For years we've been taught the theory [as fact] that we get our wet wet weather during an Eli Nino. The higher the southern oscillation index [SOI], the wetter it would be. Negative, & very negative SOIs ment a very low percentage chance of average or above average rainfall.

So what's gone wrong?

A couple of months ago we hear a new theory that our weather really comes from the Indian ocean. Well yes, I've seen lots of rain come to us from some WA cyclones, but not many.

Now we appear to be getting this lot from an ex cyclone from the gulf, that got lost, & went south, through the centre.

Less than a month ago we got a record of 200mm in 7 hours, & all this record rainfall, with a heavily negative SOI. Where did that come from?

It could be our meteorologists [& scientists] don't have a clue.

It could be they have had too little time in Oz to fully understand the place. What ever it is, it would be nice to know. I wonder if they have worked it out themselves?

Any chance of getting someone from the CSIRO, or the Bureau to give us an explanation of what they believe is going on?

Hasbeen

This would be like trying to ask an economist why they could not predict the latest downturn. They are only ever clever in retrospect despite the spin.

Hasbeen, runner
It has been explained. I guess you'll have to wait a while untill it comes out in a finger picture book. in the mean time look at the new NASA Climate site.

Hasbeen,
Exactly my thoughts when I saw this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/fewer-cyclones-will-not-lower-insurance-premiums/story-e6frg6nf-1225835826727

Now, we are being told there’ll be “ a drop of up to 34 per cent in the number of tropical cyclones over the next 90 years”, DUE TO AGW.
Only a short time ago, we were being told there'd be an increase in cyclones, DUE TO AGW

There’s nothing better than playing- heads you lose, tails I win -& no one plays it better than the AGW spruikers..

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Check again in the next few days

I wonder, do you think climate change deniers put as little faith in their Doctors if they are very sick?
Lawyers if they are in trouble.
Financiers if they invest.
El Nina say we are told less rain La Nina more, climate change?
Have I understood it right? more rain in the tropics less in the south but spikes are always possible at any time, and condition.
Quaint however to see a few saying the experts would not have a clue, unless they agree with their views.

Dear Belly,
In case you don't know, the definition of an expert is a drip under pressure.
Regards Richie 10

AGW, pft, I've lost interest. You lot pontificating and going on about 'deniers', pretending to be meteorologists etc has helped in that process.

It's why Rudd has dropped it all. The public has lost interest too. The time for doing something has passed. The political window of opportunity has closed.

Interest will be gained again if we have another extreme weather event or the dams in Sydney (The only place that counts) drop.

Like most things, we will come up with a solution at the 11th hour. ie when it is truely necessary. All will be fine, and everyone will wonder why we were all so worried.

Can anyone come up with a problem the world took too long to do anything about that cost us more in lives or anything else that wouldn't have costed anything by doing things sooner? 6 of 1 half a dozen of the other. Muddling through is what humans do, and it's always worked out in the past.

The real problems in life aren't the things you worry about, they're the things that hit you like a freight train on an idle Tuesday.

The question was, why all this record rainfall, with a very negative SOI, totally against the theory.

It had nothing to do with AGW. Even if AGW exisrs, it can't explain this rainfall.

Come to think about it, we would probably have a much better understanding of this, & other weather, if we hadn't wasted so much money, & time on AGW.

Hasbeen
You either didn't read the BOM link, or you didn't understand it.
May I suggest you phone and talk to someone in 'climate' - the numbers are provided.

Belly

In answer to your question, I suspect when AGW dismissers are ill, being sued, buying a car, selecting a school etc, they check in with Andrew Bolt or Ian Plimer.

I'm serious. Really.

:-)

Horus

About your “Australian” link.

It’s in reference to a recent paper by the well known ‘dummy-spitter’ to the IPCC, Chris Landsea

A few years ago he said “global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds, but only by 1 or 2 percent”.

He now says global warming might enhance hurricane intensity by up to 11%. Insurance companies (and their insurers) are quite rightly worried because this translates into an increase of 60% in damage costs. Imagine what that will do to everyones’ premiums.

While frequency of weaker hurricanes will decrease, the strongest hurricanes in the Atlantic basin are expected to increase in frequency by 80%. Landsea has acknowledged this.

