The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Every day a new piece comes out disproving the fanatics wanting to destroy our way of life. When as a people are we going to wake up and realise that our leaders are corrupt to the bone?

How can we get through the thick headed masses we're being conned?

What codswallop sourced from a UK tabloid. Morner is yet another denialist crank who should enjoy his retirement instead of dribbling on about supposedly falling sea levels and dowsing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner

I prefer to get my information from science journals, e.g. New Scientist:

<< Sea level rises could bust official estimates – that's the first big message to come from the climate change congress that kicked off in Copenhagen, Denmark, today.

Researchers, including John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, presented evidence that Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice fast, contributing to the annual sea-level rise. Recent data shows that waters have been rising by 3 millimetres a year since 1993.

Church says this is above any of the rates forecast by the IPCC models. By 2100, sea levels could be 1 metre or more above current levels, he says. And it looks increasingly unlikely that the rise will be much less than 50 centimetres.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast a rise of 18 cm to 59 cm by 2100. But the numbers came with a heavy caveat that often went unnoticed by the popular press. >>

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16732-sea-level-rise-could-bust-ipcc-estimate.html

When you see the beach side houses being sold off for a bargain you will know their is some truth to this fable. This rise in sea levels is another outcome of dogmatic 'scientist' push their fantasy barrow. People are conned because they never look into the facts.

CJ, I rather suspect that the venerable (London) Daily Telegraph would be significantly offended to be described as a tabloid, with all that implies in terms of sensationalist and sleazy journalism.

Nevetheless, more interesting to me is that you play the man, not the ball.

>>Morner is yet another denialist crank who should enjoy his retirement instead of dribbling on about supposedly falling sea levels and dowsing.<<

You also simply repeat the numbers that Morner takes exception to, without the courtesy of responding to his charges against them.

At the risk of being branded (shudder...) a denialist, I would vastly prefer to see a rebuttal of the evidence he presents, than a simplistic "I-can't-hear-you-I-can't-hear-you" attitude, complete with hands over ears.

Incidentally, one of your offerings...

>>Recent data shows that waters have been rising by 3 millimetres a year since 1993<<

...by my calculation, this gets you an extra 32cm by 2100. This would prima facie support Morner's argument that you need computer modelling to arrive at "1 metre or more".

I wonder if they are using the same model that the economists used two years ago to predict our present global circumstances?

How disappointing - my brother just built his house in the country 65 metres above sea-level, hoping that one day his children will have a private beach...

It isn't black and white, Pericles. In Morner's case, an awareness of some of his other beliefs might lead you to question the quality of his reasoning. For example, would the fact that he has been a dowsing believer make you more or less likely to scrutinise his other ideas? It made me look more closely, and revealed quite an eccentric logical process in his treatment of sea level data. But you can find out for yourself about this, as I did. I think it might be a good exercise for you. After all, scepticism is about questioning the whole. It isn't about blindly accepting an argument which you find agreeable. Had you subjected Morner's claims to a little scepticism, you may not have been so inclined to side with him.

Nothing so comforting as seeing what you want to see, is there?

Dear RawMustard

It appears that you are somewhat influenced by the tabloid press.

Within climate science, there is not yet certainty in specific areas. Ethical scientists publish their predictions, given the available evidence at time, however they also publish their corrections.

Clearly you have not bothered checking the credentials of the author of the media article – one Christopher Booker, a skeptic and a thoroughly disreputable journalist who is known for misquoting scientists. Nevertheless, Booker's article could increase the sales of Morner's 20 page book - "The Greatest Lie ever told." You can buy it for about 15 bucks too - cheap as!

Nigel Weiss is considered a most eminent astrophysicist and to the best of my knowledge (and luckily for Booker), Weiss has not proceeded with a class action:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

“How can we get through the thick headed masses we're being conned?”

Indeed RawMustard. I too wonder about that!

Pericles, I don't think you're a denialist. Rather, from what you've said at OLO about climate change I consider you to be a sceptic - in the true sense of the word.

So am I. I regard the more outlandish claims made by AGW zealots as being not only fanciful, but also damaging because they invite derision. However, probably because I have a professional background in science, I tend to give more credence to the vast weight of scientific evidence that supports global warming than you apparently do.

I take your point about the UK 'Telegraph', but it seems to me that it, like many once-venerable newspapers, has become increasingly tabloid of late - in the ways that you describe. Once upon a time one could rely on 'The Australian' too.

One thing I've noticed in discourse about climate change is an emerging trope that the denialist camp deploys, whereby some aged (venerable?) expert - usually retired - is trotted out because they've made some kind of pronouncement that can be championed by the Pollyanna mob.

If you'd read the links I provided, you'd have noticed that Mörner's views have been disowned by the organisation of which he was once president (and from which he derives credibility in the Tele article) - not to mention his curious views on dowsing. I'm not 'playing the man' - Christopher Booker did, and in this case the logical fallacy of appeal to authority is just that.

The other link provided scientific background as to why Mörner is very unlikely to be correct. I invite you to read it from a truly sceptical perspective, and then perhaps you might see where I'm coming from on this.

I don't think mine was an "I-can't-hear-you-I-can't-hear-you" response to the boofheaded original "thick headed masses" post. Rather, it was more of a "I-couldn't-be-bothered-taking-another-ignorant-offensive-denialist-seriously-so-I'll-point-intelligent-readers-in-the-direction-of-real-information" kind of thing.

Cheers.

Fester, I couldn't agree more.

>>It isn't black and white, Pericles<<

But I suggest that is rather more supportive of my case, which is that it is counterproductive to dismiss contrary thinking on the basis that "Morner is yet another denialist crank who should enjoy his retirement instead of dribbling on about supposedly falling sea levels and dowsing".

I'm still not sure where dowsing fits into the picture, by the way.

>>Had you subjected Morner's claims to a little scepticism, you may not have been so inclined to side with him.<<

Simply protesting against the manner in which his ideas were trashed, does not indicate that I "side with him". Merely that I am interested to hear evidence from both sides, free of personal slagging.

My crime here would appear to be that I prefer to keep an open mind, rather than sing from the doomsayers' songsheet. I do in fact strongly believe that the developed world needs to change its profligate ways with carbon-based energy, but object equally strongly to being told what I must think, merely to be accepted by the herd.

Just put it down to unquenched curiosity, and a dislike of labelling.

There is a lot of misinformation flying around to sow the seeds of doubt into the minds of people who just don’t know.

As to Christopher Booker, he is a columnist with much the same bent as Andrew Bolt.

Insofar as Dr Morner, judge for yourself this:

http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf

Sea level info:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

The IPCC make projections based on robust science and IMO, less robust econometric modeling input into the somewhat dated Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES).

Aside: Whereas climate-change ‘hindcasts’ have been quite accurate, I have yet to see an economic model correctly ‘hindcast’ the Great Depression. Ergo, it is wrong to compare 'climate-change' modeling to economic modeling.

