Pericles says:

"But what I do know is that the preponderance of evidence, taken as a whole, points to a probable catastrophe if we continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

I am always being told about this "preponderance of evidence" and "mountains of evidence" but no-one seems to be able to tell me what it consists of. And how do you "know", Pericles. Because someone once told you about it?

Luciferase says:
"Plenty of counter-argument is out there against Prof Akasofu".

Where is it? What is it?

And:
"It's like kicking a goal in a swirling cross-wind." Do you really think a computer can calculate such a thing better than the Arsenal striker? As a modeler I doubt it. Computer models aren't that good. Climate modeling is much like astrology. Much calculation, much uncritical belief and very little evidence.

john..we have coverd this topic extensivly
here at this forum..

many times we have asked for the proof
and all we get is a mute-silence
or some obsure..propaganda link

we have talked here..of the tweaking emails
where that clever graph was corrected..when the one..data set
didnt give the 'right'..panic...[so the tree-ring data/set
was added to..some other data-set]

mate the thing is those who have..swallowed the spin
refuse to question..their minds..are set

there is not one problem..but at least 3

is it..c02
is it ..cyclic
is this..the best cure

is doing it now cheaper..now/upfront..
than fixing issues..as they arise
IF theory..proves to be fact!

is trading-carbon permits..for money
the best way to get the money..where its needed
getting the cash..to where it does the best..*prevention

or just the easiest way to bailout the banking system
personally..i looked at the many economists..and realised its a way to get..the next bailout from us..now

a permit..allows polution..
its a permission to polute..if c02 is a polution is in dispute
clearly..calling it a polutant...is just like the other name-calling

yes were being poluted into early graves
but not because of carbon..but the other mutagenic polutants

the whole field..is just too poluted
for clear informed thought..to cut through

but mate
please..dont quit trying

if we are going..to set the price
to prop up the market..why not leave..the whole issue..to the market

market price is half of our subsised price
modeling is done on $20..yet the..set price is $23

the worst aspect is indexation...[you know how much money changers..love a set up game..]

[limiting permits..set price indexed increase]
heaps of cash..but not that it gets used..to fix things
[only bailout..the money/market]

its a grand-scam
easy-money..when..the poluteer
who got free carbon/permits..that you can sell..for market rate[$13]

as opposed to us muggins..
needing to buy them..but cant resell them
just that alone..should awake..the sleepers

but they dont

i rekon its simply guilt
they got..their free..solar-cells
got their ability..to sell the solar power..[for double its cost]

and to realise..their guilt..is the problem
they just cant go there

and so..the lies continue

Thank you John Reid

For starting this discussion thread and by-passing all that troublesome peer reviewed rubbish.

And further thanks; humans can continue to pollute, use all non-renewable resources without repercussion.

Here was I thinking that there are always consequences for our actions - large or small.

Back to business as usual!

Hooray!

Can't wait to put down a deposit on a Hummer right now.

Consume, excrete, consume. Love capitalism and the lengths people will go to justify it.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
links to Prof Akasufo's graph. The green arrow/red dot is where we are today. The IPCC prediction curve (and surrounding pink colouration supposedly showing the uncertainty of applying the model) is juxtaposed against the Prof's theory that we're coming out of a mini-ice age on a gentle temperature uptrend with multi-decadal oscillations.

The pink area is doubtful at short periods of prediction as the uncertainty is actually greatest when the model is applied in the short term, not at its smallest as the graph shows.

There is argument and counter-argument over where we're going long-term, John. The IPCC says its right, the Prof says he is.

Regarding the evidence, and how much there is for AGW, it can be found in the IPCC report.

I hope the Prof is right, but I'm not accepting the present position (red dot) says anything about the Prof's long-term view

Come on Lucy, we all know the IPCC doesn't do predictions, well at least that what they tell us when yet another "scenario" is proven totally wrong.

When exposed to the hard light of day, the IPCC has yet to get anything right.

They have been caught out cheating at every turn. The only possible excuse to believe them is you are a fellow traveler, or are receiving a benefit from doing so.

It would be truly excellent, Hasbeen, if you could discuss without going for the man. No gravy-train, no benefit from taking one view or another for me? It simply doesn't strengthen your point.

So the IPCC is always wrong? Is that you saying that, Hasbeen? If so, write a peer reviewed paper refuting the lot in a scientific journal. Alternatively, point to refuting evidence over which there is consensus agreement. Either way, back up your scientific assertions with something, anything, other than attacking the man or pointing towards a massive conspiracy.

Tiresome troll.