In fact, it now appears Landsea is agreeing with the IPCC, check it out yourself here:

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf

“Results from embedded high-resolution models and global models, ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km, project a likely increase of peak wind intensities and notably, where analysed, increased near-storm precipitation in future tropical cyclones. Most recent published modelling studies investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in the overall number of storms, though there is less confidence in these projections and in the projected decrease of relatively weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of the most intense tropical cyclones.”

If you can’t be bothered (most so called ‘sceptics’ don’t) and you’re only willing to regurgitate things you read/misinterpret in the popular press (or your favourite blog), then there really is no point in explaining or discussing things with you or any old hasbeen – you have already made your mind up.

_____

Hasbeen

It hasbeen updated

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Do you still not understand?

Oh, no mention of AGW.

You people are incredible.

A month ago the bureau forecast was for a 30% to 40% chance of above average rainfall. May be they don't understand their systems.

Since then we have had 14 inches, 3 times average. There is nothing on their website to explain this.

I don't complain about this, either, just the rubbish when they claim to know it all.

I have made a pretty serious study of meteorology. Being a BSc, a pilot, spending 6 years sailing a yacht 53,000 miles around the pacific, & another 8 years having to decide by 5.30 each morning, wether to send hundreds of tourists out to the reef in boats can do that too you. Hell, the airforce, & the navy even trained me in the stuff, using reall life professors, although not too well, I will admit.

I just get offended when some "scientists" tries to tell me they know about 4 times what they really do know. I'd cut them a lot more slack, if they just came clean sometimes, & admitted how little they really do know.

Quanda

Thank you for the bom link. many happy times ploughing through it.

And you expect hasbeen or contrarian to read this? You're either incredibly naive or have a wry and mischievous sense of humour.I'm opting for the latter

Getting any of the current assemblage of contrarians to actually read something more than 700 words would be an achievement. For them understand it would be stupendous enlightenment.
OLO has taught me that either stupendous and/or enlightenment are a foreign concepts to many of the contrarians.

If religion was not allowed in politics the Greens would not exist. To bad many are to blind to see that.

Unlike runner's imaginary friend, the environment really exists.

The greens may or may not have the right policies to protect it.

Unlike the ignorant, and (if his god exists) ungrateful runner, the greens might prefer not to lay waste to all of it as soon as possible.

Stuff you runner.

Read any real references for yourself yet? Just passing on quotes from books pastor reads for you? Thought so.

Rusty

Hasbeen sadly the scientists 4 times more than they know is ten times more than you seem to. :-)
Your overly simplistic black and white understanding is your problem not theirs.

Hasbeen, you've convinced me ... you are.

Climate is NOT weather, GET IT?

It was YOU who said your question has nothing to do with AGW, GET IT?

Weather is extremely difficult to predict, even weeks out, GET IT?

Climate is averaged weather over decades, GET IT?

"There is nothing on there website to explain this".

Bollocks. You just can not comprehend.

Right, you "have made a pretty serious study of meteorology. Being a BSc, a pilot, spending 6 years sailing a yacht 53,000 miles around the pacific, & another 8 years having to decide by 5.30 each morning, wether to send hundreds of tourists out to the reef in boats can do that too you. Hell, the airforce, & the navy even trained me in the stuff, using reall life professors, although not too well, I will admit.

I just get offended when some "scientists" tries to tell me they know about 4 times what they really do know. I'd cut them a lot more slack, if they just came clean sometimes, & admitted how little they really do know."

Hasbeen, we don't know everything - but we do know a lot more than you think we do. If you had bothered to look at ANY of the referenced papers, you would have seen that qualifier in words to that effect.

_____

Rusty, this is what science is up against:

http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2009/10/31/one-world-government-is-almost-here-lord-monckton-of-british-house-of-lords-on-youtube-video-and-2gb-radio-interview-with-allan-jones/

Runner has mates, read some of the comments - no mention of politics of course.

____

examinator

Yes, I do expect sceptics to read and understand this stuff - they are sceptics after all (please, don't answer that).

Belly,
You wonder why we sceptics question what the scientists claim. Here is an example.

This was written March 20 2000
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. Unquote

The Northern Hemisphere has just experienced record snowfalls almost everywhere. The US data shows the snowyest decade ever and this year record falls and record earliest falls.

