Horus: "This is not to deny the hole –rather to highlight how our experts often get it wrong"

Well Horus, in that case you will be happy to know you are already right - they already know they got some AGW predictions wrong too. Their predictions about how fast the Arctic ice sheet would melt was out by decades.

Not that this is terribly surprising. We know that predictions from the scientific community are conservative as they assume things will continue as they are unless they have strong evidence to the contrary. What you pointed out just confirms that, and in the case of AGW and the Ozone layer it is not a comforting news.

Horus: "http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2009/2750919.htm ... However, there's a lot of differences between the sulphur dioxide scheme and any scheme which would use cap and trade to reduce global warming gases."

What a coincidence Horus, we listen to the same ABC Radio shows. Here is another quote from that same program:

So has Europe's ETS lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions there? ... emissions were reduced anywhere from 2% to 5%. It's definitely had an affect, and I think what everyone has to understand is that at least during the trial period, that's the period up through 2007, the ambition of the European program is very modest. ... What's happened in Europe, and I think this is an important thing to say, that despite all those problems in the first phase of the scheme that ended in December, 2007, the very existence of the scheme has changed the political landscape in Europe. When the scheme was first started you could easily imagine it being blocked. Now it's there, very hard for people who are unhappy with it to stop it existing. So what's happening in Europe is that the scheme wasn't very effective when it first started, but it's getting more effective and I can imagine it becoming more effective still in the next phase of the scheme that begins in 2013, because then we might start getting significant auctioning for example, rather than free allocation.

Nah! only half right, RStuart.
YES, your “experts” got it wrong about the Antarctic, but NO, not for the reasons you've proffered.

Their prognostications about its slip-sliding-away (not much sign of their careful conservatism on show in those predictions!) were a bit out –a big bit out : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing/story-e6frg6no-1225700046908

Hey here’s a suggestion, try reading a bit wider, wider than those Al Gore publicity fliers —could just change your whole outlook!

Oh, and while your at it, you might like to read up on the history of the Arctic (that’s the one up north).It turns out the melt there over the past couple of centuries has been...well, all over the place.

Horus: "YES, your “experts” got it wrong about the Antarctic"

I didn't mention the Antarctic. As far as I am aware the climate scientists predicted the ice sheets would on average grow there and so far they have been right. As I understand it, the temperature is rising there - but it still well below zero so that the ice still doesn't melt. But the rising temperatures also means more water vapour is in the atmosphere, and thus more snow falls - and so the amount ice grows overall despite some shrinking at the edges. As far as I know this always has been the prediction.

Horus: "Oh, and while your at it, you might like to read up on the history of the Arctic"

Maybe you could provide a link.

Horus: ".It turns out the melt there over the past couple of centuries has been...well, all over the place."

Global warming is all over the place in general Horus. There is nothing new in this. In general terms it is more prominent in the Northern Hemisphere. This again is pretty much what they predicted. They can't really say much about small areas (say one part of the Antarctic versus another) as their long term models don't work at that level. However the amount of land in the Northern Hemisphere always meant it would heat up faster than the Southern Hemisphere. You can see a map of it here:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/climateconnections/climate-map

Notice there is no dispute that some places have got colder - including parts of the Antarctic. On average though the planet is heating up.

Like all the Posts on all the different Threads we could go on arguing our own point of view ad nauseum , but at the end of the day we will each want to stick with our own view upon the particular subject if we are NOT prepared to accept the facts and the figures pertaining to that subject!

I believe that the Government`s direction is bunkum and we are being prepared for sacrifice!

I would suggest a quick read of the following article:

"A Cool Look at Global Warming" by Phillip R Wood

Managing Director and CEO of Intec Ltd

Crackup: "Like all the Posts on all the different Threads we could go on arguing our own point of view ad nauseum ... I would suggest a quick read of the following article: "A Cool Look at Global Warming" by Phillip R Wood"

If you mean that article espouses a "point of view", then no I don't agree with you. Take these concluding statements from it:

- The Seas are not rising
- the Ice is not melting

These are statements of fact, about things we can observe. They are not points of view. And as statements of fact, they are just plain wrong.

It appears to me some skeptics can't even bring themselves to acknowledge the facts. There is no dispute from me - if you can't agree on the facts then arguing a point of view based on them is a total waste of time.

Fact, for RStuart seems to mean anything that agrees with the AGW narrative .
Opinion, is anything that doesn’t agree – and it’s usually qualified as denialist-opinion or worse.

His statement of fact : “ the sea is rising” is only a fact if you’re living in a static world (perhaps, like one found in one of his programmers models).
The sea level is changing all the time; by many accounts it is lower now than it was in the 1970’s.
And lower now, than at many times in the Earths history.
And higher now, than at many other times in the Earths history.
Depending where you draw the line in the sand, you can make any determination you like.

Many AGW believers have not moved far from the days when they were believers in other things.
In those days the deity simply was. There was no questioning that --just as they now believe there can be no legitimate questioning of AGW.All they’ve done is dust out theology and chalk in science. But it’s not real science , only a golden calf they’ve created.
And they’ve dusted out good shepherd and chalked in a person in a white coat respectfully referred to as an expert or in Al Gore’s case an Italian suit, who likes to be seen as the environmental shepherd .The framework stays the same –only the names change.

And then, there’s this neat little paradox unearth by RStaurt:
“Global warming is …In general terms it is more prominent in the Northern Hemisphere” --Yet, most of the registered climate change “victims’ are in the southern hemisphere; south America & Africa!

The Ockham’s explanation would be : many basket-case nations suffering after generations of overpopulation & corruption have simply rebadged themselves as climate victims.(hoping for yet another free hand-out).
The true believers explanation is likely to be some recycled Marxian proposition that blames the haves for the plight of the have-nots.
Ho Hum! the theme stays the same –only the names change!