Belly & Ludwig,
I think it is easy to see why Rudd wants a bigger
population for Australia asap.
He has been stung by the realisation that Australia does not count
on the world stage and he believes that a larger population and
economy will fix that.
In that he could be right, but is such an increase sustainable ?
But then he could be wrong, the economic axis US<->Eu<->AS is basically
built in and the southern hemisphere countries come nowhere in their
considerations.

You only need to listen to conversations overseas to realise this.
When these international politics are discussed by anybody Australia
is never mentioned. Whole articles are written in major magazines
and newspapers on all these international matters and Australia is
never mentioned or considered. Australia has more mention in just
recent times because we are increasing our lending rate.

That is it so live with it.

examinator/rstuart, you place so much faith in computer applications. You need to address the core issues of data integrity, data manipulation, coding errors, flawed database access paths and lack of integrated legacy code.

If we are to place the output of these systems as so critical to massive social, political, industrial and economic changes, the above problems render output as totally invalid.

In the real world any computer programs in production, those of your suppliers and your downstream customers are required to carry ISO 9000 (International) or AS 35XX (Australian) certification. Without such certification those applications are considered non-compliant rubbish.

The CRU applications are not ISO 9000 compliant and should be removed from production immediately. The UK Government tender conditions also mandate ISO 9000 compliance, audit and certification. How did Hadley/CRU/EAU obtain massive funding from the UK Government, via the Met Office, without mandatory quality compliance?

The answer, grants! No mandatory compliance. What a lovely stunt.

The core tools of AGW science are computer programs. AGW science is generated by the blunt force trauma of legacy code. Imagine yourself as a micro-surgeon and being satisfied with a rusty saw and a hammer. You should be ashamed and embarrassed by any association with these scientific hacks.

rstuart, your claims that “95% of the data is available” is the best example of unmitigated waffle I’ve seen in years. If you did have 100% data the applications still can’t produce a result. They are uncertified GIGO. (garbage in, garbage out) Get real for goodness sake

spindoc: "In the real world any computer programs in production, those of your suppliers and your downstream customers are required to carry ISO 9000 (International) or AS 35XX (Australian) certification. Without such certification those applications are considered non-compliant rubbish."

You try to live up to the expectations you create with your nick, don't you spindoc? You toss the first bullsh1t you think of into the ring and sees who swallows it. In this case you picked the wrong person to chuck bullsh1t about 9000/35XX at. Turns out I have been a professional programmer all my life. In fact, wouldn't you know it, I have done a post-grad course in Software Quality and actually implemented AS 3561 in programming teams.

However none of that means too much in this context. What does mean something is none of Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Linux or Apple OS/X were developed using ISO 9000 certified procedures. Which means according to you 99.99% of all PC users in the world are apparently relying on "non-compliant rubbish" to do their daily work.

spindoc: "rstuart, your claims that “95% of the data is available” is the best example of unmitigated waffle I’ve seen in years."

Waffle perhaps. But nonetheless true and relevant waffle. And despite what you say, when Steve McIntyre and his ilk analysed the 95% they got almost identical results to the 100%. Thus this huge emphasis you are putting on the 5% is just more spin.

rstuart, interesting response. Ducking the issues nicely you mention all the things that are irrelevant. But have not gone anywhere near the real issues. We not talking about PC’s were we? We were addressing core production systems running formulae based FORTRAN compilers. Not that is matters what platform is chosen because the data is crap, the app,s are crap and the output has been doctored because their ““unaudited systems” permit this.

If you have implemented AS 3561, you should know better than trot out such piffle. Next you will be telling us that you would actually fly in a passenger jet that was designed on non AS 9000 compliant systems, give me a break. If that’s the best post grad can do for you, you blew your money. Stick with programming.

Spindoc & Rstuart,
It does not matter a hoot what standards are
applied to the computer modelling program, if it does not have as one
of its input parameters the realistic fossil fuel consumption.

It does have a fossil fuel input but it is a projection forwards from
about 1990 (if I remember correctly) of linear growth.
As they say, It ain't gonna happen !

Bazz: "if it does not have as one of its input parameters the realistic fossil fuel consumption."

But is does Bazz. The current assumptions are there are approx 100Gt (giga tons) of hydrocarbons available, and 5000Gt of coal. Error bars are assumed to be a factor of 2 (ie 50..200Gt and 2500..10,000Gt).

Turns out the calculations of the effect of CO2 released on a given date only depend on the total released at that date. It does not matter if it was released suddenly at the end, or uniformly up to that point.

If you really want to be informed about this, look at that lecture series examinator posted http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html It covers this, climategate, log CO2 and I'd imagine every other question you could ask about the science. It is being discussed here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3312