The first 'post' by Shadow Minister (?) came to my attention a couple of days ago.

At the time I thought it required a response from someone involved not only in the 'science', but also from one involved in the IPCC process.

Hence, I signed up to The Forum.

In the interim I've had a chance to view some of Shadow Minister's history.

It's blatantly obvious 'Shadow Minister' uses this site to spread disinformation and distortion - it seems for a politico-ideological agenda.

Moreover, it is also obvious that 'Shadow Minister' does not understand the 'science' that s/he so readily and metaphorically wants to dismiss.

I won't be back - I doubt very much s/he would be interested in the 'science' or the IPCC process, let alone try to understand.

Besides, it looks like there are other posters on The Forum that can challenge Shadow Minister's distortions of the truth quite well.

ozdoc,

You are impugning that the analysis in the wall street journal is incorrect, if that is so then put up or shut up.

I would guess that you are a fake with no science qualifications whatsoever, and probably another poster that simply created a new name to pop up, throw mud and disappear. Quite sad really.

Foxy, my challenge was because you stated that Nth America was under a
sheet of ice at only 5deg lower than current temperatures.
Now current temperatures there would be I expect a little lower than here but not that much.
You are stating that if the temperature there fell by 5 deg Nth America
would be covered in ice ! Really !

Dear Bazz,

Let me try again...

The most far-reaching effect of air pollution,
is a change in the global climate. As a result of
burning 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 of this will be a 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 degress cooler
than today..."

What will the warmer climate expected in the next century mean?
I won't go into that now - however, I trust that you're
beginning to understand what's being said.

Foxy, or is it Lexi ?
You wrote this;

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 degress cooler
than today..."

Resolve that !

Foxy wrote: 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.
Bazz wrote: Err Foxy, if the temperature was only 5 deg cooler over Nth America than it is today, why didn't the ice all melt.

The use of 'average' world temperature causes a lot of misunderstandings.

For example: The 'average' summer temperature for Australia one year might be 25 degrees - I can just see the tourism ad 'Come to Australia for our mild and balmy summers'. The catch of course is that this could 'average' out 45 degrees in Alice Springs and snowing on Mt Wellington in Hobart. I have myself stood in the bracing Antarctic breeze of summer Hobart (12 degrees plus wind-chill factor), then got on a plane home to 45 degrees.

So it is quite possible to have an 'average' drop of world temperature of 5 degree with ice sheets in N America, in fact a change of 'only' 5 degrees either way in average world temperature would mean huge climatic differences, the local impact depending on world location and the effect of changed oceanic and atmospheric patterns.

I have wondered why climate scientists continue to use the figure of 'average' world temperature increase when it contributes to extremism on both sides: ahh, the temperature is going up 1 (or 2, 5) degrees, we'll all be cooked/drowned! bah, only 1 (or 2,5) degrees, that won't make much difference, why there's more difference than that between day and night!

It seems to be an attempt to simplify an exceeding complex subject, probably the most complex scientific challenge there is (personal experience in the public service, when I criticised some misleading statistical shorthand: but we have to make it simple for the Minister.)

If so, it has back-fired. But the alternative is probably too hard - educating the population in maths, stats and science.