Its a religion to believe in AGW and to have all faith in the scientists. Hope you noted the institute from which the above prediction came.

Scare mongering? You bet!

qanda,

You're right about the difference between sceptics and deniers. I still stand by my statements.
Good luck

Bazz if some one is reading our posts in 20 years they will wounder just how some got it so wrong.
I will not be around but forgive you in advance.
The trouble is far too many have got that say no to everything Tony Abbott bug.
It has become a tool for the right, say no it is not happening, scream about lefty loonies and mud will stick.
Climate change is undeniable, it is real it is taking place.
True questions remain, is man contributing to it?
My answer is yes.
Can we do anything about it?
My answer is if its yes [and for me its maybe] it will not be in a short time or without much pain
Is it worth it
my answer yes
First action?
Take the power out of the hands of fossil fuels interests they are behind to it is not happening mob.

Belly,

Right you are—great analogy– about the primacy of experts
[ http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3498#83122\ ]

But what if a patient had reason to suspect the “expert”-doctor was misdiagnosing his/her ailment.
And when they asked the doctor for the x-rays etc –so they could cross check with another “expert” - he responded that he couldn’t find them; he’d lost them.And when they accessed their file the doctor had made notes like “hiding” this and not reporting that.
What should they do in that case – probably seek a new “expert”-doctor!. And I’d dare say if he kept up such practises he would be struck off (though he’d only have the welfare of few hundred individuals, at most.)

But the IPCC & co has been caught fudging , fixing and making false predictions (and the IPCC holds the welfare of billions of people).
Yet you and your confederates say “stick with them” ( Peter Garret couldn’t get away with it, but IPCC & co can !)

Now I can understand why Examinator wants to be part of the IPCC party boy scene –he just wants to be loved by someone, ANY-ONE!
And I can understand why quata wants to be on the invitation list –he aspired to being hydrology’s version of Richard Leakey…but alas

But it’s a real puzzle as to why someone like yourself, Belly, who clearly has a great affinity for the OZ working classes, can endorse such..
Think beyond the lib-lab divide –can’t you see Australian Industries & workers are being shafted in favour of dirtier Kyoto exempted
“developing” nations –and there isn’t even a net environmental benefit.

.

Rusty you ask

'Read any real references for yourself yet? Just passing on quotes from books pastor reads for you? Thought so.'

I was wondering whether you were giving up on some of your High Priests after their pathetic scientific (sorry prophetic ) failures. Has Mr Flannery crawled under a rock yet after his predictions re Brisbane dam levels? What about your High priests predictions of snow levels in Europe? Oh that's right the science is settled. At least he was brave (silly) enough to make predictions where most people have loved long enough to see his failure

So, runner, you haven't done any reading.

I know that from where you stand, any scientist would automatically outrank any high-priest you could imagine. Unklike many priests, scientists are usually honest. Even climate scientists. If they are wrong, they will work harder to find the right stuff. Unlike you.

The problem for you is that the people qualified to judge their work aren't you.

There is a strong first principles case for more energy being trapped by the atmosphere. *If* that energy *is* being dissipated, it is by mechanisms not yet understood, which we need to understand, and cannot depend on until we do.

Sure as hell won't be you determining those mechanisms, nor all the she'll-be-right-always-has-been objectors.

Read any books for yourself yet? Got any more quotes from articles you haven't read by authors whose work you don't know? Poor, lazy runner, just believing what pastor says because it sounds good to him.

Rusty

No doubt Rusty you would like me to read many of the now debunked myths of evolution. Getting through them would take a life time. I really would be wasting my time as the latest 'find' will again replace the last fraud that you have such difficulty admitting to. My time is much better spent reading the inspired Word of God which never changes and still has the most logical explanation for origins. Really don't like your High Priests being exposed as frauds do you Rusty?

