I must thank certain OLOers for helping me to be at ease.

Last night on the news and again in the paper this morning, I heard and then read (and saw pictures of, and interviews about), the "fact" that the Arctic sea ice has already melted far more this year than at any time in recorded history.

Futhermore, we are not yet at the main point of the seasonal cycle so - according to the reports - it will get worse.

Once I would have taken this to be further evidence that AGW is real and happening.

But thanks to some OLOers explanations, I was able to tell my family not to give it a second thought, that the scientists who are making these claims about the ice, are corrupt liars, that the journalists reporting the event are simply stupid stooges, and that the photos are fakes.

Fortunately for me, these OLOers, I won't thank you individually as you all know who you are, have explained that there's a vast conspiracy going on that involves virtually all the world's climate scientists, all the world's universities, all the world's academies of science, most credible journalists and NASA.

Also, those scientists who recently set out to disprove AGW actually turned over and became part of the conspiracy, as they also now claim it's real.

The unmitigated CADS!!

So, thanks again for letting me have a peaceful night's sleep last night, when once I would have been concerned.

The odd thing is that when I explained all this to my family they... well, they just didn't seem to get it.

Can't think why not.

Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

It's a bad situation and getting worse. By the time we go through another summer the antarctic will be much depleted.
Greenland is gaining pace month by month, the melt has turned into rivers.
It's hard to fathom the ambitions of some commenters, what's in it for them to go against science on a world scale.

Dear Anthonyve,

There are both psychological reasons and economic
reasons for some people's apparent short-sightedness.
Issues which require radical solutions that are
likely to harm vested economic and political interests
will present challenges. New ideas, instead of being
welcomed for the opportunities they open up for the
improvement of the human lot will be threats to those
who are comfortable in their ideologies. The psychological
reasons have to do with understandable risk aversion,
for example, any one of us might not be around to benefit
from a good time in the future - so let's have it now
regardless of the long-term consequences.

Galileo was put under house arrest by the Vatican for
saying that the earth moved around the sun. In fact, in
1633, the church made him recant his theory of the
universe.

Little has changed in hundreds of years when ignorance and
vested interested are confronted by scientific facts.

Howdy Anthony (and Lexi)

Hot dang, brother, you and me must live in one of those damn parallel multiverses

Had similar happen to me just the other night.

We had this big family do. All the kinfolk were there , right down to my tenth cousin ole Jed. We were on the second course of grits when the man on the televiz crossed to that there NASA story 'bout: “ the Arctic sea ice has already melted far more this year than at any time in recorded history’

I said to my cousin Leroy –Leroy bein one of those skeptic types.
“There you go couz you be not needin no betta proof than that that global warming be afflictin us!
At that point my old grandpappy piped up – all 120 years of him. He said he ‘member a time when he sailed through an ice free North-West passage. He took out an old picture he carried in his gator hide wallet …was of one the clippers he used to sail in.

Then my nephew Billy-Ray piped up tellin me the teacher be tellin him the other day that there be a time, less than one million years ago, when there weren’t no ice at either pole. And it taint be mans doin since there weren’t no men to speak of at those times. He said it taint enough to show that world was warmin, there needed something called cor-rel-ation of the positive kind 'tween temperature and CO2 --such highfalutin talk from a ten year old! what the heck they be teachin the kids nowaday, ay? Next thing you know he'll be disputing that the tooth fairy gave him the gold coin last week.


Any way, I weren’t goin to argue anymore with those ornery types about it …besides, about that time grandma brought out the possum-pie
And that kinda cut the con-ver-sation short.

Just to let you know , cousin Anthony, you are not alone.

>>The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum). It may be conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, or about 1350 to about 1850 though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming<<

The climate changes, but our influence is negligable. Alternately would any global warming devotees care to explain the reason for historical climate changes before the industrial revolution.

SPQR,
Dang, so you come from one of those families too.

