However, it/they are pretty damn good - and it's getting better all the time. Yes, mistakes and errors will be found, but that is how science progresses - some ideas are tweaked, others are cast aside, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water (the reason why Spencer should keep trying with his baby).

<< At current levels there is nothing to suggest any risk from the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We've been well above this level many times in the past. But even if there were a risk, what about the risk of an ice age? I'd put that at an 100% certainty at current levels of CO2 sometime in the future. >>

There is much work being done on climate sensitivity, and there is robust work suggesting exposure to high risk. While the planet has had higher [CO2] in the geologic past, humanity has not. We are conducting an experiment that we have not done before ... and we have no other test tube to use as a control. In geologic time, we are most definitely 100% heading towards another ice age, regardless of our current [CO2].

This is crucial, Graham - people like Ian Plimer recognise high sensitivity to [CO2] because it has been very much so in the past. Monckton n the other hand wants to assure us that climate sensitivity to [CO2] is low. This contradiction is not seen, let alone acknowledged, by the followers of the current road show.

_____

Bazz, I was surprised myself, but that is what she said.

qanda
I am not one that thinks all these doubts around the IPCC are a
conspiracy, but the biggest complaint I have is the problems associated
with exaggeration of the effects.
Generally they were not *mistakes*, they were deliberate
exaggerations designed to influence politicians.

I am on a committee that has mostly AGW conviction people and they are
frankly terrified at what may happen. They still believe that the
Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035. They think that the story that
they will not if ever melt is put up by deniers.
They have total faith in Al Gore and the IPCC.
This was the first time I had been in any personal contact with AGW
activists and frankly they frighten me.

It seems that the temperatures are noticeably below the model
predictions and with the current short term pause it will be prudent
to watch what happens over the next few years.
In any case there is not much point in Australia trying to do anything
unless China scraps burning our coal.
I was not aware that the CO2 from the burning of our coal exports is
counted against our CO2 score.
If this is so, it is absolutely pointless for us to do anything at all.
We could shut down the whole of Australia and you couldn't measure
the difference.

The whole thing has become a farce !

Bazz
Every major public issue attracts "activists" or "conviction people"- on all sides of the issue. Way back in the Vietnam War days there were people protesting who embarrassed me- I put my effort into rational debate and providing moral support for draft dodgers. My Dad told me about protests related to WWII. The original Luddites were probably a motley bunch as well. My point is that you can't gauge the veracity of the core issue from the actions of the "fellow travellers"- they have their own agendas, ranging from cogent to idiotic, and often they are coat-tailing on the latest issue. And the conservatives/reactionaries have a similar spectrum.

Thinking of the crowd in behaviour-spectrum terms helps- there is no point trying to reason with someone to is ignorant of, or chooses to ignore, the facts and is a passionate believer (hey! isn't that where we came in with the recently-departed peer?). But there are people who are somewhat passionate and are wanting to learn. We need to try to accept their passionate disposition and hold firm with the data as we know it. We need to encourage them to not panic when they hear words "uncertainty", "mistake", "likely" etc. Fundamentalists of all kinds want absolute certainty. Don't let them have it.

...and refer them to websites where people try to behave, and also have a sense of humour, like http://www.realclimate.org.