Horus I have never doubted the fact you are a bright person.
You caught me out.
And nothing you said here changes my mind.
Here however are my reasons for not agreeing with you.
I think you found two examples of wrong statements in a whole report.
I understand some, on both sides of the debate fudged results and used untruths.
I think global warming is true.
That increasing human population, just in the last 100 years, and use of machinery, in about two hundred, has played a part.
I think we are not doing well with environmental issues, all of them.
And want both sides of the house to do far more, stop radicals like the greens owning it and hiding behind it.
It is my honest view we will see both side on track in about 20 years, and ETS in place in most of the world.
And yes history writers, my age will not let me see it, will regard those who say its just one big tax as fools.
Those real Australian workers can be from any back ground and yes will suffer more than the rich,,, but even more if nothing is done.

Horus,
Statement like those in your response show you either don't read what I say or anything outside black or white is beyond your competence to grasp.

>"But the IPCC & co has been caught fudging , fixing and making false predictions (and the IPCC holds the welfare of billions of people)"<.

The misassumptions, lack of understanding willful or otherwise clearly betrays you for what you are on this topic.

You either just don't want to know the truth or you're so ill informed. Advice, is so inaccurate it's almost libelous.
But that their problem.

My issue is, that you don't know where I stand and frankly, your misunderstanding is insulting.
Sigh, for the record again .
I don't support the clear cock ups (archery term look it up) of The IPCC bureaucracy .
Nor do I condone the errors of one scientist at CRU but it needs to be seen in perspective, of the amount of damage it actually caused in the science.....two cents worth of bugger all.

Glacier gate was a bureaucratic error i.e. the 35 year time line. Not the state of the glaciers/Tibetan Plateau and consequently the major rivers. Ive posted the sites before.

Poles melting, I've posted the sites with pictures maps details before.
BTW those are as up to date as last week. Even yesterday science daily had more indicative evidence.

Note *I do NOT give uncritical absolute allegiance to AGW/ACC*

I simply maintain with all it's 'flaws', trivial as they are, it is still *more explanatory of *ALL* the new data/facts, than alternatives presented so far*. It is sufficiently convincing to suggest we can't afford to wait untill final confirmation, when ever that is.

If that sounds like hedging, it is. Science theory never tells it as absolutes, merely probabilities....which are relatively high.
Sensible conclusions, are never black or white, if they are then they're probably wrong.
Having said that, I don't expect any more half cocked (flint lock term) accusing me of what ever.

Runner,

You are clearly unaware that evolution hasn't been debunked.
You wouldn't know as you *don't read* original articles or other scientific literature. Cursory examination of the only quote you actually reference shows you to be ignorant of the real content.

You read books by pathetic second-raters who pick over the work of real mainstream scientists for little tidbits to "tickle your ears".
It sells well because religionists are pathetically eager to imagine that scientists somehow endorse their views.

Your comments on science are the fishwife carping of those not competent to be let drive.

Go back to your church and fume all you like. The world cannot do without science, but it could do without fundies. Except pastor, pastor couldn't do without fundies.

Rusty

Enjoyed this article I read on the ABC Drum site, putting some common sense into the entire debate:

"Current science says that humanity would be unwise to emit more than 1 trillion tonnes of carbon over the entire period of industrial civilisation, yet we've already used up about half of that long-term 'budget'. So, the sooner we start to cut, and the deeper we cut, the more likely humanity is to avoid really serious climate disruption and its many unpleasant consequences.

Further, we really don't know how fast or hard we CAN cut back, or how much this will cost. Sure, we can look at ways to increase the efficiency of our energy use, and we can consider the current economics of 'clean' (low-carbon) sources such as nuclear, wind and solar energy. But are these options scalable? Can we build them fast enough to replace fossil fuels and yet maintain a reliable electricity supply? Will the rest of the world follow our lead, even if we do succeed?

To have any hope of answering these questions, we need a realistic plan for implementation. Not just 'the market will fix it' dream, but an energy plan that achieves our desired goal, is likely to work in the real world (that is, it relies principally on established or demonstrated technologies), and is economically feasible. The plan then needs to be executed, via directed and sustained action.

Clearly, this will require bipartisan support - at least in terms of agreeing on the general need for implementation - even if the details are up for political 'fine tuning'."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2834489.htm?WT.mc_id=newsmail

Cont'd

Cont'd

Further excerpt:

"Finally, it must be technology neutral. All systems that meet certain underlying goals (low carbon, safe, able to effectively manage waste, sustainable, and so on) should be allowed to compete on a level playing field. A plan that says "no nuclear" or "no carbon capture and storage", or one that imposes severe regulatory burdens on some technologies but not others, is really risky. Why? Because there is a good chance that the cheapest and most efficient solutions will be ruled out on ideological grounds, or for short-term political convenience: always a bad idea.