Sonofgloin,
A fair question, re the changes in earlier periods. I respond by pointing to the magnitude and speed of the current changes vis a vis earlier changes.
Plus, there's an Occams Razor argument to be made here.
One teeny weeny point. You say that "The climate changes, but our influence is negligable".
1. How do you know - not think, but know - it's negligible; and 2. What about the human activity induced hole in the ozone layer caused by the indiscriminte use of CFCs a couple of decades ago.
Isn't that a completely acknowledged example of humans influencing the climate.
Bearing in mind that when CFCs were banned the problem diminished and then virtually disappeared, but at the time it was wholly accepted that had the ban not been implemented, the weather patterns would most definitely have changed. Certainly, the composition of the upper atmosphere changed and within a few years of CFC use.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve like the humor.
And you will need it if some found them selves up to the ears in water they will continue to deny it.
Still hearing wettest/hottest/driest day month year.
But of course we know its a plot.
Well ten years from now carbon price still here, and Liberal policy, many more country,s paying rather than avoiding it.
Those of us still around will see some still claiming they always knew it was real.

Belly and Anthony, we have daily weather records dating back just over one hundred years.

From the mid-19th to the mid-20th century, many theories were offered to explain the ice ages and other climate changes. None amounted to more than plausible hand-waving. Most favored were ideas about how the uplift of mountain ranges, or other reconfigurations of the Earth's surface, would alter the circulation of ocean currents and the pattern of winds. Other theories ranged from the extraterrestrial, such as a long-term cyclical variation of solar energy, to the deep Earth, such as massive volcanic eruptions. All these theories shared a problem. Given that something had put the Earth into a state conducive to glaciation, what made the ice sheets grow and then retreat, over and over again? None of the theories could readily explain the cycles but man had no part in these climatic variations.

Re ozone:
>> The good news is that the ozone layer is recovering. The reason it’s recovering is because the international community agreed — in the Montreal Protocol — to phase out harmful chemicals that were depleting the layer and causing huge holes in it.<<

Once again we have been able to measure the ozone depletion for a handful of decades, who is to say that the ozone is not cyclical?

The intelligencia of the globe thought the world was flat for eons, they were wrong. There is no finality to these debates if the viewing prism is a hundred years, climatic cycles take tens of thousands of years.

The question is not so much if there is or isn't a climate change. The question is what can we do about it ! Any ideas ? I suppose the lucky side of things is that there are a billion Chinese & Indians & not a billion Australians.

Sonofgloin,
You ask "who is to say..."
Well the first answer I'll give you is Occam.
The second answer I would offer is that I believe I can summarise your position on AGW basically as, quote, "anything is possible," and, quote, "who is to say".
Well, since when has "anything is possible" qualified as a serious defence of any position, let alone a scientific one?
And as for who is to say....
Well for starters, every credible climate scientist, all of the world's universities, NASA, CSIRO, the world's Academies of Science...
Shall I go on?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypiwKi-H5JM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo&feature=related

Anthonyve, around here, are more GW deniers than you can poke a stick at and still some poor souls just cant think past their own ignorants.

Over popluation is another one that seems not be to getting through either. So thankyou for kind compliments.

Humans!

Planet:)

Anthony, you keep the theme of the razor, but I prefer...
if it looks like a duck,walks like a duck and quacks like a duck……it is a duck. It is a truism in the majority of cases. But there are exceptions that fool us, primarily by manipulation,like now.

Anthony I chose sides, (but I could change again) when the global warming figures were proven to be manufactured, remember that? All the eminent liars had to admit they chose their own parameters when massaging the numbers to their desired outcome.

Then bloody amazingly the media drops the term “global warming” from their deluge of spin and introduces “climate change,” the new all encompassing boogie man.

What is the first thing they do? They set up a trading exchange, bullsheiser now has a worth in the currency of the offending nations in exchange for carbonara credits, but you can’t eat them, in fact you never see them, but you pay for them, they say they are there, they must be there, they told me so mummy.….Save our planet…set up a bank that doesn’t pay interest.

Anthony you take whatever info you choose as your platform for what you say, but I aint buying it.

