And now, in another fit of denial, we have the 1 in 1,000 year drought.

Usually droughts end and I hope this one does soon.

However, to continue to dress this up as a cyclical phenomenon when greenhouse gas levels have not been this high for at least 400,000 years, given their known warming impact, beggars belief.

Any excuse to refute their error and continue in denial.

Except for our inexperience with the outcomes of the continuation of the business as usual policy of global heating and resultant loss of a liveable earth through climate change the predictions for a continuation would cause a reaction in all countries.

Leaderships that fail to act would be replaced immediately.

Unfortunatel that lack of experience draws us toward an abyss, one turning point of irreversible change following another on a rave to the bottom.

Ahh...I can just picture it now....John Howard doing an impersonation of Gollum:

“I’m not list’nin’!...I’m not list’nin’!...”.

What a sadly wasted decade we’ve had under this poor excuse for a man!

This certainly feeds the catastrophists amongst us. Climate is cyclical - there have been long periods of warming and cooling throughout the earth’s history. Climate research is also an imprecise science in terms of global history so this presents a range on unknowns. It seems clear that in the last 100 years we have had warmer periods (eg medieval period) and cooler periods (eg 17th century). There has been debate about whether the historical record shows that greenhouse gas increase precedes or follows warmer temperatures. There is also debate about the degree to which solar activity is responsible for deviations in climate activity over long periods of time. The critical question now facing us is whether the increase in greenhouse gases in particular layers of the atmosphere is associated with warming, and whether the warming will be sustained and is linked with any weather abnormalities.

These are questions for cool headed science. The problem is that the science is rapidly being corrupted by vested interests on both sides of the debate. It would seem that many scientists and related orgnaisation are uncomfortable with the beautifully uncertain side of science. This is the classical aspect of science which should admit that there are unknowns that an evidence base shoudl be developed for, which might provide hypotheses and theories that can be tested. This elegant baby seems to have gone out of the bathwater. Notwithstanding, it is clearly sensible to reduce greenhouse gases as much as possible. The reality is, however, that it is unknown whether this will have any effect on climate in any direction. What pisses me off is the parasites on either side that will use the science to justify their values-laden propaganda, or perhaps to sell a few more newspapers etc.

Jon Sunby, in case anyone didn’t know, is not an actual scientist.  He is an advocate for a certain position who clearly has no grasp of the golden thread that should run through all scientific investigations - dispassionate research and a capacity to deal with uncertainty. He is trying to sell you something.

Wow, Tomas!

Last of a dying breed.

Which two sides of scientists in the global warming debate do you refer to?

Maybe, when you last checked in the early 90’s, (the last time I heard the arguments you are using) there was a scientific divide over global warming.

The majority of the scientists, at least those publishing in leading journals, agree on the role anthropogenic emissions in global warming.

Your attack on Jon Sumby, who references leading research seems unfounded. If you want to attack the article, attack the Stern report.

But not, you take the intellectually barren choice of focusing on the messenger.

Tomas, really, what are you trying to sell?

Isobelle - I wilt under the power of your argument. Unlike you I suspect, I read journals such as Nature and Science on a regular basis, and publish scientific papers in international journals. I have been a scientist for many, many years. I understand the scientific method from the classical through to the modern approaches. What you and any other propagandist (from either side) don’t seem to accept is that a lot of science is about dealing honestly with uncertainty. The climate debate is so mired with self-interest (again, from the range of ‘sides’) that crap views such as Sunbys and yours represent a significant corruption of my values as an actual scientist. Here’s a clue to the correct approach - keep an open mind, examine your own prejudices.

Tomas, your comments on climate research and the conclusions drawn therefrom were a refreshing change to the shrieking alarmist comments that seem to dominate the media on the subject of global warming (although the term “climate change” is now being used to allow for the recent cold snaps).

Sadly, unless you are prepared to adopt the green mantra that man is totally responsible for all weather fluctations you’ll be condemned as a heretic and burnt at the stake. Or cast in the same mold as a Holocaust denier. Or be labelled a fascist.

Governments are now jumping on the bandwagon as it gives an opportunity to attract votes and, more importantly, levy “green” taxes.

Tomas,

Still no facts provided, now you have tried to label me as a propagandist.

You are coming across as the propagandist.

No arguments provided to discredit any of the referenced articles. Instead continued attacks on the messenger and now self glorification.

Show some back bone, if you are published in international journals as you claim, provide a reference.

If you have referenced arguments, beyond ‘I’m commenting anonymously, but I’m a scientist and your not so there’ then please provide them.

Face up to the challenge, prove your life of science has left you with something more than the ability to stereotype and generalise.

I am keeping an open mind Tomas give us some actual information to contemplate rather than rhetoric.

RIP SuperAnnoyed, the new ilk are struggling!

“"Unlike you I suspect, I read journals such as Nature and Science on a regular basis ...

Here’s a clue to the correct approach - keep an open mind, examine your own prejudices.”

Ahhhhh, condescension.

So I thought I would look for a paper published by Ignoli, T on Google.

“and publish scientific papers in international journals. I have been a scientist for many, many years. I understand the scientific method from the classical through to the modern approaches.”

So now I must ask Tomas to support his asertion on publication with some evidence.

A search of the site will show where I stand on cooking the planet, so that does not need to be attacked although all are welcome to attack my assertions about causes and outcomes.

As I understand it debate is also part of that method refered to.

“Climate is cyclical - there have been long periods of warming and cooling throughout the earth’s history..” - Tomas (#3).

In essence, Tomas, you are correct (see the following):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

However, there is one more factor that seems not to get the same level of attention.  In the following link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun)it states: “Theoretical models of the sun’s development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth’s surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and in fact that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today. The general consensus among scientists is that the young Earth’s atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and/or ammonia) than are present today, which trapped enough heat to compensate for the lesser amount of solar energy reaching the planet.”

Basically, in a nutshell, the sun has gotten warmer as it has aged. This is most probably as a result of the increase in the volume, and hence surface area, of its Helium core, at the surface of which nuclear fusion (conversion of Hydrogen to Helium) takes place.  In other words, there has been a slight but noticeable increase in the rate of nuclear fusion with time (or age), with a corresponding increase in energy output (radiation). 