Depending on what scenario is used, you can get projected sea level rises between 30 cm and 20 m by 2100. The most recent and realistic projection is between 80 cm and 1.2 m ... that in itself is catastrophic enough, IMO.

Sea level rise is pervasive, slowly creeping up around our ankles till one day we are stuck in the sand. Adapting to climate change will take decades, and it will cost, RawMustard.

If (and it is a big if) ‘runaway climate change’ is reached by surpassing the ‘tipping points’ then yes, life as we know it would not be worth living – but we would have a 1000 yrs or so to adapt, and we wouldn’t.

Protagorus, I don’t think it wise Weiss is discussed here.

CJ, a sceptic (in the scientific sense) tests the hypothesis, conducts the experiments, does the research and publishes the results.

Pericles, at the risk of being branded an alarmist, I would prefer to see a rebuttal of the preponderance of evidence the vast majority of ‘climate scientists’ present, rather than a simplistic "I-can't-hear-you-I-can't-hear-you" attitude, complete with hands over ears :-)

I watch reports, with pictures, of the retreat of the glaciers world-wide, the shrinkage of the ice at both ends of the planet, the vast ice-bergs fracturing off Antartica, the opening of the North-West Passage, and I have no doubt we'll see the oceans rise.
I'll pass no comment on the denier, other than to say, who can ignore all this geological sized evidence?
The only datum I'll offer is this, the one thing that they all seem to agree on is that it is all happening faster than any of their predictions, even the ones that were scoffed at as extreme.
Get your flippers on, kids!

As usual, Q&A is on the money. However, I think that his definition of a sceptic is a bit narrow, which raises the interesting question as to what actually constitutes scepticism when applied to contentious issues such as climate change.

I quite like this definition gleaned from 'Skepticblog' [ http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/17/skeptic-the-name-thing-again/ ]:

<< A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion. >>

I like it because it incorporates both scientific and logical criteria in a way that describes the approach to which I personally aspire. Also, although I no longer conduct research personally, the above definition allows for the evaluation of other people's findings based on scientific and logical criteria.

Excellent definition, and a personal ideal too, I do my best.
My cited examples are empirical, inarguable, data to me, so logic dictates as I have stated above.
Works for me!

That is a good definition CJ. I suspect though that many climate change 'sceptics' will adopt it as their own.

There are many things I doubt and many things I don't understand.

However, as far as my work goes - I am a sceptic in the narrow scientific sense.

<Simply protesting against the manner in which his ideas were trashed, does not indicate that I "side with him". Merely that I am interested to hear evidence from both sides, free of personal slagging.>

That isn't my understanding of scepticism. I see scepticism as a process of evaluating all evidence before you. The fact that the views of people like Morner are regularly touted as "evidence" against AGW, is more suggestive of ignorance to me than of scepticism.

How many times does a piece of junk science need to be refuted? And how can someone seriously regard himself as sceptical by bringing it up again? How about the self described sceptics being a little more sceptical in future?

Did you know that all those coral atolls that were being inundated by supposedly rising seas,were actually sinking due to tectonic plate activity? Sea levels have not risen any more than 4cm in the last 40 yrs.How does that submerse an island?

Fester, I said - and I repeat - "Simply protesting against the manner in which his ideas were trashed, does not indicate that I "side with him". Merely that I am interested to hear evidence from both sides, free of personal slagging."

Your retort is way off the mark.

>>That isn't my understanding of scepticism. I see scepticism as a process of evaluating all evidence before you. The fact that the views of people like Morner are regularly touted as "evidence" against AGW, is more suggestive of ignorance to me than of scepticism.<<

I did not claim my position to be that of a sceptic - a word that seems to be achieving the same opprobrium as denialist - so there was little value in attaching it to my explanation.

But to a hammer, I guess everything looks like a nail. And if it makes you feel better to label those who prefer to keep an open mind a "denialist", then far be it from me to spoil the party.

I just think that people who insist that everything fits neatly into their chosen little box are missing out on a whole world of interesting nooks, crannies, byways and detours in any discussion.

Interesting discussion. I've trying to work out where I fit in this debate.

- I'm very convinced that climate change is happening - the large scale changes to the worlds ice is hard to refute or ignore.
- I'm less certain of the role mankinds activities have played in that change. I don't have the technical background to make informed judgements for myself and I'm aware of the impact different groups agenda's have on public debate (from both sides). The weight of scientific opinion appears to be towards mankinds activities playing a significant role in that and at this point that seems the most credible explaination.
- I'm fairly convinced that some groups are using "climate change" to push for pet agenda's regardless od the real impact on climate change. Include anybody who uses a privatre jet to travel to the other side of the world to give a speech on the perils of climate change in my list of those who have a different agenda.
- I'm completely lacking in belief that government's wacking extra tax's on things will help reduce the rate of damage to the environment. I suspect that they will increase the size of government and cause people to take shortcuts in other areas to make up for the extra taxes.

Believer, sceptic, denialist, they all seem to fit.

R0bert

<I am interested to hear evidence from both sides, free of personal slagging>

Morner's "evidence" are claims of a scientific conspiracy to fool the world into believing that sea levels are rising when (he claims) they have been stable for the last fifty years. Its implication is that scientists reporting on sea level are fraudulent. Morner does not substantiate his claims. Is this the sort of rubbish that you think would make my life more fulfilling? And the idea of it being on a side is a nonsense. Rubbish has no side; it belongs in a bin. Or am I simply closing my mind, sitting in my little box, and ignoring the wonderful world outside?

<I did not claim my position to be that of a sceptic>

I wish that you would take a sceptical position. I wish that whenever I read words like "sceptical" and "open minded", I wouldn't be so disappointed with what follows.

The following website may be of interest:

Rising Sea Levels Set To Have Major Impacts Around
The World...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090310104742.htm

That's a whole lotta wishing, Fester.

>>I wish that you would take a sceptical position. I wish that whenever I read words like "sceptical" and "open minded", I wouldn't be so disappointed with what follows.<<

As my dear old granny used to say, "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride"

I'm still not buying in. There's simply too much emotion, categoric assertions based on less-than-categoric data, and sheer fashion-following sloganism for me to get really excited by all the fuss, one way or the other.

Foxy draws our attention to another "it's gonna get nasty" article.

One day, when we decide that there really is a problem, someone will do some serious thinking about preventive strategies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A564185

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/12/05/holland_goes_beyond_holding_back_the_tide/

There are countries out there who have faced the problem of encroaching seas for millennia. And who didn't just stand around wringing their hands in despair, but actually got off their butts to do something about it.

Maybe, straight after we've finished the bushfire enquiry, we could have a floods enquiry.

A proper one.

The we could have another bushfire enquiry, without the emotion and knee-jerking, to look at the problem in a national context.

