Peter Taylor is an adviser, analyst & lecturer --and most importantly, he’s independent . He has recently published a new study of climate change.

His contention:
“the pattern of temperature rise provides no convincing evidence that the cause of such a rise is not predominantly natural” ( p203)

“The perception that human influence dominate lies entirely upon computer modelling” (p51)
“if [modelling] failed with regard to heavy metals, persistent organic chemicals & radioactivity [tracking] despite huge investments …what reason then to have faith in …ocean-atmospheric models [which are far more complex].
-- from 1945 -1978 ( the ‘global dimming’) temperatures were falling (despite the increase of CO2) modellers ascribed it to “sulphur particles from fossil fuels” – they were wrong.
-- IPCC modelling predicted 2007 to be a record warm year & an El Nino in the pacific – they were wrong.
--other failings are documented on page 71

Additionally, the IPCC data set is too narrow - “everything rests upon the period 1980-2000” ( p69)
“set against such natural variability [over a longer period] , the late twentieth century does not look unusual and could readily be assumed a natural cycle recovering from a low in about 1810”
( p40)

“ I do not believe [in the IPCC’s] incompetence . I believe there is a strong directional effort to find language that provides media and policy makers with simplistic statements they need to mobilize opinion, and that many scientists sincerely believe it is their responsibility to do so” ( p45)

His prognosis:
“We are already dangerously vulnerable to the natural climate, but not because of anything unusual the climate may do, rather because we as human society have changed drastically, multiplying out population and resource demands with each generation and becoming ever dependent on narrower margins of production, whether it be food, water or construction materials”
( p33)

Horus’s recommendation:
Redirect the money your were going to spend on “Storms Of Our GrandChildren” to buy “Chill”.

POP! [Not the sound of champagne corks…but, could just be the sound of bubbles bursting, Q&A et al ]

Dear Horus,

Can you direct me to a website that
specifically lists the author's
qualifications and expertise. By
that I don't mean one that deals
with generalisations like "science
analyst," and talks in sweeping
statements - like he's influenced
"several prominent scientists" to
change their way of thinking and so on.

I'd like to see specifics. What year
did he graduate from Oxford - and what
kind of degree exactly did he obtain.
Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorate?

If he's had over 30 years experience -
I'd like to see the list of precise
names - and years with each .

If he's lectured at universities - it
isn't enough to list the countries -
I'd like to know the names of the
universities that he's lectured in -
and the dates when he did.

From reading his general biography -
all I could come up with - are very
vague generalisations . It's a CV -
that wouldn't hold up very well
in today's market - when applying
for a job. Most employers are interested
in specifics.

Unless of course, this guy's already got
an employer - like a large multi-national
polluter - in whose interests it would
serve nicely to have climate change denied
by an "expert."

Foxy,

I presume this is him: http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/un-climate-change.htm

He believes the globe has been and is cooling, and the recent food shortages are somehow attributable to this cooling. He also seems to think our uptake of bio fuels is because of this same global cooling.

I don't normally take Horus at his word, but in this case I will. I have absolutely no doubt this is all Peter Taylor's invention, and thus he can truly be said to be completely independent.

Dear rstuart,

Thanks for that.

Much appreciated.

RStuart says: “ I don't normally take Horus at his word”

That may be so, but I do tend to take people at their word , and when you said this:

“ Carter's argument must boil down to 'the models are wrong'. If so, it should not be difficult to show it. Just present the output of a few models used by the IPCC and illustrate they are indeed wrong. As far as I am aware,he has never done that... The question is not whether "unexpected" [climatic events] are unusual or not, but whether we can predict whether they will happen"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9906#160597

I (naively, perhaps ) assumed you were fairdinkum.

But, when presented with sources that will show you the deficiencies in IPCC modelling, you drop the –I’m waiting for the evidence-- pretence, make a few snide remarks and show not the slightest inclination to examine the arguments/evidence – very scientific!

Carter's torpedoes et al miss the real issue as do 99% of the nay sayers and "natural" phenomenon sayers .
They are busy trying to destroy a workable theory not addressing the underlying issues.

I.e. "glaciergate" shock horror. Answer me this how has the "35 year" opinion altered the basic facts? specifically, That (note the detail carefully) due to (long term) climate change at the western end of the Tibetan plateau, the *feeder glaciers* to the 4 main rivers, are proven to be disappearing at an unprecedented rate. Fact and provable! These rivers are the major fresh water supply for *300 million* Chinese/Indians/Bangladeshis. The area is becoming dessert.

NB they took 1000's of years to lay down. All this has happened in 70 years.

My question is how has 'glacier gate' "scandal?" changing the actual looming disaster?

PS there's about 6 million currently and the world is failing most of them now. Think about it 300 million refugees on the move and we're not affected?

Alarmist no but this debate has overwhelmed the reality.
The truth is the above is one such problem.
The others do have clearer links to human interference, blundering and short term focused behaviour.

The mega conspiracy theory is emotional and unsustainable except in the mind of those for various reasons don't want to or can't grasp the reality. This includes the aluminum foil hat brigade.
Fortunately the latter are a small in number. 3rd. std deviations.

Examinator,
I’m not sure how you determined that AGW is a “workable theory”, it doesn’t explain much of what is happening; it guesses; it fudges; it glosses (as Taylor’s book well documents).

