Dear Eclipse and Ammonite,

Fair summations but I doubt whether you'll
get anywhere. This has indeed become a sorry
thread and "people like us," are apparently
the only ones that are politicising this debate.
We apparently don't understand the science or
the facts.

Professor Garnaut a pro climate change
scientist is called - a "snake-oil peddler."
And that's acceptable on this forum. Whereas
pointing out that the Sydney Institute is a
conservative think tank and therefore might
tend to present
speakers from their point of view (not that
there's anything wrong with that), is considered
disgraceful. Has the Sydney Institute had a
pro-climate change scientist as a speaker?
Such is politics - it all depends where
your leanings lie.

Eclipse Now

I think you just eclipsed me by "that much". Your links to valid sources are excellent. But will they make a difference?

Many are claiming that scientists have concocted the entire claim out of greed. I agree it is about money - about who stands to lose the most and in this case it is the mining industry, the energy industry and the mess of smaller entities that either supports or is supported by these above mentioned industries.

A world wide conspiracy of scientists is about as believable as a herd of cats. Scientists by the nature of their talents are the most questioning and independent of creatures.

Not so big corporations - who could've been at the forefront of alternative and sustainable technologies but instead have remained, kicking and screaming, to the very end of their anachronistic industries and politics, dragging vested interests and the scientifically allergic with them.

annnonite quote...""The issues facing us
are more than whether you believe the climate is changing or not.""

quite right
its about replacing a petro carbon based ecomomy
with govt funds

recall your conflict?

""Meanwhile,..we drain the last of our fossil resources""

get the point?
"the LAST of our fossil resources"

andf here we are going into the greatest ever global ressesion
and without the 'green income/industry'..the world economy would long ago have stagnated[and we havnt even reached peak 'oil'..or peak coal [let alone peak frukking gas yet]...but its the same SCARE tactics

how much of the NEW carbon polution is a reasult of BUUILDING all the new solar cells..or wind towers..and the other short term fixes
cause oil coal and gas..*will outlast them

and they arnt as cheap or available
when the wind bags dont blow their spin
and the sun shining from their bottums dont make energy after sunset

heck in spain..the actually focused coal power elect-trick lightsd onto solar cells.just to get the mates rates deal on solar BUY BACK

""Either way we need to take action,""

BUT IT MUST BE RIGHT ACTION
and those who hope to control it or make proffit from it must pay it themselves[not get govt to pay]..having a bob each way

in the global scare..we have those what got
free insulation[even sen them instal over other insulation
but industry made the insulation boom...[we got some got free light bulbs[that some industry lobby had to make..manufacture...]

we spent [wasted money on clean coal...now builb pipelines
lol 'infastructure'..for frukking gas lines to transpoert the gas overseas..all on govt tic

when the frukking gas wells leak methane
still the green lobby begs for more money
to make more industry..

to raise the cost of energy
so in the end,..the short-term imagined fixes..might be cheaper
[as long as they get longterm govt subsidy]..

then the long term reality

absolute power corrupted
absolutly

but now we got real problems

austerity measure's
run down the base infastructure
and govts have broken its people..made us all go broke

for a lie
by spin

then..who to blame?

who will be the new energy szar
the same mob..ge bp

who got big by govt favours

that lasted longer than the ones who gave it to them

the blogers words/..govt laws are still there
but the people who posted them..are long gone

then we have to put up with others calling us ignorant..cause we actually read the info..that they then claim not to read

name calling runs rife
but the worst names are from those needing to blame others
needing their hands in your purse..to sell a solution..that dont fix nothing..dont attack the root cause of polution..industry

then we get the chief liar on lateline last night
saying[not saying much]..about her own..*dirrect action plan
closing down brown coal..lol by tender

""sooner rather than when it is too late.""

but what if we do the wrong thing..too early
and the money people

[who wont do ANYTHING without govt grant
hold all the cash]

we fired off our money into the aether
and they put it into other assets..they then let run down
cause no govt 'grant'..and WE then again..need to fix it

but
next time..
fix the real problem..the right way*

Eclipsed, you raised the issue of money, and when your thesis that there is huge funding of some so-called denial industry is demonstrated to be wrong by actual argument rather than by linking to a site where someone else said something you turn around and accuse me of "whining".

When you look at the links I provide they are to hard data, not someone's interpretation of them. They demonstrate that your claim that it's been getting hotter in the last 13 years or so is wrong. Full stop.

Why do a large number of science associations sign on to the IPCC scenario? Good question, and the answers lies in public choice theory. If you want funding you go with what the bureaucrats want. It's a clear case of bureaucratic capture, demonstrated by the fact that these bodies have a position on it at all. Most of the scientific facts we are taught aren't put into policy by some science organisation, and you ought to ask yourself why this particular issue should be almost unique in that way.

Lexi, I don't comment on every thing that is said on a thread, and I don't expect anyone else to. But there is a difference between saying you shouldn't listen to someone because their general view of the world is wrong (right-wing for example) and you shouldn't listen to someone because their view on a specific issue is wrong (peddling snake oil).

I don't say that one shouldn't listen to you because you come from the left of the political spectrum, but I will criticise you because you haven't advanced an argument, just applauded. So do you think it is unacceptable to call you a cheerleader?

The empirical data absolutely does NOT support a 5 year cooling trend because climate does not measure in 5 year trends! You're looking at ENSO, not climate, when you narrow in on such meaningless data samples. If you're going to selectively zoom in on data you can concoct whatever story you want to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

I'll copy and paste from previous posts because we've already been here.

At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels warned against using the 1998 El Nino super-spike as some sort of 'proof' of a cooling trend. Take the advice of the words of a fellow Denialist.

"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

Other links showing this was the hottest decade on record:
NASA shows 2005 as HOTTER than 1998, and 2007 as drawn with it
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html

And there's a *wealth* of information in the *footnote links* to peer reviewed studies from the following wiki's. It's quicker if I just link to the wiki's and you can source them all yourself. Together there are *hundreds* of links.

<<Is 1998 actually the hottest year on record?

Of the 3 temperature records HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NCDC, only HadCRUT3 actually shows 1998 as the hottest year on record. For NASA GISS and NCDC, the hottest year on record is 2005. A new independent analysis of the HadCRUT record sheds light on this discrepancy. The analysis is by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) who calculated global temperature, utilizing a range of sources including surface temperature measurements, satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys. They found warming has been higher than that shown by HadCRUT. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe.>>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature#Weather_satellites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_temperature_measurements