Same goes for you Belly my china

Look, sonofgloin,
You are flat out wrong when you say that the data was manufactured. That alone shows that you've not really thoughtfully assessed what you've been reading.
I think that in an effort to appear unbiased, you have ceased to demand credibility.
Anyway, suit yourself.
I'll go with history. Oh, and all the other scientific bodies I listed in my previous email.
I mean, seriously, you want to base your argument on the "anything's possible" hypothesis?
Oh, please.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

How amazing that many of the things some scientists predicted decades ago - such as extreme weather events and temperature increases - are coming to pass at just about the time they were expected to.

It wasn't a matter of "look at what's happening" rather than "this is what is expected to happen" - which is rather different.

How easy is it though, for some to dismiss the notion entirely and blame it on nature itself but with no particular explanation or for no other reason than "it's happened before".

The passing of Neil Armstrong didn't cause a resurgence in the alleged "Moon Landing Hoax" conspiracy but no amount of scientific evidence will convince AGW denialists who share some remarkable similarities.

Planet3, overpopulation is certainly an issue, but I believe the NWO has the solution to that problem all mapped out.

The primary difference when comparing overpopulation and climate change is that the former has only been here for the past 60 odd years and unhappily it is escalating. Whereas the climate has been here forever, and managed to sustain a population of some sort or another through periods when the earth is convulsing toxic gases or the cycles of the planet run through freezing and warming.

We are poisoning our environment, our machine made pollution and domestic waste is taxing the eco system like never before. Way back when DuPont went after Rachael Carson she knew who the bad guy was, and he knew it to. Profit over all, zeig profit.

We have all seen the science that can clean up any emission be it gas or liquid. The science exists, but it costs, it is as simple as that.

We have been slipshod and hoodwinked. There is ludicrous pathos in how the focus of blame has moved via the media and the bastards who advise the advisors straight onto the consumer. We will just give the polluter a complete miss.

We don’t legislate for near to zero emissions; we don’t stick a 20% environmental levy on them to move them towards this once off huge expenditure with a lesser ongoing fixed cost , we tax the consumer and carry on polluting. That fixes the problem.

Yes Planet3, you are a dirty little planet at the moment, primarily because the simple souls who inhabit the majority of the first world do not know who their enemy is.

Wobbles>>How amazing that many of the things some scientists predicted decades ago<<

Wobs are you going to start quoting me from the Book of Revelations next:

In the end times there will be trial and tribulation upon the earth
The earth will burn and the winds will blow..etc etc etc.

I still go back to the published “global warming” admissions of fraud by the ones you acclaim as prophets, they were full of it then and still are. They go to the highest bidder, but that is my summation. You can brush this major lie away like the no carbon tax lie from that despicable carcass that calls itself Julia or you can examine the facts.

One fact, there has been no record rises in high tide readings in Sydney harbour over the past 50 years.

There is an 18 year tidal cycle which means that you reach the absolute highest astronomical tide about once every 18 years and that was spread over 2008 and 2009 and the tides were 2cm lower than the previous two cycles.

I will examine the facts for myself, you keep reading the media releases Wobs

Oh dear, what were you going to do with all that ice?

Anthony as well as being right you are up to the task.
I did warn you.
You however are in verbal combat with the folk who rushed down to the beach chair under arm, to observe the coming Tsunami!

@Anthony & Co,

This is where we get to separate the real spokespersons for science, from the political hacks, who masquerade as standard bearers for science.

Anthony would have us believe that --like all AGW believers --he is right up with the latest scientific research !

Then he goes and makes this statement:
<<What about the human activity induced hole in the ozone layer caused by the indiscriminte use of CFCs a couple of decades ago…Bearing in mind that when CFCs were banned the problem diminished and then virtually disappeared>>

The truth is a lot different.

The ozone hole has NOT “virtually disappeared”!

See here: “The Antarctic ozone hole, which yawns wide every Southern Hemisphere spring, reached its annual peak on Sept. 12. It stretched to 10.05 million square miles, the ninth largest ozone hole on record”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ozone-2011.html

And now, we have another ozone hole, over the Arctic!