Interestingly, the Earth appears to have “compensated” for this increase in solar radiation by gradually, over time, “geo-sequestering” the “excess” carbon dioxide in the ground as coal, oil and/or gas.  Result - climate regulation, albeit with some variability.  This is James Lovelocks “Gaia Hypothesis” at a grand scale!!

Presently, we are squandering our fossil fuel resources and releasing this carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.  Alarmingly, we are doing this at a time in history when the Sun is much “hotter” than it has been in the ancient past.  The result, I’m sorry to say, will be nothing short of An Inconvenient Truth!!!

Quiet everyone show some respect. We have an internationally published scientist amongst us.
Really, where is the respect!
I apologise on behalf of the intellectual slobs around here Tomas. I,m sure there’s no reason to doubt you , but so as to silence the unseemly murmurings amongst the philistines, you should deal ‘honestly with the uncertainty’ around your impressive scientific achievements and list for us your published works and the international journals which were priveleged enough to host them. In the meantime I for one will be ingesting gallons of sedation, because I am almost overcome with salivation and excitement at the prospect of reading a real scientists work.
Yours Sincerely
Ricardo

Erosion is now called climate change.  A drought is called climate change.  Shifting ice is called climate change.  Never trust a losing American presidential candidate with the truth or anything else.  It seems to all the doomsday zealots that the only thing that is inconvenient is someone who disagree with their opinion. Don’t fart people!

since when is Howard a fascist? You have lost all credibility.  Your language can only be considered bunk Jon.

Which specific casess of erosion, drought and shifting ice were called climate change John and who by? Please cite the specific cases you were referring to and explain why they should or should not be atributed in part/whole to climate change.
John, so far you and Tomas have used labels like catastrophists, parasites, propagandist, crap views, doomsday zealots and bunk and the thread is only 12posts old! Add to that the fact that neither of you have substantially addressed (Tomas’s post 3 made an attempt) the 6 reports which make up the substance of John’s thread, and the fact that Tomas has made some grand claims about his scientific achievements which thus far we have not a scintilla of evidence for and it is clear that it is not John Sumby who is in danger of lacking credibility. John, do you believe that climate change is a just a conspiracy theory concocted by the left to further their political and personal interests?

Whilst it may be inconvienient to admit some of your verities are falsely based, to continue to deny the evidence and the ignorte the predicted outcome imperils those of us with sufficient lifespan left to pass into the period of dangerous climate change if we cannot act to prevent it.

The results of human activity lauded as civilization will be as nought with no action.

I await with interest Herbert’s refutation of the premise that the climate is changing and especially that it is human induced.

I especially look forward to the data supporting the arguement.

Otherwise we can only assume Herbert is a victimn of fools games or malicious intent by vested interests.

Foolish mortals! I dont think that there can be any doubt that the last decade has been warmer on average (around 0.3-0.5 variation above ‘normal’, and what normal is another debate again). The scientific question is whether trending towards warming (or cooling) is anomolous in climate history - it isn’t. The second question is whether the warming we are seeing now is caused by human behaviour (as opposed to something else like solar activity), and this is where I’ll introduce you to a simple lesson in science - ‘association does not prove causation’ - We can certainly frame hypotheses around possible links, but climate history, like any other discipline that derived data from the past, thus making experimentation in the classic sense very difficult.

Saying all this, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the small amount of warming may have been caused by human activity, and so it would be reasonable to advance measures to decrease possible human impacts. Anything that helps remove us from primiive sources of energy, for example, would be a good thing. Science and technologists will be involved in providing these solutions. The political and/or commercial will to support them is another matter again.

What is not reasonable, from a scientific point of view (and I will be quite clear that Jon Sunby is no scientist - he is doing a PhD on politics and sociology of science, hardly to be a balanced treatise based on his contributions to TT) is the range of catastrophist opinions and alarmist scenarios that are played out to an uneducated audience, in order to whip up a frenzy to political ends.

My suggestion is that the evidence should be left up to the experts, rather than the amateur armchair speculators with other axes to grind. The problem is that the ‘climate movement’ is so infiltrated by propagandists from industry as well as from the left, it will be difficult to get traction on solid and real evidence to better inform future action. In this, I know that the climate scientist fraternity, in general, is also whipping up alarm, as this then feeds into larger grant programs, promotions, jobs etc. In this field, we are seeing the ascension of the ‘modellers’ whereas the garden-variety climate scientist, that actually relies on actual weather indicators, is on the side-lines. It is not well known, for example, that there has been a decrease in the number of high-quality weather stations around the world in recent years - an extraordinary tragedy given the need for real data.

My opinions are based on reading and balancing the scientific literature (Nature, Science, PNAS etc) rather than the Greens Monthly or whatever. I have no vested issue in climate research per se - my academic area is in another field.

Tomas is out-of-date. Here is an article from a journal he reads:

Nature 443, 161-166 (14 September 2006).

Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate.
P. Foukal1, C. Fröhlich, H. Spruit and T. M. L. Wigley

‘Variations in the Sun’s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century...’

Similarly the other questions he raises have been resolved over the past few years. If you want to see how tightly temperature and greenhouse gases are matched have a look at this graph from the EPICA data that goes back 650,000 years:
http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
The black line represents temperature.

Note how over the entire period CO2 never went higher than about 300 ppmv - and that was 350,000 years ago. Current CO2 levels are almost 30% higher than that level, which makes them the highest levels in 650,000 years. Makes you think about what has changed in the natural rythm or cycle.

Following on from phil Parsons, a Google search on “Tomas Rignoli” shows only hits from Tasmanian Times, which suggests that the name is as ephemerous and non-existent as “Adele Sainte-Marie” is reported to be.

This week’s news on global climate change:

“Global carbon emissions are now growing by 3.2% a year, according to results presented at an Earth science conference in Beijing on 9 November. That’s four times higher than the average annual growth of 0.8% from 1990-99.