My considered view is that nuclear power will end up forming the backbone of any effective real-world clean energy plan, but I'd be just as happy if other prospective technologies, such as concentrating solar power or enhanced geothermal systems, are able to take a major role.

Yet, even if you disagree with my plan (or anyone else's for that matter), you shouldn't seek to 'block' any qualifying technology. And if you wish people to take your plan seriously, you must be prepared to tell them how much it will likely cost, what sort of support it will need to be put into action, and consider its implications for electricity grid stability, energy storage and sustainability.

In short, real-world energy plans have to work in the real world. Does yours?".

The author to the above article makes a lot of sense.

Does continuing to waste our natural resources, using up non-renewable fuels and polluting our environment sound like a feasible plan for the future?

To anyone?

Yep, words of wisdom SevFrac :)

Two problems ... politicians and a fickle electorate.

Rusty

You go on believing your pseudo science frauds. If you live in Brisbane you can empty out the bottles of water stored in the fridge just in case 'climate change' really has got settled science. Keep reading those books that deny the obvious and hopefully you won't discriminate to much about our first people. Oh that's right evolutionist had to change that bit to. Cheers.

Make that three ... religious zealots as well :(

qanda

If Runner wants to consistently prove not only that he is a religious extremist, but deliberately ignorant in spite of the wealth of information that is only a mouse-click away, who are we to burst his bubble?

Just wish he'd stop with the ad hominems - not very Christian.

Dear Rusty,
There is more evidence in existance today on our high priest then on any other subject or person that has ever existed in the total history of the world. Just because in your opinion it can't be true doesn't change anything. Yesterday I listened to Noel Pearson talking about a donkey, a carrot, and a stick. To understand what he was talking about you had to have an open mind so I don't think you would have got it. Something I learned along the road is that there are many ways to skin a cat and if you are open minded you can always learn something but if the science is fixed you will never enjoy the benefits of new discoveries. As I said before an expert is a drip under pressure.

Nuclear power will/must play a part in cleaner energy.
Labor, my Labor, should ask its voters not chringe at the thought of greens preferences going.
Not worth the effort but runner my old china plate?
Are you aware your rants are unchristian?

Richie 10,

Nope, there isn't. Read up, catch up, or keep reading the fiction you and runner prefer. What you aren't doing is helping your branch of religion, just making it look sillier.

Ever watched heated water runner? The circulation is the same, it just gets faster as more heat is applied.

Oh, that's right, you don't *do* science, nor read about it. You just get what suits pastor. Did you tell pastor his little cadged quote was "bearing false witness" by being taken out of context? You are a hypocrite, preached to by a hypocrite. Richie 10 sounds like he has the same problem.

Rusty

Severin,

I agree much of what he says. It's practical and realistic.

As I keep saying but the contrarian don't seem to understand, my belief in AGW/ACC is conditional i.e. the theory is far from complete, accurate to 5 decimal points so to speak. But the Science underpinning is sufficiently credible, to start action now, not wait untill.....

As a manager in a technical industry, experience has taught me that once the facts are clear enough to act upon one should activate planning/staged strategies, particularly if waiting untill absolute proof comes with an unacceptably high price tag.

Which in IMO we have passed that point and evidence daily seems to add weight to that conclusion

My science understanding goes as far as comprehending the problem, some idea of what goes into the logic and the basic science involved.
I also have enough experience to know when and perhaps how to ask an intelligible question of an experts.

I admit I have little patience for those who have no idea but have the arrogance/stupidity to assume they can second guess a *series* of discipline specialists. Especially when it's in the form of bald statements that "it's all BS" when all they can offer is zilch or outdated theories.

Likewise ,I find that most of the contrarian offerings thus far ignore or leave unexplained current indefatigable observations and or facts.

This included single quasi related disciplined practitioners who, frankly, exceed their competence levels with *partially* at best, theories.

All this means, that I trust the science enough to act, regardless of the IPCC bureaucratic cock ups(apposite archery term).