Have you stopped to consider that the symptoms of climate change --that you see-- in the sub-continent (and elsewhere) might be driven by factors other than GHG’s, like for example, the wholesale felling of forests, the clearing of mangroves, the siphon-off of too much ground-water; over fishing , over farming and over-breeding --or perhaps (even!) long-term natural cycles (beyond our ken). If any of the aforementioned are the real culprits, or even, co-culprits, no amount of Co2 reduction will solve your “real issue”.

<<My question is how has 'glacier gate' "scandal?" changing the actual looming disaster?>>
GlacierGate is significant in that it illustrates that all is not as popularly portrayed . You might recall how proponents of AGW have long brow-beat challengers about the strict peer review nature of IPCC data/findings. GlacierGate showed, to all and sundry, that the IPCC’s modus operandi isnt all it’s been claimed (and you will find more examples if you read Taylor’s book)

<< there's about 6 million currently and the world is failing most of them now. Think about it 300 million refugees on the move and we're not affected?>>
The core issue here as I see it, is over population. And people fleeing from regions of low economic prospects to regions of higher prospects,well illustrated by that fact that many by-pass intermediary safe countries of lower affluence.Even in a perfectly climate-stable-world you would still have your (economic) refugees –the only thing that would change would be the excuse(s) used.

I urge you and any one else who is seeking answers to read Taylor’s book. It is thorough and if you approach it with an open mind it may just change your views.

PS: You might like to view this documentary . It’s about climate change –and major climate change at that – in the ancient world, LONG BEFORE industrialization and large scale Co2 emissions.
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/502860

Hours: "But, when presented with sources ..."

That was half the problem, Horus. You didn't cite any sources. So, I went off and found what Taylor had to say. Maybe what I found wasn't a very good example. If so, provide a better example.

In what I found he said the globe is cooling. That is a pretty outstanding claim, which directly contradicts just about all evidence I have seen on the matter. Eg this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png Outstanding claims need outstanding evidence. He didn't supply any. I might of delved further, but he also said cooling caused the take up of biofuels. It is pretty clear what caused the ill advised rush to bio fuels, and it has nothing to do with climate change - be it warming or cooling.

So after my short investigation of Taylor on the web I decided the man was a complete fruit cake. I far as I am concerned I have wasted too much time on him already. But if you are determined to convince me otherwise, just provide a link that summarises his claims and the evidence he cites for them.

Horas,
My point exactly there are several factors that make up the workable theory.

Show me a working complex theory that is accurate to decimal point accuracy? There are none, they all work on statistical analysis!

IMO The so titled 'AGW' and its hype are both misleading,

A point I made *7/08* and continue to do so.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7606#118570

The term was the product attention grabbing media headlines.

The issue is really the consequences of several factors as you rightly point out.

What the media fails to stress clearly enough was that the world was never going to warm either evenly or consistently (Basic physics).
There are going to be heat bands and hot spots (see the lectures I recommended)

In fact the issue was/is the consequences of Catastrophic Climate Change not AGW per se.
What causes this CCC ? it's a bit of group A,
a bit group B,
a bit of C (Excess CO2 over a protracted time frame see. "Saturation", "ocean invasion", "calcium carbonation", "weathering thermostat" (Pre AGW science principals [PAGWSP]) scientifically accepted processes (including by the geologists),

When combining all these factors no existing theory fitted the observable factors. Therefore ; Specifically, what has set it off and why now?

Natural causes? ....yes and no. e.g. the provable melting ice took 1000's years to lay down but 70 years to retreat ?
The sun maxima ? No evidence during the last cycle ( besides the sun is losing activity, less solar wind etc. ) .

The specific glaciers melting rate is speeding up why? The climate is changing? why? You mentioned deforestation etc. It changes the air flows air pressures (weather) [PAGWS]
1 of 2

Continued 2 of 2
NB We are releasing EXCESS CO2 (more than nature can dispose of) [ PAGWS]
EXCESS CO2 is a greenhouse gas trapping in heat [PAGWS]
- the reducing albedo effect [PAGWS].
+ other pollutants, heat island and you have global AVERAGE (key term) Temp rising. In short human activities , too many people too much consumption etc.
It's getting colder? In some places and for limited times all this is in the theory. (the difference between weather and climate, absolute and Average).

The net result people pick at models the theory but ignore the problem and perhaps the only element we can change our man made problems.

Discussion about hockey stick, proxies etc disprove nothing least of all the theory. Very little of the science is new nor are the modeling techniques yet we rely on them in other areas i.e. economics? Where is the outrage by sceptics?

NB CO2 as a green house along with other human created excess gases has been know for decades and based on their molecular structure.

I still ask you how is all the scepticism solving or even acknowledging the real problems.
Also too many people alone isn't the problem as such it is what they are doing .
I don't expect you or anyone to actual read this but it more organized my thoughts on the subject.

Regards Examinator.

Would common-sense not dictate that damage to the ozone layer and atmosphere over the past 50years be indicative of significant droughts, melting of snow and ice, salinity changes, in addition to weather pattern diversity? I am a layman not scientist, yet after observing and living through different droughts over 30 adult years; I clearly recall the "stinging sun" [as have friends of mine, "biting" not just burning, after the El-Nino was announced along with the hole in the ozone layer? Q: why were these scientific claims disregarded?