“We are not on any of the stabilization paths,” says Michael Raupach, a carbon-cycle scientist with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in
Canberra, who presented the Global Carbon Project results. . .”
Title: Carbon tally shows growing global problem
World summary of emissions reveals continuing gains.
Source:  Copyright 2006, Nature
Date:  November 10, 2006
Byline:  Nicola Jones
+
“At Nairobi, governments are debating the future of the Kyoto Protocol and action to prevent the most serious impacts of climate change. So far, they appear to have ignored pleas to address one of the greatest single sources of carbon emissions:  the destruction of South-east Asia’s peatlands and forests.  The annual emissions from annual peat and forest fires are about five times as great as the total annual emission cuts which the Kyoto Protocol aims to make by 2012, from 1990 levels. 

Indonesia alone holds 60% of all tropical peat, containing some 50 billion tonnes of carbon. This is equivalent to 7-8 years of global fossil fuel emissions. Timber and oil palm plantations are draining the peatlands and also pushing local communities and small-holders into peat areas and rainforests. Once this peat is drained, all this carbon will eventually be released into the atmosphere, unless the peat is subsequently re-flooded and restored. Annual fires, many of them set deliberately by plantation owners, speed up the process. This year’s fire season has been one of the worst on record. Wetlands International
warned earlier this week that the boom in biofuels is speeding up the destruction, and further that one tonne of palm oil grown on peat is linked to the release of around 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide released from that peat...”
For more info go to:
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/peatfiresbackground.pdf

“I have no vested issue in climate research per se - my academic area is in another field.” - Tomas (#15).

We are still waiting on your publications list, matey.  You show me yours and I’ll show you mine!

On Jon Sunby’s ref to the EPICA data, then you can see that CO2 changes track temperature variations. You will see two things - one that temperature variations are cyclical anyway, the second is that the CO2 changes follow the temperature changes, not the other way around. For the scientific imbeciles, that means that the increasing temperatures lead to increases in greenhouse gases, for which there would be a variety of reasons.

I haven’t got the energy to lecture Sunby on the cyclical nature of solar radition - but would point out that it is difficult to say much due to the lack of authentic (not modelled) historical data. Most of the cyclical nature of temperature changes identified in the linked jpg are likely (not definitively) linked to cyclical changes in solar activity. The medieval warm period has been linked to an unusually prolonged increase in solar activity.

Sunby quotes one study in isolation - I doubt he understands it anyway. But Sunby doesnt tackle my main point - that activists such as he are as unlikely to be as balanced on this issue as the various industry groups. Politics has deeply polluted this area of scientifc investigation.

Brenda Rosser’s hand-picked examples of whatever are just silly. I suggest that if she is really interested in the pertinent issues, then she should undertake some scientific training.

As a practising scientist, I delight in the many values of the internet. However, as a consequence, we have the uneducated cherry-picking reports they don’t really understand.

Tomas Rignoli is a slight reworking of my name. I lament the passing of Super Annoyed but I would agree with him that there is little value in exposing your professional life to the denizens of the internet.

Words of wisdom from Tomas Rignoli:

“Foolish mortals!...” (we prostrate ourselves at your feet, oh great one of eternal wisdom)

“My suggestion is that the evidence should be left up to the experts..” (we hear and obey, oh great one of learning).

“My opinions are based on reading and balancing the scientific literature..” (we shall do likewise, and not comment unless able to read and comprehend the holy scriptures of scientific literature, your eminence).

“I have no vested issue in climate research per se - my academic area is in another field..” (oh bugger!  we all thought you were THE expert on climate change...damn!  Now we are forced to think for ourselves again!).

Christ almight Tomas you say science and scientist a lot. Me thinks that you protesteth too much!

Two things are clear about you Tomas and one is still unclear. What is clear is that you clearly resent the fact that anybody else has anything to say on climate change.

This is evidenced by your persistent rudeness and constant labelling of others with an opinion. From this it is also clear that you of all people have the biggest axe to grind.

What is unclear is whether you are actually published. You were the one who introduced this information to the thread, and although you have been challenged by several contributors to provide references, you have ignored these requests.

Because of this you must understand now that any information you introduce to the discussion will be regarded with a degree of suspicion. Tomas, unlike others you do not even provide references for the so called scientific data you introduce in your posts. When other people do provide references you dismiss them as ‘uneduacted’, ‘cherry-picked’,’handpicked’, ‘silly’ and ‘choosing studies in isolation that they probably dont understand’.

Tomas your credibility is shrinking by the minute.

“...one that temperature variations are cyclical anyway, the second is that the CO2 changes follow the temperature changes, not the other way around...” - Tomas (#19).

At the scale of this graph it is difficult to make this assumption.  So, do you have any specific reference/s which can back up this hypothesis?  Or is it your own personal bias creeping in?

“I haven’t got the energy to lecture Sunby on the cyclical nature of solar radition” - Tomas (#19).

You don’t have to.  I just provided four links to sites explaining this phenomenon (see post #9).  I don’t think that anyone here denies the fact that astronomical events (variations in sunspot cycles, variations in the Solar Constant, the Milancovitch cycles, etc..) has an impact on climate variability.  However, historically, the CO2 levels have never much fluctuated between 180 & 290 ppmv (except in the Archean period, when the Sun was some 75% as bright and hot as is now, as pointed out above (#9) - when higher concentrations of CO2 and NH4 helped to create a stronger greenhouse effect, and thus kept temperatures in the “habitable” range). 

We now have the double whammy of a hotter sun AND CO2 levels increasing above 290 ppmv (now 350 ppmv, predicted to be 500 ppmv in 50+ years). 

Knowing that it was the combination of a cooler sun AND increased greenhouse gases which kept the early Earth from freezing, what do you think the consequences of a hotter sun AND increased levels of greenhouse gases are, Tomas?

Rick and TS - thanks for not actually addressing the science. I am not as worried about my credibility as you are. Suffice it to say that I have the actual expertise to comment on what is scientific and what is not. There are areas for which i do not have expertise, and would not feel qualified to comment on.  The misappropriation of the scientific method is something I do feel strongly about.