It's time we stopped with nit picking, as a means of ignoring the issue because it's inconvenient and started serious planing and implementation of damage mitigation strategies that can be ramped up/down as and when the evidence suggests.
_______________________________________

qanda
As I respect your superior knowledge, the 'how dare I comment baffles/concerns me. Care to indicate the area, as I can't see your point?

Examinator,
<<I don't support the clear cock ups (archery term look it up) of The IPCC bureaucracy.Nor do I condone the errors of one scientist at CRU but it needs to be seen in perspective, of the amount of damage it actually caused in the science.....two cents worth of bugger all>>

But you can’t pick the icing off the cake and leave the base.Glaciergate stemmed from the nature of the IPCC, to quote Paul Monk ( ALR) , it had moved from a body whose intent was to critically examine the evidence for and against, to “ a political body committed to finding evidence that AGW was a reality”

<<Glacier gate was a bureaucratic error i.e. the 35 year time line. Not the state of the glaciers/Tibetan Plateau and consequently the major rivers. Ive posted the sites before.>>

Ice formations have generally – at varying rates – been in retreat since the last ice age . That is nothing new.What is new is it is being yoked to a political campaign to fund the UNs wishlist.And that campaign has been very effective. I cite your periodic seizures about hundreds of millions displaced persons – as indication as to just how effective it’s been with some of the more impressionable among us.

<<If that sounds like hedging, it is. Science theory never tells it as absolutes, merely probabilities....which are relatively high.
Sensible conclusions, are never black or white, if they are then they're probably wrong.>>

There is lot more room for doubt than you allow for, Horatio-Examinator.Even the IPCC doesn’t say CO2 is THE cause, only a CONTRIBUTOR.

<< I admit I have little patience for those who have no idea but have the arrogance/stupidity to assume they can second guess a *series* of discipline specialists>>

ROFL . There are none more arrogant and ill-informed as those who believe all the “*series* of discipline specialists” lay on one side of the debate.With all due respect, you need to read a bit more widely than qanta's OLO posts.
.

Dear Rusty,
Which branch do you adhere to. Me, I stick like glue to the tree of life. I would rather believe the words of Jesus of Nazareth (confirmed by the dead sea scrolls as accurate) then any other belief system. For I have tested and found them to be true. I have no idea how to test Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as all species I have personally observed, reproduce after their own kind. So I guess your faith is much greater than mine.
Richie 10

Examinator

<< It's time we stopped with nit picking, as a means of ignoring the issue because it's inconvenient and started serious planing and implementation of damage mitigation strategies that can be ramped up/down as and when the evidence suggests. >>

Agreed. Which is why I posted part of the article to which I linked. It is a relief to read something that is simply down to earth common sense.

I understand your 'conditional' position on AGW. I am probably a step further along than you, in that I believe that the massive increase in actions on the environment plus the increase in population equals an effect on this planets ecosystem. It is degree that I am uncertain of. The best predictions can only be based on present knowledge. We may not experience the most dire predictions or they could be even worse than anticipated.

To argue on about trivialities as our world leaders and other vested interests are continuing to do is very dismaying. We have sufficient knowledge to invest in clean sustainable technologies now. And still we delay...

Richie 10,

So, like runner, you don't know much about biology, do you? Just what pastor tells you. Read up and catch up.

Rusty

Severin,

I read the articular that morning I read and contribute to unleashed too.
My approach to AGW/ACC is strictly functional i.e.management risk assessment based (as indicated)

I read as much as I can on the topic to reassess my confidence if needed.

I have argued from Day one for informed objective discussion on the topic sadly the less flexible members of society can't get past their vested interests and are indulging in tactics including, hoax, conspiracy theories ranging from the improbable to the absolutely foil hat brigade etc rather than objective analysis.

I noted on the BBC this morning the following story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8550090.stm I've gone as far as downloading the source material. No doubt the some on line will be dismiss it as a cover-up or my least favourite "it's BS hmpf!"

Aw shucks examie, now I’m embarrassed. When I said “how dare you!” and qualified it with (you) “State the bleeding obvious” at

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10115&page=0

It was in response to your comment “Clearly many of the respondents didn't note that this topic is actually about the need for changing the IPCC.”