See here: “A hole in the Arctic ozone layer grew at unprecedented levels this year”
http://theconversation.edu.au/arctic-ozone-hole-grew-at-record-speed-in-2011-3660

Now no doubt one of the usual support crew will jump in with a detailed apologia about the whys-and-wherefores of this --but that is hardly the point.

The real point here is that so many of the defenders of AGW (like Anthony) who pretend to speak on behalf science are woefully ignorant of science.

So now we can begin to understand why when Anthony sought to explain his science to his family: “they... well, they just didn't seem to get it”

They were probably a darn side better informed that Anthony

So according to 579, Posted Wednesday, 29 August "It's a bad situation and getting worse. Greenland is gaining pace month by month, the melt has turned into rivers".

So Greenland will again take its name as it was first discovered by explorers as lush tundra.

SPQR in his usual shrill way, i.e. the voice of increasing desperation, splits hairs.
My point was that the OZONE HOLE issue was a perfect example of human activity causing changes to climate in response to sonofgloin's assertions that human activity doesn't change climate.
It does.
Moreover, SPQR asserts that I claim to be an expert in climate science.
Not so, SPQR! I don't have to, because I rely on.... wait for it... here it comes... the combined views of the world's leading climate scientists, the worlds leading universities, NASA, CSIRO, even the opinions of those scientists who set out to disprove AGW, but merely end up confirming our worst fears.
On the other hand, SPQR, who has no science supporting his assertions, (he rarely has anything of substance supporting his assertions), is in fact claiming superior knowledge to those of the above named groups, as evidenced by his, utterly unsupported, claim that they are all wrong, while SPQR, clever little chap that he is, is smarter than them.
As usual SPQR, has it ass backwards.
But I guess he's used to that.
Anthony
http://www.osbervationpoint.com.au

Has the IPCC rerun its temperature projections since the real amounts
of available fossil fuels was published by Uppsala University ?

Unless they have all discussion is redundant.

Redundant, Bazz?
Oh really?
What, there's nobody else in the world entitled or capable of giving a well informed opinion?
Please see the list of people who support the theory of AGW, listed in my previous posts.
Because SOME members of the IPCC used inappropriate language in SOME of their emails, even though subsequent investigations showed that nothing challenged their basic assertions, you are prepared to deny the opinions of virtually all the world's specialists in this area.
Reasonable?
I don't think so.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Yes Anthony, I do say that.
If the whole discussion is based on a projected rise in temperature
caused by burning fossil fuels, then surely unless the projections are
done on real data of the quantity of fossil fuels then the whole
discussion is useless.

What more is there to say ?

I know that it is like swearing in church but there it is !

Hi Anthony,

<< I don't have to [be an expert, because] ... the combined views of the world's leading climate scientists, the worlds leading universities, NASA, CSIRO… merely end up confirming our worst fears>>

A request if I may: when you are channeling one of your higher authorities can you let us know.

I mean, who would have known when they read in your post that the ozone hole had << diminished and then virtually disappeared>>
whether it had the imprimatur of an encyclical from a higher power, or was just another case of Anthonyv rambling on!

Actually, the suggestion comes from one of your fellow parishioners. And heeding the old adage that “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” I’ll refer it to you for consideration:
<<Just a suggestion if I may, in order for myself and others to ascertain and properly reply to your arguments then a clear delineation of what you have pasted from other sources is always helpful. I find when including large sections from another the most appropriate way is to start with the word “Quote” and finish with “End quote”. That way there will be no confusion over what is the opinion of the other author and what is yours.>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14019#242764

It might prevent us from jumping to wrong conclusions –and splitting hairs.

What do you say?

Good Morning folks.

The chemistry of atmospheric pollution is
extremely complex, for rain and sunlight
blend various components into a constantly
changing photo-chemical brew. As we know,
scientists are particularly worried about
the effect of ari-pollution on the planet's
ozone layer. Ozone is a rare form of oxygen
that is concentrated at very high altitudes,
where it absorbs about 90 percent of the
ultraviolet radiation from space.