Tomas, unlike you I do not claim to be a ‘scientist’ and therefore some sort of expert by proxy on the subject of climate change. I am happy to read the information here, but at this stage I am unlikely to bother discussing climate change with you. Why, because Tomas you disqualify yourself from any expectation that others thread contributors must ‘address the science’ because you have once again initiated the attacks, nastiness and name calling against others who express an opinion.
Why should people ‘throw their pearls to the swines, only for them to be trampled on’. I have read the entire thread and but I would not waste my time discussing climate change with you except to say that your position on climate changed as evidenced by you contribution thus far is difficult to comment on because 1. You speak with such authority (arrogance even!)on the subject yet unusually for a scientist, you do not provide any references. 2. It is difficult to take your contributions at face value because you, as I said you seem to have a real axe to grind.
3. I do not know whether i can trust anything you say because you have made grand claims about your scientific achievements that you seem unable to provide any evidence for.
Tomas you will not have earned the right to tell me, or anyone else that I need to address the science until you address these 3 things!
p.s Thanks to John Sumby for the thread. The info you have introduced is compelling and interesting info.

Hi Rick, Jon, Brenda, Phil, Isobelle, et.al.,

I think it time we ignored Tomas.  He is showing the classic symptoms of a failed undergrad, and now appears self-delusional.

I have, as have several of you, given Tomas the chance to prove his academic credentials, which were not forthcoming.  I have also requested Tomas’ publications list to back up his claims, again this has not been forthcoming.

I am now of the opinion that Tomas is hiding behind false pretences, something that any honest, genuine academic would not do.  He is, by doing so, bringing the scientific community into disrepute. 

I will leave it up to you as to the appropriate action.  I myself have decided to end any direct communications with Tomas from this post on.

Tassie SMurf - you should know better than to cite Wikipedia as a scientific reference, But anyway…

There has been a lot of discussion on the relationship between solar radiance and the greenhouse gases in the historic record. The linked jpg is demonstrative of the current controversey. You can still work it out with a ruler, but the various blown up versions show it better.

Point on greenhouse gas (defintely up) and probable increased solar radiance (note ‘probable’) is precisely why I raised all of this in the first place. What % of the recent temperature variation is due to either or some combination of both - it is simply not known. My emphasis is on the fact that the science is uncertain.

There are an enormous number of caveats and methological considerations to be taken into account in this regard. One of my areas of interest is the difference between conclusions drawn from actual data as opposed, for example, from modeling. It may surprise TT people that nearly all the actual data we have on these issues (particularly solar radiation) is derived from the Northern Hemisphere, with most of the Southern Hemisphere data coming largely from Antarctica.

Also, on warming data - it doesnt happen evenly everywhere (eg see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/2004/7.gif) - some areas around antarctica show cooling trends. Other continentalo areas also show cooling trends. Climate is obviously a complex beast!

Tomas,

The main tenor of your castigation of us ‘foolish mortals’ seems to be ‘The misappropriation of the scientific method...’. As part of that you bring out the idea that, ‘association does not prove causation’. I recognise that and will restate it in the more usual way; ‘Correlation does not imply causation’.

As a scientist, you will also know that this statement is wrong. Correlation can, and often does, prove causation. It is dependent on the manner in which the data is collected.

As a scientist, knowledgeable in the scientific method, you would also know that the core of experimental manipulation is, in many ways, simply controlled correlation that is then used in principled argument about causality.

Although you do not say it, you seem to strongly imply that you believe current climate change is not ‘proven’ to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 releases, as the data is nearly wholy comprised of correlated observational data and ‘association does not prove causation’.

You also go on to insult climate scientists with the conspiracy theory that, ‘In this, I know that the climate scientist fraternity, in general, is also whipping up alarm, as this then feeds into larger grant programs, promotions, jobs etc.’

This is not only a nasty allegation, it is untrue.
As a scientist, you do well to hide your identity as comments like that will lose you all respect from your peers.

The climate IS changing and HAS always changed.  To insist that this change is precipitated by human activity alone is then obviously disingenuous.  It may be it may not be.  There is no definitive proof of a direct causal link. With this send me you links....... (not porkies either)

For a detailed refutation Phil, go no further than the following post by Tomas.  Those are words I may or may not have been able to pencil myslef, but what the hey I agree with Tomas’ post 15 whole heartedly.

Dream sequence..........

‘Help me I am being bullied by academics, themslevs bullied by consensous doctrine of its own self serving manufacture.  Think I will change my name to Pete Bog and hide in an action group for well meaning middle class do gooders with no real life experience and slowly manufacture a dislike for the true machinations of capitalism until I foster a deep suspicion for the motives of any consuming enterprise while shading under and endlessly flowering tree of tax.’
Will they love me then?

Your lack of an answer to Tassie’s question could be considered telling, Tomas.  Who is avoiding the science here, exactly?

And I wouldn’t question your credibility--you’re equally as qualified to be a smartarse as anyone.

“It takes 30 or 40 years to realize the change in carbon dioxide emissions. It highlights how important it is to take quick and effective action now.” Dr Peter Falloon, a climate impact scientist at the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre.

Therefore, in the case being argued, global heating, we have a scientific opinion, from the area of speciality, that the temperature rise we are discussing follows the rise CO2.

I have taken a position that evidence could sway me from, but until that time I will continue to act, using the available evidence as I understand it.

If you, the ‘Tomas’ person, do not have the time to communicate with us mere mortals, you should at least be cogitating on how so many scientists have got it so wrong and how so much ‘green’ influence has impacted on other national governments.

After all, Howard’s arguements about protecting an economy also define the actions of other economies, their interests are similar.

The French, German, Dutch and British governments, to list a few, are not majority governments of Greens and are advised by able scientists and bureacracies, their experts have reviewed the evidence.

Even Australian experts draw the same conlusions from our modelled outcomes. [CSIRO]. Australain Governments, and especially as the evidence has grown over the last decade, have not listened clearly, only claimed to have acted.

It is up to public opinion, as it sometimes is, to let those representing vested interests, to wit the exisitng fossil fuel energy suppliers, know that they are concerned and do not wish to join the fossils and the detritus of the foolocene that followed on the end of the antropocene.

That is if such classification work continues.