From both of these, we could get an acceptance of the status quo: bush fires are going to happen again; floods are going to happen again.

And then we will be in a position to make some objective, realistic and practical action plans to address the problems.

Oh look. A pig. With wings. How pretty.

<One day, when we decide that there really is a problem, someone will do some serious thinking about preventive strategies.>

That is fine if sea level rise is a nice, predictable, and even process. But is it? Some research has suggested that sea level rise can be a sudden event when precipitated by ice sheet collapse, with a rise of a few metres occuring in the space of perhaps a few weeks.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/06/25/2283071.htm

That might be a hard thing to deal with.

Oh well, look at it this way, we're all going to find out soon enough, one way or another.
I feel that it will go way faster than expected, Nature has a long habit of violent dyspepsia. We are watching it all collapse, and no matter your opinion on what can or is being done, nothing we do now will halt it in time.
If you think about it, the huge influx of fresh water in the disaster scenario will go a long way towards diluting and flushing our toxic waste from the oceans. The violent storms and re-arrangement of the worlds weather patterns would also break up and disperse the surface litter. In the process Gaeia will rid herself of a fair bit of the skin pests She suffers from, lol.
We're a planetary infection, that's the attraction of far horizons, an innate desire to sporulate!

Could someone from academia please tell me when they dropped maths and physics and replaced it with the arts in science.

It was probably just after you dropped out of high school Richie.

RawMustard

Were you aware that Christopher Booker presented his spiel at the Heartland Institute's latest gabfest in New York?

Why did he (or any of the speakers) prefer this venue to where the real science conference was happening: the International Climate Science Congress in Copenhagen?

Could it be that the Heartland's soiree is fundamentally based on neo-con ideology, not science?

______

Richie 10

Can I invite you over to ambit gambit - no word limits :-)

http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003521.html

have a read, and get back with some substantive questions ... rather than some glib arcane remark about science and the arts.

yes bugsy around the time they chsnged world view of the education system. I only went to the low school but learned enough to tell when someone takes forever to say nothing and has verbal diorea.

There might be a typo here Richie 10

>>yes bugsy around the time they chsnged world view of the education system. I only went to the low school but learned enough to tell when someone takes forever to say nothing and has verbal diorea.<<

From the spelling, grammar and sentence construction, I'd hazard a guess that you meant "law school"?

LOL! My coffee just spilt perilously close to my laptop...

The science might still be debated, but the political science is settled. All 3 levels of government looming over me have accepted AGW as fact, but seem to do bugger all about it.

The Feds are keen to introduce a neo-con market solution. The NSW govt. just want to get the hell out of their historical role of power generation and the LC do a bit of recycling.

Both Howard and Rudd have given limited funds to R&D eg a sum for a trial hotrocks plant due to be commissioned in 2018 I think. Where is the CSP tower? Not sceptical, just cynical on this score. Aint it just like a government to visit a huge problem on each of us, which as individuals we might not be experiencing, and then do sfa about it themselves?

The development of clean renewable energy makes sense on environmental, pollution, economic and security reasons. I am unconvinced about AGW and many of the claims made (and the tenor of many of those claims), but support a smart and economically sustainable shift to renewables

Rawmustard – Mate you are on the money. It is true that melting ice in the ocean will not cause the oceans to rise. It’s a science principle which tells us this and its called the “Archimedes Principle” which was developed by Archimedes in the 3rd century bc. Its very basic science, so its no surprise that most people on OLO are ignorant to it.

Has anybody ever noticed that there drinks do not go up when the ice cubes in them melts? Water expands when it is frozen!

Archimedes Principle - http://www.answers.com/topic/buoyancy-1

I don't think any of us would argue against better managment of resources. What gets up my nose is when people who should know better never let the truth get in the way of a good story for the sake of their god the prince of lies, the god of this world.

Easytimes, a classic example of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
Didn't stop to think, did you? The level doesn't go up when the ice melts, if it's already IN the water. Most of the ice that is melting isn't!
Glaciers, Antartica, most of the tundra's world-wide, NONE of them or the water they contain, are in the oceans, but as it all melts, it soon ends up there!
Even the Arctic is composed of mountains of ice sitting on the sea-floor, it too will add to the overall rise.

Does it really matter whether the sea levels are rising and whether or not we are being told the truth about it? Regardless of what opinion anyone may hold on this subject, nature will take its course and all will be revealed in the years to come. There were also debates centuries ago whether the earth was round or flat. An excessive amount of energy was spent on proving both sides of that debate. What if we just stop questioning nature and accept that what is, IS.

Maximillion's quite correct. It's not so much the melting (saltwalter) sea ice that's the problem, it's all the freshwater ice sitting on land that represents the threat.

Unsurprising to see that ET is parroting Andrew Bolt today:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_great_antarctic_ice_scare_the_facts/

Fortunately, this latest idiocy from one of Australia's most prominent global warming denialists is being thoroughly refuted here:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/04/06/dinky-science-experiment-ignores-the-facts/

As stated by one commenter there - and it seems equally applicable to some around here - "This is classic Bolt. It’s not happening, but even if it is it doesn’t matter. And it’s not my fault."

Sound familiar?

Another thing, some people fail to understand that the oceans are excellent heat sinks. As water warms, it expands (another property of H2O ... resulting in sea level rise). Warming is most evident in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica and the Arctic Ocean.

Btw, has anyone seen the latest about the Wilkins Ice Shelf?

Further, the oceans (70% of the planet) used to be excellent in absorbing CO2. However, since the advent of the ‘industrial revolution’ (and particularly since the advent of rampant consumerism) humanity has been spewing carbon into the atmosphere that now totals billions of tons per year – think about it, how many molecules of CO2 in a ton of it ... a gas for Pete’s sake?

Problem – as water warms it is less able to absorb gases.

Big kahuna problem?
The oceans and terrestrial biosphere (because of poor land management practices) cannot absorb the excess CO2 as fast as it is being generated – so it stays in the atmosphere longer. Due to the heat trapping properties of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) the heat is re-irradiated (not into space).

Whatever way you look at it, the planet (oceans and atmosphere) is warming (well, not exactly ... the stratosphere is cooling). When you put energy into a system, it heats up. If there is water around, some of it will evaporate and fall out somewhere as rain or snow. The more the energy, the more the extremes in weather events (the system tries to equilibrate).
___________

Nature Lover, that’s a ‘cop out’.

Fwiw, if humanity has had anything at all to do with this current round of GW (and it has), then humanity must try to do something about it. Or is this a problem for your children’s children?

________

CJ
Bolt is a media shock-jock columnist (not a journalist, imho) – nuff said.
________

Richie 10

Do I assume you have no substantive questions, or do I assume you did not understand what was being said? Either way, I would be glad to talk science with you ... with or without the equations.