Ultraviolet radiation is highly dangerous
to living things, for it can induce cancer,
burn skin, cause blindness, and destroy the
vegetation and plankton on which terrestrial
and aquatic life ultimately depend.

Unfortunately, some atmospheric pollutants -
particularly nitrogen dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons
from solvents and refrigerants - destroy ozone.
It seems that increasing pollution is gradually
depleting the ozone layer, allowing more radiation to
reach the earth's surface.

If this trend continues, the loss of ozone could
irreversibly alter the earth's ability to support life.

Another significant problem is acid rain. This
phenomenon is found primarily in heavily industrialized
areas of Western Europe and the Eastern United States
although it's spreading to adjacent regions, such as
parts of southern Europe and Canada.

Acid rain is believed to result primarily from the
burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gasoline.
This combustion pours oxides of sulfur and
nitrogen into the atmosphere, where they mix with
moisture, form acids, and are brought to the earth
in rain and snow.

The effects on many tree species are catastrophic,
and vast forest areas in the affected regions have
been damaged or even destroyed, particularly in
higher altitudes. Additionally, thousands of lakes
in these areas are becoming sterile, for they are
now too acidic for most fish and other aquatic life.

Ironically, the acid-rain problem may have been
aggravated by new technologies that "scrub" ash, which
is mostly alkaline from factory emissions, thereby
increasing the averall acidity of industrial pollutants.

cont'd...

cont'd ...

The most far-reaching effect of air pollution, however,
is a change in the global climate. As a result of the
burning of fuels and wastes, and the razing of forests,
the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily
increasing. This gas creates a "greenhouse effect" on the
planet, for it allows solar rays to reach the earth's
surface but prevents heat from radiating back into space.

The consequence will be global warming, which will eventually
cause the melting of the polar ice caps, a rise in sea levels,
and changes in weather patterns. This warming effect is
already under way, and average global temperature is expected
to rise by 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030.

This seems like a small change, but minor fluctuations in
global temperature can have drastic consequences:
during the last ice age, when much of North America was
covered with sheets of ice more than a mile thick,
average temperature was only about 5 degrees cooler than today.

In pre-industrial societies, human
technology made comparatively little demand on the
resources of the environment. Populations were relatively
small, and for the most part people's material
needs were fairly limited and easily satisfied.

Industrialisation, however, has brought about rapid population
increases - and also an apparently endless expansion in people's
material desires. The most technologically advanced societies are
now digging ever deeper into the planetary environment for the
raw materials and energy they need to fuel their economic
development.

Nobody can deny that the planet has a finite amount of resources
or that it can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution.
But if world polution continues to grow rapidly, if
industrialisation spreads around the world, and if pollution
and resource depletion continues at an increasing rate -
and all these things are happening - the most optimistice
answer to "where is human society headed?" would be that,
one way or another, sweeping social changes await us.

See you on another thread.

Cheers.

Ah, SPQR,
Your endless irrelevencies merely confirm that you're becoming increasingly desperate.
Once again, you're on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the argument.
There are only the internet nutjobs still denying AGW.
I don't have to 'channel'. I only have to read any one of hundreds of reputable science journals.
You should try it. Some of the words are long, but you can manage them if you work at it.
There's clearly no chance of you wising up, so I've said all I have to say on this thread.
I dare say I'll encounter you on other threads.
I hope so, I can always use a laugh.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWxTcQ3VG_4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7gpAy4ivZ0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F9FbdqGRsg&feature=related

The evidence is overwhelming. Not only will 100's of millions of people die, the bigger picture will cause others to flee their dieing countries. You think the boat people are in great numbers now, wait until the full force of GW takes effect.

India is in bigger trouble than it thinks, and when the water is gone, so will most of life there. Large parts of the world already looks like the landscapes of MARS and you know what that means.

(Looks like nature will deal with our world numbers after all, but at a huge cost to all life concerning GW.)

As I see it in the near future, its going to be every country for themselves and Australia better wake up very soon to the fact. At the moment, the Australian country can support the currant rate of people, but add any more, the consequence's will spell our own doom.