It is not up to me to decide if you can stay and play ‘Tomas’. I will even be big and read you when you I read a post. However, for you to move from the outadated denier combined with the ditherer category into the realm of credibility you will have to provide the evidence, your word has failed you.

I may respond to further outrages if you continue your unevidenced criticisms of other bloggers. They may fail moderation.

New report predicts higher temperatures

‘Will Steffen, Director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies (CRES) at the Australian National University has recently published a review of the latest climate science - from 2001 to 2005.

This review can be found at:
http://cres.anu.edu.au/news/science2001-05.pdf

The review concludes that the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) projection that temperatures could rise by between 1.4-5.8ºC by 2100 is now being challenged. The new understanding is pushing the likely temperature increase torwards the upper end of the temperature range.

Also the Steffen paper reports on a paper by van Vliet and Leemans (2006, from the book “Avoiding dangerous climate change") that indicates that actual affects on biodiversity now observable are larger than predicted by climate change impact models. And so the authors have recommended that greenhouse emissions should be managed to prevent a total warming of more than 1.5ºC over the preindustrial level and a rate of warming of no more that 0.5ºC per century - in order to prevent ‘significant’ biodiversity loss.

The “Avoiding dangerous climate change” book can be downloaded in full ( at no cost) from:
defra.gov.uk/environment/

Given that the world has already warmed 0.8ºC and it is anticipated that there is a further 0.5ºC committed due to the CO2 already in the air (source, James Hanson, NASA), this means that for practical purposes there should be no further additions of greenhouse gases to the air.’

- more at:
ClimateIMC
http://www.climateimc.org/

Jon - your last post proves the point there is no consensus on this issue other than that recent years show a small degree of temperature variance that equals ‘warming’. Where the warming leads, nobody knows. The report you quote is evidence of this - the modellers can’t agree where the beast will go. I am not a denier that climate change is happening - I want to inject scientific rigour into understanding what may be causing it and what the probable outcomes may be. I object to the issue being used by folk with hidden agendas, be they overt or sub-conscious, as they represent a corruption of the beautiful discipline known as the scientific method.

Jon - I would suggest you actually read the intergovernmental report you have linked to, and you would see that it also highlights the great unknowns in this debate. The language used largely reflects the uncertainty. It correctly quotes a number of the modelling studies that have been conducted and concludes that the temperature rise by the end of this century may be at the higher end of previous predictions. This may or may not happen - the report correctly inidcates that there is no way of knowing this with great certainty.

Your link to Climate Indymedia betrays your bias. This is an activist site with the usual selective socialist treatment of the actual science. Viva le revolution!

Interesting, I expected you to scream and leap at causality.

However, what part of the report are you refering to? The part that says, ‘The atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to increase, and several lines of evidence, most notably isotopic analysis, attribute most of this increase to the combustion of fossil fuels… A growing number of reconstructions of surface temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years shows that the sharp temperature rise over the past century is now beyond the bounds of natural variability… The imprint of greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the observed warming has also become clearer.’

Or,’Climate change due to greenhouse gas forcing, as opposed to natural variability due to other causes, should produce discernible patterns of change – characteristic “fingerprints”. Again in this regard, the evidence for significant human influence in the warming is stronger than it was a few years ago… Perhaps the most thorough of the surface temperature-based attribution studies used five indices that should show spatial fingerprints of climate change – global-mean surface temperature, the land-ocean temperature contrast, the magnitude of the annual cycle in surface temperature over land, the Northern Hemisphere meridional temperature gradient and the hemispheric temperature contrast; four of these five indices showed patterns that could not be explained by natural variability alone and are consistent with anthropogenic (greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosols) forcing (Braganza et al. 2004).’

You seem to be pushing the line that the current changes may be natural variation and there is a lot of uncertainty in projected temperature change. Climate naturally varies but the changes observed now are not natural. There is uncertainty but that is clearly understood and accepted and it is no longer ‘is there climate change?’ but ‘how much will that change be?

As information accrues and the science gets better, that variation (’uncertainty’) is refined and if you have been watching, the estimates keep rising, 11 degC was considered way out at the upper bounds in 2001 but is now not considered such an unlikely upper limit. Anything above 2 degC is considered very dangerous but it is looking very likely that the lower estimates will be above that.

I don’t understand where you’re coming from. You claim climate scientists are manipulating the situation for financial and professional gain and people like me (and presumably Nicolas Stern) and the climateIMC are part of a socialist political conspiracy to take over the World. You say that the science has been subverted and isn’t following the scientific method, yet you don’t deny climate change is changing; however, that conclusion must be based on the science, observations, and modelling that you condemn.

Jon - we are going around and around on this so let me finish by saying that science teaches you clearly about the limits of knowledge. I dont think that you could, with a cool head, disagree that the data and modelling is manipulated by all sides with a particular axe to grind. I dont deny that there has been some warming on average in recent years but this needs to be understood on the background of a paucity of actual data as opposed to modelling. You may recall, the slightly cool period leading up to the last decade or so was predicted to lead to another ice age, due to the accumulation of aerosols in the atmosphere and ‘global dimming’. I am keeping my mind open on the scale of the warming until we have more actual data - this may take 5, 10 or 50 years. Whether we are seeing a correction from a cooling period, a phase of normal climate cycles or an effect of man-made pollutants is just not clear from extant records. I just dont believe the modellers as there have been such widely varying predictions and false correlations.

Meanwhile, if you want to believe that the increase will be 11oC, then go ahead.

As you have declared we are circular, I refer you back to Isobelle’s excellent post (No. 4).

My final post on this matter:

By the Gods I hope the scientists, and the climate change predictions, are wrong.  However, in case they are right.............!!!

“A few diehard sceptics continue to deny that global warming is taking place and continue to sew doubt.

“They should be seen for what they are - out of step, out of arguments and out of time.”

K Annan opines at the end of his term.

“This is not science fiction,” he said.

“These are plausible scenarios based on clear, rigorous, scientific modelling.

And finally from me

“It is increasingly clear that it will cost far less to cut emissions now than to deal with the consequences later.”