Dear QA when I went to school Science was based on maths and physics
both exact rigid disaplines . Arts was the backbone of the humanities.
It seemes to me someware the lines have crossed and science is more a belief system than an exact measure today. I could never presume to debate science with you as I am not educationaly equipt to debate science.

Richie 10, your last sentence says it all really. There is a lot of ‘noise’ in the popular media and blogosphere made by people who have had no substantive training in the various ‘climate sciences’ yet who are prepared to say scientists have got it all wrong. It’s akin to me telling my accountant (or electrician, or doctor, etc) they don’t know what they are talking about.

Science is not a “belief system” like a religious based faith. Scientists have a set of processes and procedures that are premised on the scientific method.

Also, science is not “exact” like maths where you can ‘prove’ 1 + 1 = 2, maths is a tool that science uses. Science is more to do with probabilities, of outcomes if you like e.g. There is a very high probability that you will not spontaneously combust while watching TV tonight, but there is a possibility that your loved one will wake up in the morning and just see a pair of smouldering shoes where you once were.

So too with global warming, there is a vast amount of science suggesting that it is real and that humanity has had a significant impact ... to such an extent that they quote numbers like 90 – 95% confidence limits, or the anthropogenic component (as opposed to natural variability) comprises 70% of the warming, etc.

Nevertheless, this is NOT to say that those scientists who don’t believe in the severity of AGW are wrong. Indeed, we can all hope, wish and pray they are right ... they just have not been able to demonstrate this when scientifically critiqued.

I will say this though; scientists need to be articulate in conveying their findings to the non-scientific community. This is where the humanities can really add to the scientists’ arsenal. Unfortunately, many people well versed in arts/humanities (Bolt for example) do the scientists and injustice by misrepresenting or distorting the science. Why you may well ask.

Interesting analogy, Q&A

>>It’s akin to me telling my accountant (or electrician, or doctor, etc) they don’t know what they are talking about.<<

So, if you were a director of Enron, talking to the company's accountant, would you have been comfortable with his explanation of their revenue recognition methodology?

Or if you were an investor in Madoff's wacky world, would you have accepted his accountant's explanation of what was going on with your investments?

I guess you would.

Pericles

Most people would understand the point I was making ... you don't and therefore are playing semantics.

Or, you do understand the point I was making and are being deliberately obtuse and are engaging in calculated obfuscation.

Not at all, Q&A.

>>Most people would understand the point I was making ... you don't and therefore are playing semantics.<<

The point that I was trying to illustrate was that it is not necessary to be an expert in order to ask questions. Often, in fact, a lack of knowledge in a particular field enables really important questions to be aired.

I know nothing about architecture. But I still question the thinking behind Blues Point Tower. And when I discovered that Harry Seidler's original plan was for a series of Blues Point Towers, "marching up Blues Point Road", I am extremely grateful that other non-architects asked the same question in time to stop it.

Meanwhile, Harry went on to become one of the most revered architects in the world.

By other architects, that is.

Non-scientists have a vital role to play in the questions they ask, and the knowledge (or ignorance) that they display. If we left it entirely up to scientists, they'd go right ahead and build an atomic bomb, recommend the use of agent orange, develop weaponized ebola and anthrax, find ways to synthesize narcotics in your home kitchen...

Oh. Right.

Nevertheless, my point is valid. Merely because someone has a deeper knowledge than you in a particular field does not render them i) infallible ii) smart or iii) immune from questioning.

Of course Pericles, ask questions (I do all the time). But, the questions you ask have been asked before, and the answers have been given time and time again, here and elsewhere.

I can understand that some people don't like the answers, but that does not mean the answers are any less correct. Following your logic, 100% proof is required before you will act, on anything. The end result being nothing will ever get done, whether that be risky but life saving surgery, or taking action to adapt to climate change and live in a more sustainable way.

Like another poster has said, it is like squeezing your eyes shut and clamping your hands over your ears and shouting to the skies 'I can't hear you'. Only when when you open your eyes you realise you have missed the boat.

Now, have you got any substantive question/s, or are we going to conduct a tete-a-tete on my accountant's or doctor's diagnosis of the latest in the chemistry and physics of climate change?

<If we left it entirely up to scientists, they'd go right ahead and build an atomic bomb, recommend the use of agent orange, develop weaponized ebola and anthrax, find ways to synthesize narcotics in your home kitchen...>

So you dont think scientists capable of exercising moral judgement? Maybe we need a high priesthood for that? And you think that scientists working for the Nazis and other oppressive regimes were autonomous I suppose?

Perhaps when scientific breakthroughs cure or control common and debilitating diseases, deliver cheaper energy, and solve a myriad of other problems, you might acknowledge that some scientists have a similar desire to see the human lot improved as you do.

I'm new here but look at these two programs and if you're not convinced that some thing's going horribly wrong then good luck.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/video.html
It the above note the locations of the communal hut.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/video.html
Note here the analogy with moving the rock and the boiling experiment.
Think of the climate change as an inertia wheel damn hard to get moving, but when so easy to keep running and nearly impossibly hard to stop. If we stopped pushing now i.e. stopped adding CO2 the wheel is moving how fast and how long would the damage continue? One thing is for certain the damage is INCREASING this means the water will probably rise faster as time progressed. Anyhow watch the videos they're interesting

cheers E ant

eAnt

Welcome, I hope you don’t get too bruised – I am weary.

Videos are nice, but depending on the source ... can be dragged through the mud. Why not go to the primary source, much safer and more compelling.

Susan Solomon has articulated your thoughts in true scientific terms.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.short

The abstract says it all but if you can’t get access to the full paper, the following puts it in ‘street talk’.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903

In other words, it would be prudent to limit as much as humanly possible the increase in world average temperatures that is already in the pipe-line, because we will not be able to reverse it for a long long time (good name for a song).

Welcome eAnt

All sincere posters are very welcome here.

Q&A

Just remember spindoc - someone who actually went to the trouble of following up the links provided and really thought about the information provided. Pericles is disappointing in that he clearly is very intelligent but prefers a game of semantics rather than explain why we should not change our ways of using earth's resources, because AGW or not we cannot continue treating our planet as a magic pudding. I don't post as often as I used to nor as much as I would like, partly because I tire of repeating myself and secondly because some posters are more into demeaning people than attempt to civilly discuss an issue. What was that Einstein said about repeating the same action and expecting a different result?

Pericles, as I said above I think you are clearly intelligent, but you are so intent on 'winning' that you lose sight of the topic. No-one is always 100% right, not even you. I apologise in advance for any offence you may choose to make, but your frequent straw-man arguments such as:

<<<(Interesting analogy, Q&A

>>It’s akin to me telling my accountant (or electrician, or doctor, etc) they don’t know what they are talking about.<<

So, if you were a director of Enron, talking to the company's accountant, would you have been comfortable with his explanation of their revenue recognition methodology?