The rats are only starting to leave their sinking ships and IMO Indonesia and Australia will have their hands full turning the poor souls back. Because of the huge volumes of people that will be displaced by the water and food shortages, Australia and its neighbours will only have enough to support themselfs.

Australian is geographically very lucky, and we should think about this before our own loving humanity for others see us dead in the water...no punt intended.

Save ourselves before saving others.

The clock is ticking.

Planet3

I see a lot of that atmospheric pollution around here.
And a fair amount of feeble down putting.
I may as well joint in.
SPQR finds nine tenths of the world science unproved, until it comes from his supporters.
Bazz chants his theme the sky is falling we are out of fossil fuels, not mate even close.
I find it Brilliant! that those lieing science freaks found a way to melt the ice in the Arctic.
Bet they gave the ESKIMOS CENTRAL HEATING, CUNNING!

Belly said I said;
Bazz chants his theme the sky is falling we are out of fossil fuels, not mate even close.

No I did not, nothing like it !
Read it again.
I did not say AGW was not real.
I did not say AGW was real.

I said the IPCC has not used the latest Uppsala Uni info on the amount
of fossil fuels available to burn.
As the amount is less than the IPCC uses in its computer models, then
the result has to be less temperature rise than their projections.

Thats all, nothing complicated about that.
However it does mean that the discussions here are pointless. GIGO !

Bazz,
You keep trotting out that nonsensical line.
You would only have a point if there was a one -to-one relationship between the amount of fossil fuel available and the extent of AGW, unaffected by other dependent and independent variables.
Clearly, that's a nonsense.
It's one of those things that sounds reasonable if one doesn't think about it.
One did.
So please, give it a rest. It's too silly to persist with.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

How is it that the Antartic ice both at sea and on land contines to grow? We do not know the Artic sea ice patterns of growth and decline because we have not the long term records.Ocean currents change quickly and yes when the warm ones predominate,ice melts.

To say that man's very small increase in CO2 is the primary cause is drawing a wery long bow.

Errr Anthony, are you saying that the amount of fossil fuels burnt
does not matter ?

Ummmm, hmmmm, well that puts an entirely different spin on it all.

You said;
You would only have a point if there was a one -to-one relationship
between the amount of fossil fuel available and the extent of AGW,
unaffected by other dependent and independent variables.

Well yes I agree it is not a one to one relationship, it is in fact
logarithmic, so each increase in co2 has less effect than the previous same increase.
I just don't see how you can argue that the amount of fuel burnt has
no relevance. After all isn't that what the AGW programs are about ?

Bazz,
You're trying a Reductio ad Absurdum argument.
No, I didn't say it didn't matter. I said there isn't a one to one relationship, and that there are independent and dependent variables (actually, there are a huge number of them), that are in play.
Unless you can quantify both sets of variables and their impact, remembering that these variables can have different impacts depending on each variable's model value, both relative and absolute, then you cannot infer much about how any two of the variables will interact.
Basic statistics.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

OK, then why are we worrying about co2, oil, coal etc ?

Bazz, let me give you an example, as I think the problem is you're being too reductionist in your thinking.
The objective is to reduce the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
Now, one way to do that is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel burning, which is consistent with your thinking.
But we could also achieve a substantial improvement by, for example, all becoming vegetarians, thus vastly reducing methane emmissions from livestock.
Now, that's not going to happen, but it is possible that people might eat less meat and so achieve some reduction this way.
That would then immediately create a disconnect between the amount of fossill fuel left to consume and the overall projected greenhouse levels.
The same with the use of alternatives, nuclear or more efficient engineering.
All of these factors will impact on atmospheric warming INDEPENDENT of fossil fuel
availability and/or use.
Hence my point that there is not a one to one correlation between fossil fuel availability, or even use, and greenhouse gas levels.
That's not to say that fossil fuel use isn't a critical factor. It is. But availablity, i.e. reserves, is only a critical factor if we say absolutely that all available fossil fuel will be consumed at a predictable rate.
In fact, we can say neither.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony said;
That's not to say that fossil fuel use isn't a critical factor.