I am writing to apologize to Tomas.
The main thrust of his arguments about climate change is that they are based on models and are thus mainly speculative in nature and uncertain.

He was right, I was wrong.

Last night, during an interview on ‘Lateline’ the director of the British Antarctic Survey said that the current climate change models are wrong. He went on to explain that results released in the last fortnight show that the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are disappearing at a volume and speed that is far greater than anyone had anticipated.

This means that the climate models currently used greatly underestimate ice loss and mean sea level rise. He went on to say that the ice at risk is an amount that would give a 1.5 metre rise in sea level. Current climate models then greatly underestimate sea level rise.

Tomas is also critical of climate science because it is largely correlative and, as he says, ‘association does not prove causation’.

In the interview the Director of the British Antarctic Survey mentioned that they had recently published a paper that for the first time directly attributes collapse of ice sheets to human activity. This should be good news for Tomas and remove any lingering doubts.

The paper is:
The Impact of a Changing Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode on Antarctic Peninsula Summer Temperatures.

Marshall, G.J., Orr, A., van Lipzig, N.P.M. and King, J.C.

The abstract is here:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Publications/Sci_Papers/

The general language press release says:
‘16 October 2006 PR No. 17/2006

The first direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves is published this week in the Journal of Climate. Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, University College London, and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, (Belgium) reveal that stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, driven principally by human-induced climate change, are responsible for the marked regional summer warming that led to the retreat and collapse of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf.

Global warming and the ozone hole have changed Antarctic weather patterns such that strengthened westerly winds force warm air eastward over the natural barrier created by the Antarctic Peninsula’s 2 km-high mountain chain. On days when this happens in summer temperatures in the north-east Peninsula warm by around 5 degrees C, creating the conditions that allowed the drainage of melt-water into crevasses on the Larsen Ice Shelf, a key process that led to its break-up in 2002.

Lead author Dr Gareth Marshall from the British Antarctic Survey said,

“This is the first time that anyone has been able to demonstrate a physical process directly linking the break-up of the Larsen Ice Shelf to human activity. Climate change does not impact our planet evenly - it changes weather patterns in a complex way that takes detailed research and computer modelling techniques to unravel. What we’ve observed at one of the planet’s more remote regions is a regional amplifying mechanism that led to the dramatic climate change we see over the Antarctic Peninsula.”
ENDS

Issued by the British Antarctic Survey Press Office’

Tomas,

You are a prate of the highest order.  Should, and let’s all pretend very diligently, it turn out that you’re actually what you claim to be, yours is the type of ‘scientific’ attitude that would lead all, with any hope of Science being a positive leading force for future change, to lament.

You have about you the air of arrogance oft displayed by those wonderfully ‘rational’ disciplines, referred to as The God Complex (engineers and architects are famous for it).

Dr Kevin Bonham, himself not short on Imageo Dei, has at least the intestinal fortitude to put his scientific credentials where his mouth is.  You on the other hand, Sir, are a charlatan, a conjuror of cheap parlour tricks, all smoke and mirrors, a purveyour of trinkets and baubles.

Pack up your travelling sideshow, and move on!

New Year Climate Change Wrap

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups and Create Confusion

The Union of Concerned Scientists, 3/1/07.

A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

“ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.”

For the complete article click the link below:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html?wt.rss=rss

Globe is Warming Faster Than Scientist’s Worst Predictions
By Steve Connor - Science Editor, UK Independent, 29 December 2006.

It has been a hot year. The average temperature in Britain for 2006 was higher than at any time since records began in 1659. Globally, it looks set to be the sixth hottest year on record. The signs during the past 12 months have been all around us. Little winter snow in the Alpine ski resorts, continuing droughts in Africa, mountain glaciers melting faster than at any time in the past 5,000 years, disappearing Arctic sea ice, Greenland’s ice sheet sliding into the sea. Oh, and a hosepipe ban in southern England.

You could be forgiven for thinking that you’ve heard it all before. You may think it’s time to turn the page and read something else. But you’d be wrong. 2006 will be remembered by climatologists as the year in which the potential scale of global warming came into focus. And the problem can be summarised in one word: feedback.

During the past year, scientific findings emerged that made even the most doom-laden predictions about climate change seem a little on the optimistic side. And at the heart of the issue is the idea of climate feedbacks - when the effects of global warming begin to feed into the causes of global warming. Feedbacks can either make things better, or they can make things worse. The trouble is, everywhere scientists looked in 2006, they encountered feedbacks that will make things worse - a lot worse.

For the complete article click the link below:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2110651.ece

Reduce CO2 in Ten Years, or Climate Will be Out-of-Control
By Steve Connor, Science Editor, UK Independent, 01 January 2007.

One of the world’s leading experts on climate change has warned that the Earth is being turned into a “different planet” because of the continuing increase in man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

In an interview with The Independent, Jim Hansen, who was one of the first scientists to warn of climate change in scientific testimony to the US Congress in 1988, claimed that we have less than 10 years to begin to curb carbon dioxide emissions before global warming runs out of control and changes the landscape forever.

Last year, Dr Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of Columbia University in New York, complained that Nasa public relations officials appointed by the Bush administration had tried to gag him by limiting his access to the media. But in talking to this newspaper he was outspoken, warning that there are already worrying signs that global warming is beginning to trigger dangerous “positive feedbacks” within the climate, which can accelerate the rate of climate change.

Dr Hansen said: “We just cannot burn all the fossil fuels in the ground. If we do, we will end up with a different planet. I mean a planet with no ice in the Arctic, and a planet where warming is so large that it’s going to have a large effect in terms of sea level rises and the extinction of species.”

For the complete article click the link below:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2116874.ece

Can we act as if global warming is not human-caused?

‘In a thought-provoking statistical analysis, Dr. Peter Tsigaris of Thompson Rivers University, Canada, concludes that whether or not climate change can be wholly attributed to human factors, it makes strong economic and environmental sense to treat it as human-caused and take action now.
-
He arrived at this conclusion as a result of creating the solution for a question he posed to his statistics students.

Tsigaris asked, “A claim is made that global warming is caused by humans. Set up the null and alternative hypothesis for this claim. As a scientist, you want to test that the above claim is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Discuss in terms of the type I and type II errors that are associated with the claim, and discuss the implications of the errors in terms of their associated costs.”