Or if you were an investor in Madoff's wacky world, would you have accepted his accountant's explanation of what was going on with your investments?

I guess you would.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 11:58:12 AM)>>>

Do not address the issue, do not reflect any research on your part regarding climate change and are a waste of time. There is nothing wrong with using an analogy to try and make a point, however, for you to then concentrate on refuting the analogy, derails the entire forum and gives the appearance you are unable to debate the topic and is utterly pointless, unless one considers that all you want is to 'win'.

I appreciate your granting me permission, Q&A

>>Of course Pericles, ask questions (I do all the time). But, the questions you ask have been asked before, and the answers have been given time and time again, here and elsewhere.<<

Why do they continue to be asked, Q&A?

Might it be that there are still some holes in the answers?

>>I can understand that some people don't like the answers, but that does not mean the answers are any less correct.<<

Ah. So we do have "correct" answers. That's encouraging.

And these would be chosen by...?

>>Following your logic, 100% proof is required before you will act, on anything.<<

Those are your words, not mine. Why do you equate the desire to continue to ask questions, with a determination to do nothing? Are you suggesting that as soon as one of your favourite scientists comes up with a theoretical solution, we should rush off and put it into practice?

Where's the logic in that?

Fester, sorry you grasped the wrong end of the stick so firmly. Next time I'll signal a sarcasm alert.

And it's not about winning, Fractelle.

>>you are so intent on 'winning' that you lose sight of the topic. No-one is always 100% right, not even you.<<

(And I take absolutely no offence, by the way.)

In fact, I see it as precisely the opposite.

My position has always been that there are inevitably far more questions than answers, and this was my attempt at preventing the suppression of more questions.

Far from expecting anyone's answer to be "100% right", I take no answer to be in any way definitive. Especially mine.

But I would at least like to hear the questions.

Q&A says to Pericles:
“Most people would understand the point I was making ... you don't and therefore are playing semantics.

Or, you do understand the point I was making and are being deliberately obtuse and are engaging in calculated obfuscation.”

Pericles replies:
“Not at all, Q&A.”

>>Most people would understand the point I was making ... you don't and therefore are playing semantics.<<

Therefore, “you do understand the point I was making and are being deliberately obtuse and are engaging in calculated obfuscation”.

As your latest exemplifies.

Avagoodeaster.

Whatever.

Avagoodeaster yourself.

Pericles

I am an avid questioner myself, however I do try to remain on topic (not always successful) and do try not to let myself be distracted with clever semantics and verbal sleight of hand.

As for topic, noticed the Wilkins Ice Shelf lately? Well you won't for much longer.

Avagoodeaster

Too right, Fractelle. While it is unfortunate to see people sucked in by the often repeated conspiracy theory of a water divining crank, discussions like this are a diversion from the mounting evidence for AGW.

Wilkins ice shelf, Fractelle?

>>noticed the Wilkins Ice Shelf lately? Well you won't for much longer.<<

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090407-Ice-shelf-hype-detracts-from-the-real-issue-government-inaction.html

"The natural cycle of an ice shelf is to thicken, broaden and fan outwards, until the stresses of thermal erosion by the sea below, the atmosphere above, the subtle but persistent buckling moment of tidal rising and falling, all combine to fracture and break it into thousands of ice bergs, with the largest known to persist for five or more years while drifting for thousands of kilometres.

Somewhere in the southern ocean, the bodies of Robert Falcon Scott and his men rest on such a fragment of the Ross Ice Shelf, awaiting the sea burial which was always their lot after dying there in March 1912 on their return from the South Pole, when their last camp was well away from its outermost edge."

So there is evidence that the calving of a chunk of the shelf into the ocean can have a number of causes, at least one of which is that it happens all the time.

>>noticed the Wilkins Ice Shelf lately? Well you won't for much longer.<<

Ah, but you will. You will be able to see the Wilkins Ice Shelf, for centuries to come. Bits of it will continue to break off, too, as the shelf is "pushed" into the ocean by continuous glacial flows.

You avagoodeaster too, Fractelle. And remember, chocolate is by far and away the most important of the food groups. Respect.

"You will be able to see the Wilkins Ice Shelf, for centuries to come."

The Wilkins Ice Shelf might be thousands of years old. It has decreased in size from about 17,000 square kilometres in the early 1990s to about 10,000 square kilometres currently. Calving of icebergs is commonplace, but the disintegration of ice shelves is not. Hence the interest in sudden sea level rise.

Exactly Fester.

Pericles, as I stated the Wilkins Ice Shelf will be no more, it will simply be a bloody huge iceberg.

Suggest chocolate is good for Pericles too.

Respect back atcha.

Q&A
The two videos posted showed an actual environment "cuntry" that is being inhudated how much more source can It be?
The second involved oceanographic research from Woods Hole and the person who did the research. Again how much more orginal source can the info be? Perhaps you should have watched them first then cormmented?
I repeat if these two don't convince you something is terribly wrong then what will it take?
Have a good easter
eAnt.

Mea Culpa eAnt

Here was me thinking I would have to defend yet another amateur video proclaiming the impacts of climate change ... and I do feel very bruised by the onslaught of the OLO 'sceptics'.

I am intensely familiar with the plight of the Small Island States (SIS), I also have colleagues at Woods Hole.

The videos are well worth a watch, thanks.

Now, off to get some chocolate

The great global warming scare has been with us now for over twenty years. Is there a poster to this forum who lives near the sea who can point to any noticeable sea level rise in that time?

I grew up in SE Queensland in the 50s and 60s and I can't detect a visible change in that period. I know that's not a scientific observation but, is there solid evidence of anywhere around the globe that is being affected by sea level rises now?

Professor Morner may be a little eccentric but he is well-credentialled.

Hmmmmm, well, you could start with the two links on page eight.

One of the flaws in many of the debates on this subject is that the deniers tend to be obsessed with Global Warming in AGW. They can't see the actual warming ego It is a myth. Then the conspiracy nuts get a run in they suggest it's motivated by some sort of climatic PC.

Some climatologists prefer Global Climate Change because it is both accurate but more descriptive of the problem. The key issues here are the CHANGES in climate(time)and the variety of seeming unrelated consequences. The actual greenhouse cooker world is the end game but in between now and then Climatologists and other scientific disciplines are predicting a range of environmental problems increasing in progressing intensity. Their problem is predicting accurately What When and How.
What will happen .
When time frame.
By what mechanism and by how much.
While all of these are not entirely clear (agreed upon) my reasoning is that the sheer weight of the number of unique as in truncated time frame climate based events something it horribly wrong and is at an increasing rate.
What removes all this from “natural" variance is Time (weather V time and the increasing rate of changes). The evidence from ice cores etc. tell us that while all these events have happened before the wild cards are the truncated time frame and the increasing rate of occurrences.
The only area of non agreement is prediction i.e. not if.
Judging on the opinions of scientists the level of prediction absolutes I wonder if it's a bit like falling 30 meters into a hungry bear pit will I die from the impact, injuries or be eaten! A moot point.