OK, then why is it not important if incorrect fossil fuel values
are used in the IPCC models ?

It is important, as are many other factors.
But, and this is accepted in all areas of science, economics, government, history, etc, all modelling is based on assumptions.
In your intial proposition, you treated the fossil fuel levels as absolutes in terms of their relationship to model outputs.
There would be some absolutes in the IPCC modelling, e.g. second of thermodynamics, but the relationship between fossil fuel availability, fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas levels would never be treated as absolutes.
Why? Because they're not imutable, as is the second law.
Hence you cannot discredit the model for that reason.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

We, almost every one marvel at what Science teachs us.
The recent landing on the planet Mars, is huge.
Yet on this subject we, some reject totally the views of MOST of the WORLDS science.
Conspiracy's exist, both sides run them on this issue.
Not the middle, both sides bring on the extremes.
But deniers lead in failing to see they are being lead.

Hi Belly,
You're right.
Sometimes I think we'll just have to change minds and hearts one person at a time.
But if that's what it takes, then so be it.
The planet is worth saving. And I have two granddaughters, 7 and 5. They make the fight worth fighting.
But we're winning. I give the debate over is it or isn't it real another year or two to run, max.
Then the debate will shift to the best strategy.
And at that point, we've won.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I agree Anthony we have won.
Just want to highlight SOME views we have faced, that this issue is an ALP one!,not international.
That so very many would sit and plan to lie, but only on the yes side!
That constant reports of the record heat/cold/rainfall/drought/ice melts are normal.
Enjoy! in just one more decade almost all of the world will have a price on carbon.
And the one after?
A likely trade ban on those who do not have one.
Best of all?
After initial fears renewable energy will be in place and we ALL will be happier with it.

I really don't know how many times the question has to be asked before anyone can or will answer it but 'ere goes again. What can we do about climate change ?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I am sure, most if not all of us stood in wounder as the Americans landed on Mars.
So very many things had to be just right.
So far from earth it took place just as planned.
Extraordinary.
Yet my link to the same set of brains will bring with it an equally extraordinary event.
Some will deny it, say the whole thing is a fraud, climate change is not man made.
That is unbelievable.
It to me warns us all.
See only some of the anti climate change comes from people who have any back ground to challenge NASA.
Warning? yes take note any issue can be challenged by wealth and power, a conspiracy can be built on both sides from nothing.
On this subject?
Those who tell us America was behind 9/11 now sell the power and influence lie, that increasing human population/activity has no0 effect on the issue.
Extraordinary stuff.

Individual,
You've asked the most important and the most worthwhile question in this whole area.
In the end, we're all individuals, and we can do only what we can do.
When a government acts, it's because pressure was brought to bare.
So, what each of us can do is to face up to the scary, unpleasant truth that climate change is real; that the threat it poses in this era is a consequence of human activity.
Next we can work to convince people, one at a time if necessary, that we must act; as Belly is doing by providing the link to the NASA page and it's telling graph.
We can stand up to the those who cannot face the truth and we can keep trying to persuade them that we must act, and that it is within humanity's power to fix what it has broken.
We can put pressure on politicians to counter the pressure from those who manipulate the truth for their own gains; the Andrew Bolts, the Alan Jones's; the Gina Rineharts of the world.
And look, we CAN beat this thing. In the face of rising public concerns about their nuclear power sources, (after Japan's experience), the German government had planned to open fossil fuel power stations.
Now they've announced that they don't need to because alternative energy sources have been so successful in picking up the load.
We can do this. We are doing it, and the pace will pick up once the debate pedaled by charlatans is put to rest.
I'm not offering the answer, Individual; I'm merely respectfully offering my answer.
I hope it goes some way to helping you find your answer.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

None of the climate sceptics on this post would dare mention their own scientist "Muller" recently proving the existence of man made climate change in his own study and declaring himself converted from scepticism, would they ?.