The null hypothesis, considered true unless the evidence brought forward throws serious doubt on it, is that global warming is not caused by human activities; the alternative hypothesis is the claim that it is.
-
Now for the interesting part: “As a scientist, in order to reject the null and thus accept the alternative, there has to be evidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt. In statistical terms, the observed test statistics from the evidence pass beyond a reasonable doubt,” explains Tsigaris.

If the scientist rejects the null, based on strong evidence in favour of the rejection, there is still a small chance of making a type I error. In the same way, acceptance of the null might be the wrong decision. The latter decision would be associated with a type II error.

“A Type I error implies that you have accepted that global warming is caused by humans when in fact it is not, while a Type II error implies the opposite,” he says.
-
“It is obvious that a type II error, being unaware that global warming is caused by humans and maintaining our current living styles, is much more serious than a type I error which argues that humans are the cause when they are not, in terms of the costs,” he says.
From: newswise website 8th March

In Other News:
UK to miss carbon reduction targets

‘The government is to fall well short of its target of a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 due to its reliance on voluntary rather than mandatory environmental regulations, according to a new scientific report published today.

The independent audit argues the government’s claims that it is on track to deliver a 30 percent reduction in emissions were “very optimistic” and that a reduction of 12 to 17 percent was more realistic.

Reducing emissions at this rate means it would take until 2050 to cut emissions by 30 percent on 1990 levels, meaning the government would miss its target of slashing emissions by 60 percent by mid-century’. The report is at University College London environment institute website

Carbon offsets a cheat
‘The carbon offset industry came in for fresh criticism last week with the publication of a major new report that argues offsets are a dangerous form of “greenwash” that has negligible environmental and social benefits and makes people complacent about the seriousness of the threat posed by global warming.

The study from Carbon Trade Watch, entitled The Carbon Neutral Myth, argues that carbon offsets are “modern day indulgences, sold to an increasingly carbon conscious public to absolve their climate sins“‘. The Carbon Trade Watch Report is at their website.

Finally: Last week a TV show, ‘The great climate change swindle’, aired in the U.K. It is enough to note that the writer/director of the show has also made docos about: How breast implants are safe and reduce the risk of cancer: That genetically modified foods are a blessing for the world’s poor: Compared the environmental movement with Nazis. That last show forced the TV station airing it to run prime time apologies for the programs bias, selective edits and distortions. More info at the Climate Denial website

As well: A book by an Australian global warming sceptic, Ray Evans (influential in right-wing political groups like the HR Nicholls Society), was launched at Parliament House, enjoying the patronage of the Liberal Party and corporate moguls like Hugh Morgan. The book was launched by Sir Arvi Parbo and preached to a converted minority of wealthy, influential, industrialists and bankers with vested interests. This group includes Morgan, who has privileged access to the Prime Minister and believes Kyoto is an economic plot by the EU. Visit sourcewatch and search on: Lavoisier Group

I wonder whether John understands really what a null hypothesis is as well as type I and II errors are? The correct null hypothesis is that global warming is caused by human activity. Null hypotheses are very infrequently used in the negative as they become almost untestable. A null hypothesis usually is associated with a proposed effect. What the anthropogenic hypothesis is better characterised is as a gambit. Then you could frame ideas such as ‘what would be the consequence of not assuming a majority human cause of global warming’ and then you can analyse, correctly, the consequences of supporting or not supporting the gambit.

Tomas,
Are you trying to confuse people and sow seeds of doubt or trying to blind us with the brilliance of your ignorance?

‘The correct null hypothesis is that global warming is caused by human activity. A null hypothesis usually is associated with a proposed effect.’ -Tomas, #42

The null hypothesis is an hypothesis of no effect. The philosophical basis for the statistical null hypothesis at least in part relates back to Popperian falsificationism, whereby science makes progress by severely testing and falsifying hypotheses. The implication is that that rejection of the null hypothesis is equivalent to falsifying it and therefore provides support (’corroboration’) for the research hypothesis as the only alternative.

The null hypothesis is then nearly always not the research hypothesis. Viagra has no effect on erectile function. Soil salinity has no effect on wheat growth. And, ‘The null hypothesis… is that global warming is not caused by human activities’ - from story in post #41 (emphasis added).

While the story quoted above relates to a thought experiment that is not designed to statistically prove global warming, it is designed to examine the consequences that may occur if it were possible to do a statistical test of the null hypothesis; ‘global warming is not caused by human activities’.

It is a risk management exercise. Type I errors occur when we mistakenly reject the null hypothesis when that hypothesis is true. In this case, if the null hypothesis ‘global warming is not caused by human activities’, is true. The costs and changes incurred by human society in attempting to mitigate global warming would be enormous.

But what if we made a type II error? This is mistakenly accepting the null hypothesis, ‘global warming is not caused by human activities’, when that hypothesis is wrong. In that situation what would be the costs and changes to human society? Would these costs and changes be less than, or smaller than, the costs and changes caused by us making a type I error? Or more?

Thomas argues that anthropogenic climate change isn’t real because “I am a scientist”. Well that is a very subjective statement :-) Maybe Thomas is a propagandist working for the coal industry? Nah; if that was the case surely his arguments would be less specious.

The irony here is that he appeals to his understanding of “scientific method” (see #5) to justify his political stance whilst simultaneously attempting to discredit the credentials of others by claiming that their sources are of the likes of “Greens Monthly” (see #15) despite it being clearly not the case.

I’ll end with a quote from the pseudonymous Thomas:
“Here’s a clue to the correct approach - keep an open mind, examine your own prejudices.” (see #5)

Indeed.

I suggest that Jon and his gullible cohorts watch ‘the great global warming swindle’ which was on BBC 4 the other night.  Although our dogmatic society may not be up to this type of heresy yet.

Anyway you can go to theie website and view what is actual science unlike the pablum of Jon Sumby and the likes.