Fester, when I make statements on a topic about which I have no first-hand knowledge, I tend to reference my sources.

>>The Wilkins Ice Shelf might be thousands of years old. It has decreased in size from about 17,000 square kilometres in the early 1990s to about 10,000 square kilometres currently. Calving of icebergs is commonplace, but the disintegration of ice shelves is not. Hence the interest in sudden sea level rise.<<

Would it be too much to ask for you to do the same? That would enable us to compare sources as well as the opinions you have culled from those sources.

So, in return for my quotes from an opinion piece on the commonplace nature of shelf expansion, could you identify the origin of your assertions? The implication of your statements is also i) that the Wilkins Ice Shelf was always larger than it is today, and that ii) the disintegration of this one will cause sea-levels to rise. Some evidence to support both of these would be good, too.

Much obliged, ta.

I support transparency, not obfuscation, Pericles. My claim was based on a comment by a scientist at realclimate:

"http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse/"

"As for Wilkins, the estimates are that there has been an ice shelf there for about 10,000 years. I think that’s pretty significant, but YMMV. - gavin"

You might contrast this with a comment from Nasa:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/

"The Wilkins Ice Shelf is somewhat unusual in that only the southern end of the shelf appears to be fed by land-based ice; the rest of the shelf may have formed from accumulation of sea ice that held fast to the coastline through many seasons, as well as snow cover. Glaciologists estimate that the part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf that formed from sea ice may be 300 to 400 years old, and the part that is fed by glacier flow is older, perhaps up to 1,500 years old."

Given the dynamics of ice sheets, the statements may not be conflicting. As the following article shows, the retreat of ice shelves has been accelerating in recent years:

http://nsidc.org/sotc/iceshelves.html

Some variation even here, Fester.

Gavin Schmidt estimates 10,000 sq kms.

NASA estimates 13,680.

It would appear that ice-shelf measurements are neither exact nor consistent.

Quoting the statistic that best suits your argument, without admitting that "YMMV" might, to the cynic, appear somewhat expedient.

You also omitted to cite the source that supports your contention that it measured "about 17,000 square kilometres in the early 1990s"

I'm sure you will quickly put that right.

None of this matters, of course, if you accept man-made global warming as a proven fact. We are simply measuring its effects.

But there still appear to be some unresolved arguments to address before we reach that point, would you not agree?

Pericles

That is 10,000 years, not 10,000 km. The area calculation is from satellite images, and accurate.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20090408_Wilkins.html

"The Wilkins Ice Shelf is located on the southwestern Antarctic Peninsula, the fastest-warming region of the Earth. In the past 50 years, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by 2.5 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit). In the early 1990s, the Wilkins Ice Shelf had a total area of 17,400 square kilometers (6,700 square miles). Events in 1998 and the early years of this decade reduced that to roughly 13,680 square kilometers (5,280 square miles). In 2008, a series of disintegrations (rapid repeated calvings in which the ice shelf pieces are small enough to topple over) and break-up events (rifting of large sections of the shelf, leading to large tabular iceberg calvings) shrunk the area of stable shelf to roughly 10,300 square kilometers (4,000 square miles), a net loss within a year of approximately 3,600 square kilometers (1,400 square miles)."

Sea level change is the most worrying and uncertain aspect of AGW for me.

The Southern Hemisphere sea-ice extent anomolies 1979 - Mar 2009 from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) show increasing ice extent (see this graph):
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

The alleged temperature rise in the Antarctic may have something to do with where sensors are situated:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/04/snow-job-in-antarctica-digging-out-the-data-source/

Quote from the above link: "Why is the snow burying important? Well, as anyone skilled in cold weather survival can tell you, snow makes an excellent insulator and an excellent reflector. Snow’s trapped air insulative properties is why building a snow cave to survive in is a good idea. So is it any wonder then that a snowdrift buried temperature sensor, or a temperature sensor being lowered to near the surface by rising snow, would not read the temperature of the free near surface atmosphere accurately?"

Now I get it Ratty.

You are a so called 'troll of the denialosphere'. What's next ... Cato Institute, Marohassy, Evans, Lavoisier Group, Bellamy, Tech Central Station, Carter, ... ?

Meanwhile - government leaders (from different ideologies), business leaders (from different 'isms'), intelligent and smart people (from different cultures and age groups) around the globe, are focussed on adapting to the challenges of climate-change, and are trying to develop in a more sustainable way.

While I was prepared to engage with you on another thread, now I find you are just a simple distraction.

Here's the thing, Fester.

When even the experts disagree, there is no real point in your insisting that one side or the other is "right".

Have a quick look through this, and give me the benefit of your views.

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/judge-2/

"An opportunity to judge for yourself the adequacy of today’s climate science"

The article makes some observations on the level of information that these scientists, whom you hold in such high esteem, are prepared to share with us all.

"I have always intended to provide all the material on line; I wasn’t allowed to do this before the paper was published..."

was quickly followed by

"All of the data used in the temperature reconstructions are from publically available data sources..."

and then...

"Dr. Steig has said that he is willing to provide the data to legitimate researchers."

The shifting ground is nicely documented here, with all sources detailed and specific.

While on the topic, here's yet another dissenting view.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/28/steigs-antarctic-heartburn/

You can, I hope, start to understand why I would rather wait until I meet information that is a) consistent, b) agreed upon by the relevant "scientists" and c) based upon information that is available to the general public, gathered from independent sources and whose methodology is sound.

So far, I don't see a great deal of this.

Just a bunch of guys looking for data that agrees with their theories.

Pericles

"Just a bunch of guys looking for data that agrees with their theories."

Every one does, including you, my dear.

Rather than arguing I have always preferred action and whether you accept climate change or not, and deny that the past 200 years of industrialisation has had no impact at all on our environment, that's your opinion. I disagree.

Evidence is coming in from all around the globe with changes in extreme weather conditions.

Switching from the Antarctic to the Arctic:

"Scientists monitoring the ice’s annual growth and contraction say the frigid sheath ended winter with the fifth-smallest geographic reach since 1979, when satellites first began tracking sea-ice trends. All six below-average winters have occurred between 2004 and 2009.

This year, winter ice also enters a new melt season with record-low levels of thick older ice, the kind that has has survived several summers. This is the ice that persists the longest to help cool the planet during summer; it reflects sunlight back into space during the Arctic’s long hours of daylight – think 186 “days” of sunlight at the North Pole.

And it’s the ice that provides the foundation for further thickening when sea ice expands again the following winter.

From 1981 to 2000, multiyear ice made up an average of 30 percent of the Arctic’s ice cover at winter’s end. Coming out of this winter, only 9.8 percent of the ice was of the multiyear persuasion."