The science community has now reached consensus with regard to the facts about climate change, is in agreement with regard our own culpability, and as we identified the hole in the ozone layer and did something about it Individual, perhaps we can learn from that by identifying the cause of the problem here, (science says it's carbon in the atmosphere), accepting that we do actually have the power to do something about it, might be a good place, if not the only place we can start dealing with the problem.

Instead of accepting a steady path toward an ultimate and un-avoidable destruction, that some may wish upon us now.

I support your view on this one Anthonyve. We can all do something. And we should.

Thinker 2,

Muller was a genuine "skeptic" - and what did the other skeptics (denialists) do the minute he concurred with AGW...well, they disowned him, saying that he'd never been a real skeptic.

That's what you do if you have nowhere else to run with an argument.

On the button mon amie, as evidenced by OLO's resident "sceptics".

I won't show gratitude you separately as you each and every one be familiar with who you are, have explain that there's a huge plan going on that involve nearly the entire world's weather scientists.
http://www.qoutz.com/thank-you-quotes

That post above left me wondering? what is it about.
Consider this thought, but know I think no room for doubt exists.
Man made climate change exists side by side with natural change.
And that we should confront ours.
And I think putting a price on pollution/limiting use of pollutants is the right thing to do.
Now the question.
Why the conspiracy theory's from both sides.
Why is one side driven by big money.
I think a true conspiracy exists.
And its driven and paid for by self interest.
Just maybe we are living on a planet owned by wealth and power, not us.

Actually Belly, I don't think a conspiracy exists on either side.
I think that there is a genuine difference of opinion on AGW.

There are a few on each side that are over the top in their
pronouncements, but they are easily filtered out.
As in most things the truth will be somewhere down the middle.

My present concern is that up to date data does not seem to have been
used. The new data will not prove the case one way or the other but it
will modify the temperature projections.

Bazz,
I suspect that, unintentionally, you've put your finger on the real problem.
You, in all sincerity, say there's a genuine difference of opinion.
This is science. More than 95% of the scientists in the field of climate science are convinced that AGW is real.
I would suggest that:
A) there is little room in science for opinion. Science is based on fact and probability, and
B) if those ignorant of the science hold one opinion, and those thoroughly educated in the science hold the opposite opinion, then I put it to you that the former opinion is not genuine as it has little basis in reality.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Oh Gord Anthony will this make you happy;

Actually Belly, I don't think a conspiracy exists on either side.
I think that there is a genuine difference of conclusion on AGW.

Actually, Bazz, it doesn't make me happy.
I was trying to be... Laid back in my comment, but what the hay, let's tell it how it is.
Opinions or conclusions about a scientific issue that have no basis in science cannot be 'genuine'.
They are by definition, false.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/honesty-is-the-best-policy-turnbull-swipes-at-abbott-and-deficit-of-trust-20120905-25ezm.html
What great way to wakeup!
An honest and impressive politician.
But wait there is more.
He is Liberal.
So nice to see truth has not evaded them all.

Well Anthony you have finally revealed yourself when you said;.

Opinions or conclusions about a scientific issue that have no basis in science cannot be 'genuine'.

So therefore if a conclusion does not agree with your conclusion it cannot be scientific.

No point in discussing this further.

Bazz,
What utter nonsense..
At NO point have I required a conclusion to agree with mine.
Rather, I require a conclusion about science to agree with the science.
If my conclusions turned out to not agree with the science then, in a heartbeat, I would acknowledge that my conclusion was wrong and I would change it.
That's a hint by the way.
But on the other hand if you really want to bang on with an 'opinion' or 'conclusion' that is entirely at odds with established science, then go ahead.
But when it's all said and done you just end up looking silly.
It's okay to be wrong.
It's not okay to persist in being wrong in the face of established science.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/big-bewildering-science-to-thank-for-cranks-says-writer-20120906-25hav.html
I get both a kick and a grin out of the link.
While not strictly about this subject the thing is it is!
Very much so.
Not all, but the most strident deniers seem to have read every thing they know from the paper the fish and chips came in.

Hi Belly,
Great post.
I agree, the article is highly relevant.
We've got our fair share of Gallileo wannabes who end up looking more like King Canute.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au