With fools like AL Gore telling people what to do who needs armageddon.  The world will go on, these types of reports will add to nothing and a bunch of government endorsed scientests are going to make a lot money for doing bugger all.  So much for helping the less fortunate, the amount of man hours and resources going into this swindle give inefficiency a new meaning.

Jon - seldom in science do we make null hypotheses about null effects as this is often ridiculous. You could, for example, make all sorts of null hypotheses about lack of effects that would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove. When you write a grant proposal, no-one is going to give you money based on a negative hypothesis - it just doesn’t happen, noone is interested in it. What the climatologists have been dining out on recently with the Aus Research Council and various granting schemes is the positive hypothesis - that global warming is caused by human activity. The reverse hypothesis is just silly and would get laughed at by serious scientists as ridiculously constructed.

On your favourite area of climate science and relative to type I/II effects, most scientific statistical work is based on, typically, a a margin less than 5% that the observed effect happens by chance ie making a type I or II error. It is interesting that the IPCC sets their ‘consensus’ view that a majority anthropogenic cause of GW is 10% - this plus the consensus part makes this bad science.

I would emphasis again that I have no opposition to the null hypothesis that GW has a majority cause from human activity - I suspect though that it will be some years or decades before we have reliable answer. In the meantime, sure it might be sensible to think of ways to ameliorate putative effects but dont make the mistake of confusing propaganda with science. My main concern with the GW debate is its contamination by vested hyperbolic interests, as it debases and corrupts science. If GW is oversold by the environmental movement, then the purity of the scientific method will take a substantial hit.

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, concluded the probability that “human activities were driving the warming of the planet’ was 90% certain.
The 750 climate scientists that agonised over the report were very cautious in their conclusions from all available data in the last 650,000 years.
The secretary -general of the World Meteorological Orginisation said it was"the most rigorous and comprehensive assessment of climate change ever produced”.
Climate change is here and what are we going to do about it?

There are other medications you can try other than viagra Jon.

Au contraire Michael Sharman - I have an open mind and that is why I am open to the ambiguity in the data. Unlike propagandists from both extreme sides of the debate who want to sell you something.

Laurene - apparently the IPCC report wasn’t sufficiently scary enough for some Green quarters. Witness recent stunt by Bob Brown on sea levels in Salamanca Place.

Jon Sumby - and if you new any real scientists you would know that most don’t employ Popper falsification principles to their daily work (I often wish they did). Often it is a case of scientist trying to prove hypotheses they hold dear, usually under the umbrella of whatever is the dominant idea of the time, or what they can get funding for.

A good scientist is usually one who is expert at defining the most elegant question and then going after an answer using the best techniques, and who is prepared to be wrong about whatever preconceived ideas they might have. In most fields, scientists don’t sit around framing null hypotheses - it just doesn’t happen.

There is nothing you can do Laurene.  There is a very old saying, “you can’t change the weather.”

Politicians prattling on about whether we can afford two or three degrees in change or not is actually hilarious in its absolute absurdity. 

I mean lets plant banana trees on mars, the computer models say its possible. Perhaps the boys from little Britain got it spot on.  Is it possible you are incorrect o’ mighty seretary general of the world meteorological society? “Computer says No.”

There’s none so blind as those that cannot see goes the old refrain.

The deniers sit in a scientific minority globally and in Australia may sit in an opinion minority beleiving they are eithe correct or that the cas is unproven.

Putting the science before them fails to convince and they are not going to join a majority opinion unless they are convinced by a personal experience, and even then they may explain it away as the alter ego of Herbert’s Johnson attempts.

The weather, a short time frame exression of the prevailing climate, does change or vary.

The best climate scientist have put a common, and thus conservative position, that humans there is a 90% chnace humans are responsible for changing the climate and thus the weather. 

When the evidence is 100% will all the deniers be convinced or will it ake actual changes and will it then be tto late tpo act or is it indeed too late now.

Further climate change will occur, it is unavoidable if you accept CO2 is a warming agent in the atmosphere.

When we reach the turning point of 450ppm and the following temperature changes, provided you accept the majpority view of the cause, each of us will be older or dead.

The ignorance shown in taking risk with what we supposedly hold dear as individuals, the continuation of our genetic inhertabce [children] and as a group [civilization] is more than breathtaking irresponsible, its pathological.

Still, humans have never experienced runaway climate change and our successes are built upon our many failures and it is easy to convince ourselves that we can build sea walls, storm or drought proof ourselves etc etc.

For my part I can understand but not condone this individual blindness to the best advice available and have to now see deniers as pitiable if without power and extremely dangerous if they have any.

“Laurene - apparently the IPCC report wasn’t sufficiently scary enough for some Green quarters. Witness recent stunt by Bob Brown on sea levels in Salamanca Place.” [Tomas, #49]

What exactly is wrong with linking predicted sea-level rise with the inundation of much-loved community structures that happen to be built at (or about) sea-level?

Its called realism Tomas - you ought to try it sometime.

regards,
Jason Lovell

Phil and Jason - I am not sure that your comments add much - Does being honest about the state of the science make me a ‘denier’ - well, I’m sorry, you have demonstrated that you simply don’t understand the area.

Jason - the stunt I refer to was Bob Brown’s use of a measuring stick to inidcate how far he thought the sea level was going to rise (alarmingly high as it turns out), as opposed to what the best models indicate. I think this fits perfectly the definition of a stunt.

The current climate debate has revealed a lot of armchair science and shallow views. Would that this reflected the current state of quality science education amongst the masses, but it does not based on the sorts of comments we get here. Like many areas that require expert opnion, the science of the climate should not be left up to amateurs and spruikers of various ilk.

Phil, if can’t see from purely a mathematical point of view that 90 percent certain demostrates reasonable doubt even amongst those chained to the wheel of this paranoia, then you my friend cannot see much I’m afraid.
When it comes to the global warming debate, the head nodders are blind being lead by the blind.

What really pisses me off about all this shrill proganda being thrown about is its ability to disenchant the young and bring about a cycle of depressive and inward looking societies.  I give it five years before it is all declared bollocks and what do you know all the cry babies will disappear back into their warrens, just as they have when every other point of view they have cried over has ended in failure: see, just about the entire decolonised continent of Africa.