Full article can be found below with some excellent links for those who wish to be further informed.

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/04/06/arctic-sea-ice-fights-losing-winter-battle-again/

BTW there is nothing wrong with being sceptical Pericles, keeps us all on our toes. However, my question to you is this:

Can we afford to continue 'business-as-usual'?

A little unfair, Fractelle.

>>"Just a bunch of guys looking for data that agrees with their theories." Every one does, including you, my dear.<<

In this particular case, I would not dare to formulate a theory on such a complex topic. As such, I would suggest that I am open to a whole lot more data than most.

But you pose a very appropriate question.

>>Can we afford to continue 'business-as-usual'?<<

Almost certainly not. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should ignore the possibility that our climate is changing/has changed/will change in the future.

But I do think that we have as yet very little grasp of the situation. And because of that, we don't actually have any answers. If the best we can do is run around wringing our hands and turning off the lights for an hour every year, then I'd say that is very much part of the problem.

Ok, so I exaggerate about the turning off the lights once a year. But the principle - that all we really have is futile gestures - is correct.

I am personally against the concept of futile gestures.

Once we can reach agreement on what the dimensions of the problem are, we can start to work on a response.

It will only ever be a response, not a solution, by the way.

Because it is highly unlikely that we will find a "solution" that is acceptable to all - and by all, I mean the populations of the developed world (America, Europe), the fast-developing world (China, India) and the undeveloped world (most of Africa).

All we have right now is squabbling scientists, and knee-jerk governments around the world determined only to win the next election with a necessary, but suitably vague green tinge.

So with your permission, I'll keep my sceptical hat on for a while longer.

Pericles

Two observations of the articles you mention:

1. There is no mention of cooling due to ozone depletion. If this is a discussion of Antarctic temperature change, why not mention this factor?

2. All the comments are supportive of the articles. 135 comments in one article, and all positive? That seems odd, and would suggest to me that criticisms of the articles were not included: Why might that be?

There is a response to this on Realclimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/

where the authors point out that the information in the paper has been verified by independent techniques.

As I have said, Pericles, I base my own opinion of AGW on the change in sea level, and were the trend to change and sea levels fall, my opinion would change also. Articles like the ones you mention seem intent on discrediting climate scientists by criticising their methods. I have seen this done before. It is a regularly used method. In all cases so far, what ultimately resolves the dispute is an independent verification. Maybe the next effort will be a valid one? Who knows, they might get lucky yet.

Pericles (Ratty-ifyawanabserious)

I think it would be better if you can positively and constructively contribute to the solution.

http://u.tv/News/Scientists-fear-worst-on-global-warming/945f12b0-5b00-4519-a9d9-1646373a9f54

Can we discuss what needs to be done, rather than 'what wavelength CO2 absorbs at' or "they say, we say'?

>> Q&A: "You are a so called 'troll of the denialosphere'. What's next ... Cato Institute, Marohassy, Evans, Lavoisier Group, Bellamy, Tech Central Station, Carter, ... ?"

I'm not familiar with all of those but checking them out will give me something to do.

The problem is that anyone who disagrees with you will be said to be "discredited" and denigrated so here's just a few more:
. Walter Starck
. Douglas V. Hoyt
. Roy Spencer
. John Christy
. Don Easterbrook
. Ian Clark
. William Kininmonth
. Fred Singer
. Richard Courtney
. David Legates
. Richard Muller
. Claude Allegre
. Duncan Wingham
. Tim Patterson
. Dennis Jensen
. Cliff Ollier

Fine Ratty. Now I know your not serious.

Pericles, your call.

Fester, I'm not getting into a discussion on whether your layman's understanding of AGW is bigger than mine.

>>There is no mention of cooling due to ozone depletion...etc<<

Q&A has the right idea.

>>Can we discuss what needs to be done, rather than 'what wavelength CO2 absorbs at' or "they say, we say'?<<

Whatever the reality, it poses a real problem to ordinary people in Australia. Q&A's article pointed this out...

"Several scientists said the G20 summit in London, where climate change was barely considered, had convinced them the action required would not be taken."

When you have a simultaneous "crisis" in the world's financial systems - one that affects everybody, with its threat of looming unemployment - and a barely-noticeable-to-the-naked-eye potential problem with climate change, what is the most likely outcome?

Right. Fix unemployment, the climate can go hang.

We're not talking about a bunch of scientists here, but the leaders of the world's most important nations.

We can hop around on one foot as long as we like, making futile gestures until we are blue in the face.

The reality is that when faced with the choice between altruism and self-preservation, almost everyone - our political leaders not excepted - will take the latter option.

Everyone seems to be really good at calculating to the nth degree the number of millimetres the sea levels will rise by the year 2100.

Try using the same mathematical expertise on the cost of telling China and India that they are too late - sorry, you can't grow your economies in the same way that we did, the planet won't survive.

If you have sufficient power of persuasion to do that, then tell the Greenies that we should include nuclear power generation in our plans.

If AGW still bothers you, take some personal action.

Find some higher ground. Make sure you have access to fresh water. Grow your own food. Learn to make do without power.

And learn to defend yourself.

Great Pericles! In moving forward, I would be happy to partake in a new general discussion thread along those lines. Can you put it up?

Pericles

The point I was trying to make to you in may last post is that you don't have to accept AGW or even that the climate is changing.

Two facts:

1. We are running out of non-renewable energy.
2. We are facing an economic crisis.

We have new technology, that will replace fossil fuels, investment into it will create jobs that will go towards revitalising the economy. That means industries will change, just as they have in the past. Once we hunted whales for oil - apart from a few who like to eat them, whaling is a defunct industry. Oil and coal will always be needed for production of such things as plastic and we may even find 100% successful way to sequester carbon, but we do not need to be so completely reliant on them. Nor do we need to strip forests for the production of paper or building materials when we have fast growing alternatives such as hemp and bamboo. Yes, they require water to grow so we grow them in suitable climates. Instead of trying to change the natural environment to suit our needs, we can work with and adapt to climate change.

A wide variety of non-polluting energy sources is not only achievable but preferable to what we have now.

Fractelle, we are in total agreement on the stupidity of the manner in which we use the planet's resources.

My major objection to the AGW debate is that it is not treated at all seriously. Instead, each side (even that is a ridiculous concept; how can you "take sides" over facts?) appears hell-bent on recruiting as many passive loons as possible to rally behind their particular flag, simply in order to big-note themselves.

I also have enormous faith in the ability of the human race to meet and overcome the problems that are of its own making. As you say, alternative energy sources will be found, new industries will spring up, and ultimately we will be well again.

But in order to do so, we need to turn the attention of the scientists, from adding to the already mammoth pile of data and interpretations, more data and counter-interpretations, to the practical issues of "what do we do about it?"