So yes, you were spot on because commenters were bagging the author for saying something that they themselves want done. It’s as if they hadn’t even read the article by Watson – they certainly didn’t seem to recognise or acknowledge his current position in writing that piece.

That is why I chimed in with Déjà vu - Robert Watson's article is well reasoned - but it will not remove hands from ears, or open tightly shut eyes. It certainly won't stop the screaming "I can't hear you!" – and that is exactly what is happening, go figure.
_______

Horus << Even the IPCC doesn’t say CO2 is THE cause, only a CONTRIBUTOR. >>

Of course, what you don't say (or can't grasp) is that it is significant (at 90 – 95 confidence levels).

And your bit about the glaciers, it’s the rate of melt that is alarming, not that glaciers retreat after an ice age ... another thing you fail to understand, but there you are.

Oh, for gods sake, will you people get off this vested interest by big oil etc rubbish.

Those with fossil fuel interests will make MUCH MORE money with a CTS. The only vested interests are from the pro CTS lobby.

The people who are against it are those with a bit more chemical/physics savy, & those who can see the that chicanery of the global warming mob was forced on them, when their theory FAILED.

Horus,

"I don't unconditionally support AGW/ACC and I resent being misquoted/misrepresented i.e.>" Examinator wants to be part of the IPCC party boy scene –he just wants to be loved by someone, ANY-ONE!<" (ad hominem) what part of the above don't you understand?

It's not as if what I'm saying is either new or different, from what I've been saying since joining OLO 2.5 years ago. A plain sorry or a commitment, to read what I say before commenting on my views will suffice.

I am well aware of your contrarian stance, you've stated it often enough.

My response was CLEAR, I too, have my concerns about the IPCC's bureaucratic methodologies/practices.

Think of it like this. Just because you MAY have gone to an ify school at teaching science or not interested enough, that doesn't change the basic science facts.

The IPCC didn't write the science they just collated, formalized it, if you like. The FACTS/SCIENCE determine the theory's credibility not the IPCC.

The IPCC isn't the issue it's the Facts.

-Have I read in detail the IPCC report.... No
-Do I quote it.... No
-Have I read any of his books...No
-Do I quote Gore...No

-Have I got the source papers, others and read at least THEIR conclusions?..Absolutely
-Have I read all those written on and in related topics?...No but there are discipline recognized seminal papers, offering both sides, that I have read.
-Do I understand every thing I read?...no but surrounding papers/explanatory notes give me gist.
-All the media sources I quote are only research starting points not the END.
-I usually go to source documents. IMO it give me a more realistic picture of what was said and what the science proves or doesn't prove.
Not some third party's (of undefined ability)take on it.

All the above is simply competent management techniques

Examinator,

RE : << what part of the above don't you understand? >>

So let me get this right--you can say :

To Runner: <<It has been explained. I guess you'll have to wait a while untill it comes out in a finger picture book>>

To anyone with a contrary view: <<Getting any of the current assemblage of contrarians to actually read something more than 700 words would be an achievement. For them understand it would be stupendous enlightenment.>>

To Hasbeen: <<Your overly simplistic black and white understanding is your problem not theirs>>

To Horus: <<Think of it like this. Just because you MAY have gone to an ify school at teaching science or not interested enough, that doesn't change the basic science facts>>.

And, that’s A-OK.

But when I say : <<Examinator wants to be part of the IPCC party boy scene –he just wants to be loved by someone, ANY-ONE!>>

It's ad hominem & abhorrent.

Perhaps that’s the part I DON’T UNDERSTAND .

RE: << The IPCC isn't the issue it's the Facts >>
There are no facts, only interpretations." - -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Examinator can you move over a bit?
Is there room along side you for me.
We think much a like on this issue.
No hold your head up, let the flung products of the other end of the male cow splatter you.
See you and I may not be totally right.
But those throwing?
Total wrong.
One mistake, one silly statement in so many pages.
The glaciers continue to melt.
Droughts spread if no longer here still grow in other places.
Population grows, it could not change the planet could it, or maybe it is.
The aim here is to out last us, talk over us,say we are at best uninformed, quote things written to say it is not true, make claims more than half the worlds climate change people are fools lier's, or mad.
Take it on the chin examinator, be brave your concerns for our world are worth it.
In any case I am a gardener and will bag it after the blokes run out of breath.