Sadly, that's where politics rears its ugly head. Politicians can see only as far as the next election, when their obscene paypackets are renewed. I live in NSW, and have witnessed first hand how a handful of really stupid, selfish people can in a few short years turn a relatively successful State into a basket-case, complete with a non-functioning infrastructure and a paralyzed bureaucracy that nevertheless sees fit to pay itself.

It seems that we can't get their attention, or the attention of G20, and instead sit around grumbling - as I just did - that no-one is taking it seriously.

The real issue is not about having four-minute showers or remembering to turn off the plasma. It is about finding, and funding, alternate, clean energy sources. And frankly, governments are not very good at that.

This sense of frustration is probably why I so despise the tokenism that has taken over the whole debate. Plus its associated futile gestures, supported by a legion of smug self-appointed pundits whose main contribution is parrotting the latest dramatic news from Antarctica (hey, the ice is melting!) at dinner parties.

Citoyens! Pour les barricades!

Pericles

Thank you.

I understand completely where you are coming from and totally agree. It is ridiculous that there be sides to working toward using the resources of this plant in a rational and truly economic fashion. I guess I am venting my own frustration at the lack of action, through posting links to ice-melts as a way of doing something - as well as turning out lights, recycling, signing petitions, emailing and writing to pollies and so on ad nauseum.

If only our esteemed leaders would pull their collective heads out and see the bleeding obvious and DO SOMETHING!

"It is about finding, and funding, alternate, clean energy sources. "And frankly, governments are not very good at that."

Indeed not Pericles and particularly when large multi-national pollutant industries employ lobbyists to capture the attention of environmentally ignorant governments.

"Politicians can see only as far as the next election, when their obscene paypackets are renewed."

The pay packets of politicians are petty cash compared to the "obscene" packets the pollutant parasites receive whilst pillaging and plundering these fragile lands.

"I also have enormous faith in the ability of the human race to meet and overcome the problems that are of its own making." And in which century do you envisage that happening Pericles whilst we permit the parasites to remain in charge - polluting parasites who have a penchant to lay the blame on China and India?

For the timebeing, the real issue *is* about having four-minute showers or remembering to turn off the plasma to compensate for the industry barons who remain in denial, thus sustaining their obscene pay packets whilst trashing our environment (or what's left of it) with impunity!

I draw your attention to this translated report from Japan (see extract of its conclusion below):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

They compare the IPCC's climate science to ancient astrology.

"4. Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability."

"Fester, I'm not getting into a discussion on whether your layman's understanding of AGW is bigger than mine."

Be fair, Pericles. You asked for my opinion on some articles and I gave it to you. The ozone comment was only to illustrate that there seemed a reluctance to acknowledge any human influence on climate. But I agree with you that human ingenuity is capable of solving the problems we face, excepting an ice sheet collapse in the short term. I'd much rather discuss positives, such as the huge promise of developing technologies.

Posted elsewhere by mistake:

I draw your attention to this translated report from Japan (see extract of its conclusion below):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

They compare the IPCC's climate science to ancient astrology.

"4. Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability."

In 1989, a prediction was made that within ten years, the sea would be two metres higher. Twenty years later they are more or less the same. Yesterday in the SMH a report was printed saying the Antarctic Ice is getting thicker. Is it our scientists who are getting thicker?

To debate this subject intelligently it is almost necessary to read the book by Michael Crichton, called State of Fear. It has thirty pages of bibliography, and is really a criticism of how lawyers manipulate the system for personal gain. It is all about trying to create a catastrophic event like the World Trade Centre demolition, or the Port Arthur massacre, so that the public will accept an unpalatable political course. In this book they are trying to create a tsunami, a huge calving on an ice shelf in Antarctica, and trying to get a scientist to fudge the figures on a glacier in Iceland. There is a cameo entrance by a scientist who postulates that governments have to have something for us to universally fear, and in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down, climate change got the nod.

What is really sad is that there is one major Church that was desperately preaching hell fire and brimstone, to a largely uneducated population, and that Church is increasingly preaching to empty pews. What that Church has failed to tell us is that when its system of governance was adopted into Australia in 1970, the entire Australian people have been forced to settle for a three years or so cycle of accountability, instead of the continuous system of accountability that exists in the United States reported in State of Fear.

There are two competing Christian systems of government. One system was adopted by Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe, Mao Tse Tung, and the other was the English Christian model. For almost forty years we have been badly governed, but the roots go way back to 1900. A State of Fear about sea levels, and Climate Change, has replaced the old fear of the Devil and Hell, but the results are the same

<In 1989, a prediction was made that within ten years, the sea would be two metres higher.>

Could you provide some more info on this, please? There is evidence of past sudden sea level rise such as this:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/04/15/tech-090415-coral-sea-level-climate-change.html

So it might be prudent to look for precipitating factors, and it would be good to know whether the risk was significant.

<Twenty years later they are more or less the same.>

About 5 centimetres higher. To put it in perspective, over the past three millennia prior to 1850, sea level changed by 0.1-0.2 mm per year, so a 5 centimetre change would have taken between 250 and 500 years to eventuate.

Well, regarding predictions, this one was made recently: "Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

I wonder what sea level rises were predicted in GoreAl's AIT? I was already a non-believer when it was released.

Loved your post, Peter the Believer.

Ratty the Realist

I cannot send you a direct reference to the scaremongering that started in 1989 about sea level rises, but I clearly remember the explanation about 1993, about why it had not happened. It seems warmer air carries more moisture, and that moisture has been carried by high winds over Antarctica. This led to an increase in snowfall there and over a continent that size, that is enormous. It seems that the east of Antarctica, as reported by the SMH has been accumulating enormous amounts of moisture, while the west has been shedding some ice.

The real problem is that there is no longer any grass roots political forum, where these matters can be debated sensibly. In the great Roman Catholic tradition, it is only in the college of Cardinals, that these matters can be discussed and pontificated upon. This system of government has been introduced by the Liberal Party starting with Order 58 Rule 4 subrule 3 of the High Court Rules 1952, and progressively extended by all State governments, so that every three years we get a say, but in the meantime, its sit down and shut up.

The Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy, adopted by the quasi-religion to which all lawyers belong, as gospel, has led to enormous pressures of conflict, between State Legislation and Federal Legislation, and liars reign supreme. It is probably not by chance that Peter Garrett is a lawyer.

The Lord my God, is patient. For forty years he let Moses roam the wilderness. For forty days he let Jesus Christ stay in the wilderness, and it is nearly forty years since the Roman Catholic dominated Liberal party abolished civil jury trials in New South Wales. A State of Fear can only be maintained while there is no third way, to determine truth from falsehood. The media tells lies to sell newspapers. The Politicians tell lies to get elected. There used to be a third place where truth and justice could be found. Thirty nine years ago, on the 14th October 1970, the Supreme Court in NSW was abolished. Its now time to restore it